University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst
Open Access Dissertations
2-2013 Continuity in the Face of Change: Mashantucket Pequot Plant Use From 1675-1800 A.D. Kimberly Carol Kasper University of Massachusetts Amherst, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/open_access_dissertations Part of the Anthropology Commons
Recommended Citation Kasper, Kimberly Carol, "Continuity in the Face of Change: Mashantucket Pequot Plant Use From 1675-1800 A.D." (2013). Open Access Dissertations. 691. https://doi.org/10.7275/11nk-q978 https://scholarworks.umass.edu/open_access_dissertations/691
This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Open Access Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected].
CONTINUITY IN THE FACE OF CHANGE: MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT PLANT USE FROM 1675-1800 A.D.
A Dissertation Presented
by
KIMBERLY C. KASPER
Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
February 2013
Anthropology
© Copyright by Kimberly C. Kasper 2013
All Rights Reserved
CONTINUITY IN THE FACE OF CHANGE: MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT PLANT USE FROM 1675-1800 A.D.
A Dissertation Presented
by
KIMBERLY C. KASPER
Approved as to style and content by:
______H. Martin Wobst, Chair
______Elizabeth Chilton, Member
______David Foster, Member
______Kevin McBride, Member
______Thomas Leatherman, Department Head Department of Anthropology ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I have gratitude to all those who were involved in the project. This dissertation is certainly not an effort of one person. Foremost, I must thank the Mashantucket Pequot community for funding this dissertation project via a research fellowship from 2008-2010 at the Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center (MPRMRC). This research was also funded by a Natural History Collection Research Scholarship through the
Klinger and Bemis Endowment at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst (2009 and
2007). These funds allowed me to conduct this research at the Mashantucket Pequot
Reservation and to engage in an intellectual experience both professionally and
personally. I am forever indebted to the research staff and other community members at the MPMRC who made this project possible – Kevin McBride, Jason Mancini, Roberta
Charpentier, Kathleen Boushee, Deb Jones, Russ Handsman, Noah Feldman and Hector
Gonzalez and also my committee members, H. Martin Wobst, Kevin McBride, Elizabeth
Chilton and David Foster. I also would like to acknowledge my colleagues from Rhodes
College, Susan Kus, and Evie Perry, and students, Jonathan Redman and Katherine
Reinhart, who all have been integral in the completion of this project.
My committee members provided the right amount of inspiration and motivation during their years of guidance and I truly appreciate all their efforts (especially during the summer months!) to help shape this dissertation into piece of academic work that one can
be proud about. Elizabeth fostered me to explore intellectual angles that I would not have dared to traverse previously. David provided essential feedback that made me dig deep into understanding biological and cultural essence of the data. Kevin provided the fuel for the fire in many different levels of the project. His patience and guidance has been
iv unconditional and much embraced during this process. I also heartfully thank my advisor,
H. Martin Wobst, for all his efforts, kindness and guidance throughout the past few years.
I could not have done it without him and I owe him the deepest gratitude for all his incredible mentoring and words of wisdom/reflection throughout this process.
I also need to send out a little note of appreciation to all the archaeobotanical knowledge “keepers” who have eagerly passed down a wealth of information from identification criteria to theoretical models. Since my graduate career started in 2011,
Ksenjia Borojevic, Glynis Jones and Lee Newsom have played an integral role in the shaping the “botanical” soul of this project. Other archaeological mentors, such as
William Parkinson, Attila Gyucha, Michael Faught and Allan Gilbert have all helped shaped me into the archaeologists that I am today. I am forever indebted to all of these amazing scholars and individuals.
And last, I must thank my family and friends. Their support has meant the world to me. Although I will just list his or her names each individual has played a very central role in providing an essential personal support to see this project through. I could not have done this work with the support of the following people, Chester J. Kasper Jr.,
Grace Kasper, Chester Jr. Kasper III, Nancy and Fred Rayman, Kathy Schermanhorn,
Sam Lovejoy, Meg Morris, Pam Lozis, Liz Sullivan, and Toni Yates. You all made it easy for me to take the time I need to see this project through. And in the end, this project is unequivocally dedicated to one person, my daughter, Grace Carol (a.k.a. the
Gracelberry).
Although I have thanked many, any flaws in this work are my own and I take full responsibility.
v ABSTRACT
CONTINUITY IN THE FACE OF CHANGE: THE MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT ENVIRONMENTAL INTERACTIONS FROM 1675-1800 A.D.
FEBRUARY 2013
KIMBERLY C. KASPER, B.A., FORDHAM UNIVERSITY
M.SC., FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
M.SC., UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD
Directed by H. Martin Wobst
This investigation focuses on the decision making relative to plants by Native
Americans on one of the oldest and most continuously occupied reservations in the
United States, the Mashantucket Pequot Nation. Within an agency framework, I explore the directions in which decision making about plants were changing from 1675-1800
A.D. I evaluate plant macroremains, specifically progagules (seeds), recovered from ten archaeological sites and the historical record from the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation, located in southeastern Connecticut. I demonstrate how decision making about plants related to food and medicinal practices during the Colonial Period were characterized by heterarchical choices that allowed the Mashantucket Pequot to retain their sense of economic and cultural autonomy from their colonizers. This type of problem-directed agency analysis will aid in placing Indigenous individuals and communities into the contexts of colonization as more active participants in their own past, and as long-term stewards of the environment. More specifically, this dissertation shows that even as small a space as the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation is a rich testimony to the 11,000-year history, and continues to provide important information about how households and
vi communities (re)conceptualize their socio-natural worlds under the most severe constraints.
vii TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page ! ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iv !
ABSTRACT ...... vi !
LIST OF TABLES ...... xi !
LIST OF FIGURES ...... xii !
CHAPTER
1. INDIGENOUS PLANT USE AND AGENCY ...... 1! Introduction ...... 1! An Agency Approach to Archaeological Plant Analysis ...... 3! Continuity and Change During Colonization ...... 12 ! Structure of the Thesis ...... 15 !
2. A MODEL OF PLANT USE AT THE ! MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT RESERVATION ...... 20 ! Introduction ...... 20 ! Why are the Cultural Uses of Plants an Important Variable? ...... 21 ! Heterarchy and Plant Use ...... 23 ! Frameworks of Native American Plant Use within Colonial New England ...... 25 ! The Model at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation ...... 31 ! Diet Composition ...... 32 ! Medicinal Plants ...... 33 ! Land Use ...... 33 ! Summary ...... 35 !
3. THE STUDY AREA ...... 36 ! Introduction ...... 36 ! Native American Plant Use Prior to the Colonial Period ...... 38 ! The Physical Landscape ...... 38 ! The Cultural Variables within the Traditional Homeland ...... 40 ! Wild Plants and Domesticates ...... 42 ! Use of Different Habitats ...... 43 ! Prior Plant Studies about the Colonial Period ...... 43 ! The History of the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation ...... 44 ! Disease, War and Population Loss ...... 44 ! Habitat , Land Loss and Settlement Patterns ...... 46 ! Religious Movements ...... 48 ! Emerging Market Systems ...... 49 ! Site Context ...... 49 !
viii Chronology and Location of Sites ...... 51 ! 72-91 (Mohantic Fort) ...... 52 ! 72-164A (Homestead) ...... 53 ! 72-34A (Homestead) ...... 53 ! 72-58 (Homestead) ...... 54 ! 72-171 (Homestead) ...... 54 ! 72-88 (Storage Facility) ...... 55 ! 72-97C (Homestead) ...... 55 ! 72-161 (Homestead) ...... 55 ! 72-70B (Homestead) ...... 56 ! 72-66 (Homestead) ...... 56 ! Summary ...... 56 !
4. METHODS OF ANALYSIS ...... 63 ! Introduction ...... 63 ! The Formation of the Archaeobotanical Record ...... 63 ! Cultural Processes ...... 64 ! Environmental Processes ...... 67 ! Sampling Strategy and Processing ...... 69 ! Lab Analysis ...... 69 ! Identification Criteria ...... 71 ! Ecological and Cultural Categorization of the Archaeobotanical Plants ...... 73 ! Food Categorization ...... 73 ! Medicinal Categorization ...... 76 ! Habitat Categorization ...... 76 ! Other Historical Data ...... 78 ! Data Manipulation and Interpretation ...... 80 ! Summary ...... 81 !
5. RESULTS OF DIET COMPOSITION ...... 84 ! Introduction ...... 84 ! Archaeological and Ethnographic Data Associated with Food-Related Activities ...... 87 ! Wild Plant Use ...... 89 ! Tropical Cultigens ...... 97 ! Euro-American Cultigens ...... 99 ! Other Historical Data ...... 100! Summary ...... 103!
6. RESULTS OF MEDICINAL PLANTS ...... 132! Introduction ...... 132! Archaeological and Ethnographic Data Associated with Medicinal Use ...... 132! Medicinal Continuity ...... 134! Medicinal Visibility ...... 136! Other Historical Data ...... 139! Summary ...... 140!
ix 7. RESULTS OF MASHANTUCKET LAND USE ...... 148! Introduction ...... 148! Archaeological and Ecological Data Associated with Land Use ...... 149! Habitat Use ...... 150! Seasonal Plant Use and Storage ...... 154! Traditional Agricultural Systems and Home Gardens ...... 155! Duration of Occupation ...... 157! Euro-American Land Use ...... 159! Other Historical Data ...... 160! Summary ...... 163!
8. THE FACES OF CONTINUITY AND CHANGE AT THE MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT RESERVATION ...... 182! Introduction ...... 182! Living with the Land: Agency and the Complexity of Environmental Strategies ...... 185! Further Research ...... 191! Wood Analysis ...... 191! Animal Resources ...... 192! Site Analysis ...... 192! Final Remarks ...... 193!
APPENDICES
A: SEED CRITERIA USED FOR IDENTIFICATION ...... 194
B: ETHNOGRAPHIC FOOD CATEGORIZATION OF PLANT TYPES ...... 204
C: ETHNOGRAPHIC MEDICINAL CATEGORIZATION OF PLANT TYPES ...... 239
D: HABITAT CATEGORIZATION OF PLANT TYPES ...... 309
E: SITE INVENTORIES OF THE BOTANICAL IDENTIFICATIONS ...... 370
REFERENCES CITED ...... 465!
x LIST OF TABLES
1. Dates of Occupations, Cultural Contexts and Archaeobotanical Remains Recovered at the Ten Mashantucket Pequot Archaeological Sites ...... 59 !
2. Archaeobotanical Investigators For Each Site...... 82 !
3. Habitat Categorizations of Identified Archaeobotanical Types ...... 83 !
4. Presence of All Identified Plant Types Across the Ten Sites...... 104!
5. Presence of Food Types Identified Across the Ten Sites...... 105!
6. Presence of Medicinal Plants...... 142!
7. Percentages of Medicinal Plants at 72-91, 72-58, 72-171, 72-161 and 72-66...... 143!
8. Habitat Presence ...... 164!
9. Percentages of Habitat Categories...... 165!
10. Environmental Variables at Each Site: Soil, Bedrock, Surface, Elevation and Water ...... 166!
11. Mean Distance to Water: Random Point versus Archaeological Sites ...... 167!
12. Total Seasonality of Plant Types from All Ten Mashantucket Sites 1675- 1800 A.D...... 168!
13. Seasonality of Plant Types at 72-91...... 169!
14. Seasonality of Plant Types at 72-58...... 170!
15. Seasonality of Plant Types at 72-171...... 171!
16. Seasonality of Plant Types at 72-161...... 172!
17. Seasonality of Plant Types at 72-66...... 173!
xi LIST OF FIGURES
1. Location of the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation ...... 19 !
2. Location of the Mashantucket Pequot Traditional Homeland, Reservation and Appropriated Mashantucket Lands in Southeastern New England...... 60 !
3. Location of Ten Mashantucket Pequot Archaeological Sites 1675-1800 A.D...... 61 !
4. Ranges of Occupation for the Surveyed Historic Period Sites from 1670-1820 A.D. at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation...... 62 !
5. Number of Plant Types Per Site...... 106!
6. Percentages of Plant Types at 72-91 ...... 107!
7. Percentages of Plant Types at 72-164A ...... 108!
8. Percentages of Plant Types at 72-34...... 109!
9. Percentages of Plant Types at 72-58...... 110!
10. Percentages of Plant Types at 72-171 ...... 111!
11. Percentages of Plant Types at 72-88 ...... 112!
12. Percentages of Plant Types at 72-97C...... 113!
13. Percentages of Plant Types at 72-161 ...... 114!
14. Percentages of Plant Types at 72-70B ...... 115!
15. Percentages of Plant Types at 72-66...... 116!
16. Density Food Types Per Volume (L) of Soil Floated...... 117!
17. Percentages of Food Categories Across Ten Sites...... 118!
18. Mast Products Per Volume (L) of Soil Floated...... 119!
19. Percentages of Mast Products...... 120!
20. Percentages of Plant Types Recovered from Stratified Pits at 71-91 ...... 121! ! 21. Percentages of Plant Types Recovered from Stratified Pits at 71-58...... 122!
xii 22. Percentages of Plant Types Recovered from Stratified Pits at 72-171 ...... 123!
23. Percentages of Plant Types Recovered from Stratified Pits at 72-161...... 124!
24. Percentages of Plant Types Recovered from Shallow Pits at 72-91 ...... 125!
25. Percentages of Plant Types Recovered from Shallow Pits at 72-58 ...... 126!
26. Percentages of Plant Types Recovered from Shallow Pits at 72-171 ...... 127!
27. Percentages of Plant Types Recovered from Shallow Pits at 72-161 ...... 128!
28. Percentages of Plant Types Recovered from Hearths at 72-91 ...... 129!
29. Percentages of Plant Types Recovered from Hearths at 72-58 ...... 130!
30. Percentages of Plant Types Recovered from Hearths at 72-66 ...... 131!
31. Counts of Medicinal Plants at 72-91, 72-58, 72-171, 72-161 and 72-66...... 144!
32. Stratified Pit Medicinal Density at 72-91, 72-58, 72-171 and 72-171...... 145!
33. Hearth Medicinal Density at 72-91, 72-58, 72-171, 72-161, 72-66...... 146!
34. Shallow Pit Medicinal Density at 72-91, 72-58, 72-171 and 72-161...... 147!
35. Percentages of Habitats Represented Within the Archaeobotanical Record...... 174!
36. Elevation (ft) at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation...... 175!
37. Surface at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation...... 176!
38. Bedrock at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation...... 177!
39. Soils at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation...... 178!
40. Hydrography at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation...... 179!
41. Distance to Water...... 180!
42. Proximity of Mashantucket Post-Contact Sites to Water Resources...... 181!
xiii CHAPTER 1
INDIGENOUS PLANT USE AND AGENCY
Introduction
“All humans groups consciously change their environments to some extent – one might even argue that this, in combination with language, is the crucial trait distinguishing people from other animals – and the best measure of a culture’s ecological stability may well be how successfully its environmental changes maintain its ability to reproduce itself. But if we avoid assumptions about environmental equilibrium, the instability of human relations with the environment can be used to explain both cultural and ecological transformations. An ecological history begins by assuming a dynamic and changing relationship between environment and culture, one as apt to produce contradictions as continuities. Moreover, it assumes that the interactions of the two are dialectical. Environment may initially shape the range of choices available to a people at a given moment, but then culture reshapes environment in responding to those choices. The reshaped environment presents a new set of possibilities for cultural reproductions, thus setting up a new cycle of mutual determination. Changes in the way people create and re-create their livelihood must be analyzed in terms of changes not only in their social relations but in their ecological ones as well” (Cronon 1983:13).
This dissertation is focused on Native American decision making related to plants, specifically the charred progagules (seeds), recovered from archaeological sites at the
Mashantucket Pequot Reservation, located in southeastern Connecticut (Figure 1). I examine how several households within the Mashantucket Pequot community maintained their traditional plant strategies in regards to their land use, diet and medicinal practices from 1675-1800 A.D. My approach is explicitly anchored in agency theory to investigate the dialectical nature of plant use, as highlighted by Cronon (1983), that is observable within the archaeological and historical record. I assess whether the decision making processes of the Mashantucket Pequot related to their plant use support the interpretations of “continuity and change” scenarios that have been dominant in interpreting Native
1 American material culture during the Colonial Period, from flint to metal pottery (Cobb
2003), from pottery to glass beads (Loren 2008; Silliman 2009), and from settlement
patterns to home construction (Jordan 2010; Lightfoot 1995; Scarry 2010). A decision- oriented analysis of plant use at the household and community scale allows me to hone in, more explicitly than most continuity and change approaches, and evaluate Native
Americans and the choices they had, and the choices they made and how they changed
(or did not change) in regard to their environmental interactions.
During the Colonial Period in New England, plant use by Native Americans is not yet well understood. In this region, few studies have attempted to analyze environmental interactions of Native Americans or the colonists (Bennett 1955; Cronon 1983; Fischer,
et al. 1997; McBride 2007; Trigg and Bowes 2007). What is understood is that the period
was one of massive cultural dislocation and environmental disruption for Native
Americans when populations were uprooted and placed on reservations and the land use
strategies of the colonists transform the New England ecosystems (Den Ouden 2005;
Donahue 2004; O’Brien 1997). Different political and economic systems were imposed
on Native communities, especially when missionaries and Christianity took root and
Native American ideologies were placed under the most serious assault (Bragdon 1996a,
2009; Den Ouden 2005; Mandell 2010; O’Brien 1997; Shoemaker 2004). This goal of the
dissertation is to shed light on how plants and decisions about plants continued to
contribute to Native American persistence under these most severe assaults on their
culture and lifeways and survival.
The dissertation presents a rich corpus of archaeological plant macroremains for
the New England region, where such records are scarce regardless of the time period
2 (Chilton 1999; George 1997) particularly one in which Native Americans are thought to have “disappeared” from the landscape (Bruchac 2005). The plant data presented have
been recovered in the course of a multi-year interdisciplinary and regional research project that involves many people (both Indigenous and non-Indigenous) who have collaborated in order to examine the archaeological record of the Mashantucket Pequot
Reservation (Hauptman and Wherry 1990; Jones 1998, 2002; McBride 2007; Mancini
2009; Vasta 2007). Many of the components of the archaeological and
paleoenvironmental data, but not the macrobotanical remains recovered, have already
been broadly interpreted and applied to regional syntheses (Holmes 2007; Mancini 2009;
McBride 2007; McWeeney 1994, 1998; Starna 1990; Thorson 1993; Vasta 2007).
Within this rich cultural context of archaeological and paleoenvironmental data, my analysis is focused on plant macro-remains recovered from ten Mashantucket Pequot habitation sites within a relatively narrow temporal window. I consider households as the
‘medium’ for structuring domestic activities inside and outside the physical and ideological parameters of a dwelling (Allison 1999). They are the primary stage for plant- related activities and major buildings blocks to interpret plant decision making at the household and community level (Dennell 1972, 1974, 1976; Hubbard 1976; Mrozowski et al. 2008; Van deer Veen 1992). I demonstrate that plants, and particularly propagules
(seeds) recovered from a subset of Mashantucket Pequot households, are a particularly promising dimension when one wants to analyze Native American decision making.
An Agency Approach to Archaeological Plant Analysis
This dissertation utilizes an agency approach. Specifically, it applies the paradigm of Bourdieu (1990) and Giddens (1990) as it has developed over the last three decades.
3 According to Giddens (1984), to understand why people acted the way they did, one needs to understand the interplay of “agency” and “structure.” In this investigation, the environment and the decisions related to plants are the major focus to understanding that
“structure.” People act in the way they do, informed by their knowledge of the
“structure” in which they are embedded, similar to the way in which Bourdieu defines
“habitus” (1984; 1990). This “structure” consists of their experience(s), their life history of observations, their conscious and subconscious knowledge of the world around them, and their memory of their previous actions in the contexts they experienced in the past
(Bender 2002). Within their experience or knowledge of structure, they have a sense of how they and others have acted under similar circumstances, and how well that worked or did not work in the past. On the basis of that memory, knowledge and experience, they choose how to act in any (new) situation in ways that makes sense to them and that promises to return to them what they expect to happen, given their knowledge, experience and memory (Silliman 2009). Each new decision (or action) itself modifies the structure, whether they acted the same as or different from before, since it modifies everybody’s experience. In that way, society is seen to be in a continuous process of
“enculturation” (that is, becoming). Thus, structure is never static (Bourdieu 1990;
Foucault 1978; Giddens 1984).
Of course, agency within human plant use has always been a part of archaeology, but often in ways that actually deflected from the Native American agents (individuals and communities). For example, at one extreme end, there are the simple evolutionary cultural categorizations of agents into bands, tribes, chiefdoms and states (Fried 1967;
Service 1962; Service and Sahlins 1960). These evolutionary stages have dominated
4 archaeology well into the seventies of the last century. With reference to Native
Americans, particularly the band and tribal stages had constructed agents that were completely boxed in by environmental constraints. There was little choice left to them by the archaeological model builders – the environmental constraints were seen as so severe that only a very narrow range of human behavior was seen as possible for the individual or the community. In other words, human decision-making was pre-empted by environmental pressures and/or observable environmental variables. Any person, faced with similar constraints, would have to behave in the observed way. Therefore, to write about the humans behind the decision-making, in their cultural experience, memory, and history would have been superfluous, because the environment had forced that decision so exhaustively.
In the second half of the twentieth century, with the introduction of a more explicitly scientific archaeology, the pre-existing environmental forcing for Native
American decision-making was put onto a new theoretical and methodological basis
(Binford 1962, 1965; Clarke 1968; Lee and Devore 1968, particularly). This novel approach, which borrowed many of its tenets from other disciplines, such as biology
(general systems theory) and focused on deductive reasoning, is usually defined as the so- called “New Archaeology” or “processual” archaeology (Binford and Binford 1968,
Renfrew 1973). More problem-directed and rigorous scientific techniques were applied, so that one explicitly and narrowly characterized the environmental constraints at work on Native Americans to the point where only a very limited set of choices were left open.
This was often accomplished with mathematical and quantitative models, for example by means of computer simulation (Thomas 1971, Wobst 1974), game theory (Bird and
5 O’Connell 2006; Smith and Winterhalder 1992), or optimum diet methods (Kelley 1995;
Winterhalder 1986, 1994). Native American culture, history, experience, memory, knowledge, and decision making could virtually be treated as a black box: given the severity of the environmental inputs, no matter what kind of head was exposed to it – it would have to come to the same decision.
As an example from the dimension of plant use, the “principle of least effort” focuses on the physical landscape as the key factor in shaping the use of plants by individuals and communities (Asouti and Austin 2005; Shackleton and Prins 1992;
Tusenius 1986). According to this approach, the gathering of firewood and other plant related products (which include mast and other seed plants) occurs in direct and inverse relationship to expenditure of energy (i.e. exploiting plants closest to the site). Similarly, site catchment analysis, as it was practiced in the sixties and seventies, interpreted what
people should have been doing, if they were forced to map closely onto the plant or animal resources dominant within a given site catchment (the resources surrounding a site and the ability for humans to exploit said resources) (Flannery 1994; Jarmon et al. 1972).
The principle of least effort and catchment analysis did not leave much room for cultural variables such as the traditional methods of exploiting a given environment, the ways in which plants were used given the cultural context at that particular historical point, and how plants may gain in relative importance because of how closely they might be linked to ritual, myth, or enculturation.
In a similar direction, stereotypes such as the “noble savage” or “ecological
Indian” have permeated intellectual thinking. The “ecological” categorization of Native
Americans has emerged as early as the 18 th century when Rousseau coined the term
6 “natural man” to describe Indigenous people and their use of natural resources, especially
plants, throughout the world) (Ellingson 2001; Krech 1999). 1 That cultural categorization of Native Americans has also deflected from the contexts of decision-making and often presents Native Americans as being in sympathy with all earth’s creatures and initiatives to conserve resources so that all is in harmony and in balance. While each cultural categorizations encourage the cultural modeling of resource use, they still tend to downplay history and context, and thus understandings that are sensitive to the historical contexts of Native American decision making. Delcourt and Delcourt (2004), Ellingson
(2001), Harking and Lewis (2007), and Krech (1999) in critiquing such categorical oversimplifications, champion Native Americans as having been more active participants in their history, and for having had a broader set of choices, informed by their historical contexts, in additional to their biological landscapes. Many recent scholars and investigations, such as within the approach of Human Behavioral Ecology (HBE) and evolutionary development biology (evo-devo) recognize the complex, intertwined and indivisible relationship that exists between humans and their environments (Bird and
O’Connell 2006; Kennett and Winterhalder 2006; Gremillion and Piperno 2009; Smith
2007). Still archaeologists need to be cautious, as advocated by Judkins, Smith and Keys
(2008:17), about repeating past theoretical mistakes “by accepting simplistic, causal explanations based largely on deterministic conception of nature” and making invisible the agency of individuals and communities.
In a different direction within the range of anthropological approaches,
particularly relevant to the Colonial Period, Native American decision-making was often
1 Note as advocated by Smith and Wobst (2005) the term Indigenous will be capitalized throughout this dissertation.
7 presented as if it were completely pre-empted by the domination of the colonialists over
Native American politics, economy, location and spatial behavior, and ideology and culture (e.g. Mitchell and Scheiber 2010). In the 1930’s and 1940’s, this approach, known as acculturation, emphasized the spread of cultural practices from the dominant “donor”
(colonists) cultures to the passive “recipient” cultures (Native Americans) (Kroeber 1948;
Redfield, Linton and Herskovits 1936). In that extreme, the colonialist is constructed as so lop-sidedly superior, that the Native American decision-making is constrained to a
place where only very few choices look feasible. Native Americans are presented as
being completely forced by colonial constraints, so that ANY person would have to come to the same identical decision, independent of their ethnicity, history, context, life experience, or knowledge. This deprives Native Americans of their humanity.
As the acculturation approach was pushed to the periphery during the emergence of the “New Archaeology”, the locus of cultural change was now placed outside
“society” into the environment as communities were viewed as being subject to universal processes of nature and society (as discussed above) (Mitchell and Scheiber 2010).
However, the acculturation approach continues to influence the ways in which we conceptualize and interpret Native American interactions with their colonial neighbors
(McNiven and Russell 2005; Trigger 1980). Mitchell and Scheiber (2010:7) note that even with the emergence of the postmodern paradigm in anthropology during the 1980’s, many “new” conceptual frameworks continue to separate the colonized from the colonizer while reifying and essentializing the static notion of traditional culture and
perpetuating colonists categories.
8 In the last three decades, two subfields have evolved out of the processual and post-processual paradigm: 1) feminist archaeology (e.g.Classen and Joyce 1997; Gero and Conkey 1991; Gilchrist 1999; Nelson 2007; Sorensen 2000; Wright 1996) and 2)
Indigenous archaeology (e.g Atalay 2006, 2012; Bruchac et al. 2010; Nicolas 2010;
Smith and Wobst 2005; Watkins 2000, 2005). Both perspectives have contributed signficantly to undestanding power and identity and can provide additional theoretical scaffolding to understand Indigenous choices in the past. When employed together, these two approaches are useful to understand how Indigenous communities were able to grapple with the challenges of colonization. As highlighted by Dobres (1999; 2000), it is necessary to concentrate on studying the range of variability within the archaeological record at both the micro and macro level. Within this “way of seeing”, archaeologists can analyze:
“the dialectic of agency, gender, and technology that is set in motion
during the everyday reproduction of social collectivities. This focus on the
seamless web of agency, gender and technology is allowing more nuanced
understandings of the processual dynamics of macroscale culture change
showing yet again that agency and gender are far more than issues of
personhood” (Dobres 1999:24).
Indigenous archaeology, which is a recent paradigamtic construction within the discpline, also allows archaeologists to explore another “way of seeing.” At a fundamental level, Indigenous archaeology has allowed archaeologists also to involve communities and individuals at all levels of the project and components from excavation to interpretations of material culture (Atalay 2006; Silliman 2008). Within its practice,
9 scholars have attempted to move beyond the colonial lens of past archaeological interpretations. Both indigenous and non-indigenous scholars have created a counter discourse to the Western and colonists’ knowledge and practices and have brought forth indigenous worldviews, traditional knowledges and lifeways (Layton 1989; Nicholas
1997; Swidler, Dongoske, Anyon and Downer 1997; Watkins 2000). Commonly,
Indigenous arcaheologists claim that they practice and interpret the material record “with, for, and by” Indigenous people” (Nicholas 1997; Watkins 2000). Within the implementation of this type of practical approach, archaeologists have attempted to remedy and repair colonialistic behaviors that overshadowed the creation and development of previous Native American histories (Bruchac 2006). Such an approach is
particularly useful for this investigation that explores Native American plant use during colonization.
More recent agency approaches, such as outlined by Doran (2002), Dobres
(2000), and Wobst (2000), have also opened new doors to investigate material culture, especially (and sometimes inadvertently) within archaeological investigations that are conducted with and for Indigenous communities. An agency approach acknowledges that,
when people are exposed to new situations in their biological or cultural environments,
what they were accustomed to do before, and what they know about the world around
them will be important parts of their decision-making. Their actual cultural trajectory
under such stressors as environmental change or colonialist inroads can be understood
only in reference to what they were accustomed to do and accustomed to consider of
significance before. All humans have choices and Garman (2005) articulates this in his
analysis of the gruesome Rhode Island State Penitentiary in the 19 th century. He (2005)
10 makes clear that even individuals who are sentenced to life in prison have choices; if one wants to understand their decisions actually taken, one needs to present them in their context, history, experiences, and knowledge.
It is at the intersection of feminist and Indigenous archaeology with a focus on agency theory that one may be able to transcend cultural categorizations and stereotypes and remove colonial biases from plant use to construct alternative histories of Indiengous environmental interactions. Conkey (2005:13) stresses that the “intersectionality” of feminist archaeology and Indigenous archaeology allows archaeologists to deconstruct cultural structures and hiearchies of gender, class, race, ethnicity and build a “common ground” around the declonization of our interpretations. L. Smith (2005) further adds that the practice these two fields helps archaeologists recognize that the (scientific) knowledge we create reinforces and legitimizes specific identities. The intersection of feminist and Indigenous archaeology allows one to explore Native American plant use
beyond our naturalized assumptions and infuse agency into our positivist models of human behavior.
More broadly this dissertation seeks to interwine the paradigms of the New archaeology” and post-processual archaeology to create relevance within the science- history dichotomy as discussed by Nichols et al. (2003). One should not view this
particular piece of work as “anti-science” or saturated with “history.” Instead I hope to achieve a holism that creates nuanced interpreations of cultural phenonomena that we are still grappling with – such as with agency during the process of colonialization. It is within this fusion of different subfields (i.e. archaeobotany, feminist arhcaeology and indigenous archaeology) that we can recognize the potiential of the discipline to explain
11 the larger questions of human behavior, as related to plants, within our past, present and future.
Continuity and Change During Colonization
Within the last two decades, continuity and change has become a major analytical category within the discipline, especially within Indigenous archaeology, to understand human agency while intentionally evaluating shifts within material culture (i.e. Lightfoot
1995; Mitchell and Schrieber 2010; Rogers 1990). This interpretation shifts the emphasis in analysis and interpretation from stressors and their effects, as seen in the narrow ecological orientations of the earlier New Archaeology paradigm (Binford 1962; Kelley
1990) to variability within Native American lifeways and their choices (Jordan 2010;
Silliman 2009). The continuity and change discourse has become an important lens for analysis because it enables archaeologists to explore patterns of continuity instead of assuming passive change, especially during the period of European colonization of the
Americas. The approach acknowledges that, when people are exposed to new situations in their biological or cultural environments, what they were accustomed to do before, and what they know about the world around them, will be important parts in their decision- making. Their actual cultural trajectory under such stressors as environmental change or colonialist inroads can be understood only in reference to what they were accustomed to do and accustomed to consider of significance before. The emphasis on local variability has shifted the center of analytic gravity away from sweeping generalizations of processes and patterns of change to interpretations that seek to understand Native
American communities in their own terms and cultural structures (Mitchell and Scheiber
2010:12).
12 In regards to interpretations of variability within Indigenous material assemblages, Lightfoot (1995) and Silliman (2009) note that too much weight has been
placed on categorizing the material culture of post-Contact populations in western ways of thinking about them. The categorization has roots within the cultural construction of acculturation discussed in the section above, as it only measures cultural change in one direction, as ratio, and in a “shopping cart kind of way” – as the basket fills, the community is more assimilated (Farnsworth 1992). All decision making that governs the cultural practices and agency of the colonized community is reduced to a simple flow of culture from one side to the other.
Many archaeologists within the Indigenous archaeology have pushed beyond segregating, classifying and ranking Indigenous cultural practices and cultural technologies (Hart 2004; Silliman 2005). Instead, they advocate a shift in focus to the interrelationships that tie human choices to the material world, everyday cultural practices, and the creation and maintenance of Indigenous spaces and places (i.e. Loren
2008; Scheiber and Mitchell 2010). Silliman (2005) advocates for the use of methods that highlight accommodation, resistance and identity, instead. Within these concepts, he is able to incorporate the Indigenous use of space and establishment and maintenance of identity within their colonized spaces and landscapes. An example of this can be seen in investigations conducted by Deegan (1996) in the southeastern United States and also
Silliman (2005; 2009) in New England which evaluate individual and community negotiation of tradition. Unlike acculturation, evaluating cultural accommodation portrays Native Americans as social actors, taking into account, the reality of their lives and how these lives are vested in the experiences of colonization (Silliman 2005). To
13 understand Native American actions during colonialism, it is important to bring their own narratives into the picture. With reference to plant usage, one can document their plant- related activities, but also their oral history and other narratives. Archaeology is a useful tool for evaluating the long term implications of cultural continuities and changes as seen the material record, alongside the documentary data (which includes narratives of colonized and colonizer). It is through this multi-disciplinary lens, we can understand the faces of colonization and the proclamations of independence and autonomy, assimilation, hybridization, and resistance (Rubertone 2000).
One can thus always document histories of Native Americans in the Colonial
Period as being characterized by continuity and change (this comes close to being
tautological: what other possibilities could there be? Wouldn’t any population, studied at
two different places in time, show some continuity and some change?). The same can be
stated for employing an agency approach. However, it is important to note the ways in
which continuity and change are valuable for studying material culture and decision-
making processes surrounding that material use. In New England within the current
archaeological literature, continuity and change have been successfully documented and
discussed in different aspects of Native American life, such as pottery (Johnson 1999),
mortuary practice (Vitelli 2009), domestic spaces (Silliman 2009), language (Bragdon
2009); settlement organization (Handsman and Lamb Richmond 1995), and
intercommunity connections (Jordan 2010), among many other dimensions. The above
literature has brought Native American decision making into sharper focus.
For example outside of the Northeast, in the analysis of the Arikara, a tribal
community located in the North Great Plains, Rogers (1990:213) notes that there is a
14 clear and definable relationship between historical change and shifts in the material culture, such as architectural features, burial items, and technological tools. The Arikara were open to accepting Euro-Americans goods but depending on the historical circumstances there was often little replacement of Native categories and material culture with Euro-American goods – they were often added to the Arikara assemblages.
However, during some periods the use of Native material items significantly changed, such as in the construction of abode mud brick houses. Rogers (1990:224) states that his investigations “indicate that, at least in the case of the Arikaras, it is possible to construct a fairly strong link between certain kinds of historical processes and associated archaeological assemblages.” This cultural perspective can be used to understand the
Mashantucket Pequot use of plants related to social change during colonization. Because
plant use is deeply embedded within knowledge structures, one should expect change and variation within that use during this time period. However, highlighting the continuities and changes which occur within the material culture, (in this case the plants found at the household level) should be seen as necessary to comprehensively understand the cultural dynamics during this time. Not analytically favoring one category over the other
(continuity vs. change or vice versa) highlights the choices and also the levels of cultural complexity that existed within this specific Native American communities.
Structure of the Thesis
In this chapter, I provide an outline of the argument that permeates the rest of this body of work. I suggest that many of the scholarly approaches to do not present Native
Americans as active participants in history and contexts, especially regarding their use of
plants. This dissertation suggests an alternative approach that is based on agency to
15 understand the changes and continuities with Native American lifeways during the
Colonial Period. Within the agency approach, I present the directions that Native
American decision making took during the Colonial Period, so that the plant data from the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation can serve to evaluate, and thus to establish, the historical trajectory of decisions relative to plant usage in this part of New England after the arrival of the Europeans.
Chapter Two explains why plant analyses within an agency approach differ from other environmental approaches and are especially useful for understanding Native
Americans lifeways during the Colonial Period. I address why plants are an important cultural variable and how they are deeply embedded our cultural structures. I also highlight past hypotheses of plant use during colonization. Then I develop the cultural model at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation and discuss the expectations related to
Mashantucket Pequot plant use during the Colonial Period.
Chapter Three contextualizes the cultural variables within New England that can
be assumed to have affected Native American plant use after European Contact. I define the traditional homeland of the Mashantucket Pequot, highlight ecological characteristics of the physical landscape and present a sketch of Indigenous plant use before the arrival of Europeans within that regional context. Then, I discuss the post-Contact history of the
Mashantucket Pequot Reservation. Within that section, I summarize past studies of
Native American plant use after the arrival of Europeans. I also discuss, at the regional and local level, specific variables, such as war, habitat and land loss, settlement patterns, religious movements, and emerging market system. I also introduce the sites which were utilized to evaluate the expectation and which the plant data was recovered. This
16 background sets the stage for the succeeding chapters to explore the decisions related to
Mashantucket Pequot plant use from 1675-1800 A.D.
Chapter Four highlights the methods used in this study. First, I explain how the archaeological sites were chosen for the analysis and describe them. I discuss the taphonomic and cultural processes that are associated with archaebotoanical remains and the archaeological contexts. Then I discuss the sampling strategy and field-processing employed; laboratory processing and identification in the laboratory; the cultural categorization of identified plant remains; and the analytical methods employed, presence and density analysis. Last, I discuss the historical data and how I examined the description of Mashantucket Pequot plant use within Indigenous and Colonial accounts. I discuss which colonial and Indigenous narratives were studied and how I evaluated for
patterns of continuity and change within those records.
Chapters Five through Seven discuss the results of this investigation. First, I assess the data related to diet composition (Chapter Five), medicinal use (Chapter Six), and then land use (Chapter Seven). For each chapter, I present the archaeological data first and then proceed to discuss relevant colonial and Indigenous historical accounts.
This analysis shows that Native American decision making about plants, even under then most serious assaults of the Colonial Period, functioned to keep the Mashantucket Pequot autonomous from the colonists, contrastive in land use, food and medicine, and largely unresponsive if not actively contravening the Colonial economic expectations and policies. The results demonstrate that Mashantucket Pequot chose strategies relative to
plants that were the most consistent with older patterns of subsistence and land use. The results support the notion that the Mashantucket Pequot maintained their traditional
17 cultural practices, knowledge and decision-making in regards to plant use as dynamic and active participants in the colonial landscape.
Chapter Eight summarizes the results of the preceding chapters, moves on discuss the complexity of Indigenous environmental interactions, and introduces some additional dimensions that help to put the observed plant data in context. Then, I proceed to discuss future work that will complement the data presented in this investigation and further explore agency of Indigenous individuals and communities on the post-Contact landscape.
18
Figure 1. Location of the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation in Southeastern Connecticut.
19 CHAPTER 2
A MODEL OF PLANT USE AT THE
MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT RESERVATION
Introduction
The Mashantucket Pequot entered the Colonial Period with an 11,000 year history of interacting with plants, that contrasted sharply with the way the colonists were accustomed to deal with them. In this chapter, I lay out my expectations for decision- making about plant use, in the situation in which the Mashantucket Pequot found themselves in the early Colonial Period. These expectations will then be evaluated in
Chapters 5 through 7 against the decisions taken, as they are reflected in the archaeological plant samples.
From the analysis of the Mashantucket Pequot ten sites from 1675-1800 A.D. and the historical record, I will systematical evaluate Mashantucket Pequot continuity and change of plant-related strategies related to food and medicine. The strategies related to that use even might highlight alternative traditional practices as has been reported for ground stone usage in the Contact period by Nassaney and Volmar (2003) and also other various material culture, such as architectural features and technological items in the
Colonial period by Rogers (1990), mentioned in Chapter One. I would expect the historical data not to support these expectations, or even contradict them. Many of the indigenous decisions taken would have been relatively invisible to the colonial observers,
based upon their own Euro-centric awareness and cultural structures related to plants.
20 In this investigation, the Indigenous communities do not adapt to the biological
environment and the processes of colonization (Balée 1998). Instead, the Indigenous
adaptive strategies are seen to emerge from the interpenetrations of culture and the
biological environment, which are inherently tied to agency (Crumley 1994; Whitehead
1998). This agency framework allows one to explore the interrelationships between
nature and culture not as a dichotomy but in a synergistic fashion. Mashantucket Pequot
plant interactions are seen as embedded in a more encompassing structure of decision
making with other biological and cultural variables. The decisions illustrate both the
resilience and transformations (continuities and changes) within Indigenous knowledge
systems (van der Leeuw and Redman 2002). As the Mashantucket Pequot decisions
change and/or remain the same in response to economic motives, political
marginalization and social histories, cultural practices and knowledge systems will be
influenced accordingly (Ingerson 1994).
Why are the Cultural Uses of Plants an Important Variable?
Plants recovered from archaeological sites are not often looked at within an agency approach and tied to social contexts and cultural identities in archaeology (i.e.
Hastorf 1998; 1999; Palmer and Van Der Veen 2002; Twiss 2012). Yet, the physical remains of plants left behind by individuals and communities at archaeological sites, like other aspects of material culture, are the result of human decision making, of the choices made, of completed actions, knowledge availability, and goals and strategies. Plants reach into all aspects of life from food consumed to the landscapes, which are traversed, from the rituals that are performed, and to the zoning of activities of the landscape through space and time. Generally, plants comprise resources and orient actions of all
21 cultural groups, in this case Native Americans, in way that demonstrates that they have thought about, interacted with, modified, managed and domesticated for thousands of years (Delcourt and Delcourt 2004; Delcourt et al. 1998; Oliver 2010). And plants do not need to have been domesticated to maintain a deep meaningful role within the community. For example, the use of non-domesticated plants, such as the “hidden harvests” of wild plants managed and gathered in and around habitation sites, can play integral roles in local and regional food security (Grivetti and Ogle 2000; Bharucha and
Pretty 2010). “Hidden harvests,” such as nuts, roots, tubers and even wild grains, are tied to specific choices made by the community. These types of plant are deeply embedded in the knowledge structures and they are related to the survival of cultural lifeways tied to individuals and communities (Huss-Ashmore and Johnston 1994).
Plants as cultural variables are dynamic, yet often problematic in archaeological contexts, because most of their parts deteriorate quite rapidly once they have been utilized (Minnis 1981; Wright 2010). Independent of their importance to the people who utilized them or interacted with them, they will usually be only a numerically small component on the periphery of the longer lasting raw materials such as stone or bone
(Miksicek 1987). At the same time, though, because of their seasonal and spatial variability in different environments such as the temperate forests in New England, plant remains tend to be more closely associated with specific times, and specific places (see, for example Anderson 2005; Gardner 1997; Munson 1984). Given the ease which most
plant parts decay, they do not lend themselves to convey lasting messages, or to mark
places forever, as stone artifacts might. And if they are preserved through time or accessible in a given context, their last presence is typically quite labor intensive, such as
22 the processes of domestication or in storage technology (Fuller and Weber 2005; Jones et al. 1999; Van Der Veen 2007).
Many plants are useful for producing certain predictable states in their consumers, such as maintaining a constant food source or medicinal plants for curing specific conditions like gout and stomach pains (Huss-Ashmore and Johnston 1994; Moerman
1996, 1999; Stepp and Moerman 2001). While these properties might be quite predictable, they require careful experimentation, prior experience, and detailed knowledge about time and place. In that way, plants lend themselves to being integrated into cultural strategies of the passage of knowledge between generations, and thus enculturation, and the construction of positions of respect, specialized access to knowledge, and scheduling of activities in time and space (Deur and Turner 2005; Oliver
2010). In the colonial context in New England, it is the Native Americans that possessed the knowledge of the native plants through more than 11,000 years of cultural interaction with them (Hart 1999, 2008). Thus, they are extremely important variables to explore when attempting to understand cultural complexity of any community.
Heterarchy and Plant Use
To understand the broad pattern of Native American plant use within the household and community level and the complexities involved, it is useful to employ the concept of heterarchy (Crumley 1979; 2005). Crumley (1979:144) defines heterarchy as
“the relation of elements to one another when they are unranked, or when they possess the potential for being ranked in a number of different ways, depending on systemic requirements.” As noted by Davies (2009) this organizing principle may be context specific and involve fluctuating power relations and flexibility within the social
23 structures. Chilton (2010) employs this concept to interpret the components of social complexity in the Late Woodland period (1000-1500 A.D.) that preceded the Colonial
Period under discussion here.
I do not use the concept in the traditional sense of defining a characteristic kind of social complexity and political centralization. In southern New England, during the pre-
Contact period Native Americans maintained a non-hierarchical strategy when they procured resources, not dominated by rank-ordered few favored resources (like Zea mays
(corn)) and maintain a broad based and diverse set of resources (Bernstein 1993; Chilton
1999; Sidell 2002). I refer to this strategy as “heterarchical”, in that it helps to understand the use of resources within the social sphere (as seen in the traditional use of the term heterarchy, as defined for example by Crumley 1979). I employ this concept to understand the continuities and changes (complexities) within Indigenous environmental strategies that have traditionally been viewed within more hierarchically models of social complexity and plant use.
“Heterarchical” models for Native American plant decision-making are useful, precisely because they allow for and help to maintain diversity within use, as the preferred Native American strategy, even in situations where domestic plants become
part of the resource structure. Many pre- and post-contact Native American populations, including many Indigenous populations today, often defy ranking within their social structure (Crumley 2005) and “allow for decision making at a range of scales without recourse to an integrated vertical control hierarchy” (Davies 2009). Within this investigation, I extended the use of heterarchy (which was developed as a useful analytical tool to model social order) to the use of environmental variables because it
24 admits to diversity of organization within the social order, especially in regards to human environmental interactions. A “heterarchical” use of plant resources and set of embedded ideologies would have helped to underwrite flexibility within the social order.
Although there were significant pressures from the colonial authorities to have the
Native Americans engage in the Euro-American notion of improvements to the land,
Indigenous communities may have continued to practice in plant strategies that revolved around the use of a diversity of plants and habitats. Their accustomed “heterarchical” strategy with wild plants vs. domesticated cultigens (either Indigenous or Euro-
American) would have made it easier for them to chose plant interactions that allowed to remain independent of their colonizers, logically different, and in control of their special and temporal placement. The “heterarchical” use of plants would have been independent of the expectations of the colonizers, an expectation that has strong implications for the distribution of plants at archaeological sites of this period.
Frameworks of Native American Plant Use within Colonial New England
In the latter part of the twentieth century and up to today, specific hypotheses, some more refined than others, have emerged regarding plant use of Native Americans during the time of European colonization (Bragdon 1996a; Bennett 1955; Cronon 1983;
Gremillion 1993; McBride 2007; Newsom and Trieu 2011). Bennett (1955:395) is one of the first scholars to hypothesize a continuity and change scenario in which contact with
Europeans during the early Colonial Period resulted in minimal change of Native foodways:
“Indian-even- the Christianized ones – took to domesticated animals and
to European crops only in a small way, continuing to prefer their
25 traditional hoe cultivation of corn, beans, squash, and pumpkins and their
activities in hunting and fishing. Against cattle in their unfenced cornfields
and against hogs rooting in their (they supposed) clam banks, they indeed
complained. But if there was change in the composition of the diet of the
southeastern New England Indians between 1605 and the debacle of King
Philips War, it seems likely to have been small.”
Bennett (1955) thoroughly researches the above statement through historic documents from 1605 and 1676 but he does not offer any causes for the continuities and/or changes within Native American subsistence and land use practices during this period and afterward.
Decades later, Cronon (1983) departs from Bennett’s work in a more nuanced discussion of Native environmental strategies within the Colonial landscape. He hypothesizes that cultural transformations related to plant and animal use emerged from the field of tensions between human institutions (also known as structure in Giddens
1991) and ecological availability. He (1983) counters the assumption that the cultural lifeways of Native Americans were forced by the environment and passive. Instead, he hypothesizes that the transformations of the landscape that occurred from pre-colonial to post-Colonial times were deeply embedded in agency and “cultural reproductions” of
behaviors within Native American lifeways. As stated in the beginning quote for this chapters, Cronon (1983) believes that the environment may initially shape the range of choices available to individuals but then their culture reshapes the environment – it is a cyclical human-environmental interaction which he calls mutual determination. Cronon
(1983) admits that his goal is to explain why New England habitats have changed as they
26 did during the Colonial Period and not to rewrite Native American history in New
England. Nevertheless, Cronon’s deep historical analyses on the regional scale demonstrate that Native Americans actively shaped the Contact and post Contact landscapes. However, his notion of agency takes a turn when he (1983:170) discusses the emerging market system and remarks that the “transition to capitalism alienated the products of land as much as the products of human labor and so transformed natural communities as profoundly as it did human ones.” Cronon (1983:170) appears to suggest that change in all aspects of Native lifeways, especially with their use of plants, is inevitable when Colonial forces meet up against Native American communities. After capitalism penetrates, agency gets shelved and Native Americans (even the colonists) are no longer in control of their use of plant and animal resources in New England.
This dissertation explicitly evaluates Cronon’s agency-driven hypotheses an analysis of the plant macro-remains from Native American post-Contact archaeological sites. Similar to Gremillion (1993), I believe that historical documents, as heavily utilized in Bennett (1955) and Cronon (1993), although useful, are insufficient for investigating the cultural variation in the role of plants within Native communities in New England.
This dissertation exposes that variation at the local scale with the help of the archaeological and historical records. Plant evidence directly tied to Native Americans is essential for understanding the full scope of plant use at a time when cultural assimilation, acculturation and the emerging market system are thought to be major factors of change.
This dissertation is also an explicit effort to overcome the tautology that many continuity and change approaches have suffered from, as highlighted specifically in
27 Bennett (1955). Similar to Bragdon’s (1996a:xiii) research of Native Americans at the time of Contact, I suggest that the Mashantucket Pequot maintained and also adjusted their “motivations, structural relations and cultural perceptions” as they chose to engage in conservative plant strategies in regards to their land use, diet and medicinal practices from 1675-1800 A.D. I postulate that in the context of the colonial onslaught within their way of life, plants became important variables in Native American culture and society.
The Mashantucket Pequot decisions to maintain their traditional plant strategies, and selectively engage in certain colonial strategies of land and plant use, aided in their cultural survival in the face of severe insults on their culture.
For this dissertation, I utilized a modified agency approach from Cronon’s (1983), in which the variables relative to Native American decision-making about plants are laid out in advance, and reasonable choices relative to plant usage (which includes changes
AND continuities) are anticipated, within the complex of ecological and cultural variables of the Colonial Period. My approach foregrounds Native Americans which has not been done within the investigations regarding Native American plant use during the
Colonial Period in New England. I build off previous archaeobotanical investigations conducted by Gremillion (1993, 1995) in the Southeast and the comprehensive investigation of North American Native Americans by Newsom and Trieu (2011). These two studies highlight the dynamics of Native American plant strategies after European
Contact but characterize Native foodways as conservative and culturally prescribed.
Furthermore, Newsom and Trieu (2011:570) hypothesize that if Native foodways shifted it revolved around the suitability of the specific plant to the local environmental
28 circumstances, the ease of the adoption or cultural use within existing planting systems and subsistence strategies.
I accept the above premises of conservatism and adaptation by Gremillion (1993,
1995) and Newsom and Trieu (2006) in this study of the relationship between agency and
patterns of continuity and change within the households of Mashantucket Pequot community. I consider households and communities to have been the major buildings
blocks for dealing with plant decision making; they are the ‘medium’ for structuring domestic activities inside and outside the physical and ideological parameters of a dwelling (Allison 1999). The household is considered a primary reference point and stage for plant-related activities and helps to situate human environmental interactions. These relationships are important because activities within a house (or multiple houses) are linked with the formation of defined cultural units that are the building blocks of social organization (Hodder 1990; Wilk and Ashmore 1988; Wilk and Rathje 1982).
Although traditionally in household archaeology the dwelling is at the heart of the investigation (Wilk and Ashmore 1988; Meher 1995), this analysis illustrates that the household does not have to be confined within the walls of a structure. Instead, households, in which the social agents act, can encompass a much broader cultural canvas and include physical spaces within a settlement site, such as hearths, and other activity areas located outside the structures. It is important to realize that the archaeological remains that archaeologists take as evidence of households, such as house walls, hearths, and storage units, are also artifacts that produce in their users the sense of the existence of the household, that is, as designs for the future (see Wobst 2006). .
Similarly, plant use within households at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation, at once is
29 a reflection of the existence of households, as well as part of the culture that helped to generate the sense of the inhabitants that they were part of households, that is, attempts to make those households easier to think, in the terms of the Mashantucket Pequot traditions, and in the contexts in which the Mashantucket Pequot found themselves. In that way, plant use within the household at Mashantucket is seen as an important axis of decision making that links Mashantucket tradition and memory to their survival of the
Colonial Period (Silliman 2009).
The case study presented in this dissertation offers an opportunity for Indigenous communities and scholars to recover the historical trajectory of Mashantucket Pequot
plant use in a problem directed fashion. Too often within contemporary investigations of
Indigenous knowledge systems the historical development and the trajectory of plants within the past are missing (Spriggs 1993), as is the case at the Mashantucket Pequot
Reservation. It is important that the Mashantucket Pequot to connect with their traditional
plant uses. The objective of this investigation is to provide useful cultural insights and information to the Mashantucket Pequot and outside audiences about how their plant use has been shaped and about their cultural continuity within New England. My goal is to disentangle Indigenous decision making related to plant use during the Colonial Period and to provide a nuanced history of plant use from 1675-1800 A.D., a period in which
Mashantucket Pequot plant strategies are not yet well known or understood. Many parts of their historical plant use, especially during the period of colonization, are not presently
part of Mashantucket oral histories and community narratives, nor of present practice. By systematically evaluating Mashantucket plant decision making in the Colonial Period against archaeological data, colonial documents and Indigenous narratives, one gets a
30 better understanding of how the Mashantucket Pequot survived this most difficult part of their history. More broadly, the analysis of the Mashantucket Pequot will shed light on how Indigenous and colonized populations (re)conceptualized their socio-natural world while retaining traditional and adopting innovative practices of plant use. Documenting the human-environmental interactions of marginalized communities within contested landscapes is highly relevant for contemporary societies confronting issues of resource depletion, social changes and colonization.
The Model at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation
In this dissertation, I suggest that plant resources and decision making about plant usage constituted an important part of Native American resistance and identity formation during the early Colonial Period. During this period, the Native American communities were faced with severe Euro-American pressures on their lands and resources. Yet, plants and plant uses were deeply embedded in their senses of who they were (relative to outsiders such as the colonists), how they moved, how they scheduled themselves in space and time, how they cured themselves of diseases and other problems, how they practiced ritual and ceremony, and how they were forced to engage with the colonists in the early Colonial Period. Given the colonists’ impacts on their land, their location, their numbers, their religion, and their ability to organize and move, I expect that Native households and communities would have favored those decisions about plants that allowed them to remain flexible in their social organization, and allowed them to maintain their own Indian identity as well as possible within and beyond the colonized spaces. Thus rather than becoming like the colonizers in their plant decision making,
Native Americans would have decided in the direction of the most conservative,
31 contrastive, and most enabling choices available to them, given their accustomed lifeways and the ever-present contrast with the colonists. These cultural practices should
be observable in their decisions taken.
From the above general statement, a set of more specific assumptions will be evaluated against the Mashantucket Pequot data, in the direction of diet composition usage of medicinal plants and land. All three dimensions are important for understanding
Native Americans under the onslaught of their colonial invaders. Each category will be discussed below.
Diet Composition
In regards to diet composition from 1675-1800 A.D, it is assumed that a diverse set of plant resources will continue to be utilized by the Mashantucket Pequot. A broad diet associated with the Mashantucket Pequot plant use it would allow them to remain relatively mobile within their reservation lands and allowed them to stay out of the colonial market as much as possible. It would also keep them relatively invisible in this section of southeastern New England and inaccessible to the colonizers. I expect to observe:
(1) Continued use of a diversity of food plants which include wild plants, mast,
fruits, and weedy seeds
(2) Continued use of tropical cultigens, such as maize, beans and squash and
native domesticates, such as sunflower and goosefoot in the heterarchical
ways they had interacted with them in the past.
(3) Adoption of Euro-American cultigens and plants that easily incorporated into
Indigenous plant strategies, such as the use of peach and apple, without unduly
32 affecting the scheduling of other Indigenous plant activities.
Medicinal Plants
Because plant resources related to medicinal practices in Indigenous communities are often deeply and multiply linked to their knowledge structures, traditions, and understanding or supporting social roles in Indigenous communities, it is expected
that medicinal plant use will be preserved and remain relatively stable, if not intensify within the Mashantucket Pequot. The knowledge structure of medicinal plant use is non-
British, non-capitalist market, deeply tied to tradition via healing which is under conditions of great stress during this time period. Thus, medicinal use of Native
Americans were very different from the colonizers, in an cultural structure full of symbolism and rich in traditional knowledge; hence under stress this type of knowledge and use would be maintained, if not intensified. From 1675-1800 A.D., I expect to observe the:
(1) Continued presence of medicinal plants at all sites due to the deep links within
knowledge structures.
(2) Limited presence of medical plants within the archaeological record of
remains due to their specialized cultural use at the household level.
Land Use
In spite of the serious changes in the cultural and biological variables at the
Mashantucket Pequot Reservation during the study period, it is postulated that land use would remain stable and unchanged because of how engrained traditional plant use was within Mashantucket knowledge structures. In addition, the Mashantucket Pequot would use their land to be as contrastive as possible to their colonizers, because that helped them
33 to retain their social difference and control, and that difference would help them to maintain their distance from the colonizers, and to remain socially distinct and autonomous. From 1675-1800 A.D. at Mashantucket, I would expect to observe:
(1) Continued exploration of different habitats associated with the plant types
present regardless of the physical circumscription of land and changes in
environmental variables, such as bedrock, soil, elevation, and water distance.
(2) Continued use of a spectrum of seasonal plants and maintenance of storage at
each habitation site.
(3) Continued use of traditional agricultural systems and methods for cultivating
tropical cultigens such as maize, beans and squash, coupled with a very
limited presence and use of Old World cultigens with home gardens at each
household.
(4) Short duration of occupations at habitation sites regardless of architectural
features to assure that plant resources would remain stable across the
Reservation.
(5) Limited evidence of fences and property lines and adoption of other Euro-
American land strategies, such as use of common lands by domesticated
animals.
Within these three dimensions, I have highlighted my expectations tied to the
decisions and knowledge structures associated with plant use during the Colonial Period.
Although my primary data will be the archaeobotanical progagules (seeds), I also will
refer to the historical colonial and indigenous accounts. They are also considered
reflective of decision-making and the continuities (or lack their of) within indigenous
34 knowledge, structure and plant use strategies. However, many of the historical accounts are not specifically tied to the Mashantucket Pequot community and/or do not provide information about specific time period under investigation (1675-1800 A.D. ).
The colonial accounts are expected to articulate a different story about Indigenous decision-making in regards to plant use. These accounts are narrated within colonial
perspectives and reflect an understanding of Native plant use through the eyes of Euro-
American plant strategies. Thus, the colonial accounts are expected to be different from both the archaeological data and/or historical Indigenous accounts. Both of these lines of evidence will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter.
Summary
Within the above three categories of diet, medicine and lands use, I expect the archaeological data about plants not to be significantly different from their predecessors in the period between 1675-1800 A.D.. However, the colonial records may be signaling alternative narratives of being within Mashantucket Pequot lifeways that may not run
parallel to the archaeological data. Nonetheless, I anticipate that the Mashantucket Pequot succeeded in maintaining their identity, in part, because they engaged in the most conservative, identity defining decision-making related to plant use.
35 CHAPTER 3
THE STUDY AREA
Introduction
To explore the dimensions of the Mashantucket Pequot plant use, this investigation employs methods from two data sources: archaeobotanical and historical
(colonial and Indigenous). Since the early 1980’s, archaeological and historical data have
been collected through collaborative efforts between the Mashantucket Pequot community, local residents, and scholars that included experts in all the subfields of anthropology, historians, and ecologists. This effort, called the Ethnohistory Project, is headquartered at the Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center (MPMRC), which opened its doors in 1999. Dr. Kevin McBride, the tribal archaeologist at MPMRC, has supervised the larger collaborative project.
In the summer of 2008, I was presented with an opportunity by the Mashantucket
Pequot Tribal Nation to conduct the analysis of archaeobotanical remains from the
Colonial Period and help it better understand its cultural trajectory relative to plants. I was not involved in the excavation or field processing of the samples in the years previous (except for the site 72-91 in 2009), but undertook the lab analysis and database management of the archaeobotanical remains from the Colonial Period, particularly of these ten sites introduced in the previous chapter (Table 1). In total, over 18,015 liters of soil has been analyzed from over 216 cultural contexts with the ten Mashantucket Pequot sites chosen for this analysis. Within those archaeological sites, a total of 8,301 plant remains have been identified (Table 1).
36 Within this chapter I discuss the cultural variables that are likely to have affected
Native American plant use after European Contact in southern New England. I define the traditional homeland of the Mashantucket Pequot that has been occupied by Native
peoples for over 11,000 years. I highlight the environmental characteristics of the physical landscape and sketch Indigenous plant use before the arrival of the Europeans within the regional context. I also discuss the post-Contact history of the Mashantucket
Pequot Reservation and I summarize the previous studies of Native American plant use after the arrival of Europeans. There are also many of variables that can be expected to affect Native American decision-making in this period. Within this investigation, I focus on the following because they are most pertinent to the time period under consideration and expected to have been of importance to Mashantucket Pequot decision making - war, habitat and land loss, settlement patterns, architectural innovation, religious movements, emerging market system and gender roles. The discussion of these variables sets the stage for the following chapters to explore the decisions related to Mashantucket Pequot plant use from 1675-1800 A.D.
The Mashantucket Reservation is a small part of the Mashantucket Pequot pre-
Contact homeland (250 square miles) which has been inhabited by Indigenous peoples for over 11,000 years (Jones and Forrest 2003). It is an ideal area to examine decision making about plants because of the rich archaeobotanical, paleoecological, and documentary record that has been recovered from this area. It is also one of the oldest continuously occupied reservations in the United States (established in 1666 A.D.). Thus it should reflect particularly well on the Mashantucket community life during the colonization of southern New England (Den Ouden 2005; Rubertone 2000:437).
37 Historically, the Mashantucket Pequot faced and overcame many social, economic and political challenges
Throughout the Colonial Period, they were violently pushed to the periphery within southeastern New England but made specific decisions to continually occupy and maintain their homeland. Most colonists believed that the Mashantucket Pequot assimilated into colonial culture and left behind their “Indian ways” (Mancini 2009;
Mandell 2008; Starna 1990). However, the persistence of the Mashantucket Pequot in southern New England, especially on the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation, demonstrates that there is another side to the story of colonization, one of cultural
persistence within a marginalized communities. Because of contradictions among the narratives of histories, the contemporary members of the Mashantucket Pequot have made it an important research goal to learn how their ancestors lived during the eighteenth to the twentieth centuries.
Native American Plant Use Prior to the Colonial Period
The Physical Landscape
At the time of European contact, southern New England provided a rich habitat for Native American communities, which included the Mashantucket Pequot. According to Foster and Aber (2004) and Fuller et al. (1998), there was regional variation in forest composition corresponding to differences in climate, substrate and natural/or human- induced fire and within a specific homeland there most certainly was variation in forest composition as well. Within the current Mashantucket traditional homeland of over 250 square miles (Figure 2), there are different habitats, which included estuarine, wetland, woodland and open-field habitat from the Connecticut coast to the inland. Based upon
38 pollen analyses conducted by Trent (1981) and Jacobucci (2006) in nearby Lantern Hill
Pont (a little less than a mile away from southern boundary of the Mashantucket Pequot
Reservation), at the time of earliest contact the local woodland vegetation was comprised of Carya sp. (hickory), Castanea sp. (chestnut), Quercus sp. (oak), Betula sp. (birch) with increases in Ambrosia sp. (ragweed), Gramineae (grass) and other herb pollen in comparison to the pre-Contact period. The rise in ragweed, grasses and herb pollens reflects European land clearance for settlement or cultivation. At the resolution examined within these two studies it is unclear as of yet if the increase in the levels of herb pollens can be attributed to Indigenous or Colonial anthropogenic factors.
The current reservation of the Mashantucket Pequot also contains a diversity of environments, similar to the larger regional landscape. According to local pollen studies, the landscape dramatically changed from the pre-Contact period as more Euro-Americans settled within the region and cleared land for agricultural and grazing purposes (Trent
1981). The current vegetation of the Mashantucket watershed is a fragmented deciduous forest dominated by Quercus sp. (oak), Carya sp. (hickory), Fraxinus sp. (ash), beech
Fagus sp. (beech), Betula sp. (birch) and Acer sp. (maple) with conifers, such as Pinus
sp. (pine) found in sandy soils (Thorson and Webb 1991).
Great Cedar Swamp, located in the heart of the current Mashantucket Pequot
Reservation, was and continues to be a vital physical and/or spiritual resource for
Indigenous peoples in the region (Simmons 1990). When Indigenous communities
inhabited the area around 11,000 B.P., they settled along the banks of the swamp and
used its resources for food, fuel and architectural purposes (Jones and Forrest 2003). The
current swamp vegetation is dominated by Acer rubrum (red maple), Pinus strobus
39 (white pine), Tsuga candensis (hemlock) and Chamaecyparis thyoides (Atlantic White
Cedar) (Shulford 1975 in Thorson and Webb 1991). The shrub layer consists of
Vaccinium corymbosum (highbush blueberry), Clethra alnifolia (sweet pepperbush) and
Lindera benzoin (spicebush). Also growing along the swamp edges are Rhus glabra
(sumac), Rhododendron maximum (rhododendron), and Alnus rugosa (alder).
Such an environment lends itself to a complex strategy of plant exploitation, in
which diverse plant resources were available over relative small distances, allowing
Native Americans to deal flexibly with plants, in the face of environmental or political
variation in their habitat.
The Cultural Variables within the Traditional Homeland
At the beginning of the Contact period, the traditional homeland of the Pequot
comprised roughly 250 square miles of southeastern New England (McBride 2007;
Figure 2). It constituted a somewhat fluid space for the Pequot (Starna 1990; Handsman
and Lamb Richmond 1995), and included a diverse range of habitats that were used for
hunting, gathering wild plants, cultivating domesticates, and harvesting marine resources
along the coast (McBride 1990). Plant use in the pre-Contact period is relevant to the
argument here because it defines the Native American structure and agency vis-à-vis
plants before the time period(s) under investigation in this dissertation.
The Pequot homeland was similar to that of many other regional Algonquian
speaking groups in that it created a network of social and economic relations that bound
Native individuals and communities before contact and set the stage for their social
relations in the colonial period. The pre-Contact boundaries of the traditional homelands
were the outcomes of many cultural variables that affected social and settlement
40 organization and intertribal conflicts (Chilton 2005; Johnson 1999; McBride and
Bellantoni1983). Within those physical and symbolic spaces, matrilineal organization created the parameters for familial descent, political organization, and land use after the arrival of Europeans (Ives 2011; Lamb Richmond and Den Ouden 2003).
Cultural fluidity within the Mashantucket Pequot homeland helped to maintain pre-Contact and Contact period regional social relations at the local and regional levels
(Johnson 1999). That fluidity also allowed the Mashantucket Pequot to exploit the diverse range of habitats mentioned above. McBride (2007) hypothesizes that at the time of Contact, the Mashantucket Pequot were semi-sedentary and relatively mobile with a mixed subsistence strategy that included hunting, gathering, fishing and horticultural activities. The archaeological record from southern New England signals that the creation, use and management of the plant and animal resources within these homelands did not become specialized or focused on a very few natural resources, even with the introduction of maize at 1000 A.D. (Chilton 1999; 2001, 2008, 2010; Heckenberger,
Petersen and Sidell 1992). Bernstein’s (1993:1) observation that “intensification took the form of economic diversification and cultural modification of the landscape” well characterizes plant and animal use in southern New England. Evidence at sites in Rhode
Island (Bernstein 1993), Connecticut (Bendremer 1993; McBride and Dewar 1987) and also within Middle Connecticut River Valley (Chilton 2002, 2008; Chilton et al. 2000;
Kasper 2008) indicates that whether Native communities plant maize, harvest nuts or even shellfish, they did not specialize on any one specific resource. Instead, Native communities appear to have use a diverse spectrum of plant and animals resources within their Indigenous homelands (Bernstein 1993; Chilton 1999; Sidell 2002).
41 Wild Plants and Domesticates
Archaeologists characterize the Algonquian groups of southern New England at the time of contact, as exploiting a variety of wild plants within different habitats to create a diverse subsistence base, even while participating in horticultural and agricultural activities (Chilton 1999, 2002; Bernstein 1993; George and Dewar 1999; Little 1995;
Johnson 1999; Stein 2008). Around 1000 A.D., Native communities within this region also incorporated a range of domesticates Indigenous to the Americas, like Zea mays
(corn), Helianthus sp. (sunflower), Phaseolous vulgaris (bean) and Curcubita sp.
(squash) (Bendremer 1999; Largy and Morenon 2008; Little 2002; Little and
Schoeninger 1995; Chilton 2006). However, this introduction of maize apparently did not curtail the use or importance of other wild plants found in the environmentally diverse homelands (Chilton 1999; 2010). For example, Native communities continued to use the products of nut-bearing trees and other wild seeds (Bennett 1955; Kasper 2008; Bernstein
1999), including fleshy and weedy ones, such as Chenopodium sp. (goosefoot), Rhus sp.
(sumac), Vaccinium sp. (blueberry) and nut mast, such as Carya sp. (hickory), Corylus
sp. (hazelnut) and Quercus sp. (oak) (Bendremer 1999; Newsom and Trieu 2006). This
continued use of a spectrum of wild plants even after domesticated crops entered the
cultural records is very similar to many other Native communities in other regions of
North America (Anderson 2005; Lewis 1993). In contrast, much less is known about
what happened to plant use in the Colonial Period, after Old World plant domesticates are
introduced in New England.
42 Use of Different Habitats
What has become most evident to archaeologists working within this region is that Native peoples utilized diverse habitats on the basis of archaeobotanical remains from a number of different habitats, which include woodland and open field habitats
(Hart et al. 1999; 2008; Trigg et al. 2007). However, what is a little less obvious is the use of wetland habitats. Only within the last two decades have regional archaeologists come to recognize the vital role that this diverse ecosystem plays in Native American subsistence, medicine and ritual lifeways (McBride 1992; Nicholas 1992). Wetlands are an important ecological niche for human settlement and subsistence due to the variety of
plant and animal communities which makes them highly productive ecosystems (Lillie and Ellis 2007; Larson 1990). In North America, a focus on wetlands has also emerged as more archaeologists recognize wetlands as an important resource base for humans
(Purdy 1991). Wetland research is important because more than half of the land mass within current reservation boundaries at Mashantucket is wetland associated (Figure 1).
According to McBride (1992:10), there is a “high correlation between the location of aboriginal sites and wetland, but it is not clear what role wetlands play in aboriginal subsistence economies.” This investigation hopes to shed additional light on how the
Mashantucket Pequot exploited their local wetlands and other habitats, such as woodland, edge, and open fields, during the Colonial Period.
Prior Plant Studies about the Colonial Period
Scholars, such as Bennett (1955), Cronon (1983), Fisher et al. (1997), Gremillion
(1993;1995) and Newsom and Trieu (2006) have postulated that pre-Contact and Contact
period subsistence strategies significantly influenced Native American plant use into the
43 Colonial Period. In a preliminary analysis of the Mashantucket Pequot, McBride (2007) highlights similar trends and demonstrates a high degree of continuity from pre-Contact to the eighteenth century. Based upon primary documents and the archaeobotanical record, Native Americans during the Colonial Period exploited a range of wild plants during the Colonial Period, which included fleshy and weedy seeds, such as
Chenopodium sp. (goosefoot), Rhus sp. (sumac), Vaccinium sp. (blueberry) and nut mast,
such as Carya sp. (hickory), Corylus sp. (hazelnut) and Quercus sp. (oak) (Bennett 1955;
Newsom and Trieu 2006; 2011). They also incorporated a range of Indigenous
domesticates, like Zea mays (corn), Helianthus sp. (sunflower), Phaseolous vulgaris
(bean) and Curcubita sp. (squash). In New England as of yet, it is unclear if, how and
why Native Americans incorporated ‘Old World’ crops into their subsistence strategies
and how those incorporations may or may not have affected their traditional plant
strategies. This research will build on those previous historical and archaeological
analyses while creating expectations about Native American plant decision making
against Colonial Period data from the 17 th and 18 th centuries.
The History of the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation
Disease, War and Population Loss
One of the most significant cultural variables that affected Native American population in southern New England was European introduced disease. Spiess and Spiess
(1987) believe that an epidemic between 1616 and 1622 significantly impacted Native
Americans in Northern New England and the Massachusetts Bay – reducing population by 90%. A little more than a decade later, two episodes of small pox in 1633 and 1634 significantly reduced Connecticut and Rhode Island Native American populations. Cave
44 (1996:43) hypothesizes that before this small pox epidemic there were over 16,000
Pequot in southern New England and that roughly 80% of the Pequot population succumbed to disease. Vasta (2007:109) notes this high level of population loss undoubtedly affected daily activities, especially those which surround subsistence, as not only were there fewer people to feed but also fewer individuals to participate in activities related to obtaining foodstuffs.
Disease was not the only factor that affected population levels of the Pequot.
Before the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation was established in 1666, the Pequot engaged in several wars that significantly diminished their numbers within southern New
England. Occurring between 1634-1638 was the first major conflict in which it is estimated 400-700 Pequot were killed, including both men, women and children. (Fickes
2000:61). Decades later, during King Philips War (1675-1676), many more
Mashantucket Pequot lost their lives to battles against other local tribes (Mohegan and
Narragansett) and colonial powers. Pequot men became a pivotal resource for the
Connecticut colonial authorities, as they served as auxiliaries and scouts in colonial militias (Johnson 1977:627). Also from 1713-1800 A.D reservation population levels significantly declined as Pequot men participated in the many wars for the 18 th century, which included King William’s War (1689-1696), Queen Anne’s War (1703-1713), King
George’s War (1744-1748), the French and Indian Wars (1754-1763) and the
Revolutionary War (1775-1783) (Mancini 2009; McBride n.d.:151-2). The loss of Pequot men may have had significant impacts at the household and community levels. Vasta
(2007:113) notes that men were traditionally tied to hunting activities and this loss would
45 have severely impacted that subsistence practice at the household level (and I might add, have made decisions about plants relatively more important).
Habitat , Land Loss and Settlement Patterns
The size of the Mashantucket ancestral homeland was significantly diminished after the Pequot War when the English claimed the Pequot territory by the right of sequestered lands, which viewed the homeland as common land that could be taken anytime. Laws were instituted that forbade large Native American communities from settling in southeastern Connecticut (Den Ouden 2005). Consequently, the treaty of
Hartford forbade the Pequot from residing in their former territory in southeastern New
England. They were placed under Mohegan control near Nameag (New London) along the west bank of the Thames River. In 1651, the Pequot Indians were relocated by the
English authorities from Nameag and granted a reservation at Noank, a 500-acre neck of land in their former territory located at the mouth of the Mystic estuary along Long Island
Sound (Figure 2; Campisi 1990). In 1658, only seven years after Noank was appropriated, the Pequots appealed to the Connecticut colonial government for more lands because the soils and firewood at Noank had been severely depleted (Hoadley
1850-1890 5:43 in McBride 2007:36). In 1666, the Pequots were given a reservation
(2,500 acres) ten miles northeast from Noank. This location called Mashantucket is the current reservation of Pequots (Figure 2).
After the reservation was established in 1678, the Mashantucket Pequots were given lands called Walnut Hill, a 600 acre parcel about two miles west of Mashantucket
(Figure 2). They also had access and potentially utilized hunting territory in northeastern
Connecticut and south-central Massachusetts due to their services provided during the
46 King Philips War (1675-1676). According to McBride’s estimates (2007), during the late seventeenth century the Mashantucket would have held in total over 3,600 acres of land including Mashantucket, Noank, Walnut Hill and other coastal/estuarine habitats (Figure
2).
During the second decade of the eighteenth century, appropriation and circumscription of the Mashantucket reservation lands continued as the English population and economy recovered after the devastation of King Philip’s War (1675-
1676). Dozens of new European settlements were established in the interior areas of the
New England landscape as the older colonial towns along the rivers and coast grew and
became more populated (McBride 2007). Expanding English settlement into the interior and along the coast significantly reduced and eventually eliminated Mashantucket Pequot access to hunting grounds and coastal resources (McBride 1990). For example in 1712, the Mashantucket Pequot rights to plant and inhabit the lands at Noank were taken away by the colonial powers within the Connecticut General Assembly. Also in 1721 the Town of Groton acquired 500 acres of the Mashantucket reservation (called the “South Hill”) and gave that land to Groton proprietors (Figure 3). This area was known to contain the
Pequots’ best planting fields and apple orchards (CSA Indian Papers I:95a in McBride
2007). In 1730’s, the Pequot lost their right to farm at Mashantucket “West Half” and then, in 1760, over 800 acres of this area of the reservation become the “property” of the
English. By 1750, the Mashantucket had physically lost 60% of the original reservation lands of 1666 (Figure 3).
47 Religious Movements
In the second half of the eighteenth century the Mashantucket Pequot Indians were exposed to other significant cultural factors – the influence of Christianity and the
Brotherton Indian Movement – but yet continued to maintain their ties to the current
Reservation. Many colonists had the goal to convert Native Americans to Christianity so that they would participate in more ‘ ‘civilized’ ways of being, such as leading a more sedentary existence that heavily relied on farming activities and herds of domesticated animals (Silverman 2003). As more Mashantucket Pequot converted, visible changes started to occur within the reservation with the construction of Euro-American style framed houses and the use of domesticated animals (Lammi 2005; Vasta 2007). Samson
Occum, a Native missionary, was able to recruit at least half of the Mashantucket Pequot population during 1785-1810 (McBride 1996:26). Occum touted that Christian Indian farming communities preserved the best elements of Native American society and also incorporate what he considered the best elements of white society. The latter included
Christianity and education that would promote sobriety and a strong work ethic, as well as increased reliance on Euro-American agricultural and land use strategies that would help bolster the communities in the new landscape (McBride 1996:21). The introduction of Christianity to Native communities, such as the Mashantucket Pequot, was not necessarily just centered around religious conversion; Euro-Americans pushed for a complete overhaul of traditional Native lifeways toward Euro-American ways of living in order to solidify cultural domination and political stability (Brooks and Warrior 2006;
O’Brien 1997; Richter 2001).
48 Emerging Market Systems
The emerging market system with its wage labor and indentured servitude occurring off the reservation played a significant role on the Reservation during the
eighteenth century. Many men, women and children left the Reservation to work in
English homes and many of their daily activities revolved around Euro-American
subsistence and land use strategies. Many Native households and families became reliant
on wage labor and incurred debt (Mandell 2008). Pequot men also began to work in non-
traditional wage jobs, such as the whaling industry, to provide for themselves and their
families living with the reservation boundaries (Mancini 2009). However, Mashantucket
Pequot women were more often the community members that continued to foster cultural
ties to Reservation (McBride, personal communication 2012).
Site Context
To evaluate the expectations outlined in Chapter Two and the above-discussed variables, ten Mashantucket archaeological sites were chosen for this charred seed analysis. So far more than 400 years of written history and over 200 archaeological sites
(dating between 11,000 years ago to the present) have been identified and investigated within the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation and the area immediately surrounding it. In terms of this dissertation, ten of the fifty-five post-Contact sites are the focus of this analysis (Figure 4). To date, the ten Mashantucket Pequot sites have produced the largest archaeobotanical corpus of charred seeds (propagules) in New England.
The criteria according to which these ten sites were selected from the fifty-five post-Contact period sites were as follows: (1) each had been systematically excavated; and (2) each contained cultural activities related to plants that yielded archaeobotanical
49 remains. Given my assumption about plant resources constituting an important part of
Native American resistance and affirmation of their identity during the early Colonial
Period, these ten sites allowed me to explore their decision making across time and space.
In short, for this analysis to take place, I needed Indigenous archaeological sites with physical evidence (plant remains) of social contexts and activities. These sites had moderate to excellent plant preservation and also evidence of the context in which the
plants were deposited. Also, the archaeobotanical remains recovered from these specific ten sites were available for analysis. Later Mashantucket Pequot sites would have been included in this analysis but reservation lands were leased to Europeans in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, making it difficult to define specifically Mashantucket environmental interactions. The ten sites represent the maximum number of archaeological sites available at the present time at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation with well preserved plant remains from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
Eight of the ten sites are single component homesteads (wigwam or framed structure) except 72-91 and 72-88. 72-91 is the Mohantic Fort site, which was occupied during and right after King Philips War (1675-1676 A.D. ) and also during the late eighteenth century. However, the archaeological component utilized in this analysis is the fort, which represents a fortified place of refuge for the Mashantucket with multiple households occupied during the time of King Philips War. The late eighteenth century material culture excavated was not included because it contained low artifact densities and few archaeobotanical remains. 72-88 is a domestic storage facility site with numerous pit features from the Historic period and other temporal components. Both 72-
91 and 72-88 were useful for comparing multi-context sites with the single component
50 homesteads. Wigwams were identified at the sites based upon the patterned presence of post molds or holes in a circular fashion. Framed structured were identified based upon the uniform rectangular or geometric presence of large stone architectural artifacts. Each site also contained long-term deposits of repeated activity (middens and multi-episodic trash pits), and also short-term deposits (structures, hearths, single episodic storage and trash pits) (Table 2). The analysis of both long and short-term contexts establishes
baseline cultural proxies for the selection of specific plants at each site discussed below.
Chronology and Location of Sites
The chronology and duration of occupation of the recovered sites was established through a combination of diagnostic artifacts (mean ceramic dates and mean pipe stem dates), historical records and, for the earlier historic sites, C-14 dates when available
(Mashantucket Site Files; Table 1 and Figure 3). The ability to define the duration of occupation via the material culture present is useful for understanding the temporal variability of Mashantucket Pequot homesteads within the Reservation boundaries. In total from 1675 to 1800 A.D., thirty-four Mashantucket Pequot sites have been identified and excavated (Figure 4). Within those thirty-four sites, with the aid of Kevin McBride, I have been able to calculate the duration of occupation across time (as seen in Figure 3).
This is an unprecedented number of Native American historic archaeological sites for which the durations of occupation can be reconstructed with confidence. The ten sites chosen from this analysis are part of this well-dated data set and provide a more comprehensive sample than can be obtained anywhere else in New England. The ten sites and their cultural contexts in relation to the presence of archaeobotanical remains will be discussed below (in chronological order of occupation).
51 Within each section, I highlight the site locations within the Mashantucket Pequot
Reservation (Figure 3). This is important because it offers a glimpse at how the
Mashantucket Pequot utilized and managed their local landscapes. Even in 1675, the
Reservation at its maximum was only 2500 acres and quickly dwindled down to 200 acres in 1856. Thus, space is an essential variable for understanding decision making relative to plant use from 1675-1800 A.D.
72-91 (Mohantic Fort)
72-91 is a fortified village occupied by the Mashantucket Pequot between 1675-
1680 A.D. (Table 1). It was constructed roughly nine years after the Reservation was established in 1666 A.D. The fort was used to protect men, women and children during
King Philips War (1675-1676) and afterwards to defend against other colonial and Indian raids. Interestingly, the fort is located just east of the Reservation boundaries of 1666
A.D. (Figure 3). It is thought that English enforcement of the boundaries were relatively lax (Kevin McBride, personal communication 2010). This site is the only one among the ten chosen for this analysis that has multiple households. The households were identified
based upon the presence of wigwams within the palisaded walls.
72-91 has been excavated intermittently from 1986 to the present. During these excavations, the field crew uncovered a wigwam with associated hearths (Feature
32/83/116) and storage/refuge pits (Feature 92) located in the northeast area. Feature 2, the palisade trench, was also extensively excavated, especially the entrance which was located to the south. In the summer of 2009, the author was a co-director of the excavation of middens located in the northeast and northwest areas outside the palisade wall (areas N35W60/N28E4 – no feature numbers) .
52 At the time the fort was occupied the land legally accessible for the Mashantucket
Pequot would have been around 3600 acres. That included the Reservation itself (2500 acres), and Walnut Hill (600 acres) located south of the Reservation in the interior and
Noank along the coast (500 acres) (Figure 3). This area would also have been available during the occupation of 72-164A and 73-34A. All three of these sites fall within the last quarter of the seventeenth century when the population would have comprised about 360 men, women and children living on the Reservation (McBride 2007).
72-164A (Homestead)
This site was generated by a single household and was located within the heart of the Reservation lands between 1680-1690 A.D. (Figure 3). It was broadly contemporaneous with 72-91, the fort. 72-164A was excavated between 2003-2004. It is unknown whether or not there are any architectural features, but it was determined to have been a single household based upon the distribution of artifacts within the two pits features (Features 3/4) and one midden (Feature 1) identified and excavated.
72-34A (Homestead)
This site is a single household and was inhabited by the Mashantucket Pequot
between 1680-1690 A.D. East of 72-164A, 72-34A is located within the heart of the reservation and contained a wigwam structure (Figure 3). It most likely is broadly contemporaneous with the fort 72-91. 72-34A was excavated intermittently in the years of 1984, 1985, 1988 and 1992. No midden deposits were recovered. It also contained one hearth (Feature 6), and four pits (Features 35/37/38/40) were discovered and excavated.
53 72-58 (Homestead)
This is a single household site that was occupied between 1760-1770 A. D. It is located well within the reservation boundaries, between 72-34A and 72-164A. 72-58 was excavated in 2003-2004 (Figure 3). It could not be ascertained if the structural remains at the site testified to the presence of a wigwam or a framed stone structure. A midden
(Feature 4), one hearth (Feature 6), and four pits (Features 3/9/11/12) were uncovered and included in this investigation .
By the time 72-58 was inhabited, large amounts of land had been taken from the
Mashantucket Pequot by the colonial authorities. In 1713, they had lost Noank (500 acres) as a coastal and agricultural resource. In 1725/30, the Mashantucket Pequot also had lost Walnut Hill (600 acres) for hunting purposes (Figure 2). Lastly, even within the boundaries of the Reservation itself, South Hill (1721 – 500 acres) and the West Half
(1750 -500 acres) had been appropriated by the colonial authorities (Figure 3).
72-171 (Homestead)
This site is referenced in a 1774 colonial account as the Indian House
(Connecticut Indian Papers). It was inhabited by the Mashantucket Pequot between 1765-
1775 A. D. It is located within the reservation boundaries just north of 72-34A and 72-58
(Figure 3). 72-171 has been excavated intermittently in 1998, 2003 and 2005. The type of architecture as yet has not been classified. During excavation it could not be determined if there was a stone or wigwam structure. One hearth (Feature 5) and four pits (Features
9/10/13/15) were discovered and provide the cultural contexts for the charred archaeobotanical remains utilized in this study.
54 72-88 (Storage Facility)
Prior to the Colonial Period, this site had been a multi-component site (3000 -200
B.P.). In the Colonial Period, it found its use as a communal storage facility for the
Mashantucket (Kevin McBride, personal communication 2010). It is located outside the reservation boundaries, about 200 ft. from the fort 72-91 (Figure 3), and was excavated in
1994 and 1995. It appears to have been revisited a number of times by the Mashantucket
Pequot, although it lacks identified architectural features. Recent analysis has determined that this site is located about 400 ft. away from the nearest water body (Kasper and
McBride 2009), which places the site the farthest away from a water body in comparison to the mapped pre- and post-contact sites. This helps to corroborate the notion that the site constituted a storage facility for the Mashantucket Pequot. The storage and/or refuse
pits used in this analysis (Features 6/19/23) were all stratified, and were dated between
1775-1800 A.D, based on diagnostic pipe stems, ceramics and metal (Table 1).
72-97C (Homestead)
This site was a single household, occupied by the Mashantucket Pequot between
1780-1785 A.D. (Table 1). It is also located outside the reservation boundaries just north of 72-88 (Figure 3). 72-97c was excavated in 1992. One wigwam was uncovered within the site boundaries. Also, one hearth (Feature 1) and two pits (Features 2/3) were identified and excavated.
72-161 (Homestead)
This Mashantucket Pequot site contained a wigwam and was determined to have
been produced by a single household. It is located just outside the 1666 reservation boundaries near the Great Cedar Swamp, close to 72-91 (Figure 3). 72-161 was
55 excavated between 1992-1993. Based upon the diagnostic artifacts, this site is thought to have been occupied by the Mashantucket Pequot between 1780-1790 A.D. Only pits
(Features 1/12/32/40) were identified and excavated.
72-70B (Homestead)
This site contained a framed structure and was thought to have been occupied by the Mashantucket Pequot between 1780-1800 A.D. The site is located just northeast of
72-58 (Figure 3). 72-70B was excavated in 1992. It contained a midden (Feature 1) and
pits (Features 2/3/4/6/7/8). There is limited evidence that an earlier framed structure may have been burned with a second structure rebuilt as the same location (Kevin McBride,
personal communication 2010).
72-66 (Homestead)
This Mashantucket Pequot site contained a framed structure with a stone chimney
(S15W12 – no feature number). It was occupied between 1785-1795 at the end of the
Revolutionary War (1784). It is located north of 72-34A within the present reservation boundaries (Figure 3). Site 72-66 was excavated 1995 and 1996. Within the excavation, it was noted that an earlier hearth was raised to accommodate a floor (Kevin McBride,
personal communication 2010). One midden (S30E5- no feature number) was also identified and excavated.
Summary
From 1675-1713 A.D, the Mashantucket Pequot were living in multiple and single households at sites like 72-91, 72-164A, and 72-34, and engaging in a residential mobility strategy over 3500 acres of land (Figure 2). Kasper and McBride (2009) estimate that sites may have been occupied seasonally or for 2-3years. At the time of
56 occupation of the Fort, 72-91, the Mashantucket Pequot had been living within the
Reservation boundaries for only nine years and the population likely consisted of 360 total people (men, women and children) (Mancini 2009). During 1713-1800 A.D., reservation population levels significantly declined as Pequot men participated in the
French and Indian Wars (1754-1763), and the Revolutionary War (1775-1783) (Table 1;
Mancini 2009). In addition, colonial authorities trimmed the Mashantucket Pequot landholdings from 3500 acres in 1666 to 1000 by 1740 (Figures 2 and 3; Campisi 1990).
During this period the Pequot shifted from wigwams to more permanent framed structures. Domestic homesteads of the Mashantucket Pequot nevertheless continued to reflect a relatively short duration of occupation (on average between 5-10 years) as seen in Figure 4. The Mashantucket were more restricted in their settlement choices as they are limited to 1000 acres of land within the Reservation boundaries and start to inhabit sites such as, 72-58, 72-171, 72-161 and 72-66 (McBride 2007). Also during this phase,
Christianity began to take roots within the Reservation system (Love 2007) and more men, women and children were leaving the Reservation to engage in market economy and work for English farmsteads and other industries, such as whaling (Mancini 2009;
Vasta 2007).
It is clear that the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were times of cultural upheaval that introduced many new variables and changes relevant to Native American decision-making about plants. As discussed, pre-Contact and Contact period plant use, disease, war, land loss, religious movements, and the emerging market system are all cultural variables that would inform and shape the decision-making of Indigenous communities within the region, and more specifically at the Mashantucket Pequot
57 Reservation. All of these cultural variables played a significant role in Native lifeways during this time period. However, it is as yet unclear, how they affected Native
American plant use during the Colonial Period. The social, cultural, political and
biological variables outlined in this chapter are essential to understand the decisions employed by Native individuals and communities whether to maintain traditional plant use strategies or adopt Euro-American lifeways.
58
Site Structure Range of Feature Contexts Total Identifiable Volume Floated from Identifiable Plant Occupation Analyzed Plant Remains Features Remains Per Liter of Soil Floated 72-91 Wigwam/ 1675-1680 96 5097 6668 0.764 Fort 72-164A None 1680-1690 5 174 440.5 0.395
72-34A Wigwam 1680-1690 16 95 76 1.25
72-58 Untyped 1760-1770 11 2175 1485 1.464
72-171 Untyped 1765-1775 11 121 1584 0.071
72-88 Unknown 1775-1800 5 36 2154 0.016
72-97C Wigwam 1780-1785 3 137 346 0.395 72-161 Wigwam 1780-1790 67 231 4422 0.043 72-70B Framed 1780-1800 10 24 66 0.363 72-66 Framed 1785-1795 3 321 46 6.978
Table 1. Dates of Occupations, Cultural Contexts and Archaeobotanical Remains Recovered at the Ten Mashantucket Pequot Archaeological sites
59
Figure 2. Location of the Mashantucket Pequot Traditional Homeland, Reservation and Appropriated Mashantucket Lands in Southeastern New England.
60
Figure 3. Location of Ten Mashantucket Pequot Archaeological Sites 1675-1800 A.D.
61
Figure 4. Ranges of Occupation for the Surveyed Historic Period Sites from 1670-1820 A.D. at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation. Arrows Indicates Sites Analyzed in this Analysis: (1) 72-91 (1675-1680); (2) 72-164A (1680-1690); (3) 72-34A (1680-1690); (4) 72- 58 (1760-1770); (5) 72-171 (1765-1775); (6) 72-88 (1775-1800); (7) 72-97C (1780-1785); (8) 72-161 (1780-1790); (9) 72-70B (1780- 1800); and (10) 72-66 (1785-1795).
62
CHAPTER 4
METHODS OF ANALYSIS
Introduction
In this chapter, I first discuss the cultural and biological processes associated with presence of archaebotoanical remains. I highlight: (1) sampling strategy and processing in the field; (2) sorting and identification of plant remains in the laboratory; and (3) ecological and cultural categorization of plant remains. After that, I discuss the historical data and how I examined Mashantucket Pequot plant use within Indigenous and colonial accounts. Last, I discuss the data manipulation and interpretation and why those methods are appropriate for analyzing Indigenous plant use with the use of archaeobotanical and historical records.
The Formation of the Archaeobotanical Record
Understanding the cultural and biological formation processes of macrobotanical assemblages is as important in New England as in different regions around the world
(Ford 1979; Miksicek 1987; Minnis 1981; Lyons and Orchard 2007). Archaeologists tend to broadly label the study of the cultural and natural processes that generate botanical samples as taphonomic ones (Lyons and Orchard 2007; Théry-Parisot, Chabal and Chrzavex 2010). Efremov (1940:85), a paleontologist, originally defined the investigation of taphonomic processes narrowly as “the study of the transition (in all its details) of animal remains from the biosphere into the lithosphere.”
In the 1960-1980’s as the “New Archaeology” became the dominant paradigm within the discipline of archaeological investigation, the term was ‘borrowed” and
63 applied to encompass the cultural and natural processes seen within the archaeological record (Binford 1981; Potts 1988; Schiffer 1987). Such processes are of research interest in and off themselves while the study of archaeological formation processes includes
biological and also cultural processes developed to understand past human behavior
(Luman 2010). Two different sets of processes need to be parsed out to gain a full understanding of how plant fragments (both macro and micro) undergo many changes from the time they are harvested or utilized by an individual or community to the time when the analyst weighs, counts and identifies them. Thus, to investigate past plant use related to diet, medicine and land use at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation, it is necessary to explore the archaeological formation processes, both cultural and biological.
Cultural Processes
Not all seeds recovered from archaeological sites can or should be labeled as
cultural. Thus, both non-charred and charred seeds are recovered from archaeological
sites (Minnis 1981). Archaeobotanists tend to utilize this distinction in treatment to
categorize the cultural feasibility of the recovered seeds – with the presence of charring
being the most important sorting factor. It is assumed that uncharred seeds are “modern”
in origin and part of the more recent seed rain because they would not have survived the
environmental agents of deterioration (chemical, physical or biological) for any lengthy
period of time (see below for a more depth discussion of the environmental processes and
the presence of “modern” seed rain). However, more archaeologists and archaeobotanists
are questioning that belief and conducting in depth analyses on the presence of non-
charred organic materials within the site and have labeled uncharred remains cultural as
well (Lyons and Orchard 2007). This has been possible because the investigators have
64 been able to reconstruct the localized depositional nature and patterning of the “modern” vs. cultural seed populations recovered from archaeological deposits.
In this investigation, due to the environmental processes associated with the archaeological contexts (such as high pH level of New England soils and the constant presence of non-charred seeds in the samples), I consistently categorized charred seeds as associated with cultural activities. As stated by Minnis (1981:147) many
paleoethnobotanists retain the charred seeds as genuinely cultural and uncharred seeds as
“modern” seed rain “unless there is a specific reason to believe otherwise.” With the highly acidic soils within the Reservation boundaries, it is assumed that uncharred seeds would have decomposed rapidly. Thus, uncharred seeds found within the archaeological samples are attributed with the “modern” seed rain while charred seeds (depending on their context) were deemed cultural.
Preserved cultural botanical remains, such as charred seeds, are not deposited in a random fashion but, as noted above, neither provide an accurate representation of the spectrum of plants utilized by the inhabitants of the site (Ford 1979; Minnis 1981).
Dennell (1976: 231) argues that preservation of botanical remains is biased due to various cultural and biological factors, such as the plant’s type and usage. Archaeobotanists tend to place a heavy emphasis on the cultural processes and believe that the composition of a botanical sample is a function of specific human choices and cultural activities;
If we can decipher the cultural context in which the remains were covered then we can start to understand the cultural behaviors. Specific behaviors, such as plant harvesting and collection, garden activities, plant processing and storage, food consumption, ritual and ceremonial activities are ways in which plants can enter the archaeological record.
65 Gremillion (1989) states that there is no simple correspondence between the cultural
behaviors associated with plants and the types and portions of preserved plant remains that are recovered by archaeologists. Commonly, the spatial and cultural information of the plant identified is gleaned from ethnographic and/or historical data, as seen at the
Mashantucket Pequot Reservation (Holmes 2007; McBride 2007) Recent analysis centered around soil chemistry has helped within this area of inquiry to better understand settlement patterns and subsistence (Wells 2004; Salisbury 2012) but this type of analysis has not yet been conducted at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation.
As outlined by Minnis (1981:145), there are several different processes in which seeds can become part of the cultural record found in either a primary deposit (e.g. a roasting pit) or secondary deposit (trash pit) at an archaeological site. First, seeds may enter the record through direct plant use, which is usually related to the collection, processing, and/or consumption of the plant resource, in this case, the seed. The charred seeds uncovered at sites are typically associated with accidents in any of above activities such as in cooking, burning of debris and stored materials. Minnis (1981:145) notes that uses other than food activities may also leave behind charred plant materials, such as the processing of medicinal plants, so one must proceed with caution when making interpretations about dietary patterns from the archaeobotanical assemblage.
Seeds can also become part of the record, indirectly, such as when plants are used in feeding a fire. Seeds can blow into hearths or be burned on trash middens and pits.
Minnis (1981:145) is concerned about the seed rain, which accumulates after a structure is abandoned. Sometimes the archaeological site is prone to natural fires. If this occurs:
“weedy annuals, which tend to produce prodigious quantities of seed, would begin
66 growing on and around abandoned sites and would thus intensify local seed rain.”
However, based upon Minnis’s (1981) ethnoarchaeological results from Mimbres, it is highly unlikely that the charred seeds, especially ones recovered from the lower levels of archeological contexts, are the result of post-depositional charred seed rain. It is assumed the charred seeds present within the archaeological contexts are either directly or indirectly related to cultural activities associated with the plant.
Even if the analyst is able to determine direct or indirect use of the plant, there still exists a bias within the record due to differential factors specific to each plant species. Different foods, medicinal and fuel plants have different chances of survival depending upon their morphological characteristics. For example, Carya sp. (hickory) versus Quercus sp. (oak) nutshell has a greater chance of survival in a fire hearth because it is much thicker. According to Munson et al. (1971), only plants that are dense, have inedible parts (such as maize cobs) and/or can be ingested fully (such as small Rhus sp.
(sumac) seeds), to survive within the cultural record.
Environmental Processes
Biological processes or environmental agents of deterioration strongly affect the cultural residues left behind at archaeological sites (Pearsall 2000). According to Schiffer
(1987), these processes fall into three categories: chemical, physical or biological.
Chemical processes, such as high acidity within soils can significantly affect the archaeobotanical record, as in New England (Frink 1992). However, it seems that physical processes such as freezing, thawing, precipitation and erosion contribute the most to the continued degradation of archaeobotanical remains not affected by the initial organic decay once they are deposited (Schiffer 1987; Frink 1992; Miksicek 1987 ). Also
67 soil composition; such as its texture and levels of acidity (pH level) influence the record.
Post-depositional processes tend to move archaeobotanical remains from their original
place of deposition and can vary depending on context of deposition, such as a sheet midden versus a bell-shaped pit (Pearsall 2000). The above biological factors were all carefully considered when analyzing the Mashantucket Pequot botanical assemblages.
Within this investigation, it is assumed that the uncharred seeds present are more than likely associated with “modern” seed rain rather than the archaeological record under investigation. The non-charred seeds recovered at Mashantucket may have entered the archaeological record from different routes. For example, as modified from Keepex
(1977), the presence of “modern” seeds in different archaeological contexts may occur due to four reasons: 1) seeds in the soil before excavation, such as part of seed rain redeposited post-depositionally by rodents or other animals; 2) aerial contamination of exposed archaeological contexts; 3) careless cross-contamination of the cultural (on-site) soil with non-cultural (off-site) soils; and 4) cross-contamination in the flotation process.
Each one of these would add more modern non-charred seeds to the archaeological samples of interest.
Related to the biological agents, Keepex (1977) also lists vertical seed dispersals, which include, plowing, root holes and drying cracks, down washing, earthworms and other burrowing animals. Archaeological sites with middens and architecture will have a greater chance of housing seed-disseminating organisms such as rodents (Clark 1968).
Bacteria and fungi can also attack the deposited botanical remains, bringing in other organism such as beetles, ants, flies and even termites which can all disturb the in situ
68 nature of the botanical remains deposited (Schiffer 1987). All of these factors were taken in consideration and hence the non-charred seeds were not included in this investigation
Sampling Strategy and Processing
Within the exception of the midden excavation at 72-91 in the summer of 2009, I did not collect the samples utilized in this analysis. However, the systematic collection procedures have been developed and implemented by Dr. Kevin McBride. At each of the sites chosen for this analysis, the sampling strategy for the flotation samples was as follows. All features were 100% sampled in the field. No soil was screened and all soil was processed for flotation. During the summer months, bucket flotation with the use of fresh water occurred from 1987 to 2005 at Avery Pond, located at the east of the
Reservation (as highlighted in Pearsall 2000). After 2005 to the present, the bucket processing switched to the man-made pond behind the Natural Resources Department on the Reservation. Different size mesh was utilized in the flotation process – an 1/8 screen for the heavy fractions and fine industrial-size mesh for the light fraction. Each sample was then naturally dried within the individual meshes. Then it was brought back to the lab for preliminary sorting.
Lab Analysis
In the last twenty years, a strict protocol (under the supervision of Dr. Kevin
McBride and Roberta Charpentier) has been employed by the Mashantucket Pequot
Museum and Research Center (MPMRC) to sort the majority of the soil samples floated.
If samples had not been previously sorted by MPMRC lab technicians, the heavy and light fractions processed via flotation and larger excavated samples were sorted utilizing standard geologic sieves.
69 When I entered the project, two of the ten sites, (1) 72-171 (occupied between
1765-1775) and (2) 72-164A (1680-1690 A.D.), had never been analyzed for archaeobotanical remains and that effort was completed by me. The remaining eight of the ten sites had been previously analyzed for macrobotanical remains but there were some methodological issues which came to light (which is some instances were not at the fault of the original analyst) and in order to remedy these I had to reevaluate the eight assemblages.
Seven sites of the ten sites were originally analyzed by Patricia Fragola and
Madonna Grady employed at Public Archaeological Lab (Table 2). I reanalyzed all samples identified by PAL to family, genus and when possible species-level, as there were many inconsistences within the identifications and databases. Two sites, 72-91
(1675-1680 A.D.) (with an overlap in analysis with PAL) and 72-58 (1760-1770 A.D.), were previously analyzed under the supervision of Dr. Heather Trigg and Dr. Steve
Mrozowski (University of Massachusetts, Boston) (Table 2). Select specimens of Zea mays (corn) were also analyzed by Dr. Walton Galinat (University of Massachusetts
Suburban Experiment Station) and Phaselous vulgaris (bean) specimens were identified by Dr. Lawrence Kaplan (Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Boston). I carefully checked each of the UMass, Boston identifications and found them, in general, not problematic. Overall, I reprocessed more than 3000 samples, carefully checked the previous identification and then weighted each of the identifiable remains (which had not
been conducted before).
As advocated by Pearsall (2000) and Fritz (2005), each botanical sample, that had not been previously sorted, was divided into three parts to aid in the identification
70 process: 2 mm, 1 mm, and fine fraction (any material that had not been caught by the 1 and 2 mm geological sieves- usually consists of powdered charcoal and unidentifiable plant fragments). However, all fractions and materials analyzed in this analysis were scanned using a Leica stereoscopic microscope at magnifications of 10x to 40x. All charred seeds, nutshells, nutmeats and other identifiable plant materials were removed and/or analyzed.
Identification Criteria
References such as Weed Seeds of the Great Plains (Davis 1992), Seed
Identification Manual (Martin and Barkley 2000), Illustrated Taxonomy of Weed Seeds
(Delorit 1970) and Seeds and Fruits of Plants of Eastern Canada and Northeastern
United States (Montgomery 1977) along with on-line databases and resources, such as
Identification Criteria for Plant Remains Recovered from Archaeological Sites in the
Central Mesa Verde Region (Adams and Murray 2004), Laboratory Guide To
Archaeological Plant Remains From Eastern North America (Fritz 2009), and Seed ID
Workshop (McDonald et al. 2012) were useful for identifying the archaeobotanical remains. Also, the large modern seed collection (10,000 specimens), housed at the
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Department of Anthropology and additional comparative specimens at the MPMRC were utilized for comparative purposes.
Often times specific plants are known by several common names, varying based upon geographic region and/or local custom (Adams 2004). Therefore all plants will be discussed using their scientific nomenclature and then by their common names. The majority of plant remains identified are scientifically labeled after names from the Flora of the Northeast (Magee and Ahles 2007). Some domesticates, such as Zea mays or
71 Prunus persica are not discussed in that flora reference; then other references and
personal communication with other archaeobotanists aided in the identification process.
All specimens within the assemblages were identified to the lowest taxon possible. As discussed by Adams (2004), the taxonomic level to which a botanical specimen is identified can be associated with a number of different variables, such as the condition of specimen (e.g. whether or not is highly vitrified), whether or not similar botanical remains can be identified within the region, and/or the “comfort level” of the individual analyst. For example, if only a single seed of Rhus sp. (sumac) was recovered and identified at a site, I would be hesitant to assign a species category to the specimen due to its limited presence at the site. Typically archaeobotanists tend to identify a specimen to species level only when there is a high presence (in some instances of 20+) of the seed within a specific context or at the site level (G. Jones Personal
Communication 2004).
Within this analysis, I have integrated the taxonomic levels for identifications from Bohrer and Adams (1977) and from personal communications with Dr. Glynis
Jones (2004; University of Sheffield), Dr. Ksenjia Borojevic (2003; Boston University) and Dr. Lee Newsom (2007; Penn State University) to create four different categories: (1) absolute – when the specimen was identical to the named genus and species; (2) genus type - when the specimen has morphological characteristics that closely resemble different species within the named genus and one cannot rule out all the possible species within the genus; (3) family type - when the specimen has morphological characteristics that closely resemble those of several genera within the plant family and one cannot rule out all the possible genera with the family level and (4) indeterminate type – when the
72 specimen could be identified as a nutshell/nutmeat/seed but could not be identified further into a specific taxonomic category (the specimen may be able to be identified but the specific identification is unknown at the present time).
For the seed analysis, the following criteria as seen in Appendix A were utilized to identify the charred seeds from the sites. For each taxon listed, I observed and recorded the following to identify each specimen: 1) the part of the plant identified; 2) the genus type plants recorded with the state of Connecticut (USDA 2012) to highlight the diversity of that specific species within the sub-region of New England; 3) longitudinal section; 4) cross section; 5) size class; 6) length; 7) width; 8) thickness; 9) surface characteristics.
Even with all these categories recorded, it was often extremely difficult to identify each specimen to an absolute taxonomic level. This was primarily due to the poor preservation of the seed or nut remains, or because there were too many possibilities of species within that genus for that specific identification. Overall, there were more genus level identifications than other taxonomic levels. In total, 10 categories are family-level identifications, 33 genus, and 11 species. (Appendix A).
Ecological and Cultural Categorization of the Archaeobotanical Plants
After the identifications were completed, the plant remains were categorized into
1) food values; 2) medicinal utility and 3) habitat use. These types of filters were useful for the presence and density analysis highlighted in Chapters Five through Seven.
Food Categorization
It is important to understand which and how the plants identified at Mashantucket were used for food. Therefore, I associated each archaeological plant type identified with its ethnographically reported food use. Plant types, as in the habitat and medicinal
73 categorization, were only included in this analysis if they were identified to genus and species level. Family level identifications were not included because of the vast quantity of different plant species that would have fallen under that identification. In total, thirty- five plants were categorized as food resources within the ethnographic recorded (as seen in Appendix B). Six plant types, Acalypha sp. (copperleaf), Carpinus caroliniana
(beech), Galium sp. (bedstraw), Myrica pensylvanica (bayberry), Nyssa sylvatica
(tupelo), and Potamogeton sp. (pondweed) were not mentioned in any regional ethnographic contexts as foodstuffs, only as medicine from around North America. Thus, these six plant types were not part of the investigation of food resources but are include in the medicinal investigation.
When plant types were identified to the genus level, similar to the habitat categorization, I utilized the USDA plant presence for the state of Connecticut as a
biological framework to assess which plants can have been used by the Mashantucket
Pequot. For example, nine species of Asclepias sp. (milkweed) are noted by the USDA to exist within Connecticut (Appendix B). Therefore, I researched those specific nine species in the ethnographic literature and also included data if the genus name was only mentioned (no species name identified) within the ethnographic account. For example within the table, this information was listed with the genus name and sp., such as
Ascelpias sp. However, the USDA information provides necessary biological data to build bridges between the plants present in Connecticut and what species the
Mashantucket Pequot may have utilized after European contact. Currently in this investigation, there are no plants that have been identified in the assemblage that are not currently found within Connecticut.
74
The ethnographic information related to a specific plant type and its food use is listed in five different geographic categories: 1) Mashantucket Pequot; 2) New England;
3) Northeast; 4) Southeast; and 5) other regions (which includes the Southwest and
Northwest). Each species name is listed along with appropriate tribal community followed by the cultural use of the plant (Appendix B). It is important to note that even if a specific plant type (and its associated species found in Connecticut) was not recorded within the immediate geographic boundaries of the Mashantucket Pequot, the ethnographic information recorded for the plant’s use in other regions, such as Southwest and/or Northwest, is useful to demonstrate the specific cultural uses of the plant type and the cultural knowledge embedded in that use of the plant. The information gathered from other regions offer suggestion of how that plant type may have been used but it by no means signals a direct correlation as to the direct use of the plant within the
Mashantucket Pequot community.
For both the food (and medicine) categorization, I included historical and ethnographic documents of Mashantucket Pequot plant use (e.g. Occum 1756 in Brookes
2006; Bulter 1939 in Simmons 1990). I also evaluated other historical ethnographic resources within New England (Bennett 1955; Lamb Richmond 1989; Moerman 1998;
Tantaquidgeon 1972), the Northeast (Black 1980; Herrick 1977; Moerman 1998;
Tantaquidgeon 1946; 1972), the Southeast (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1972; Swanton 1928;
Tantaquidgeon 1972) and then other regions within Moerman (1998). This broad scope for the ethnographic information allowed for an exploration of what types of plants could have been utilized for medicine by the Mashantucket Pequot from 1675-1800 A.D.
75 Medicinal Categorization
To better understand the use of medical plants at Mashantucket, I associated each archaeological plant type recovered with its recorded ethnographic use. Plant types were only included in this analysis if they were identified to genus and/or species level. I did not attempt to categorize the eleven plant types that were identified to the family level
because an overwhelming spectrum of plants would have fallen under that identification.
All plant there were identified to either genus and/or species level were included were found to be utilized for medicinal purposes. Over forty-one plants were included in this analysis. I followed the same protocol as described above for the food uses (as seen in
Appendix C).
Habitat Categorization
Classifying the habitats in which the archaeological specimens occur is useful to gain a better understanding of land use practices of the Mashantucket Pequot. Originally,
McBride (2007) and Trigg et al. (2007) had attributed the archaeobotanical types identified to their respective habitats. I apply a similar methodology to the archaeobotanical types identified based upon the habitat data provided in Magee and
Ahles (2007). Within this analysis, five habitat categorizations were utilized: 1) woodland; 2) field; 3) wetland; 4) coastal; and 5) anthropogenic disturbance. The identified family type specimens were not included in this categorization due the large amount of species under each family. The habitat categorization was limited only to type specimens identified to genus and species level.
Table 3 lists all the specific habitat distinctions listed by Magee and Ahles (2007) that are now included in the more consolidated habitat categories for this investigation.
76 Each category and associated plant taxa were pared down based upon key word descriptors within the habitat listing per plant species . For plant types identified to the genus level within the archaeobotanical assemblage, the USDA plant species listed for the state of Connecticut (2012) was used to categorize the spectrum of plant taxa and associated habitats. At the species level, the detailed habitat distinctions within each plant type were utilized to determine habitat categorization. For example, depending on the genus, there could be five known species under, Carya sp. or 151 known species for the type specimen identified as Carex sp. with Connecticut.
This is a simplification of ecological variation but these categorizations were created to clarify the cultural choices imbued in land use practices. In total, 56 different ecosystem distinctions listed were condensed into the woodland category for this investigation. Twenty-nine ecosystem distinctions within the field habitat category.
Eighty ecosystem distinctions for the wetland category. Fourteen ecosystem distinctions within the coastal habitat category. Fifteen ecosystem distinction for the anthropogenic structural disturbances category. Please refer to Appendix D for the complete individual distinctions per habitat.
Table 3 highlights the condensed habitat categorization, woodland, field, wetland, coastal and disturbance, for each of the identified types within the archaeobotanical record. Each of the habitats in which the specific species could exist was recorded to create a master list of habitat categorization of all the type specimens identified, as highlighted in Table 3. A type specimen can be attributed to more than one habitat distinction as seen with Carex sp. This habitat information was utilized to conduct a presence analysis in Chapter Seven.
77 Other Historical Data
Primary and secondary data sources, which include both Indigenous and colonial accounts, were utilized for this analysis. Colonial documents, such as Connecticut Indian
Papers (n.d), Overseer records (n.d.), Land deeds (n.d.) and Account books (n.d.) were examined. Also, Indigenous primary sources coming from Mashantucket Pequot Tribal members, such as S. Occum, Herbs and Roots (1754 in Brooks and Warrior 2006) and other relevant Indigenous accounts to the region, like G. Tantaquidgeon, Folk Medicine of the Delaware and Related Algonquian Indians (1971) were dissected for information regarding Indigenous environmental strategies.
Most of the primary sources were located at the MPMRC. In addition I supplemented this information with a research trip to the National Archives in
Washington D.C. In the last 25 years, through the Ethnohistory Project, there has been an extensive effort to collect colonial and Indigenous narratives regarding Mashantucket
Pequot lifeways on the post-Contact landscape. The most relevant colonial document(s) were the Connecticut Indian Papers (n.d). and overseers accounts (n.d.) related to the
Reservation . These documents had been previously transcribed as part of the 25
Ethnohistory Project under the supervision of Dr. Kevin McBride. With the use of the
Connecticut Indian Papers (n.d) and overseers accounts (n.d), I was able to systematically reconstruct land loss within the Reservation boundaries and reconstruct some of what the
Mashantucket themselves had to say about their plant usage. Mancini (2009) and Holmes
(2007) have evaluated land use through other methodological lenses but this was the first project that comprehensively evaluated those sources for Mashantucket Pequot plant use.
More specifically, plant related practices were highlighted in letters from overseers to the
78 Connecticut General Assembly and also appeals from Mashantucket sachems to the
Assembly.
Not only have colonial documents been systematically collected and transcribed at the MPMRC but also contemporary Mashantucket Pequot members have been interviewed to record oral histories, traditions and stories. These interviews are relevant for the larger Ethnohistory project as they highlight the contemporary practices of traditional ecological knowledge at the Reservation. Although those interviews were informative for understanding contemporary plant practices of the Mashantucket Pequot, as stated earlier, the goal of this project was not to reconstruct that traditional ecological knowledge. Thus at this time, the use of those accounts was cursory and will be more
beneficial for future projects which examine present knowledge structures (and their relation to actions taken in the past, as grounded in the archaeological record).
In summary, the historical data were evaluated for information containing land use, diet composition, and medicinal and ritual plants, as related to the expectations in
Chapter Three. Within the examination, the colonial and Indigenous accounts are viewed as artifacts or ‘written’ traces of Native American plant use in the post-Contact period.
Although many of the historical documents were created within either colonial and or
Indigenous frames of reference, they nevertheless reveal aspects of Mashantucket Pequot cultural practices and lifeways that are not easily seen in the archaeological record. The historical data were evaluated for information containing ‘improvements in the land’ (or lack there of) yields of crops within Mashantucket lands, and land loss and acquisitions, and any mentions of plants used for food and medicine.
79 Data Manipulation and Interpretation
The archaeological data were recorded by presence, percentage frequency, and density analysis. The three analyses are useful for analyzing plants in the archaeological record where different excavation and sampling strategies may have occurred (as in the ten sites used for this analysis). They sensitively address issues in preservation and post- depositional factors that may have affected the archaeobotanical assemblages recovered at archaeological sites.
Presence (Gremillion 1995; Hubbard 1976) and density analysis (Miller 1988) measures how commonly a particular plant species is represented in archaeological samples. It does not measure the abundance of the plant species within the sample
because it assumes that the absolute counts of any particular plant are highly influenced by the degree of preservation. Instead it evaluates the number of samples in which the taxon appears within a group of samples. Each sample is scored as present or absent within each sample or at the site level. An important factor in presence analysis
(especially in analyses which evaluate plant data in a heterarchical fashion) is that the score of one plant species does not affect the score of another. Therefore the scores of different types of plants can be evaluated independently and cannot be utilized to compare the importance of one plant over the other (Popper 1988; Hubbard 1980).
On the other hand, percentages express the relationships of the taxons to each other in the whole, as opposed to simple presence (Fritz 2005). They can be utilized to gain a better understanding of the variation between samples and sites due to preservation issues. For example, this type of analysis helps to recognize how different taxa are not
“equally preserved in different contexts” (Miller 1988:74), a very important consideration
80 if one wants to reconstruct variability at the intra and inter site level at the Mashantucket
Pequot Reservation.
Anther method used in this investigation, density analysis of plant data (Miller
1988) measures the number of charred plant remains versus the total volume of soil floated with a particular cultural context or at the site. Typically used in archaeobotanical analyses are the counts and weights of the archaeobotanical material per sample. Miller
(1988) states that choosing the volume of soil floated as the norming variable against he counts or weight of the plant remains, one is able to evaluate hypotheses against variation in density, the effects of preservation, and recovery rates. Again, this type of analysis will
be useful to standardize the archaeobotanical data for intra and inter site level comparisons of hearth, pit and architectural features.
Summary
In this analysis, archaeobotanical methods, such as presence, percentage and density analyses, and spatial tools alongside the colonial and Indigenous historical data, will evaluate the expectations related to land use, diet composition and medicinal plant use. The data generate will help to reconstruct the decisions related plant use at the household and community level and are valuable for environmentally oriented and human dimension based research, which focuses on understand the Indigenous knowledge structures and decision making during colonialism.
81
Site Range of PAL UMass- KCK Occupation Boston 72-91 1675-1680 X X X
72-164A 1680-1690 X 72-34A 1680-1690 X X
72-58 1760-1770 X X 72-171 1765-1775 X
72-88 1775-1800 X X 72-97C 1780-1785 X X
72-161 1780-1790 X X 72-70B 1780-1800 X X
72-66 1785-1795 X X
Table 2. Archaeobotanical Investigators For Each Site.
82
ANTHROPOGENIC COASTAL OPEN WETLANDS WOODLANDS DISTURBANCE Acalypha sp. three seed mercury 1 0 3 0 0 Asclepias sp. milkweed 1 0 4 2 5 Carex sp. sedge 3 6 14 34 35 Carpinus caroliniana ironwood 0 0 0 1 1 Carya sp. hickory 1 0 4 0 4 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. goosefoot/amaranth 1 1 6 4 1 Comptonia peregrina sweetfern 2 0 2 0 1 Cornus sp. dogwood 1 0 1 3 5 Corylus americana hazelnut 1 0 1 0 2 Crataegus sp. hawthorne 1 0 4 1 1 Cucurbita sp. squas 1 1 1 0 0 Cyperus sp. umbrella sedge 1 3 6 7 3 Galium sp. bedstraw 1 0 3 5 4 Gaylussacia sp. huckleberry 0 1 1 1 1 Ilex sp. holly 0 1 0 3 4 Juglans cinerea butternut 0 0 0 0 1 Juglans nigra black walnut 0 0 0 0 1 Juglans sp. walnut 1 0 1 0 3 Juncus sp. rush 5 5 5 12 3 Lactuca sp. lettuce 1 0 4 0 0 Myrica pensylvanica bayberry 0 2 0 0 0 Nyssa sylvatica tupelo 0 0 0 2 3 Phaselous vulgaris common bean 1 0 2 0 0 Phytolacca americana pokeweed 1 0 3 0 0 Polygonum hydropiper water pepper 0 0 2 1 0 Polygonum sp. smartweed 3 3 8 13 5 Portulaca sp. pursalane 1 0 2 0 0 Potamogeton sp. pondweed 1 0 0 19 0 Prunus persica peach 1 0 1 0 0 Prunus sp. plum 3 2 2 2 4 Quercus sp. oak 0 1 2 4 20 Rhus sp. sumac 2 1 4 2 3 Rubus sp. bramble 2 1 7 2 6 Scirpus sp. bulrush 2 3 3 23 4 Triticum sp. wheat 1 0 2 0 0 Vaccinium sp. blueberry 1 1 2 4 5 Viburnum sp. viburnum 1 0 3 3 6 Vicia sp. vetch 1 0 3 0 0 Viola sp. violet 2 2 16 8 10 Vitis sp. grape 1 0 2 1 1 Zea mays corn 2 0 2 0 0
Table 3. Habitat Categorizations of Identified Archaeobotanical Types (Based Upon Magee and Ahles 2007).
83 CHAPTER 5
RESULTS OF DIET COMPOSITION
Introduction
My objective in the next three chapters is to present the results and assess whether
Mashantucket decisions related to plant use from 1675-1800 A.D. were conservative and in the interests of maintaining their cultural autonomy within their plant use as anticipated. I address the expectations outlined in Chapter Three and evaluate the results in terms of Mashantucket Pequot decisions related to plant use within their diet composition, then, medicinal practices, and finally land use. In each chapter, or case study, I present the archaeological data and then provide supplementary colonial and
Indigenous historical accounts.
Before I move onto a discussion of the wild plants recovered (both mast products and other wild plants) recovered, it is necessary to provide an overview of the results.
Within the ten sites, over fifty-three different plant types were identified from over
18,000 liters of soil processed (Table 4). Identifications were made to the species level when possible. In total, ten plant types were identified to the family level, twenty-nine to genus level, and eleven to species level, three to the indeterminate level (charred plant material to can not categorized to the family, genus or species level). See Chapter 4 for a more detailed discussion of the criteria utilized to identify each type (Appendix A). Also see Appendix E for a complete inventory of the seeds identified from each archaeological site. Due to space constraints, plant remains that were categorized as “non-identifiable” or “plant material” are not included in Appendix E.
84 Generally, at the ten sites there are tropical cultigens, such as Zea mays (corn) and
Phaselous vulgaris (bean), and wild plants, like Rubus sp. (raspberry) and Viola sp.
(violet) (Table 4). Sites 72-91 (26 types - 1675-1680 A.D.) and 72-58 (37 types - 1760-
1770 A.D.) yield the largest number of plant types (Figure 5; Note that graphs which present information from the ten sites are temporally organized in the x-axis from 1675 to
1800 A.D.). The other eight sites yielded between seven to eighteen plant types.
As seen in Table 4, each plant type was not recovered at each site. The only plant types that were identified at all sites were the mast plant, Corylus americana (hazelnut) and indeterminate seeds (which include whole seeds and seed fragments). Another mast plant, Carya sp. (hickory) and indeterminate nutshell were recovered from all sites except
72-88. Zea mays (corn) was found all but two sites, 72-161 and 72-70B. A variety of other plant types is found at six of the ten sites including Cornus sp. (cherry), Quercus sp.
(oak), and Rhus sp. (sumac). From five sites, five plant types, Comptonia peregrina
(sweetfern), Gaylussacia sp. (huckleberry), Prunus persica (peach), Rubus sp.
(raspberry), and unidentified nutmeat, were recovered. Twenty different plant types were only found at one site each (Table 4).
To address the differential volume of soil floated at each site and how that may have affected the plant types recovered, the counts and weights of the plant type within each site assemblage were standardized using a method common in archaeobotanical analysis, as discussed by Popper (1998). The method allows for site comparisons within presence and density analyses as it calculates how many plant remains were recovered per volume (liter) of soil floated. In total, site 72-66 (6.978), 72-58 (1.464), 72-34A
(1.25), and 72-91 (.764) had the highest amount of seeds recovered per one liter of soil
85 floated (Table 1). Typically, there were increased density of seeds per volume of soil floated at sites that had higher number of features excavated and soil floated (Table 1).
However site 72-171 (.071) yielded a low quantity of botanical remains in comparison to the 1,584 liters of soil floated (Table 1). This may be explained by many seeds having
been sorted into the wood charcoal samples that have not been analyzed as of yet. On the other end, 72-66 (6.978) yielded the largest amount of seeds recovered per volume of soil floated – with only 46 liters from two feature contexts. The increase in material relates to one context in particular, Feature 1, may relate to its use as a firebox/hearth within the framed house structure. It may have presented an optimal environment to preserve plant remains.
In Figures 6 to 15, the standardized counts for the plant types identified at each site are illustrated as percentages within a density analysis. At all sites, mast remains, such as Carya sp. (hickory), Corylus americana (hazelnut), Quercus sp. (oak) and
unidentifiable nutshell/nutmeat tend to dominate the assemblages. Another plant type,
which is a significant portion of the assemblages, is Zea mays (corn), except at sites 72-
70B and 72-66 (Figures 6-15). The high percentages of mast products within each
assemblage are likely a preservation issue because nutshell is much more likely to
survive in archaeological contexts due to their taphonomic durability in comparison to
other types of plant remains.
The remaining plant types identified in Table 4 comprise less than 5% of each
archaeobotanical assemblage per site (Figures 6-15). The “less than 5% plant types” are
important to identify, quantify, as they provide essential information for understanding
food, medicine and land use of the Mashantucket Pequot. To further tease out the cultural
86 and taphonomic processes associated with these types of plant remains, the next section focuses on the analysis of the food remains recovered from the ten sites.
Archaeological and Ethnographic Data Associated with Food-Related Activities
To better understand how the Mashantucket Pequot utilized the recovered archaeological species as a food, each plant type in Table 4 was related to the ethnographic record (as discussed in Chapter 4; Appendix B). This was completed to create a connection between the archaeobotanical remains recovered and the indigenous knowledge that is reflected in the presence of those remains. The detailed ethnographic information gathered from the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation, New England, the
Northeast, the Southeast, and other regions in North America, helped to decipher the cultural choices embedded in the presence and variability of the recovered plant types as a possible food resources. To reiterate, family level identifications were not included in this analysis of food-associated plant types because of the vast quantity of different plant species that would have fallen under that identification. It also needs to be mentioned again that for plant types identified to the genus level, I utilized the USDA plant information for the state of Connecticut as the biological assessment which plants could have been consumed. For example, out of the fourteen species of Prunus sp. (cherry)
noted by the USDA to exist within Connecticut, a large number of the species, seven, are
noted as a food resource within the ethnographic literature. However, in a different
direction, none of the species under the genus Potamogeton sp. (pondweeds) are noted as
having been consumed as food resource across North America. Thus, it is not
incorporated into this analysis of potential foodstuffs consumed by the Mashantucket
Pequot.
87 In total at the ten sites, thirty-five plants were categorized as food resources within the ethnographic recorded (Table 5). Six plant types that were identified in the archaeological record, Acalypha sp. (copperleaf), Carpinus caroliniana (beech), Galium sp. (bedstraw), Myrica pensylvanica (bayberry), Nyssa sylvatica (tupelo), and
Potamogeton sp. (pondweed) were not mentioned in regional ethnographic contexts as foodstuffs, only as medicine and will be discussed in the next chapter. These plant types are included in the diagrams in this chapter to document their co-occurrence with food
plants.
Within the ethnographic analysis, four of the thirty-five plant types recovered,
Chenopodium/Amaranthus sp. (goosefoot), Phytolacca americana (pokeweed), Prunus
persica (peach), and Zea mays (corn) are directly referred to as food source within primary and secondary documents specifically tied to the Mashantucket Pequot
Reservation (e.g. Connecticut Indian Papers n.d.; Occum 1756 in Brookes 2006; Bulter
1939 in Simmons 1990; Appendix B). Eight of the thirty-five plant types are referred to within the ethnographic literature from New England (e.g. Bennett 1955; Lamb
Richmond 1989; Moerman 1998; Tantaquidgeon 1972). Twenty-two of the plant types are discussed in the ethnographical literature of the Northeast (e.g. Black 1980; Herrick
1977; Moerman 1998; Tantaquidgeon 1946; 1972). Sixteen of the plant types are mentioned in the Southeast literature (e.g. Hamel and Chiltoskey 1972; Swanton 1928;
Tantaquidgeon 1972) Lastly, thirty-five of the plants types, all but Polygonum hydropiper
(water pepper) are documented as food plant in North America, which includes the
Southwest and Northwest (e.g. Moerman 1998; Appendix B). Although many of the
plants recovered are not directly tied to ethnohistorical data from the Mashantucket
88 Pequot Reservation, many can be categorized as a potential food source for the
Mashantucket based upon the regional data from across North America. These thirty-five ethnographic connections across North America of the plant types recovered at ten sites are important because they demonstrates that plant knowledge is widely shared across time and space, similar to knowledge associated with material culture, such as lithic, ceramics and metals. Connecting the ethnographic record to the archaeological record allows us to recognize how plant knowledge is embedded in Native American lifeways in the past, as do the plant types mentioned in Appendix B. I now proceed to discuss the results of the plant types recovered as food as related to the expectations outlined in
Chapter Two.
Wild Plant Use
To reconstruct the decision-making associated with wild plant use and explore the assumption the Mashantucket Pequot continued to use a diversity of wild plants (mast products, weedy, fruits and other seeds), I investigated the presence and density of mast products and other wild plants recovered from the ten sites. Within the ethnographic analysis of the archaeobotanical data, thirty-five plants types were included in this analysis of food processing and consumption of the Mashantucket Pequot (Appendix B).
First, I conducted a density analysis based upon the standardized counts of the food-related plant types from each site (Figure 16). The recovered food-related seed
plants were categorized as a wild plants (which encompasses weeds, fruits and other wild types), mast products (nutshell and nutmeat), tropical cultigens, and Old World cultigens.
The categoriz ation was utilized to understand how many food plant types were exploited locally in and around the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation. Although mast products are
89 also wild plants, I have divided wild plants into two categories because mast products and other wild plants (fruits, weeds and other wild types) lend themselves to distinctive cultural interpretations. Also, no local indigenous domesticates , such as Chenopodium sp.
(goosefoot) were recovered within any of the sites, although domesticated varieties of
Chenopodium sp. (goosefoot) have been recovered in the archaeological record during the Late Woodland in New England (George and Dewar 1999). The wild varieties of the
local indigenous domesticates were included in the wild plant food category.
As highlighted in Figure 16, each site with its associated household(s) (except 72-
88, which is interpreted as a storage/refuse area) tends to have two categories of food-
related plants - mast products and wild plants, with limited tropical and Old World
cultigens. I would like to highlight the increased density of mast and wild plants at site
72-66 (occupied between 1785-1795 A.D.). As stated above, at this site over 40 liters of
soil were floated for a recovery of 8.03 plant fragments recovered per 1 liter of soil
floated (Table 1). Rhus sp. (sumac), at 3.25 seeds per liter of soil floated, comprises the
majority of assemblage along with indeterminate seeds recovered at 3.52 seeds per liter
of soil floated. The increased number of Rhus sp. (sumac) and indeterminate seeds at this
site can be more likely attributed to the preservation context, the firebox within the
household structure. Also many of the indeterminate seeds were too vitrified to identify
to a family, genus or species. Although this particular context is important due to the
sheer quantity of botanical remains recovered, it gives a unique snapshot at cultural
decisions associated with one context, the hearth. Other contexts at 72-66 would also
have been useful for to a comprehensive understanding full-spectrum of plants utilized by
the Mashantucket Pequot during the time of occupation.
90 To explore the variability of these food types across the sites, I evaluated the percentages of each food-related types in the assemblages (Figure 17). What is most significant is the large amount of mast products in all of the plant assemblages. Mast is an important factor within the broad spectrum of the Mashantucket Pequot plant use within these sites. It constitutes a significant portion of the total number of plant remains preserved at the Mashantucket Pequot sites, from less than 10% to more than 70% at the individual sites by number, and it would have provided the Mashantucket Pequot households with significant sustenance independent of the amount of available land.
To understand the Mashantucket Pequot decisions related to the use of mast products, I also conducted a density analysis of the mast products recovered at the ten archaeological sites (Figure 18). To compare these sites to each another, I have standardized the weights of nutshell per type, which is a standard a method instead of utilizing the counts of the nutshell to determine cultural significance and practices (Miller
1988). The six mast types were standardized by dividing the total weights of each species
per site by the total volume of soil floated per site. The result is the number of individual mast types per one liter of soil floated at each site.
In Figure 18, the use of Carya sp. (hickory) and Corylus americana (hazelnut) appears to vary while the use of other mast products (butternut, bitternut and oak) has a relatively low density (Figure 19). For example, at the time the fort 72-91 was occupied the area should have had relatively abundant woodland resources from Carya sp.
(hickory), Corylus americana (hazelnut) and Quercus sp. (oak) (McWeeney 1994; Trent
1981). But during their stay at the site, apparently, the Mashantucket Pequot were selecting hickory over Corylus americana (hazelnut) and Quercus sp. (oak). However
91 after 72-164A is occupied there appears to be a switch in nut usage from Carya sp.
(hickory) to Corylus americana (hazelnut). Even when Carya sp. (hickory) resources
became scarce the Mashantucket appear to maintain their use of mast products and switch
to Corylus americana (hazelnut) beginning at sites 72-58. The use of Carya sp. (hickory)
seems to decline after 72-58 is occupied with a slight increase at 72-171 and then Corylus
americana (hazelnut) tends to dominate the assemblages from 1775-1800 A.D along with
other Juglans sp. (Figure 18).
Unlike other Indigenous communities in North America, Quercus sp. (oak) and
other mast types, do not appear to have been selected by the Mashantucket, except at very
low increments at from 1675-1800 A.D. as seen in Figure 19. The general low density at
these select sites could have a number of explanations: 1) a lack of access to this type of
resource; 2) its low biological presence within this region of southeastern Connecticut;
and 3) a cultural preference of the Mashantucket Pequot; or 4) it not being contrastive to
colonial newcomers. For example, at 72-91, the low presence of many of these other
mast products shows that a combination of these four reasons may be at work. This is
important because as land becomes more circumscribed from the occupation of 72-164A
(mean date of occupation - 1685 A.D.) to 72-66 (1790 A.D.), the Mashantucket continue
to funnel their ecological knowledge into the use of mast products and do not fully rely
upon domesticates (either Old World or Tropical) (Figure 16) Mast products continue to
be a significant part of the Mashantucket diet into the eighteenth century.
How do these mast products correlate with the other types of wild plant
recovered from the individual sites? In Figure 16, wild plants (which include fruits,
weeds and other wild plants) comprise from 10%-90% of the plant assemblages
92 depending on the site. Coupled with mast products, the overall composition of the archaeobotanical assemblages at each site sites is dominated by these two food types.
Although, site 72-88 yields a different patterning of wild plants to the cultigens present within it overall site assemblage. 72-88 is interpreted as being a storage/refuse area, thus the higher percentages of tropical cultigens, primarily Zea mays (corn), is not surprising.
To further explore the Mashantucket decisions related to the different types of food types present, specifically wild plants which include mast products, I have evaluated three different feature contexts: stratified pits, shallow pits and hearths. For the stratified and shallow pit analysis, four sites, 72-91, 72-58, 72-171 and 72-161, were selected
because they are contextually similar and have over 1000 liters of soil floated and analyzed per site (Table 1). For the hearth analysis, three sites, 72-91. 72-58 and 72-66, were chosen for the same reasons as outline for the stratified and shallow pits.
The standardized density data from stratified pits are based on the following sites and associated features: (1) 72-91, Feature 92; (2) 72-58, Features 3, 12, and 13; (3) 72-
171, Feature 13; (4) 72-161, Feature 1 and 137. In Figures 20-23, wild plants (which include mast products) dominate the stratified pit assemblages within these four sites. At
72-91, mast products comprise over 69% (Figure 20), 72-58 over 64% (Figure 21), 72-
171 over 76% (Figure 22), 72-161 over 85% (Figure 23). These numbers correlate well with the overall mast product percentages recovered at each site in Figure 16. The stratified pit assemblages are remarkably similar to the overall site assemblages – possibly due to the fact that many of the botanicals recovered are from these well- preserved contexts. When evaluating the specific decisions that were employed in the creation of these contexts, comparing 72-91, 72-171 and 72-161 to 72-58 gives a unique
93 glimpse at different behaviors associated with presence of the mast products. Very little nutmeat has been recovered from the stratified pits within the three sites in contrast to the larger amount of nutmeat recovered from the stratified pits, specifically Feature 13, at 72-
58 (Figure 21). But that is not to say that all these stratified pits were at some point storage pits. They still may have been utilized later as refuse pits as the household was abandoned. But the increased presence at 72-58 could possibly signal roasting activity in which the inhabitants of the site were participating.
Although 72-58 stratified contexts were the only ones to yield nutmeat, many additional wild plants are located within the four stratified pit assemblages. Especially
72-91 and 72-58 have a variety of wild plants – all food related – which comprise less than 5-10% of the stratified pit assemblages. In Figures 20-23, although the wild plant types are not ubiquitous within the stratified pits that should not diminish their cultural significance. These types of plants would have supplied the Mashantucket Pequot with a wide variety of foods to subsist upon. I would like to note the decrease in presence of wild plant types after 72-171 (1765-1775 A.D.) is inhabited. It is hard to discern if this decrease is due to a cultural event, such as a decline in resources related to land circumscription, or related to taphonomic and preservation issues within those specific sites.
The analysis of shallow pits, less than 50 centimeters in depth, from these four sites helps to further clarify the relationship between the decrease in plant types and decision-making of the Mashantucket Pequot after 72-171 was occupied (1765-1775
A.D.). At each site, more than four shallow pits are included in this analysis. These specific feature contexts may be associated with short-term storage or refuse or even a
94 single episodic event at the site related to food consumption and processing. At site 72-91
(Figure 24) and 72-58 (Figure 25) nine plant types are represented and after 72-171
(Figure 26) and 72-161 (Figure 27) are occupied this number does not significantly diminish. Although mast products are not a significant plant type recovered from these contexts, in comparison to stratified pits, the shallow pits do offer a unique glimpse at
perhaps what could be considered “snap shot” decisions related to the types of plants utilized and chosen for consumption. For example, wild plants (excluding mast products), such as Prunus sp. (cherry), Cornus sp. (cherry) and Rhus sp. (sumac) at select sites, continue to make up a significant portion of the plants exploited at all four sites (Figures
24-27).
Last, I evaluated hearth contexts from three sites: (1) 72-91, Features 26, 32, 77,
83, and 116; (2) 72-58, Feature 6; and (3) 72-66, Feature 1. The above statements of continued use of different types of wild plants (which include mast products) is also corroborated (Figures 27-30). It is assumed that the plant types recovered from the hearth contexts at these three sites are more likely a representation of a last time the hearth was utilized. Mast products appear to make up a significant portion of both 72-91 (Carya sp. and Corylus americana ; Figure 28) and 72-58 (Quercus sp.; Figure 29) with decrease numbers of other wild plants. It is interesting to note that Quercus sp. (oak) from 72-58 was not recovered in vast quantities in other contexts. It is only seen in these specific cooking contexts while other mast products are seen to be stored or part of refuse pits in the stratified or shallow pits.
The presence or cooking of mast products are significantly decreased within site
72-66 (Figure 30). Mast products comprise a very small portion with wild plants, such as
95 Rhus sp. (sumac) and indeterminate seeds (as mentioned earlier) comprising the majority of the sample. Although different plant types are represented at each site, roughly nine different plant types are represented within each hearth and wild plants do not appear to diminish in representation with the plants consumed by the Mashantucket Pequot from
1675-1800 A.D. (Figures 28-30).
It is important to note that all different types of wild plants, not just mast products, have been recovered at 72-66 and also the other nine sites (Figures 6-15).
Often within the assemblages, there is a significant presence of fruits, like Gaylussacia sp. (huckleberry), Rhus sp. (sumac) Rubus (raspberry) and weedy seeds, such as
Chenopodium sp. (goosefoot), Phytolacca americana (pokeweed) and Polygonum sp.
(knotweed). As noted in the ethnographic uses for each archaeological plant type, often
the weedy seeds are utilized for immediate consumption while the fruits can be consumed
on site or dried for future use (Appendix B). This diversity in ways to consume these
types of plants would have been extremely useful to the Mashantucket Pequot, especially
during times in which harvests of cultigens were not as bountiful or for storage during the
winter months when other foodstuffs were not available.
This analysis of wild plants suggests continuity during a time period in which
Native Americans were being asked to convert fully to Euro-American farming
technique. However, the variability that exists within each assemblage is most probably
related to specific cultural choices at the household level and also the environmental
circumscription which the Mashantucket Pequot were having to manage and overcome
during this time period. The Mashantucket Pequot are not relying upon domesticates to
create the foundation for their food resources from 1675 to 1800 A.D. Instead, they
96 appear to heavily rely upon plant resources from “wild” contexts, the “hidden harvests,” in spite of decreasing availability of such lands within the boundaries of the Reservation.
This archaeological data support my expectation about the continued use of wild plants and also suggests that the Mashantucket managed those wild plant resources, possibly by harvesting and management for mast trees, and/or by propagating other wild-based plants such as weedy seeds and shrub-based fruits.
Tropical Cultigens
The archaeological data about tropical cultigens are presented in this section to investigate the expectation that the Mashantucket Pequot continued to use tropical cultigens during this period of land circumscription. Based upon the ethnographic information related to the archaeological data, three plant types recovered are considered a tropical cultigen: (1) Cucurbita sp. (squash); (2) Phaselous vulgaris (common bean);
and (3) Zea mays (corn). Figure 16, which was utilized to discuss the presence of mast
products and wild plants, also highlights these plant types. Typically, the tropical
cultigens comprise a small portion, around 5%, of the archaeobotanical assemblage per
site (Figures 6-15). At site 72-91 and 72-88, tropical cultigens have higher presence – at
72-91 around 22% (Figure 6) and 72-88 around 50% (Figure 11). This is more likely
related to the cultural contexts in which these remains are recovered - the remains are
associated with storage or refuse pits. The increase of tropical cultigens at 72-88 also
helps to support the interpretation that the site is indeed a storage area that was utilized by
the Mashantucket Pequot during different points in time. The only two sites that these
types of remains were not recovered at 72-161 and 72-70B, which where occupied
between 1780-1800 A.D. (Figures 13 and 14). However at these sites, mast products,
97 wild plants and also Old World domesticates are recovered (Figures 13 and 14). The lack of these remains recovered could be tied to the recovery methods – less than 230 liters at
72-161 and 72-70B less than 66 liters of soil were floated and analyzed (Table 1).
However, if the lack of the tropical cultigen is associated with specific household decisions this is extremely significant and may demonstrate a cultural shift. As recorded in the ethnographic information about the archaeological plant types (Appendix B), these specific tropical cultigens have been recorded in the New England and Northeast region.
The Mashantucket Pequot not participating in the consumption of Tropical cultigen
plants would have deeper meaning within the household and decision-making processes of the Mashantucket Pequot, perhaps signifying the beginnings of a shift within the traditional knowledge related to plants.
Although they are not as frequent as mast, weeds or fruits, tropical cultigens, such as Zea mays (maize) are present at eight of the ten sites (Figures 6-12, 15; Table 5). There is also a variable representation of Cucurbita asp. (squash) recovered at two sites, 72-91 and 72-58 and Phaselous vulgaris (beans) recovered at four sites, 72-91, 72-58, 72-171, and 72-66 (Table 4). Generally, tropical cultigens are present in all of the cultural contexts under investigation – stratified pits, shallow pits, and hearth. However, they do seem to decrease in presence within all contexts (Figures 20-30). In spite of lower presence of tropical cultigens, this analysis demonstrates that the Mashantucket Pequot continue to cultivate and harvest tropical cultigens from 1675-1800 A.D. with some shifts in the later part of the eighteenth century. The data supports the expectation that the
Mashantucket maintained their use of Indigenous cultigens and wild plants even in face of serious circumscription of habitats, resources and social challenges.
98 Euro-American Cultigens
In following section, I present the results, which explore the expectation that the
Mashantucket Pequot adopted Old World cultigens and plants that easily incorporated into their traditional plant strategies without affecting the scheduling of other Indigenous
plant activities. In total only two Old World cultigens have been recovered within all ten archaeological sites from 1675-1800 A.D. that are labeled as foodstuffs (Table 5;
Appendix B). The two Old World species are Prunus persica (peach), which has been recovered at five sites, and Triticum sp. (wheat), which has been identified at two sites
(Figures 6, 10, and 12-15). Generally the Old World cultigens comprise a small portion of the site assemblages (if they are present at all) (Figure 17). Many households do not have these plant types from 1675-1800 A.D. For example, Prunus persica (peach) is in
higher densities at 72-91 (Figure 6). It reappears in the plant assemblage at 72-171, 72-
97C, 72-161, 72-70B and 72-66 but again in relatively low numbers. Old World cultigens
are relatively rare and cultivating peach would have been a multi-year investment for the
Mashantucket Pequot and should be seen as a significant addition to their subsistence.
The management and harvest of peach trees may have paralleled other plant strategies,
such as their use of hickory and other nut mast trees. The Mashantucket Pequot may have
chosen this particular Old World cultigen due to its similarity to other Indigenous mast
and fruit products. That is, it leant itself to adoption into the Mashantucket Pequot
environmental strategies.
As noted in the ethnographic information regarding these species, they tend to
have multiple ways to consume and are easily processed for later consumption (Appendix
B). For example, the Iroquois tended to eat Prunus persica (peach) in select ways: the
99 fruit is mashed, made into small cakes, and dried for future use. Also, it is eaten raw or its fruit can be sun or fire dried and stored for future use and used as food for the hunt, dried as fruit cakes soaked in warm water and cooked as a sauce or mixed with corn bread
(Waugh 1916:129 in Moerman 1988). I did not find ethnographic connections in the use of Triticum sp. (wheat) within any indigenous communities east of the Mississippi, but within communities in the Southwest and California it was utilized to bake bread ((Bean and Saubel 1972:142 in Moerman 1998) and also used to make gruel (perhaps as a supplement for maize) (Russell 1908:76 in Moerman 1998). Perhaps the variety of relatively simple processing methods associated with these select Old World domesticates made them suitable candidates for adoption onto Mashantucket household diets.
It appears that the archaeological evidence supports my expectation and suggests that the Mashantucket Pequot did not buy wholeheartedly Euro-American cultigens during this time period. They appear to rely more heavily upon tropical domesticates and wild plants as the main source of food (Figure 17). The presence of wheat and peach seems only cursory until 72-97C A.D. (occupied in 1780 A.D.) when Old World cultigens rise above 1% for the first time (Figure 17).
Other Historical Data
The following historical information directly relevant to the Mashantucket Pequot
Reservation during the 17 th and 18 th century parallels and supports the archaeological data that discusses the cultural use and consumption of mast products, other wild plants and cultigens. The archaeological component to the Ethnohistory project is an attempt to add to the sparse historical record. Therefore the historic information should be seen as
100 supplementary to the archaeological information while offering further information to understand Mashantucket Pequot decision making during this tumultuous time period of land and social circumscription.
I begin with a discussion with the historical documents about the Mashantucket
Pequot use of tropical cultigens – a topic which can often be found in many historical accounts as Euro-Americans appear extremely interested in the progressive use of these types of crops (Bennett 1955; Cronon 1983). The following colonial account from 1761 demonstrates that the Mashantucket are still growing tropical crops, such as maize and
beans. It highlights that Mashantucket Pequot are in contestation with colonial figures about herbage areas and planting bean and corn.
“William and Justice Minor [colonial inhabitants of Ledyard] put their unruly horses Cattle and Sheep into the said large pasture and have eat up and destroyed good part of their corn and beans… Some of them did plant ye field of about an acre with corn and beans which one N. Holdredge challenging the improvement by force of lease from said Williams which have now been gathered and carried away.” (Connecticut Indian Papers Oct. 2, 1750)
The products of their Mashantucket Pequot labor had been carried away. At this time in the colonial record, the Pequot had been living on the Reservation for over fifty years and exploitable land would have dwindled down to 1000 acres (Figure 3). What is also noted and will be discussed in Chapter Seven is that they are having difficulty
“improving” the land within the Reservation boundaries due to its physical nature, which is rocky and unfit for planting. However, in spite of the challenges from the colonial authorities, the Mashantucket Pequot strive to find suitable land to continue to cultivate traditional cultigens (rather than Old World crops) within this contested space.
101 As recovered in the archaeological record, there are some Old World crops that are cultivated by the Mashantucket Pequot. A colonial account from 1702 discusses the management of fruit trees (more likely Old World domesticates such as Prunus persica
(peach) and Malus sp. (apple), although Malus sp. (apple) has not been recovered
archaeologically at Mashantucket but has been mentioned in other historical accounts
(Connecticut Indian Papers n.d.). The following account is one of the first that speak to
the land conflicts that arise between Euro-Americans and the Mashantucket Pequot –
which involved the use of Old World crops within the lands on and around
Mashantucket.
“Indians have been much disturbed again by some of the people of Groton by their driving said Indians from their improvements and taking away their fields and fruit trees which for a long time they have planted and improved on at Mashantucket lands.” (Connecticut General Assembly Records 1702).
At the time of this narrative, over 3500 acres of land would have been accessible.
This would have included the original 1666 boundaries of the Reservation, Walnut Hill
and Noank (Figures 2 and 3). The reservation would have been lived on for over 30
years and resources may have started to decrease when this account was written,
highlighting how their improvements near the reservation boundaries had been disturbed
and managed products had been taken away. What is important to note is that those Old
World cultigens that are incorporated into Mashantucket plant strategies are easily
adopted due to their similarity to the cultivating and harvesting requirements of
traditional plant resources. The archaeological and historical record supports the
expectation that the Mashantucket Pequot adopted Euro-based plants that were easily
102 incorporated into Indigenous land use and plant practices and that allowed the
Mashantucket Pequot to maintain their cultural strategies of autonomy and heritage.
Summary
Within this chapter, I have discussed how the diet composition of the
Mashantucket Pequot was quite dynamic and involved the use of wild plants, as well as tropical cultigens in various ways. Although the expectations outlined in Chapter Two are supported by the archaeological data alongside the supplementary historical accounts,
I would also like to address the many nuances that exist within the datasets. Each site assemblage illustrates the choices that the Mashantucket Pequot took from 1675-1800
A.D. Not all the same plants were used within each household across time and space but the variable presence across these ten sites suggests that the Mashantucket Pequot were able to maintain their traditional plant-based knowledge of mast products, fruits, wild weedy seeds, and tropical cultigens with the incorporation of select Old World cultigens.
In essence, as certain plants types decreased in use, others were incorporated in the assemblages to maintain a cultural foundation for their traditional Indigenous identity and their survival as Mashantucket Pequot and the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation.
103
72-91: 72-164A: 72-34A: 72-58: 72-171: 72-88: 72-97C: 72-161: 72-70B: 70-66: Totals of 1675- 1680- 1680- 1760- 1765- 1775- 1780- 1780- 1780- 1785- Specific Plant 1680 1690 A.D. 11690 1770 1775 1800 1785 1790 1800 1795 Types at Ten A.D A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. Sites Asclepias sp. 1 1 Boraginaceae Family 1 1 Carpinus caroliniana 1 1 Compositae Family 1 1 Cyperaceae Family 1 1 Cyperus sp. 1 1 Galium sp. 1 1 Juglans nigra 1 1 Juncus sp. 1 1 Labiatae Family 1 1 Latuca sp. 1 1 Polygonaceae Family 1 1 Polygonum sp. 1 1 Portulaca sp. 1 1 Potamogeton sp. 1 1 Ranunculaceae Family 1 1 Vibernum sp. 1 1 Vicia sp. 1 1 Viola sp. 1 1 Vitaceae Family 1 1 Acalypha sp. 1 1 2 Carex sp. 1 1 2 Cucurbita sp. 1 1 2 Illex sp. 1 1 2 Juglans sp. 1 1 2 Nysaa sylavatica 1 1 2 Phytolaca americana 1 1 2 Scirupus sp. 1 1 2 Triticum sp. 1 1 2 Ericaceae Family 1 1 1 3 Juglans cinerea 1 1 1 3 Legumosaeae Family 1 1 1 3 Vaccinium sp. 1 1 1 3 Vitis sp. 1 1 1 3 Chenopodium/Amaranthus sp. 1 1 1 1 4 Crataegus sp. 1 1 1 1 4 Gramineae Family 1 1 1 1 4 Myrica pensylvanica 1 1 1 1 4 Phaselous vulgaris 1 1 1 1 4 Prunus sp. 1 1 1 1 4 Comptonia peregrina 1 1 1 1 1 5 Gaylussacia sp. 1 1 1 1 1 5 Prunus persica 1 1 1 1 1 5 Rubus sp. 1 1 1 1 1 5 Unidentified Nutmeat 1 1 1 1 1 5 Cornus sp. 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Quercus sp. 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Rhus sp. 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Zea mays 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Indeterminate Nutshell 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Carya sp. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Inderterminate Seed Fragments 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 Corylus americana 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 Totals of Plant Types Per Site 26 12 14 37 15 7 18 14 9 14
Table 4. Presence of All Identified Plant Types Across the Ten Sites.
104
72-91: 72- 72- 72- 72- 72- 72- 72- 72- 70- Totals 1675- 164A: 34A: 58: 171: 88: 97C: 161: 70B: 66: of Plant 1680 1680- 1680- 1760- 1765- 1775- 1780- 1780- 1780- 1785- Type at A.D 1690 11690 1770 1775 1800 1785 1790 1800 1795 All A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. Sites Asclepias sp. 1 1 Cyperus sp. 1 1 Juglans nigra 1 1 Juncus sp. 1 1 Latuca sp. 1 1 Polygonum sp. 1 1 Polygonum hydropiper 1 1 Portulaca sp. 1 1 Vibernum sp. 1 1 Vicia sp. 1 1 Viola sp. 1 1 Carex sp. 1 1 2 Cucurbita sp. 1 1 2 Illex sp. 1 1 2 Juglans sp. 1 1 2 Phytolaca americana 1 1 2 Scirupus sp. 1 1 2 Triticum sp. 1 1 2 Juglans cinerea 1 1 1 3 Vaccinium sp. 1 1 1 3 Vitis sp. 1 1 1 3 Chenopodium/Amaranthus sp. 1 1 1 1 4 Crataegus sp. 1 1 1 1 4 Phaselous vulgaris 1 1 1 1 4 Prunus sp. 1 1 1 1 4 Comptonia peregrina 1 1 1 1 1 5 Gaylussacia sp. 1 1 1 1 1 5 Prunus persica 1 1 1 1 1 5 Rubus sp. 1 1 1 1 1 5 Cornus sp. 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Quercus sp. 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Rhus sp. 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Zea mays 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Carya sp. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Corylus americana 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 Totals of Plant Types Per Site 21 9 7 23 11 6 14 10 5 9
Table 5. Presence of Food Types Identified Across the Ten Sites.
105 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
72-91: 1675-1680 A.D
72-164A: 1680-1690 A.D. 72-34A: 1680-1169072-58: A.D. 1760-1770 A.D. 72-171: 1765-177572-88: A.D. 1775-1800 A.D. 72-97C: 1780-1785 A.D. 72-161: 1780-1790 A.D. 72-70B: 1780-1800 70-66:A.D. 1785-1795 A.D.
Figure 5. Number of Plant Types Per Site.
106 72-91: 1675-1680 A.D Indeterminate Phaseolus Corylus Seed Fragments vulgaris americana Myrica 2% 1% 2% pensylvanica Zea mays Whole 3% Indeterminate 1% Nutshell 3% Comptonia peregina Zea mays 4% Fragment Carya sp. 20% 63%
Figure 6. Percentages of Plant Types at 72-91. (Color Scheme: Gray – Mast Products; Orange – Tropical Cultigens; Yellow – Wild Plants; White – Indeterminate Types; Pink – Old World Cultigens. Plant types less than 1% are listed in order of their percentages with the assemblages: Rubus sp., Juglans sp., Carex sp. Crateagus sp., Gaylussacia sp., Rhus sp., Vitis sp., Prunus persica , Zea mays Cupule, Curcurbita sp., Polygonum hydropiper , Ilex sp., Juglans cinerea , Indeterminate nutmeat, Triticum sp., Vaccinium sp, Scurpis sp., Prunus sp., Potamogeton sp., Quercus sp.)
107 72-164A: 1680-1690 A.D. Chenopodium sp. Corylus Quercus sp. 2% americana Rhus sp. Zea mays Cupule Gaylussacia sp. 1% 1% 1% Cornus sp. 1% 2% Indeterminate 1% Asclepias sp. Nutmeat 1% 2% Carya sp. 3%
Indeterminate Seed Fragments Indeterminate 30% Nutshell 58%
Figure 7. Percentages of Plant Types at 72-164A (Color Scheme: Gray – Mast Products; Orange – Tropical Cultigens; Yellow – Wild Plants; White – Indeterminate Types).
108 72-34A: 1680-1690 A.D. Indeterminate Myrica Rubus sp. Gaylussacia sp. Nutshell Cornus sp. pensylvanica 1% 2% 3% 1% 1% Acalypha sp. Nyssa sp. Indeterminate 1% 2% Nutmeat Comptonia 4% peregina Zea mays 29% Fragment 4% Indeterminate Seed Fragments 12% Corylus Carya sp. americana 14% 26%
Figure 8. Percentages of Plant Types at 72-34 (Color Scheme: Gray – Mast Products; Orange – Tropical Cultigens; Yellow – Wild Plants; White – Indeterminate Types).
109 72-58: 1760-1770 A.D. Gaylussacia sp. Viburnum sp. 1% Rubus sp. Indeterminate Zea mays Cupule 1% Quercus sp. 1% Nutshell 1% 2% 2% Cyperus sp. Carya sp. Zea mays 1% 3% Fragment 4% Indeterminate Myrica Nutmeat pensylvanica 43% Rhus sp. 5% 8% Corylus americana Indeterminate 11% Seed Fragments 15%
Figure 9. Percentages of Plant Types at 72-58. (Color Scheme: Gray – Mast Products; Orange – Tropical Cultigens; Yellow – Wild Plants; White – Indeterminate Types. Plant types less than 1% are listed in order of their percentages with the assemblages: Scurpis sp., Polygonum sp., Cornus sp., Curcurbita sp., Zea mays whole, Chenopodium sp., Carex sp., Vaccinium sp., Phytolaca sp., Phaselous vulgaris, Juglans sp., Galium sp., Comptonia peregrina, Vitis sp., Latuca sp., Juncus sp., Illex sp., Crataegus sp., Carpinus carolinia).
110 Zea mays 72-171: 1765-1775 A.D. Cupule Cornus Quercus sp. 1% Indeterminate sp. 2% Myrica Nutmeat 1% Prunus sp. Chenopodium sp. pensylvanica 1% 2% 1% 1% Prunus persica 2% Phaseolus vulgaris Carya sp. Rhus sp. 3% 28% 5% Juglans nigra 6% Indeterminate Indeterminate Corylus Seed Fragments Nutshell americana 8% 23% 19%
Figure 10. Percentages of Plant Types at 72-171 (Color Scheme: Gray – Mast Products; Orange – Tropical Cultigens; Yellow – Wild Plants; White – Indeterminate Types).
111 72-88: 1775-1800 A.D. Comptonia Cornus sp. peregina 8% 8% Indeterminate Seed Zea mays Fragments Cupule 8% 38% Prunus sp. 8%
Corylus americana 15% Quercus sp. 8%
Zea mays Whole 8%
Figure 11. Percentages of Plant Types at 72-88 (Color Scheme: Gray – Mast Products; Orange – Tropical Cultigens; Yellow – Wild Plants; White – Indeterminate Types).
112 Juglans sp. 72-97C: 1780-1785 A.D. Vicia sp. Phytolaca sp. 1% Prunus persica Triticum sp. 1% 1% 1% 1% Viola sp. Crataegus sp. 1% Carya sp. Portulaca sp. Cornus sp. 1% 1% 1% 1% Acalypha sp. Chenopodium sp. 1% 1% Juglans cinerea 3% Zea mays Cupule 9% Indeterminate Nutshell Corylus 50% americana 11% Indeterminate Seed Fragments 17%
Figure 12. Percentages of Plant Types at 72-97C (Color Scheme: Gray – Mast Products; Orange – Tropical Cultigens; Yellow – Wild Plants; White – Indeterminate Types; Pink – Old World Cultigens).
113 72-161: 1780-1790 A.D. Triticum sp. Juglans cinerea Gaylussacia sp. 1% 0% Comptonia 1% Nyssa sp. Prunus sp. peregina 0% 0% 1% Rubus sp. Vaccinium sp. 3% Rhus sp. 0% 4% Corylus americana Indeterminate 39% Seed Fragments 17% Indeterminate Nutshell 17% Carya sp. 17%
Figure 13. Percentages of Plant Types at 72-161 (Color Scheme: Gray – Mast Products; Orange – Tropical Cultigens; Yellow – Wild Plants; White – Indeterminate Types; Pink – Old World Cultigens).
114 72-70B: 1780-1800 A.D. Vitis sp. 3% Carya sp. Crataegus sp. 3% 3% Indeterminate Nutshell 6% Corylus Prunus americana persica 36% 6%
Indeterminate Seed Fragments Myrica 30% pensylvanica 12%
Figure 14. Percentages of Plant Types at 72-70B (Color Scheme: Gray – Mast Products; Orange – Tropical Cultigens; Yellow – Wild Plants; White – Indeterminate Types; Pink – Old World Cultigens).
115 70-66: 1785-1795 A.D. Rubus sp. 1% Carya sp. Phaseolus Quercus Prunus persica 0% vulgaris Gaylussacia sp. sp. 1% 0% 2% Corylus 0% americana Zea mays 0% Fragment 2% Indeterminate Nutshell 3% Rhus sp. 47% Indeterminate Seed Fragments 44%
Figure 15. Percentages of Plant Types at 72-66 (Color Scheme: Gray – Mast Products; Orange – Tropical Cultigens; Yellow – Wild Plants; White – Indeterminate Types; Pink – Old World Cultigens)
116 *"
)"
("
'"
&"
%"
$"
#"
!" OLD WORLD CULTIGENS TROPICAL CULTIGENS 72-91: 1675-1680 A.D MAST PPRODUCTS 72-164A: 1680-1690 A.D. 72-34A: 1680-1169072-58: A.D.1760-1770 A.D. WILD PLANTS 72-171: 1765-1775 A.D. 72-88: 1775-1800 A.D. 72-97C: 1780-1785 A.D. 72-161: 1780-1790 A.D. 72-70B: 1780-1800 A.D. 70-66: 1785-1795 A.D.
Figure 16. Density Food Categorization Per Volume (L) of Soil Floated.
117 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% OLD WORLD CULTIGENS 40% TROPICAL CULTIGENS 30% MAST PPRODUCTS 20% WILD PLANTS 10%
0%
72-91: 1675-1680 A.D 72-58: 1760-1770 A.D. 72-88: 1775-1800 A.D. 70-66: 1785-1795 A.D. 72-164A: 1680-169072-34A: A.D.1680-11690 A.D. 72-171: 1765-1775 A.D. 72-97C: 1780-178572-161: A.D. 1780-1790 72-70B: A.D. 1780-1800 A.D.
Figure 17. Percentages of Food Categories Across Ten Sites.
118 0.016
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002 Quercus sp. Juglans sp. 0 Juglans nigra Juglans cinerea
72-91: 1675-1680 A.D Corylus sp. 72-164A: 1680-1690 A.D. Carya sp. 72-34A: 1680-1169072-58: 1760-1770 A.D. A.D. 72-171: 1765-177572-88: A.D.1775-1800 A.D. 72-97C: 1780-1785 A.D. 72-161: 1780-1790 A.D. 72-70B: 1780-1800 A.D. 70-66: 1785-1795 A.D.
Figure 18. Mast Products Per Volume (L) of Soil Floated.
119 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Quercus sp. Juglans sp. 40% Juglans nigra 30% Juglans cinerea 20% Corylus sp. 10% Carya sp. 0%
72-91: 1675-1680 A.D 72-58: 1760-1770 A.D. 72-88: 1775-1800 A.D. 70-66: 1785-1795 A.D. 72-164A: 1680-169072-34A: A.D. 1680-11690 A.D. 72-171: 1765-1775 A.D. 72-97C: 1780-178572-161: A.D. 1780-1790 72-70B: A.D. 1780-1800 A.D.
Figure 19. Percentages of Mast Products.
120 72-91 STRATIFIED PIT 1675-1670 A.D
Phaselous vulgaris Rubus sp. Zea mays Whole 1% 1% 1% Indeterminate Seed Fragments 1% Indeterminate Nutshell 1% Zea mays fragment 26%
Carya sp. 68%
Figure 20. Percentages of Plant Types Recovered from Stratified Pits at 71-91 (Color Scheme: Gray – Mast Products; Orange – Tropical Cultigens; Yellow – Wild Plants; White – Indeterminate Types; Pink – Old World Cultigens. Plant types less than 1% are listed in order of their percentages with the assemblages: Myrica pensylvanica, Carex sp., Galyussacia sp., Corylus americana , Vitis sp., Rhus sp., Polygonum hydropiper, Indeterminate Nutmeat, Cucurbita sp. Seed, Prunus persica , Juglans sp., Juglans cinerea ).
121 72-58 STRATIFIED PIT 1760-1770 A.D. Gaylussacia sp. Cyperus sp. Zea mays Cupule Vibernum sp. 1% 1% 1% Quercus 1% Indeterminate Rubus sp. sp. 1% Nutshell 1% 2% Zea mays Fragments 4% Myrica pensylvanica 5% Indeterminate Rhus sp. Nutmeat 8% 49% Corylus sp. 12% Indeterminate Seed Fragments 13%
Figure 21. Percentages of Plant Types Recovered from Stratified Pits at 71-58 (Color Scheme: Gray – Mast Products; Orange – Tropical Cultigens; Yellow – Wild Plants; White – Indeterminate Types; Pink – Old World Cultigens. Plant types less than 1% are listed in order of their percentages with the assemblages: Cornus sp., Zea mays Whole, Carya sp., Chenopodium sp., Polygonum sp., Scirpus sp., Galium sp., Carex sp., Vaccinium sp., Latuca sp., Juncus sp., Carpinus sp.).
122 72-171 STRATIFIED PIT 1765-1775 A.D
Zea mays Phaselous Rhus sp. Cupule vulgaris Juglans nigra 7% 2% 4% 6%
Indeterminate Indeterminate Seeds Nutshell 11% 38%
Carya sp. 32%
Figure 22. Percentages of Plant Types Recovered from Stratified Pits at 72-171 (Color Scheme: Gray – Mast Products; Orange – Tropical Cultigens; Yellow – Wild Plants; White – Indeterminate Types; Pink – Old World Cultigens).
123 72-161 STRATIFIED PIT 1780-1790 A.D. Juglans cinerea Scirpus Rhus sp. Indeterminate 2% sp. 3% Nutshell 2% 5% Indeterminate Seeds Carya sp. 10% 43%
Corylus sp. 35%
Figure 23. Percentages of Plant Types Recovered from Stratified Pits at 72-161 (Color Scheme: Gray – Mast Products; Orange – Tropical Cultigens; Yellow – Wild Plants; White – Indeterminate Types; Pink – Old World Cultigens).
124 72-91 SHALLOW PIT: 1675-1680 A.D.
Illex sp. Myrica Indeterminate Comptonia 2% pensylvanica Seed Fragments 3% peregrina 5% 6%
Carya sp. Crataegus sp. 38% 8%
Phaselous Indeterminate vulgaris Nutshell 8% 22% Zea mays fragment 8%
Figure 24. Percentages of Plant Types Recovered from Shallow Pits at 72-91 (Color Scheme: Gray – Mast Products; Orange – Tropical Cultigens; Yellow – Wild Plants; White – Indeterminate Types; Pink – Old World Cultigens).
125 72-58 SHALLOW PIT 1760-1770 A.D. Zea mays Fragment Galium sp. Carpinus Cucurbita sp. Seed 3% 3% caroliniana 3% 3% Zea mays Whole 3% Prunus sp. Cyperus sp. 39% 6%
Illex sp. 19%
Cornus sp. 22%
Figure 25. Percentages of Plant Types Recovered from Shallow Pits at 72-58 (Color Scheme: Gray – Mast Products; Orange – Tropical Cultigens; Yellow – Wild Plants; White – Indeterminate Types; Pink – Old World Cultigens).
126 72-171 SHALLOW PIT 1765-1775 A.D.
Zea mays Cupule 0% Myrica pensylvanica Cornus sp. 16% 33% Prunus persica 17%
Indeterminate Indeterminate Nutshell Seed Fragments 17% 17%
Figure 26. Percentages of Plant Types Recovered from Shallow Pits at 72-171 (Color Scheme: Gray – Mast Products; Orange – Tropical Cultigens; Yellow – Wild Plants; White – Indeterminate Types; Pink – Old World Cultigens).
127 72-161 SHALLOW PIT 1780-1790 A.D. Latuca Galium sp. Prunus persica Rhus sp. 1% sp. 1% 1% Carpinus sp. 1% 1% Triticum sp. 6% Indeterminate Nutmeat 9% Zea mays fragment 51% Cornus sp. 29%
Figure 27. Percentages of Plant Types Recovered from Shallow Pits at 72-161 (Color Scheme: Gray – Mast Products; Orange – Tropical Cultigens; Yellow – Wild Plants; White – Indeterminate Types; Pink – Old World Cultigens).
128 72-91 HEARTH 1675-1680 A.D.
Gaylussacia sp. Juglans cinerea Crataegus sp. Indeterminate 1% 1% 4% Seed Fragments 6%
Inderminate Nutshell Carya sp. 11% 47% Zea may Fragments 12%
Corylus sp. 18%
Figure 28. Percentages of Plant Types Recovered from Hearths at 72-91 (Color Scheme: Gray – Mast Products; Orange – Tropical Cultigens; Yellow – Wild Plants; White – Indeterminate Types; Pink – Old World Cultigens).
129 72-58 HEARTH 1760-1770 A.D. Indeterminate Seed Fragments Corylus sp. Illex sp. 3% 3% Rhus sp. 4% 4% Vaccinium sp. 4% Zea may Fragments 4% Zea mays Whole Quercus sp. 7% 57% Myrica pensylvanica 14%
Figure 29. Percentages of Plant Types Recovered from Hearths at 72-58 (Color Scheme: Gray – Mast Products; Orange – Tropical Cultigens; Yellow – Wild Plants; White – Indeterminate Types; Pink – Old World Cultigens).
130 72-66 HEARTH 1785-1795 A.D. Inderterminate Nutshell Prunus persica Rubus sp. 0% 1% 1% Gaylussacia sp. Phaseolus vulgaris 1% Zea mays Fragments 0% Carya sp. 2% 0%
Rhus sp. 39% Indeterminate Seed Fragments 56%
Figure 30. Percentages of Plant Types Recovered from Hearths at 72-66 (Color Scheme: Gray – Mast Products; Orange – Tropical Cultigens; Yellow – Wild Plants; White – Indeterminate Types; Pink – Old World Cultigens).
131 CHAPTER 6
RESULTS OF MEDICINAL PLANTS
Introduction
In the following chapter, I discuss the medicinal data recovered from the ten
Mashantucket Pequot sites. Plants related to medicinal practices are often deeply linked to the knowledge structures, traditions, in Indigenous communities. I expected that medicinal plant use to be preserved and remain relatively stable if not even intensified under the stresses of colonialism within the Mashantucket Pequot community from 1675-
1800 A.D. I also anticipated that medicinal plants would be relatively hard to observe archaeologically, since they tend to be rare and are often known only to a few people, such as medicinal practitioners. Medicinal use is often tied to special contexts, such as ritual areas. Consequently, I assume that medicinal plants would be differentially distributed across the ten sites.
Archaeological and Ethnographic Data Associated with Medicinal Use
Similar to the dietary analysis, I investigated past ethnographic research on the specific plant types I had identified within the archaeological record. Plant types were only included in the ethnographic analysis if they were identified to genus and/or species level. I did not attempt to categorize the eleven plant types that were identified to the family level because an overwhelmingly large number species would have fallen under that identification. However, I included ethnographic data if the genus name was mentioned (no species name identified) within the ethnographic account.
Appendix C highlights the 41 plant types identified within the archaeological contexts that can be attributed to medicinal use based upon the ethnographic record. To
132 document the ethnographic use of the plant, the following ethnographic and historical resources, similar to the food ethnographic analysis, were utilized associated with each geographic area: 1) Mashantucket Pequot (e.g,, Occum 1756 in Brookes 2006; Bulter
1939 in Simmons 1990); 2) New England (e.g. Bennett 1955; Fischer et al. 1997; Lamb
Richmond 1989; Tantaquidgeon 1972); 3) Northeast (e. g. Black 1980; Herrick 1977;
Tantaquidgeon 1946; 1972); and 4) Southeast (e.g. Hamel and Chiltoskey 1972; Swanton
1928; Tantaquidgeon 1972). It is important to note that even if a specific genus (and its associated species found in Connecticut) was not recorded within the immediate geographic boundaries of the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation, the ethnographic information recorded in other geographic regions, such as the Northeast and Southeast, was useful to demonstrate the knowledge embedded in the use of the plant type. In essence, the information gathered from other regions is suggestive of how that type of medical plant may have been used but not necessarily that it was used that way within the
Mashantucket Pequot community.
As recorded in Appendix C, out of the forty-one plant types identified at the ten
Mashantucket Pequot sites from 1675-1800 A.D, five medicinal plant types were directly tied to the ethnographic accounts recorded from the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation
(Brooks and Warrior 2006; Simmons 1990). These include: (1) Rubus sp. (raspberry,
used for dysentery); (2) Rhus sp. (sumac, used for throat aid); (3) Quercus sp. (oak, used
for dysentery); (4) Prunus sp. (cherry, cold remedy and used for menstrual problems);
and (5) Comptonia peregrina (sweet fern , used for poison ivy) (Appendix D) . Except
for Prunus sp. (cherry), the plant types listed are not very frequent at the sites. The low
presence of medicinal plants directly associated with the Mashantucket ethnobotanical
133 record is more likely a factor of non-documentation because, as the archaeological record illustrates as discussed in this section, medicinal plant types are recovered within specific contexts at the ten households.
Medicinal Continuity
Table 6, highlights the presence of the different medicinal plant types found at each site as outlined in Appendix C (Note: many of these plants can also be considered serving other functions such as food, basket making etc.). Across those sites, select wild
plant medicinal types, including mast products, create roughly 54-98% of the total plants
per site (Figure 6-15). I assume that these larger quantities of wild plants types not only correlates to the types of foodstuffs were consumed but also what types of plants were used as medicine at the ten sites.
Ten plant types occur at more than five sites (Table 6). The medical plant types with the highest presence are: (1) Corylus americana (hazelnut), is recovered at ten sites;
(2) Carya sp. (hickory), recovered at nine sites; and (3) Zea mays (corn), recovered at
eight sites. The remaining thirty-one plant types occur in less than four of the ten
archaeological sites.
Also, fifteen of the plant types are only found at one site (Table 6). Many of the
“one site” medicinal plant types are recovered from 72-91 (2 plant types), 72-58 (8
types), 72-171 (1 types) and 72-97 (3 types). The high rate of unique plant types
occurring at 72-58 is more likely not related to a cultural phenomenon but a product of
the intensive soil sampling and archaeobotanical processing of this specific site.
However, it is a possible that this specific household, during its occupation from 1760-
134 1770 A.D., may have contained unique knowledge in regards to the use of wild plants which lead to the increase in archaeological visibility of “one site” plant types.
In essence, the observed distribution highlights significant variability of the medicinal plants across the sites. Few plants types are recovered from all sites, signifying the lack of continuity within the medical use of specific plant types at each site.
However, as the presence of specific plant types shift through time and space, there is unique knowledge that is embedded within each plant type (Table 6; Appendix C) and that knowledge was more likely passed down from generation to generation. Although the given plant types were not recovered at each individual site from 1675-1800 A.D, it does not necessary demonstrate the loss of that type of medicinal knowledge. Glaza
(2003) notes that wild plants as medicine well into the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
The archaeological data recorded in this analysis coupled with his findings suggest that the knowledge was orally transmitted and a significant social activity because there is very little record of it with the Mashantucket Pequot written arches. The medicinal knowledge stayed alive, however, its usage (and preservation of evidence for it) appears significantly more sporadic as conditions of cultural deposition and preservation warranted.
Overall, the data do not demonstrate continuity in specific plant types but do express a broad foundation and continuation of knowledge associated with variety of medicinal plants recovered from 1675-1800 A.D. Thus, my expectation that there would be continued presence of medicinal plants at all sites due to the deep links within knowledge structures is not fully supported by the data. It is not seen within the quantification of the medicinal data from each but is partially fulfilled through tracing the
135 presence of the certain plant types across the ten sites (especially the plant types with more than two occurrences – often that presence is spread apart temporally; Table 6 It is important to recognizing that the knowledge embedded in each plant type (Appendix C) and how that knowledge could have been transmitted across time and space from 1675-
1800 A.D.
Medicinal Visibility
To investigate the second expectation about the limited presence of medical plants within the archaeological record is due to a specialized cultural use at the household level, I have conducted a presence and densisty analysis of specific contexts from five of the ten sites. A subset of sites, 72-91, 72-58, 72-171, 72-161 and 72-66 (which were also analyzed in Chapter Five), contained similar contexts (stratified pits, shallow pits and hearths) and had moderate to high quantities of botanicals preserved within these specific contexts. The five sites each contain the following number of medicinal plant types based upon the soil analyzed: 72-91, 22 types – 6,668 liters of soil sampled and processed; 2)
72-58, 25 types – 1,485 liters; 3) 72-171, 11 types - 1,584 liters; 4) 70-161, 11 types –
4,422 liters; and 5) 70-66, 9 types – 66 liters (Table 6).
First, I will discuss the results for the presence analysis at these sites. Site 72-66 did not have stratified and shallow pit, thus, those contexts were not included in that portion of the analysis. Within Figure 31, sites 72-91 contains at least seventeen and 72-
58 contains twenty-four plant types within stratified contexts. At those two sites, the stratified botanical assemblage comprises roughly 77-92% of the total plant types recovered (Table 7). Thus, many of the medicinal plant types are recovered are found within the stratified pit contexts.
136 The stratified pits at the occupation of 72-58 (1760-1770 A.D.) have the highest presence of medicinal plants in contrast to the remaining contexts within the other sites have very limited quantities of medicinal plant types (Figure 31). If these stratified pits are interpreted as refuse from the clean up of house floors, fire hearths and other plant- related activities within the household, it is not surprising that they would contain the highest presence of medical plant types and that the other contexts, such as shallow pits and even hearths, contain a limited spectrum of plant types (Figure 31). It is possible that the hearth and shallow pit contexts are associated with single episodic activities that would have involved a limited spectrum of plant types, such as prepping a certain plant type(s) for a concoction to heal. From 1675-1800 A.D. it appears that shallow and hearth contexts remain as deposits of medicinal plants but the number of plant types present with stratified contexts are significantly changed after the occupation of 72-58. Based upon the data, it is hard to determine if the decrease in plant types within stratified contexts is due to a shift in household activities, such as the decrease in overall use of pits for refuse etc., or if there was a decrease in medicinal activities.
To explore a shift of the plant assemblages within the specific contexts, a categorization similar to the one used in Chapter Five was applied to a density analysis to
better understand why specific plant types may be decreasing in number and if that could
be associated with a certain cultural activity, such as storage, cooking, prepping etc.. The
plant types were categorized into mast products, wild plants, tropical cultigens, or Old
World cultigens. Typically, these categories are associated with food-related activities but these plants also can be utilized as medicine, as seen in the ethnographic information provided within each plant type (Appendix C). As analyzed in Chapter Five for the
137 dietary remains, the raw counts of plant types were standardized by dividing the total number of seeds recovered by the amount of soil processed per site and these standardized numbers were then utilized. .
As seen in Figure 32, the high to moderate density of mast products, tropical cultigens and wild plants is impressive at 72-91 and 72-58 - between 1 to 16 seeds recovered per liter of soil floated within the stratified contexts. The other context, which yields a similar amount of medicinal plant types, is the hearth at 72-66 with wild plants – with .5 wild seeds per liter of soil floated (Figure 33). However, the majority of the feature contexts, contains medicinal plant remains in low frequency - less then .5 medicinal seed remains per liter of soil floated (Figures 32-34). Although many of the potentially medicinal plants occur in low frequency, their cultural significance may have
been considerably larger. A variety of plant types, across the medicinal spectrum of usage is found at all sites dating from 1675-1800 A.D. This demonstrates that medicinal plants such as tropical and Old world cultigens, nuts, shrubs fruits, and other wild plant varieties, were continually used and played a role in Mashantucket Pequot plant practices but may be low frequency . So based upon the data presented, my expectation of few
medicinal plants within each household due to Mashantucket specialized cultural use
cannot be considered as fully validated by the data. Besides the two stratified contexts at
72-91 and 72-58 (Figure 32), hearth and shallow contexts had similar frequencies of
mast, wild plant, tropical cultigens and Old World cultigens (Figure 33 and 34) To
resolve the question, other cultural contexts, such as ritualized spaces, are needed to
explore and better understand the variability of medicinal behavior among the
Mashantucket Pequot at the household level.
138 Other Historical Data
There are few historical (colonial or indigenous) accounts that discuss
Mashantucket Pequot use of medicinal plants. It is not surprising that Medicinal knowledge is privileged information among Native Americans, and it would be have
been very difficult for outsiders to gain access to it. That is why the archaeological data and ethnographic information compiled are so important for reconstructing Mashantucket
Pequot medical plant knowledge and use. One of the few historical accounts is from the religious Pequot leader, Samson Occum (1754) in “Herbs and Roots”:
“Take some Weecup [basswood bark] and sweet fern for the boy – And for your self the same Weecup and sweet fern or some sage, or hyssop – and take some bone and burn it thoroughly and point it fine and [it] about half a spoon full at a time with a little water just before or after a meal. And make Power of great centry, to take in drink, either water or weak punch.” (S. Occum 1754 in Brooks and Warrior 2006).
Occum’s (1754) list of Native remedies highlights that the use of plants as medicine had not been lost among the Mashantucket Pequot, even within the converted
Christian community that emerged in the mid-eighteenth century. The knowledge embedded in plants as medicine continues to proliferate and is seen many generations later within notes from Martha Langavin, a powerful matriarchal figure in Pequot history
(Simmons 1990). Listed below are a select portion of plants used for medicine by
Mashantucket Pequot women and men:
“Running blackberry ( Rhus hispidus ): cook roots and drink for dysentery. Sumac ( Rhus hirta) : berries used to make tea for stomach aches. Wild Cherry (Prunus serotina) : drink made from bark. Good for colds. Oak: White Oak ( Quercus alba ): cook and steep and drink for dysentery as a last emergency. It’s too powerful, much more powerful than hardhack. Used just once.” (M. Langavin transcribed by E. Butler in Simmons 1990)
139 What Martha describes correlates to what is found in the archaeological record at a select portion of the ten sites (Table 6). Perhaps some of these species were grown in the home gardens attached to the homesteads, as suggested by Largy and Rainey (2006) during the eighteenth century on Nantucket Island.
Summary
Through this analysis of the medicinal plants, I suggest that the decision-making embedded in the traditional ecological knowledge has the Mashantucket Pequot reacting conservatively to the inroads of colonial people and if not amplifying the use of their medicinal practices during colonization. It was surprising to recover many medicinal
plant types between 1675-1800 A.D. (Table 6). The data verifies my expectation that medicinal plant usage should have remained stable because they were part of the knowledge structure of Mashantucket Pequot lifeways. Many of the plants, like Carya sp.
(hickory), Comptonia peregrina sweet fern, and Zea mays (corn) are at almost all sites from 1675-1800 A.D. Other plant types have moderate representation across the assemblage.
My second expectation of low density of medicinal plants within the household and the relation to specialized cultural practices was hard to substantiate given the nature of the data and contexts analyzed. Thus, I cannot resolve if the low density is related to specific cultural activities at the household level although I can make some suggestions as the “big picture” of Mashantucket Pequot medicinal use during this time of social and land circumscription. It appears reasonable to conclude that the medicinal plants were one of the ways in which the Mashantucket Pequot remained autonomous against the
140 colonial outsiders. Specific decisions, within this investigation of the medicinal plants, highlight the continuity of medicinal plants.
141 Total 72-91: 72-164A: 72-34A: 72-58: 72-171: 72-88: 72-97C: 72-161: 72-70B: 70-66: Plant 1675- 1680- 1680- 1760- 1765- 1775- 1780- 1780- 1780- 1785- Type 1680 1690 11690 1770 1775 1800 1785 1790 1800 1795 Across A.D A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. Sites Asclepias sp. 1 1 Carpinus caroliniana 1 1 Cyperus sp. 1 1 Galium sp. 1 1 Juglans nigra 1 1 Juncus sp. 1 1 Latuca sp. 1 1 Polygonum hydropiper 1 1 Polygonum sp. 1 1 Portulaca sp. 1 1 Potamogeton sp. 1 1 Vibernum sp. 1 1 Vicia sp. 1 1 Viola sp. 1 1 Acalypha sp. 1 1 2 Carex sp. 1 1 2 Cucurbita sp. 1 1 2 Illex sp. 1 1 2 Juglans sp. 1 1 2 Nysaa sylavatica 1 1 2 Phytolaca americana 1 1 2 Triticum sp. 1 1 2 Juglans cinerea 1 1 1 3 Vaccinium sp. 1 1 1 3 Vitis sp. 1 1 1 3 Chenopodium sp. 1 1 1 1 4 Crataegus sp. 1 1 1 1 4 Myrica pensylvanica 1 1 1 1 4 Phaselous vulgaris 1 1 1 1 4 Prunus sp. 1 1 1 1 4 Comptonia peregrina 1 1 1 1 1 5 Gaylussacia sp. 1 1 1 1 1 5 Prunus persica 1 1 1 1 1 5 Rubus sp. 1 1 1 1 1 5 Cornus sp. 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Quercus sp. 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Rhus sp. 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Zea mays 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Carya sp. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Corylus sp. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 Total of Plant Types Per Site 22 9 10 25 11 6 15 11 6 9
Table 6. Presence of Medicinal Plants.
142
72-161: 72-91: 1675- 72-58: 1760- 72-171: 1765- 1780-1790 70-66: 1785- 1800 A.D 1770 A.D.. 1775 A.D. A.D. 1795 A.D. Stratified Plant Presence 77% 92% 55% 64% 0 Shallow Pit Plant Presence 36% 31% 45% 82% 0 Heart Plant Presence 32% 31% 18% 9% 89%
Table 7. Percentages of Medicinal Plants at 72-91, 72-58, 72-171, 72-161 and 72-66.
143 25
20
15
10 Stratified Pit Plant Presence Shallow Pit Plant Presence Hearth Plant Presence 5
0 72-91: 1675-1680 72-58: 1760-1770 72-171: A.D 1765-1775 72-161: A.D. 70-66: A.D. 1780-1790 A.D. 1785-1795 A.D.
Figure 31. Counts of Medicinal Plants at 72-91, 72-58, 72-171, 72-161 and 72-66.
144 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 Stratified Wild Plants 2 Stratified Toprical Cultigens 0 Stratified Old World
72-91: Stratified Mast 1675-1680 72-58: 1760-1770 72-171: A.D 72-161: A.D. 1765-1775 A.D. 1780-1790 A.D.
Figure 32. Stratified Pit Medicinal Density at 72-91, 72-58, 72-171 and 72-171.
145 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 Hearth Wild Plants 2 Hearth Tropical Cultigens 0 Hearth Old World Cultigens 72-91: 1675-1680 72-58: Hearth Mast 1760-1770 72-171: A.D 1765-1775 72-161: A.D. 70-66: A.D. 1780-1790 A.D. 1785-1795 A.D.
Figure 33. Hearth Medicinal Density at 72-91, 72-58, 72-171, 72-161, 72-66.
146 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 Shallow Wild Plants 2 Shallow Tropical Cultigens 0 Shallow Old World Cultigens 72-91: Shallow Mast 1675-1680 72-58: 1760-1770 72-171: A.D 72-161: A.D. 1765-1775 A.D. 1780-1790 A.D.
Figure 34. Shallow Pit Medicinal Density at 72-91, 72-58, 72-171 and 72-161.
147
CHAPTER 7
RESULTS OF MASHANTUCKET LAND USE
Introduction
From 1666-1856, parcel by parcel, the Mashantucket reservation and surrounding lands were taken away by the English colonial powers. In total, the Mashantucket lost approximately 2300 acres from the reservation lands originally appropriated to them in
1666. Much of what was taken was considered their best agricultural lands, and included other domesticated resources, such as apple orchards. With any change in circumstances, there are expected outcomes. In the case of the Pequot during 1600-1800’s, one would expect an array of changes occurring during colonization – ranging from modifications in cultural and political interactions to subsistence strategies. In spite of the historical accounts (both English and Native American), it is not clear how the circumscription of resources and exposure to European lifeways affected Mashantucket Pequot land use.
One may hypothesize that during the institutional and later phases of the Reservation from 1675-1800 A.D., the Mashantucket Pequot land use would remain relatively unchanged because of how engrained traditional plant use would have been within
Mashantucket knowledge structures. Thus, conducting an analysis of environmental data in comparison to the archaeobotanical and associated historical data will be helpful for understanding the adaptive strategies of the Mashantucket Pequot and whether traditional strategies changed or were maintained during this time period.
148 Archaeological and Ecological Data Associated with Land Use
To evaluate my first land use expectation, that the Mashantucket Pequot continued to use different habitats in spite of the circumscription of land and resources, I analyze the ecological data in relation to the archaeological record. First, I categorized the forty-one plant types identified to genus and species at the ten sites by their habitat distinctions as outlined in Magee and Ahles (2007). The plant types identified were categorized as woodland, field, wetland, coastal and modern anthropogenic disturbance habitats (Table 8). This classification of the habitats associated with the archaeological data allows me to suggest specific habitat choices of the Mashantucket Pequot from
1675-1800 A.D.
Of the 41 types categorized, 38 identified plant types are considered to be multi- habitat - more than two habitat categorizations (Table 8). The two types attributed to only one habitat category include Juglans cinerea (butternut) and Juglans nigra (walnut)
within woodlands (based on Magee and Ahles 2007; Table 8). Multi-habitat types such
as Acalypha sp. (copperleaf) can be found in field or disturbance habitats, Comptonia
peregrina (sweetfern) in woodland, field, and/or disturbance habitats, and Polygonum sp.
(knotweed) in anthropogenic disturbance, coastal, open, wetland, or woodland habitats.
In total of the plants identified, 29 of the identified habitat types occur in woodland, 35 in
field, 24 in wetlands, 32 in anthropogenic disturbance, and 16 in coastal (Table 8). One
type, Corylus americana (hazelnut) is found at all sites at Mashantucket Pequot from
1675-1800 A.D. and is associated with woodland, field, and disturbance habitats (Table
4; Table 8). Carya sp. (hickory) is found at nine of the sites and may be present in
similar habitats as Corylus americana (hazelnut). Zea mays (corn) was recovered from
149 eight sites, except 72-161 and 72-70B and can be grown in field to disturbance habitats.
Please refer to Table 8 to compare the remaining types found at each site with their associated habitats.
Habitat Use
With the habitats of the plant remains characterized, I conducted a presence
percentage analysis of plant types per habitat. All identified archaeological types identified and their associated habitats per site were recorded. The raw data was then transformed into percentage data to gain a better understanding which plant types with their associated habitats could have been exploited during site occupation (Table 9;
Figure 35).
Within the percentage analysis, the percentages of plant types within their habitat categorization are relatively stable (Table 9; Figure 35). Depending upon the habitat category, the variation is around one to three percent at 72-91, 72-164A and 72-34A. The mean percentage for these three sites for exploitation of woodlands is 23% +/- 3, 27.5%
+/-1.5 within field habitats, 15% +/-1 for wetland habitats, 23% +/-2 for anthropogenic disturbance, and 12% +/- 1 for coastal habitats (Table 9).
A similar trend of habitat exploitation continues even when the Reservation is confined to 1000 acres by 1760. During the late eighteenth century, the mean percentages of habitat representation within the plant assemblage do not drastically fluctuate (if at all), except within plants utilized from anthropogenic disturbance areas (Table 9; Figure
35). Within the woodlands no difference in the means is noted. Within field habitats, it is slightly shifts from 27.5% +/- 1.5 to 26.5% +/-2.5. Within wetland habitats it moves from
15%+/- 1 to 16%+/-2. Within coastal habitats, the mean shifts from 12%+/- 1 to
150 13.5%+/2.5. Lastly, within the anthropogenic disturbance habitats, the means have the most range in variation from 23%+/-2 to 25%+/-5. As the woodland, field, wetland, and coastal habitats became less accessible due to landscape circumscription, this data demonstrates that they could be pulling plant recourses from anthropogenic-disturbed habitats more often.
To further investigate the expectation that the Mashantucket Pequot continued use of different habitats regardless of the physical circumscription of land and other resources, environmental data projected within Geographic Information Systems (GIS), such as soil, surface, bedrock, surface elevation, and water resources were projected
(Table 10; Figures 36-40). It may be assumed that the shift in reservation size and the introduction of colonial subsistence strategies would be reflected in the location and environmental aspects of each site. GIS was used to test whether the changing boundaries of the Mashantucket Pequot reservation itself impacted the Pequot choice in placing themselves on the landscape.
There is no discernable pattern to land use in relation to soil, surface, bedrock, and evaluation (Table 10; Figures 36-40). These environmental variables do not appear to
be a contributing factor to settlement practice and land use. Many of the variables are relatively homogenous across the reservation, especially within soil, surface and bedrock.
I further investigated distance to water bodies because may of the plants collected from the Reservation assemblages can be denoted to be from wetland habitats (Figure 40).
Distance to water is often thought of as a defining variable for site locations, often times to the detriment of our archaeological models (see Curran 2010) but with the defined spatial landscape and cultural record, the Mashantucket Reservation lends itself to an
151 interesting case study when approaching the analysis of water as a significant variable in site selection.
In Figure 41, a simple line graph which highlights the distance to the nearest water source– illustrates despite the changing boundaries of the reservation and potential loss of resources, there does not appear to be significant alteration of distances to important locale resources important to the native subsistence strategy from 1675-1800
A.D. But can one define the variability within distance to water based upon settlement structures and mobility, wigwams vs. framed structure, as land becomes more circumscribed from 1675-1800 A.D? To answer this question, I analyzed the fifty-five post-Contact Mashantucket sites, which have been identified from the 1980’s to the present and include the ten sties in the study for settlement structure vs. distance to water
(Figure 4). Within the data set of the fifty-five sites, overall there is a range of 100 to 700 ft. from settlement site to a water body from 1675-180 A.D. (Figure 42). But within the time frame that wigwams would have been utilized (1675-1750 A.D), the mean distance of homesteads with wigwam structures to water bodies is 285 ft. (Figure 42). And after framed structures are constructed (1750-1800 A.D.), there is also a comparable mean for both framed without (213 ft.) and with (228 ft.) foundation (Figure 42). As the Figure 41 defined, this analysis of settlement structure demonstrated that the mean distance to water bodies does not shift dramatically when we see architecture changing in later part of the eighteenth and into the nineteenth century.
To further test the above results within a defined spatial landscape, I also conducted a random point analysis within GIS. For random points generated within the reservation boundaries the mean was 600 feet to the nearest water body, while the mean
152 was 300 ft. for the archaeological sites (Table 11). Although the range of variation overlaps between the random points and archaeological sites, it appears that distance to wetlands and/or a water source is a significant variable in settlement location based upon the means generated in this spatial analysis. (Table 11) However, the Mashantucket
Pequot do not appear significantly to alter their patterns of settlement in relation to distance to water from 1675-1800 A.D.
The above data related to the habitat exploitation within the archaeological record affirm my expectation that the Mashantucket Pequot would be exploiting a variety of habitats in spite of the circumscription of resources and land. The variables analyzed via
GIS (Table 10; Figures 36-40), when combined with the archaeobotanical data, demonstrate that traditional subsistence strategies as associated with certain habitats were not substantially altered. When the reservation is established in 1666 A.D. the
Mashantucket Pequot have over 3500 acres of land to exploit, which includes the
Reservation (2500 acres), traditional hunting grounds at Walnut Hill (600 acres) and access to coastal land resources at Noank (500 acres) (Figure 2). And by 1760 A.D. (the occupation of 72-58), this area is limited even further by the colonial authorities to 1000 acres. However, in spite of this, the Mashantucket Pequot households studied in this analysis appear to make choices that include exploiting, processing, and utilizing medicinal and food plants from a variety of different habitats. This is not to say that the
Pequot didn’t adopt any colonial strategies related to land use and management of plants, however this data illustrates maintenance of traditional plant-based and land strategies within this discrete spatial context.
153 Seasonal Plant Use and Storage
With the use of Magee and Ahles (2007), I conducted a seasonality analysis on the plant types recovered from the ten Mashantucket Pequot sites. Within the analysis, I investigate my expectation that seasonal plants would be continually used along with storage facilities at each site. Plant types identified to family level were not included in this analysis because of lack of resolution when defining the rates of maturation within the multitude of plants under that level of identification. In Table 12, forty-one plant types identified to genus and species level were included.
Plant types germinate, fruit and mature at different points through out the spring, summer and fall. These biological processes are of great cultural significance to individuals, households, and communities, such as the Mashantucket Pequot. The plant types identified at the ten Mashantucket Pequot sites from 1675-1800 A.D. demonstrate a
pattern of seasonality in relatively equal amount from spring, summer and fall. The plant types can be grouped into four separate time frames for the beginnings of the plant maturation, fruiting, ripeness etc. –beginning in April, May, June and July/August (Table
12). Roughly ten plant types can be attributed to each temporal category of maturation, creating a relatively equal distribution of potential plant usage for the Mashantucket
Pequot from 1675-1800 A.D. from 1675-1800 A.D.
I assessed how the seasonality of the plant types was reflected in individual sites.
Therefore, I conducted a presence analysis of the seasonality data within the sites that had
been previously analyzed for diet and medicine – 1) 72-91; 2) 72-58; 3) 72-171; 4) 72-
161; and 5) 72-66. These intra-site analyses (Tables 13-17), show that the sites are relatively similar, containing plant types from April to October.
154 Site 72-91 contained wigwams, which may have been seasonally occupied for less than 1 year. And almost 70 years later, at site 72-58 (structure unknown but more likely a stone foundation due to the time period), the seasonality charts look remarkably similar
(Tables 13 and 14). The uniformity of the seasonality regardless of plant types becomes even more pronounced at sites 72-171, 72-161, and 72-66 (Tables 15-17). Even with the lower number of plant types at these three sites, they still suggest that the Mashantucket
Pequot exploited plants across spring, summer and fall.
The plant types at the select households above were also more than likely not consumed immediately and were stored and utilized when needed (the ethnographic tables mention the storability of almost each plant type – Appendix B and C). At 72-91,
72-58, 72-171, 72-161, storage pits have been excavated (except 72-66). So the above information corroborates that storage were more likely maintained by the Mashantucket
Pequot as they exploited plant types from a variety of different habitats across different times of the year, even at sites like 72-91 where wigwams were inhabited and 72-58 where the habitation structure are unknown. Thus, as expected, the Mashantucket Pequot continued their use of a spectrum of seasonal plans and maintained their storage was fully supported.
Traditional Agricultural Systems and Home Gardens
Next, I will assess my expectation that the Mashantucket Pequot continued to use traditional agricultural systems and cultivated home gardens with tropical cultigens such as Zea mays (corn), Phaselous vulgaris (beans) and Curcurbita sp. (squash). Although there is no archaeological evidence of home gardens during the seventieth or eighteenth centuries, there is evidence of home gardens during the nineteenth and twentieth
155 centuries. Both Glaza (2003) and Handsman (2008) report that the Mashantucket Pequot women tended adjacent gardens that grew food and medicinal products. Glaza (2003) also notes that the Mashantucket Pequot women grew ornamental plants around the households. As highlighted in the dietary analysis and medicinal analysis, traditional cultigens continued to be in use, especially Zea mays (corn) recovered at all sites except
72-161 and 70B, and also wild plants recovered at all sites (Figures 6-15). Perhaps some of these wild plants were cultivated in and around the household.
There is no evidence of Old World cultigens within those gardens during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Glaza 2003). Within the archaeological assemblages from 1675-1800 A.D., there is only limited presence of Euro-American products, with
Prunus persica (peach) only recovered at five sites and wheat from two sites (Table 4) and even these are not frequent (Figures 6, 10, and 12-15). Triticum sp. (wheat) with the households at Mashantucket may have been cultivated in the home gardens or supplied by local overseers (individuals who were appointed by the colonial authorities to act as an advocate and intermediary for any issues related to the Reservation and the local communities) or bought from local markets in and around the Reservation.
The limited presence of Old World plant products at any of the households signals that the Mashantucket who were tending the gardens and harvesting wild plants from nearby areas, may have been resisting the adoption of Euro-American agricultural practices. They continued to rely upon wild plants and traditionally used tropical cultigens to provide adequate food, medicinal products and possibly grains acquire from the overseers as a supplement during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Although there is no direct archaeological evidence of the presence of these gardens at each
156 household, The archaeological evidence at the ten sites and the collected ethnographic evidence collected for the nineteenth and twentieth centuries suggest that home gardens probably were a large part of the maintaining Mashantucket Pequot subsistence strategies. The data do not contradict my expectation of the continued use of home garden and traditional agricultural systems within each household.
Duration of Occupation
In the following section, I analyze the expectation of short durations of occupations at habitation sites to maintain stable plant supply of food across the
Reservation. During 1666-1750, the low site frequency is not a reflection of the nature of occupation on the reservation nor does it reflect archaeological site visibility.
Documentary research clearly indicates that there are two communities during this period that were semi-aggregated on the landscape (Connecticut Indian Papers n.d; McBride
1990). Their sites have yet to be identified and are likely located in areas of the former reservation, such as the West side and South hill. Given their low site visibility, the sites that have been excavated within the Reservation boundaries (not within the West side or
South hill) do suggest relatively short durations of occupation, most likely from seasonal up to 2-3 years. At Mashantucket, wigwams do not appear to be intended as permanent structures. The occupation of the wigwam structures for a limited time (1-3 years) appears to reflect continuing seasonal movements in the 17th/early 18th century between
Noank, Mashantucket, Poquatonnock and perhaps shifting of households to maintain wild
plant resources and field horticulture soils in and around the reservation.
Between 1750-1800, the increase in site number, in comparison to the earlier
period of 1675-1750, is not evidence for indication of increase in population. Instead, it
157 reflects the loss of reservation land and resources, 989 acres from 2500 acres. The
Mashantucket Pequot Indians were exposed to the influence of Christianity and the
Brotherton Indian Movement, as noted in Chapter Three. Visible changes started to occur within the reservation with the construction of framed houses and the use of domesticated animals (Lammi 2005; Vasta 2007). In 1755, the historical documents note that all of the domestic structures are wigwams. However, 1761, 30% percent of domestic structures are framed without stone foundations and in the later part of the eighteenth century we
begin to see domestic structures being built upon stone foundations. Framed structures without stone foundations or sills (low single course of field stone to place a sill plate) were intended to for longer occupation than wigwams simply based on the investment of materials and labor and are also much easier to identify within the archaeological record.
The longer duration of occupation within these framed structures is also reflected in the nature, density and variety of architectural debris (window glass, nail types), variety and complexity of features and artifact densities. These sites also don't have true foundations in the form of dug cellars, suggesting the Mashantucket do not have the means or desire to construct a framed dwelling that is built to last, and with the lack of a cellar may not have the same capacity for storage as their Euro-American neighbors. Almost all of the framed structures without a true foundation/dug cellar have storage facilities in the form of traditional "pits", sometimes within the structure.
In essence, the duration of occupation of homesteads during this second half of the eighteenth century is relatively low, 5-10 years, as seen in Figure 4. The low duration of occupation at these habitation sites may be a reflection of the quality of structures (not necessarily be built to last), underlying economic means or even the intention to maintain
158 mobility within the reservation boundaries. However, beginning in the third quarter of the eighteen-century, there appears to be a trend toward a longer duration of occupation (11-
20 vs. 1-10 years). This may correlate with the loss of the west side of the reservation, and changes in economic strategies, such as the adoption of domesticated animals.
The information presented above supports my expectation that the Mashantucket
Pequot maintain variability within their mobility strategies regardless of architectural features. The archaeological data presented in the land use section may corroborate that the Mashantucket Pequot within specific households were choosing to live within one area for only a short period of time not to overexploit and to remain mobile with their uses of traditional plant-based resources within woodland, open-field, wetland and mixed/edge habitats. In essence, the diversity within the land use strategies demonstrates continuity and also the adaptability of the Mashantucket Pequot from 1675-1800 A.D.
Euro-American Land Use
In the following section, I explore my expectation that with these ten sites that there should be limited evidence of fences and property lines and adoption of other Euro-
American land strategies, such as use of common lands by domesticated animals. In
Figure 32, it is clear that the Mashantucket Pequot appear to continually exploit a diversity of habitats and food and medicinal resources within Reservation boundaries from 1666 to 1800 A.D. However, based upon the archaeological data recovered from the ten sites (Figure 6-15), it is difficult to discern whether the Mashantucket Pequot fully engage in Euro-American strategies of land use at all, which included fencing of lands and maintaining property distinctions among tribal members. Although there are many stonewalls located on the contemporary lands of the Reservation, we have been unable to
159 determine if they are associated with the households and sites analyzed for this analysis since historical about their construction are non-existent. Also, often the archaeological excavation of the ten sites was centered on the domestic structures and many times it was difficult to clearly define the boundaries of the homestead. Thus, there is no clearly defined archaeological data on the stonewalls and fence lines with the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. However, the archaeological data presented in this chapter does support the expectation that the Mashantucket Pequot exploited a variety of different habitats and continued to engage in a land strategy that was maintained traditional strategies of subsistence and may be seen as contrastive with patterns of Euro-American land use that involved large scale land clearance and commodity-driven agricultural activities.
Other Historical Data
Within the colonial accounts, there seems to be different narratives in regards to land use strategies of the Mashantucket Pequot during the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Within the Connecticut Indian Papers (1731), there is little acknowledgment that Indigenous communities are using any other land management practices, except for agricultural purposes. The following colonial narrative is a representative example that highlights how Euro-Americans viewed Mashantucket Pequot land use – through the lens of agricultural yields and production – rarely mention Indigenous use of woodland and wetland ecosystems.
“We find the number of Wigwams on the Mashantucket land to be fifteen and no more and the Indians improvement of said land was about ten or twelve acres consisting about ten property enclosures or corn field scattering about [because] the great part of said is rocky land not fit for planting” (Testimony of colonist, William Morgan and Zachariah Maynor
160 to the Connecticut Assembly, Connecticut Indian Papers October 14, 1731).
At the time this narrative is recorded, the Mashantucket Pequot are still living within wigwam structures and lands available for resource use within the reservation system would have been around 1000 acres. The availability of resources and land had dramatically shifted from when the Reservation was first established in 1666 with around
3500 acres available (Figures 2 and 3). Now less than sixty years and two to three
Mashantucket generations later, the Mashantucket Pequot are defined by the colonists as not to be engaging in Euro-American agriculture (only fifteen acres enclosed noted within this account) and that the land itself is “unfit” for planting. Instead, as highlighted in the presence analysis of habitat use and distance to wetlands (Figures 35, 41-42) the
Mashantucket Pequot appear to utilize different habitats for plant resources within their households.
As noted by Anderson (2005), and Nicholas (1992), archaeologists tend to overlook how significant ‘marginal’ ecosystems, especially wetlands, were in shaping the
Indigenous plant use strategies, even during the Colonial Period. This contemporary
Indigenous account from Alice Brend, a tribal member at Mashantucket, demonstrates the use of wetland resources and the pattern of generational continuity and offers a glimpse at how important these resources are within Indigenous ecological knowledge:
“My mother knew everything and of course taught me quite a bit and different herbs and what’s good for you and what’s not. We used to cook greens, and we used to get different things out of the swamps and the woods, picking different things. Then she’d cook them up and we’d have them for greens on the table. She knows how to get the stuff for cold and showed me where it was to get it.” (Alice Brend, Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Member 1987 in Starna 1990)
161 Her claim of swamps as a viable ecosystem is unusual in comparison to colonial accounts dating back to contact with Europeans and is also supported by the archaeological data from the ten sites that the Mashantucket Pequot did use resources from wetlands (Table
8; Figure 35). However, within the colonial dialogue directly related to the Mashantucket
Pequot Reservation and Native Americans within the regions there is little mention of
Indigenous individuals and communities utilizing wetlands resources, as they are often depicted as dark and gloomy places, unviable and useless to Euro-American economy
(Cronon 1983). Within this region of southwest Connecticut, they appear to be invisible to the colonist but certainly not to the Mashantucket Pequot community, as one can discern from the oral accounts and archaeological evidence related to the habitat data.
Within this region, the colonial narratives from 1675—1800 A.D. also offer an interesting glimpse of Mashantucket Pequot attempts at engaging in Euro-American land strategies. They often speak to the Mashantucket Pequot inability to properly engage in
Euro-American land strategies. This account from 1761 is a representative of the ways colonial narratives speak about Mashantucket Pequot land use:
“We also viewed the Indian families which seem to be flourishing their houses and wigwams filled with children and youth but as there are great disputes relating to their number we cannot ascertain to the same with any great degrees of certainty. Some of them have made handsome improvements and have some cattle and seem to be desirous of improving after the English manner. Their improvements are on the eastern part of the land which yet remains undivided which in our opinion considering it in quality is near as good as the western part that is divided.” (Connecticut General Assembly Records 1761)
The above highlights that the Mashantucket are having difficulty improving the land within the Reservation boundaries and creating “Euro-American”-like spaces.
European improvements were defined by creating herbage for domesticated animals,
162 cultivating planting fields and fencing for property (Donahue 2004). At this time in the colonial record, the Pequot have been living on the Reservation for over fifty years and exploitable land would have dwindled down to 1000 acres (Figure 2). However, in spite of land circumscription, the Mashantucket Pequot still are pulling from different habitats, as seen in the archaeological record, and finding it difficult to engage in Euro-American land strategies or “improvements to the land”, as highlighted in the colonial narrative.
Summary
Although there were significant pressures from the colonial authorities to have the
Native Americans engage in the Euro-American notion of improvements to the land,
Indigenous communities continued to choose to engage in specific plant strategies that revolved around the use of a diversity of plants and habitats, which may have been contrastive to some of the supplementary colonial narratives mentioned above. Their accustomed traditional strategies with wild plants vs. domesticated cultigens (either
Indigenous or Euro-American) would have put a premium on choosing those plant interactions that allowed to remain independent of their colonizers, logically different, and in control of their special and temporal placement, independent of the expectations of the colonists. Overall, the data provided in this chapter are in support of the expectations laid out in Chapter 2 and have strong implications for the distribution of plants at archaeological sites and the adaptive strategies of the Mashantucket Pequot during this
period.
163
Anthropogic Coastal Field Wetland Woodland Total Disturbance Habitats Per Plant Type Acalypha sp. 1 1 2 Asclepias sp. 1 1 1 1 4 Carex sp. 1 1 1 1 1 5 Carpinus caroliniana 1 1 2 Carya sp. 1 1 1 3 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 1 1 1 1 1 5 Comptonia peregrina 1 1 1 3 Cornus sp. 1 1 1 1 4 Corylus americana 1 1 1 3 Crataegus sp. 1 1 1 1 4 Cucurbita sp. 1 1 1 3 Cyperus sp. 1 1 1 1 1 5 Galium sp. 1 1 1 1 4 Gaylussacia sp. 1 1 1 1 4 Ilex sp. 1 1 1 3 Juglans cinerea 1 1 Juglans nigra 1 1 Juglans sp. 1 1 1 3 Juncus sp. 1 1 1 1 1 5 Lactuca sp. 1 1 2 Myrica pensylvanica 1 1 1 3 Nyssa sylvatica 1 1 2 Phaselous vulgaris 1 1 2 Phytolacca americana 1 1 2 Polygonum hydropiper 1 1 2 Polygonum sp. 1 1 1 1 1 5 Portulaca sp. 1 1 2 Potamogeton sp. 1 1 2 Prunus persica 1 1 2 Prunus sp. 1 1 1 1 1 5 Quercus sp. 1 1 1 1 4 Rhus sp. 1 1 1 1 1 5 Rubus sp. 1 1 1 1 1 5 Scirpus sp. 1 1 1 1 1 5 Triticum sp. 1 1 2 Vaccinium sp. 1 1 1 1 1 5 Viburnum sp. 1 1 1 1 4 Vicia sp. 1 1 2 Viola sp. 1 1 1 1 1 5 Vitis sp. 1 1 1 1 4 Zea mays 1 1 2 Total Plant Types Per Habitat 32 16 35 24 29
Table 8. Habitat Presence
164
72-91: 72-34A: 1675- 72-164A: 1680- 72-171: 72-88: 72-97C: 72-161: 72-70B: 70-66: 1680 1680- 1690 72-58: 1760- 1765- 1775- 1780- 1780- 1780- 1785- A.D 1690 A.D. A.D. 1770 A.D. 1775 A.D. 1800 A.D. 1785 A.D. 1790 A.D. 1800 A.D. 1795 A.D. ANTHROPOGENIC DISTUBANCE 25% 23% 21% 21% 23% 29% 33% 21% 30% 20% COASTAL 11% 13% 12% 16% 14% 5% 5% 13% 5% 17% FIELD 29% 26% 26% 24% 28% 33% 33% 24% 30% 30% WETLANDS 14% 16% 15% 18% 14% 10% 10% 16% 10% 13% WOODLANDS 21% 23% 26% 23% 21% 24% 19% 26% 25% 20%
Table 9. Percentages of Habitat Categories.
165 Site Range of Soil Surface Bedrock DEM - Distance Occupation Descriptor Description Descriptor Elevation to Water (Feet) Charlton- Canton- Waterford 72-91 1675-1680 Paxton Till Group 154.31 345.55
Sudbury Hope Valley Sandy Alaskite 72-34a 1680-1690 Loam Till Gneiss 320.12 72.44
Charlton- Hope Valley Canton- Alaskite 72-164a 1680-1690 Paxton Till Gneiss 298.86 376.34
Charlton- Hope Valley Canton- Alaskite 72-58 1760-1770 Paxton Till Gneiss 323.07 139.47
Charlton- Hope Valley Canton- Alaskite 72-171 1765-1775 Paxton Till Gneiss 290.00 99.84 Sudbury Sand Gravel Sandy Overlaying Waterford 72-88 1775-1800 Loam Sand Group 168.75 404.39 Sudbury Sandy Waterford 72-97c 1780-1785 Loam Sand Group 142.91 297.43 Charlton- Canton- Waterford 72-161 1780-1790 Paxton Till Group 145.12 206.69
Charlton- Hope Valley Canton- Alaskite 72-70b 1780-1800 Paxton Till Gneiss 321.90 108.00 Charlton- Canton- Plainfield 72-66 1785-1795 Paxton Till Formation 208.28 120.80
Table 10. Environmental Variables at Each Site – Soil, Bedrock, Surface, Elevation and Water.
166
Random Points Arch Sites
N 79 56
Mean 600 ft. 308 ft.
Std. Deviation 680 ft. 206 ft.
Range 0-1280 ft. 102-614 ft.
Table 11. Mean Distance to Water: Random Point versus Archaeological Sites
167
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Comptonia peregrina sweetfern 1 1 Corylus americana hazelnut 1 1 Juglans cinerea butternut 1 1 Juglans nigra black walnut 1 1 Juglans sp. walnut 1 1 Myrica pensylvanica bayberry 1 1 Prunus persica peach 1 1 Carpinus caroliniana ironwood 1 1 1 Prunus sp. plum 1 1 1 Quercus sp. oak 1 1 1 Viola sp. violet 1 1 1 1 1 Carya sp. hickory 1 1 Crataegus sp. hawthorne 1 1 Nyssa sylvatica tupelo 1 1 Gaylussacia sp. huckleberry 1 1 1 Ilex sp. holly 1 1 1 Viburnum sp. viburnum 1 1 1 Asclepias sp. milkweed 1 1 1 1 Vaccinium sp. blueberry 1 1 1 1 Carex sp. sedge 1 1 1 1 1 Scirpus sp. bulrush 1 1 1 1 1 1 Zea mays corn 1 1 Vicia sp. vetch 1 1 1 1 Rubus sp. bramble 1 1 1 1 Potamogeton sp. pondweed 1 1 1 1 Galium sp. bedstraw 1 1 1 1 Juncus sp. rush 1 1 1 1 1 Rhus sp. sumac 1 1 1 1 1 Phaselous vulgaris common bean 1 1 Cucurbita sp. squash 1 1 Lactuca sp. lettuce 1 1 1 Phytolacca americana pokeweed 1 1 1 Polygonum hydropiper water pepper 1 1 1 Portulaca sp. pursalane 1 1 1 Triticum sp. wheat 1 1 1 Cyperus sp. umbrella sedge 1 1 1 1 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. goosefoot/amaranth 1 1 1 1 Cornus sp. dogwood 1 1 1 1 Polygonum sp. smartweed 1 1 1 1 Acalypha sp. three seed mercury 1 1 1 Vitis sp. grape 1 1 1
Table 12. Total Seasonality of Plant Types from All Ten Mashantucket Sites 1675-1800 A.D. (Highlighted when each plant type flowers or fruit on a yearly basis).
168 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Comptonia peregrina sweetfern 1 1 Corylus americana hazelnut 1 1 Juglans cinerea butternut 1 1 Juglans sp. walnut 1 1 Myrica pensylvanica bayberry 1 1 Prunus persica peach 1 1 Prunus sp. plum 1 1 1 Quercus sp. oak 1 1 1 Carya sp. hickory 1 1 Crataegus sp. hawthorne 1 1 Gaylussacia sp. huckleberry 1 1 1 Ilex sp. holly 1 1 1 Vaccinium sp. blueberry 1 1 1 1 Carex sp. sedge 1 1 1 1 1 Scirpus sp. bulrush 1 1 1 1 1 1 Zea mays corn 1 1 Potamogeton sp. pondweed 1 1 1 1 Rubus sp. bramble 1 1 1 1 Rhus sp. sumac 1 1 1 1 1 Cucurbita sp. squash 1 1 Phaselous vulgaris common bean 1 1 Lactuca sp. lettuce 1 1 1 Polygonum hydropiper water pepper 1 1 1 Triticum sp. wheat 1 1 1 Vitis sp. grape 1 1 1
Table 13. Seasonality of Plant Types at 72-91. Range of Occupation is 1675-1680 A.D (Highlighted when each plant type flowers or fruit on a yearly basis).
169 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Comptonia peregrina sweetfern 1 1 Corylus americana hazelnut 1 1 Juglans sp. walnut 1 1 Myrica pensylvanica bayberry 1 1 Carpinus caroliniana ironwood 1 1 1 Quercus sp. oak 1 1 1 Carya sp. hickory 1 1 Crataegus sp. hawthorne 1 1 Gaylussacia sp. huckleberry 1 1 1 Ilex sp. holly 1 1 1 Viburnum sp. viburnum 1 1 1 Carex sp. sedge 1 1 1 1 1 Scirpus sp. bulrush 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vaccinium sp. blueberry 1 1 1 1 Zea mays corn 1 1 Galium sp. bedstraw 1 1 1 1 Rubus sp. bramble 1 1 1 1 Rhus sp. sumac 1 1 1 1 1 Juncus sp. rush 1 1 1 1 1 Cucurbita sp. squash 1 1 Phaselous vulgaris common bean 1 1 Phytolacca americana pokeweed 1 1 1 Lactuca sp. lettuce 1 1 1 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. goosefoot/amaranth 1 1 1 1 Polygonum sp. smartweed 1 1 1 1 Cyperus sp. umbrella sedge 1 1 1 1 Cornus sp. dogwood 1 1 1 1 Vitis sp. grape 1 1 1
Table 14. Seasonality of Plant Types at 72-58. Range of Occupation is 1760-1770 A.D. (Highlighted when each plant type flowers or fruit on a yearly basis).
170
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Comptonia peregrina sweetfern 1 1 Corylus americana hazelnut 1 1 Juglans nigra black walnut 1 1 Myrica pensylvanica bayberry 1 1 Prunus persica peach 1 1 Prunus sp. plum 1 1 1 Quercus sp. oak 1 1 1 Carya sp. hickory 1 1 Zea mays corn 1 1 Rhus sp. sumac 1 1 1 1 1 Phaselous vulgaris common bean 1 1 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. goosefoot/amaranth 1 1 1 1 Cornus sp. dogwood 1 1 1 1
Table 15. Seasonality of Plant Types at 72-171. Range of Occupation is 1765-1775 A.D. (Highlighted when each plant type flowers or fruit on a yearly basis).
171
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Comptonia peregrina sweetfern 1 1 Corylus americana hazelnut 1 1 Juglans cinerea butternut 1 1 Prunus sp. plum 1 1 1 Nyssa sylvatica tupelo 1 1 Carya sp. hickory 1 1 Gaylussacia sp. huckleberry 1 1 1 Vaccinium sp. blueberry 1 1 1 1 Rubus sp. bramble 1 1 1 1 Rhus sp. sumac 1 1 1 1 1 Triticum sp. wheat 1 1 1
Table 16. Seasonality of Plant Types at 72-161. Rang of Occupation is 1780-1790 A.D. (Highlighted when each plant type flowers or fruit on a yearly basis).
172
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Corylus americana hazelnut 1 1 Prunus persica peach 1 1 Quercus sp. oak 1 1 1 Carya sp. hickory 1 1 Gaylussacia sp. huckleberry 1 1 1 Zea mays corn 1 1 Rubus sp. bramble 1 1 1 1 Rhus sp. sumac 1 1 1 1 1 Phaselous vulgaris common bean 1 1
Table 17. Seasonality of Plant Types at 72-66. Range of Occupation is 1785-1795. A.D. (Highlighted when each plant type flowers or fruit on a yearly basis).
173 $!!"# ,!"# +!"# *!"#
)!"# COASTAL (!"# ANTHROPOGENIC DISTUBANCE '!"# WETLANDS &!"# OPEN FIELD %!"# WOODLANDS $!"# !"#
*%-,$.#$)*+# *%-(+#.$*)(# *%-++.$*++# *!-)).$*,!# *%-&'/.$)+(# *%-$*$.$**!# *%-,*0.#$*+&# *%-$)$.$*+(# *%-*!1.$*,!# *%-$)'/.#$)+(#
Figure 35. Percentages of Habitats Represented Within the Archaeobotanical Record.
174
Figure 36. Elevation (ft) at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation.
175
Figure 37. Surface at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation.
176
Figure 38. Bedrock at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation.
177
Figure 39. Soils at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation.
178
Figure 40. Hydrography at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation.
179 Distance to Water (Feet) 450.00
400.00
350.00
300.00
250.00
200.00 Distance to Water (Feet)
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00 1677 1685 1690 1750 1763 1770 1790 1790 1790 1790
Figure 41. Distance to Water.
180 800 700 600 500 Mininum Distance 400 Average Distance Maximum Distance Feet 300 285 248 200 218 100 0 Wigwam Framed w/o Framed w/ 1666-1800 Foundation Foundation 1750-1856 1750-1980
Figure 42. Proximity of Mashantucket Post-Contact Sites to Water Resources.
181 CHAPTER 8
THE FACES OF CONTINUITY AND CHANGE AT THE MASHANTUCKET
PEQUOT RESERVATION
Introduction
This investigation has explored how the Mashantucket Pequot, at the household level managed and adapted their plant strategies when faced with the challenges of colonization from 1675-1800 A.D. This chapter summarizes the results and discusses the complexity of Indigenous plant use and decision-making processes on a colonized landscape as well as future work to complement the data presented in this investigation.
I have evaluated the how Indigenous households and communities made decisions about
plants that allowed them to remain flexible in their social organization, and maintain their
Indigenous identity within colonized spaces. There are alternative hypotheses, which could have been explored with this dissertation. For example, that Indigenous individuals and communities kept living like Indigenous peoples because they had no choice. They had limited resources to access the Euro-American lifestyle and thus they were poor and marginal and subsisted however they could, including continuing cultural practices that would keep them alive within the colonized landscape. However, in this dissertation, it is assumed that agency or human choice is embedded within cultural practices and knowledge structures of the communities under study.
I did not excavate the data analyzed in this dissertation, nor were they collected in the field to settle a specific set of competing hypotheses. They were collected to document decisions taken by Mashantucket Pequot, in regard to plant resources (about
182 which not much was known, much less published before). It would require the critical test of new problem-directed field work, to settle the question if the Mashantucket Pequot decisions were completely forced by their having been marginalized so completely that the observed behaviors were the only choice they had, as a result of their dire poverty and colonial subjugation, or if they can be better explained by an agency approach, in which the decisions were the ones taken because they were the culturally most appropriate and
best informed decisions for Mashantucket Pequot individuals to take, within the range of decisions that would have been open to them.
In this direction, it would be useful to compare plant data sets from Euro-
American sites to Indigenous households each containing multiple contexts, such as fire hearths, storage, refuse pits and house gardens clearly associated with distinct architectural structures, with directly connected and abundant historical narratives (both indigenous and colonial). Unfortunately, the Euro-American archaeological data and colonial/indigenous accounts in regards to plant use are very sparse in this region. At the site level, data utilized are also limited: (1) the field methods may have steered archaeological to areas that did not yield high quantities of plant material and they were not necessarily optimized in a problem directed approach to understand human- environmental interactions; (2) lacked control over the field processing and as an analyst, it would have been useful to “start from scratch” during the identification process, instead of reanalyzing and working through the methodological issues of identification created by other analysts; and lastly (3) the generally poor and differential preservation of the archaeobotanical materials at New England sites. Imagine how much more we would
183 know about the Mashantucket plant strategies if we had desert plant preservation conditions in New England.
Although this data set certainly has limitations, I need to reiterate that there are many positive aspects of its collection, processing and analysis. The ten sites chosen for this analysis are unprecedented with the region in the amount of soil floated/analyzed and also the amount of recovered archaeobotanical information. It has allowed me to assess my research assumptions and move beyond it correcting simpler notions of decision making due to environmental and cultural determinism, such as biological forcing, colonial power, or depictions of communities and individuals act kindly to their environments, as mentioned in Chapter One.
Through an analysis of the archaeological and historical data, I have evaluated a model of decision-making and expectations that have the Mashantucket Pequot reacting conservatively to the process of colonization. Within that model, I explore the dynamic cultural practices involved with the Mashantucket Pequot plant use and demonstrate that the Mashantucket Pequot at the household level continued to use wild plants and tropical cultigens with supplementary additions of Old World domesticated crops from the late seventeenth into the eighteenth centuries. This illustrates traditionalism in the face of change and how the selection of the most conservative strategies, which in this investigation are labeled as heterarchical, allowed them to stay culturally autonomous in the processes of colonization. Specific decisions, such as the use of mast products, other wild plants and tropical cultigens as food and medicine, highlight those responses which are conservative and help to keep them as autonomous as possible under the colonial onslaught from 1675-1800 A.D.
184 Living with the Land: Agency and the Complexity of Environmental Strategies
The data presented within this investigation support the notion that the
Mashantucket Pequot chose plant strategies that has them ‘living with the land’ and the
“hidden harvests” of wild plants, from nuts to wild weedy and fruits plants, and also tropical cultigens dominate the archaeological assemblages. In many examples, these decisions are corroborated in the Indigenous and colonial narratives. The household decision making, in its continuity and variation, indicates that the Mashantucket Pequot’s use of plants was deeply embedded in their cultural practices and local knowledge of the landscape from 1675-1800 A.D. The post-Contact adaptive strategies related to plant use have connections to the pre-Contact period as there appear to be similar patterns of exploitation of the spectrum of wild plants utilized and the presence of tropical cultigens
(Chilton 1999, 2002; Bernstein 1993; George and Dewar 1999; Little and Schoeninger
1995; Johnson 1999).
So what types of specific decisions are evident from ‘living with the land’ when faced with land and resource circumscription? And how do those decisions reflect the struggles the Mashantucket Pequot faced with colonization? These are challenging questions and much research has gone into searching for motives and meanings within the cultural structures of past archaeological communities (Brumfiel 2000; Dornan 2002).
However, because of the analysis of plant-related material culture at the household level,
I am able to sketch the network of historical variables and the knowledge structures related to plant use of the Mashantucket Pequot. The household analysis at Mashantucket highlights broad temporal and spatial tendencies within the archaeobotanical data and
185 chronicles the decisions of plant use actually taken within this Indigenous, but yet colonized, landscape.
Based upon the plant data, it is clear that the Mashantucket Pequot struggled to maintain traditional lifeways in the face of colonial forces. For example, mast products continued to be used at the domestic sites but there is quite a variation when that is broken down into five mast plant types identified (Figure “Mast Standardized”. At 72-91, the Mohantic Fort occupied between 1675-1680 A.D., Carya sp. (hickory) dominates the household assemblages. However, only five years after the fort occupation, Corylus americana (hazelnut) increases at the cost of Carya sp. (hickory) in 72-58 (Figure “Mast
Standardized:). After 72-58 is occupied, Carya sp. (hickory) is present but is not the main nutshell present, except when 72-66 is occupied from 1785-1795 A.D.
Within the archaeological and historical records, Carya sp. (hickory) is noted as the most important nut bearing trees in the eastern United States for Indigenous communities (Gremillion 1995; Bennett 1955). Is pattern of cultural use similar in New
England? And if Carya sp. (hickory) is an important plant resource, then why did the
Mashantucket Pequot mast use shift away from hickory after late seventeenth century?
Could it be related to wartime (King Philips War) and need to feed more mouths with the storage of Carya sp. (hickory) and Zea mays (corn)? More upland, terrestrial environments, like Walnut Hill, West Half and South Hill were lost to the Pequot during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. This comprised over 3000 acres of exploitable land for trees, such as Carya sp. (hickory). It is possible that this shift in nutshell presence of Carya sp. (hickory) correlates to that land loss for the Mashantucket
Pequot. The increase in the use of Corylus americana (hazelnut) may correlate with the
186 changing forest composition as early successional species, such as Pinus strobus (white
pine), Betula sp. (birch) and Acer maple (red maple) become more abundant due to the
rapidly changing southern New England landscape (Foster et al. 2008). It is important to
understand that mast products were part of Indigenous communities diet and patterns of
environmental strategies even when forced to become sedentary within the Reservation
boundaries. The use of mast products is one way in which traditional ecological
knowledge and plant practices may have been kept alive and passed from generation to
generation between households at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation during the late
seventeenth to eighteenth centuries.
The physical presence of tropical cultigens, fruits, and other wild plants used for
medicine has a very similar use patterns among the ten archaeological sites. From the
data it is reasonable to suggest that the different types of medicinal plants across these
select households were one of the ways in which the Mashantucket Pequot remained
culturally autonomous. Medicinal plants such as tropical and Old world cultigens, nuts,
shrubs fruits, and other wild plant varieties, were apparently continually used and played
a role in Mashantucket Pequot plant practices but tend to have low ubiquity. As stated in
Chapter Six, additional contexts, such as ritualized spaces, with differential presence (not
necessarily higher ubiquity) of plant remains are needed to understand the variability
within the cultural behaviors related to Mashantucket Pequot medical plant at the
household level.
It also is important to highlight that the Mashantucket continued to exploit a
diversity of types of habitat types. In spite of increasing circumscription, woodland, open
field, coastal, and wetland (such as the Great Cedar Swamp) habitats continued to be
187 central, along with new formed anthropogenic areas, to the environmental strategies of the Mashantucket Pequot. At no point during the occupation of the ten domestic sites did the households at Mashantucket cease to harvest plants from the diversity of habitats within and around the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation. The knowledge and decisions associated with the use of wild plants, which include fruits and weedy seeds, were passed along from generation to generation and made a significant contribution to the plant– related food and medicinal stores of each of the households analyzed. The plant types identified at the select households above were also more than likely not consumed immediately and were stored and utilized when needed. Traditional storage practices were more likely maintained by the Mashantucket Pequot as they exploited plant types from a variety of different habitats across different times of the year, even at sites like 72-
91 with its wigwams and 72-58 were that kind of habitation structure are unknown.
The colonial narratives document significant pressures from the colonial authorities to either engage with or not to interfere in the Euro-American notion of improvements to the land. In response, the Mashantucket Pequot choose to choose to
participate only in those plant strategies that allowed to maintain if not broaden the diversity, variation, and flexibility in the use of plants and their habitats. The heterarchical values placed upon wild plants and domesticated cultigens (either tropical or Old World) allowed the Mashantucket Pequot to pass along the plant related knowledge and continue exploiting a diverse subsistence base. The presence of wild
plants alongside domesticates at all ten sites demonstrates that the Mashantucket Pequot
“lived with the land” and that they continually utilized products which have been labeled as “hidden harvests” (Grivetti and Ogle 2000) in order to survive. Merchant notes
188 (2010:85) that colonial production altered the local ecology that in turn undermined
Native American production. Although the local ecology was certainly modified by the large scale land clearance that had started in the sixteenth century the Mashantucket
Pequot environmental strategies from 1675-1800 A.D. do not appear radically changed.
Though this had not been the focus of the dissertation it is important to note that
Mashantucket Pequot decision making, in the directions in which it is reverberated across the data in this investigation, may have been made easier by many of the Indigenous plant interactions being female centered, in contrast to the Euro-American male centered economy. This pattern is similar to other geographic regions in North America, which include the Southeast (Perdue 1998; Scarry and Scarry 2005) and the Northwest coast
(Duer and Turner 2005). In New England, Indigenous women are associated with domestic activities, which include maintaining the household, farming and the gathering of plants (Merchant 2010). It has also been noted that women are an integral part of the social and economic systems during and after the time of European colonization (Ives
2011: Lamb Richmond and Den Ouden 3003; Ives 2011). They maintained their sociocultural authority and produced much of what we know today at Native American culture materialities (baskets etc.) (Lamb Richmond and Den Ouden 2003).
The Indigenous narratives at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation and those of associated cultural groups corroborate those early studies and analyses of the role of women within southeastern New England. More specifically, Mancini (2009) has documented during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Mashantucket Pequot men leaving the reservation to engage in whaling and other capitalistic endeavors along the coast and other towns of New England. A similar phenomenon can be seen within a
189 small, colonial rural town in Vermont during the nineteenth century – as capitalism takes a hold within the areas surrounding the town, there is migration but yet resistance and
persistence of traditional lifeways (Barron 1987).
The women at Mashantucket Pequot maintained the households and sustained the communities in the increasingly oppressive colonial world. In essence they were the keepers, modifiers, and transmitters of the traditional ecological knowledge. Given the continued presence of wild plants (which were used both for food and medicine) within households from 1675-1800 A.D., women may have fostered a sense of continuity with environmental strategies and resisted engaging in plant strategies that interfered with their traditional ways of gathering, harvesting and cultivating plants from 1675-1800 AD.
Usually the colonial authorities and other colonial figures dealt with the men within the reservation systems (Bragdon 1996b). Women must have been an important contribution to keeping the Mashantucket Pequot plant interactions “Mashantucket Pequot” and traditional and autonomous from the Europeans, in the face of Euro-American strategies of “improving the land” within the Reservation.
In regards to Christianity and changes within cultural practices, Bragdon (1996b) states that women were often more conservative in their responses to converting to
Christianity as it highly affected their cultural autonomy, especially within marriage choice and family planning. That conservatism may also be seen within the continuities of plant use at the Mashantucket Pequot. Even after many Mashantucket Pequot converted to Christianity in the later part of the eighteenth century, which advocated for an overhaul of the Indigenous ways of being (Rubin 2005), traditional plant strategies for food and medicinal purposes continue to be maintained (with household variations) in a
190 heterarchical fashion from 1765-1800 A.D. As noted by Mancini (2002), it is sometimes hard to discern the patterns of medicinal plant use, as this line of practice appears to shift dramatically within the historical accounts after the rise of Christianity. However, the archaeological evidence presented in this analysis has created temporal and spatial connections between the use of plants at the household level.
Further Research
Wood Analysis
The next step in the macrobotanical analysis at the Mashantucket Pequot
Reservation from the extant collections is the evaluation of the use of wood resources that have been recovered at all the sites within this investigation. The analysis of the wood charcoal will be one of the first within the region to utilize the innovate methods, such as the minimum piece diameter analysis (Marguerie and Hunot 2007; Scholtz 1986;
Tusenius 1986) to decipher cultural patterns and to reconstruct the decisions which surround wood use at the household and community levels. This archaeobotanical research would complement the research conducted by Foster and Aber (2004), Foster et al. (2008) and Ireland et al. (2010) to learn about the intensive utilization of wood products, coupled with the history of deforestation, reforestation, and other anthropogenic impacts. This analysis would be one of the first to study an continuously occupied indigenous landscape to understand major changes in forest composition and structure occurred after the arrival of Europeans. The wood data will be integrated with the documentary record to identify Native American decisions in relation to their access to fuel resources and further establish a historically contextualized and more nuanced understanding of the Native Americans within a contested landscape
191 Animal Resources
At the sites analyzed, there has been extensive recovery of animal bone as well.
The faunal data (analyzed by M. Vasta and Randy Noaks) are being analyzed in parallel to the botanical data to create more inclusive understanding of subsistence and land-based strategies at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation. Vasta (2007) notes that during the eighteenth century there is a shift to more domesticated animals, such as pig, into the
Indigenous diet. This is an interesting trend in comparison to plant-based subsistence
because the plant use suggests conservatism of traditional practices while the animal use may demonstrate a more radical shift toward Euro-American subsistence strategies.
More research is needed to create a more comprehensive picture of animal and plant resources at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation during colonization.
Site Analysis
Investigating Mashantucket Pequot environmental interaction into the ninetieth and twentieth centuries will continue the story presented in this investigation and also to support the preliminary evidence that medicinal use continued into the twentieth century..
It will be useful to complement the data set presented in this investigation to identify whether the patterns of continuity in decision making which characterize the period
between 1675-1800 A.D. are maintained into the present day, especially after the
Mashantucket Pequot face more political, economic and social challenges with this colonized space in Connecticut. The preliminary data demonstrates a shift to a more equal balance between Euro-American and tropical cultigens and wild plants around the later part of the eighteenth century. Investigating the eighteenth to twentieth century data more comprehensively may introduce a lasting transformation in which Euro-American
192 products are being cultivated by the Mashantucket Pequot for more than just cursory use, as highlighted in this analysis (McBride personal communication). Over 15 identified
Mashantucket sites from 1800-1930 A.D. can be explored and expand our knowledge of traditional ecological knowledge during the later phases of colonization at Mashantucket.
Final Remarks
“Put your ear to the ground and listen and you know the ceremonies [Indigenous knowledge] are all around us. We just have to be patient and listen.” (Native American elder in Lamb Richmond 1989:33).
This project was sponsored by the Mashantucket Pequot Nation. It turns our attention to how Indigenous societies, when faced with conflict and competition for resources, engage their own traditions and Euro-American practices. This investigation accentuates the complexity of the cultural lifeways and how Native Americans
(re)conceptualized their socio-natural world during the process of colonization. Even though large portions of land were appropriated and resources became more circumscribed, the Mashantucket Pequot chose heterarchical strategies relative to plants that helped them to stay as autonomous an possible and that was the most consistent with older patterns of subsistence and land use.
The plant decision-making that has been the focus of this investigation, I hope, will aid in placing Indigenous individuals and communities into the contexts of colonization as more active participants in their own past, and as long-term stewards of the environments. This dissertation has shown that even as small a space as the
Mashantucket Pequot Reservation is a rich testimony to the 11,000-year history, and continues to provide important information about Mashantucket Pequot decision-making, even under the most severe constraints during the early Colonial Period.
193 !""#$%&'(!( ( )##%(*+&,#+&!(-)#%(./+(&%#$.&*!,&/$(
! 194 Taxonomic Common Part Contemporary Species Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Face View Cross Section Size Class Length Width Thickness Surface Comments Citation of Identication Identification Name Plants Database) Characteristics Criteria Acalypha sp. Cooperfleaf seed 3 SPECIES: Acalypha gracilens (slender threeseed mercury); obovate ellliptic small 1. 5 mm 1.1 mm 1.1 mm rugulose and aerolate raphe ridge and Idenfitication criteria based Acalypha rhomboidea (common threeseed mercury); Acalypha caruncle evident upon Montgomery 1977:108 - virginica (Virginia threeseed mercury) Acalypha rhomboidea Asclepias sp. milkweed seed 9 SPECIES: Asclepias amplexicaulis (clasping milkweed); obovate elliptic large 5.3-9.5 mm 3.4-7.2 mm .5-1.0 mm reticulately veined distinct, rather Idenfitication criteria based Asclepias exaltata (poke milkweed); Asclepias incarnata (swamp spongy marginal upon Montgomery 1977:54 - milkweed); Asclepias purpurascens (purple milkweed); Asclepias wing and a silky Asclepias incarnata; quadrifolia (fourleaf milkweed); Asclepias syriaca (common coma at the hilum Asclepias sullivantii (not milkweed); Asclepias tuberosa (butterfly milkweed); Asclepias end which is the currently in CT); Asclepias verticillata (whorled milkweed); Asclepias viridiflora (green pod's upper end; syriaca; Asclepias tuberosa; comet mildweed) shows position of Asclepias verticillata; raphae by a series of Asclepias viridiflora striations Asteraceae Family aster achene NUMEROUS SPECIES elliptic; ovate Circular; variable variable variable variable variable remanent style base Identification criteria based but typically elliptic with or without a upon Adam and Murrary much longer papus 2004 - Compositae family than thick; Montgomery 1977:72-89 - Compositae (Asteraceae) family Boraginaceae Forget me nutlet NUMEROUS SPECIES oblong; obtriangular; variable 1.0-4.5 mm .9-4.0 mm .6-6.0 mm variable hilum appears sub- Identification criteria based Family not elliptic obovate terminal, lateral, sub- upon Montgomery 1977: 58- basal or basal 61 - Boraginaceae family Carex sp. sedge seed 151 SPECIES: Carex abscondita (thicket sedge); Carex obvate; ovate traiangular; variable 1.3-3.7 mm 1.0-1.2 mm .6-2.2 mm areoolate range is small or long Identification criteria based acutiformis (lesser pond sedge); Carex aestivalis (summer sedge); elliptic and contorted upon Montgomery 1977:98- Carex alata (broadwing sedge); Carex albicans (whitetinge 99 - Carex aurea; Carex sedge); Carex albolutescens (greenwhite sedge); Carex albursina comosa; Carex luplina; Carex (white bear sedge); Carex alopecoidea (foxtail sedge); Carex pseudocyperus; Carex stipata amphibola (eastern narrowleaf sedge); Carex annectens (yellowfruit sedge); Carex appalachica (Appalachian sedge); Carex aquatilis (water sedge); Carex arctata (dropping woodland sedge); Carex argyrantha (hay sedge); Carex atlantica (prickly bog sedge); Carex aurea (golden sedge); Carex backii (Back's sedge); Carex bailey i (Bailey's sedge); Carex barrattii (Barratt's sedge); Carex bebbii (Bebb's sedge); Carex bicknellii (Bicknell's sedge); Carex blanda (eastern woodland sedge); Carex brevior (shortbeak sedge); Carex bromoides (brome-like sedge); Carex brunnescens (brownish sedge); Carex bullata (button sedge); Carex bushii (Bush's sedge); Carex buxbaumii (Buxbaum's sedge); Carex canescens (silvery sedge); Carex castanea (chestnut sedge); Carex cephaloidea (thinleaf sedge); Carex cephalophora (oval- leaf sedge); Carex collinsii (Collins' sedge); Carex communis (fibrousroot sedge); Carex comosa (longhair sedge); Carex conoidea (openfield sedge); Carex crawei (Crawe's sedge); Carex crawfordii (Crawford's sedge); Carex crinita (frindged sedge); Carex cristatella (crested sedge); Carex cryptolepis (northeastern sedge); Carex cumulata (clustered sedge); Carex davisii (Davis' sedge); Carex debilis (white edge sedge); Carex deweyana (Dewy sedge); Carex diandra (lesser panicled sedge); Carex digitalis (slender woodland sedge); Carex Disperma (softleaf sedge); Carex eburnea (bristleleaf sedge); Carex echinata (star sedge); Carex emoryi (Emory's sedge); Carex exilis (coastal sedge); Carex festucacea (fescue sedge); Carex flava (yellow sedge); Carex folliculata (northern long sedge); Carex formosa (handsome sedge); Carex glaucodea (blue sedge); Carex gracilescens (slender Carpinus Beech seed SAME ovate elliptic large 4.8 mm 4.1 mm 3.0 mm sharply longitudinally nutlet attached to a Idenfitication criteria based caroliniana ribbed, slightly single, usally 3- upon Montgomery 1977:57 - granular at the apex lobed, reticulately Carpinus carolininia veined brach about 2.3 cm long Taxonomic Common Part Contemporary Species Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Face View Cross Section Size Class Length Width Thickness Surface Comments Citation of Identication Identification Name Plants Database) Characteristics Criteria Carya sp. hickory nut 5 SPECIES : Carya alba (mockernut hickory); Carya cordiformis sub-globose; slightly angled large 2-4 cm NA NA slightly ridged and surrounded by a Identification criteria based (bitternut hickory); Carya glabra (pignut hickory); Carya ovalis elliptic; nervied; smooth fleshy involucre or upon Montgomery 1977:128- (red hickory); Carya ovata (shagbark hickory) obovate husk which becomes 129 - Carya cordiformis; dry and hard at Carya ovalis; Carya ovata maturity. The husk dehisces into 4 sections at maturity. Chenopodium - goosefoot seed 25 SPECIES: Amaranthus albus (prostrate pigweed); Amaranthus elliptic elliptic variable .7 -3.2 mm .7-1.5 mm .4-1.2 mm smooth or margin the embryo is folded Idenfitication criteria based Amaranthus sp. blitoides (mat amaranth); Amaranthus blitum (purple amaranth); slightly ridged; faintly or coiled in the seed - upon Adams and Murray Amaranthus cannabinus (tidalmarsh amaranth); Amaranthus and irregularly often evident in the 2004 - Cheno-Am-Type and caudatus (love-lies bleeding); Amaranthus cruentus (red roughened or undulate, form or the external Montgomery 1977: 50, 69-70 - amaranth); Amaranthus hybridus (slim amaranth); Amaranthus very faintly areolate; markings Amaranthus albus; powellii (Powell's amaranth); Amaranthus pumilus (seaside winged margins, Amaranthus graecizans; amaranth); Amaranthus retroflexus (redroot amaranth); concave-convex Amaranthus retroflexus; Amaranthus spinosus (spiny amaranth); Amaranthus tuberculatus Amaranthus tuberculatus; (roughfruit amaranth); Chenopodium album (lambsquarter); Chenopodium album; Chenopodium ambrosiodes (Mexican tea); Chenopodium Chenopodium botrys; berlandieri (pitseed goosefoot); Chenopodium bonus-henricus Chenopodium capitatum; (good King Henry); Chenopodium botrys (Jerusalem oak Chenopodium glaucum; goosefoot); Chenopodium capitatum (blite goosefoot); Chenopodium hybridum Chenopodium glaucum (oakleaf goosefoot); Chenopodium (Chenopodium simplex) murale (nettleleaf goosefoot); Chenopodium pratericola (desert goosefoot); Chenopodium rubrum (red goosefoot); Chenopodium simplex (mapleleaf goosefoot); Chenopodium standleyanum (Standley's goosefoot); Chenopodium urbicum (city goosefoot) Comptonia sweet fern nutlets SAME elliptic elliptic large 4.0 mm 3.1 mm 2.3 mm smooth or basal area puckered Idenfitication criteria based peregrina longitudinally ribbed, and ridged upon Montgomery 1977:150 - glossy, Myrica asplenifolia Cornus sp. dogwood seed 8 SPECIES: Cornus alternifolia (alternateleaf dogwood); Cornus elliptic elliptic large 3.0-7.0 mm 2.0-5.8 mm 2.0-5.5 mm veined and sulcate; Identification criteria based amomum (silky dogwood); Cornus canadensis (bunchberry smooth; longitudinally upon Montgomery 1977: 89- dogwood); Cornus florida (flowering dogwood); Cornus obliqua nerved 90 - Cornus alternifolia; (silky dogwood); Cornus racemosa (gray dogwood); Cornus Cornus candensis: Cornus rugosa (roundleaf dogwood); Cornus sericea (redosier dogwood) florida; Cornus purpusii (Cornus Obliqua); Cornus racemosa; Cornus rugosa; Cornus stolonifera (Cornus sericea) Corylus sp. hazelnut nut 3 SPECIES : Corylus americana (American hazelnut); Corylus ovate elliptic large 13-15 mm 12 mm 10 mm smooth or slightly apex abruptly Indentiification based upon cornuta (beaked hazelnut); Corylus heterophylla (Siberian ridged pointed and base Montgomery 1977:57 - hazelnut) truncate; involucre Corylus americana; Corylus long, beaked and cornuta laciniate or lacerate at the apex Taxonomic Common Part Contemporary Species Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Face View Cross Section Size Class Length Width Thickness Surface Comments Citation of Identication Identification Name Plants Database) Characteristics Criteria Crataegus sp. hawthorne seed 30 SPECIES: Crataegus anomala (Arnold hawthorne); Crataegus obovate; elliptic; large 5.5-6.5 mm 3.6-4.6 mm 4.6-3.2 mm rough; ridged Idenfitication criteria based brainerdii (Brainerd's hawthorne); Crataeus chrysocarpa obliquely obliquely upon Montgomery 1977:176 - (fireberry hawthorn); Crataegus compta (adorned hawthorn); ellipitic obtriangular Crataegus monogyna; Crataegus crus-galli (cockspur hawthorn); Crataegus dilatata Crataegus pruinosa; (broadleaf hawthorn); Crataegus dissona (northern hawthorn); Crataegus punctuta Crataegus dodgei (Dodge's hawthorn); Crataegus flabellata (fanleaf hawthorn); Crataegus holmesiana (Holmes' hawthorne); Crataegus intricata (Copenhagen hawthorne); Crrataegus iracunda (stolonbearing hawthorn); Crataegus jesupii (Jesup's hawthorn); Crategus lucorum (grove hawthorn); Crataegus lumaria (roundleaf hawthorn); Crataegus macrosperma (bigfruit hawthorn); Crataegus membranacea (tissueleaf hawthorn); Crataegus mollis (downy hawthorn); Crataegus monogyna (oneseed hawthorn); Crataegus pedicellata (scarlet hawthorn); Crataegus pequotorum (Connecticut hawthorn); Crataegus pringlei (Pringle's hawthorn); Crataegus pruinosa (waxyfruit hawthorn); Crataegus punctata (dotted hawthorn); Crataegus scabrida (rough hawthorn); Crataegus schuettei (Schuette's hawthorn); Crataegus spatiosa (New London hawthorn); Crataegus submollis (Quebec hawthorn); Crataegus suborbiculata (Caughuawaga hawthorn); Crataegus succulenta (fleshy Cucurbita sp. gourd seed hawthorn)Cucurbita pepo (field pumpkin) ovate elliptic large 7 to 26 mm 7 to 11 mm 2 to 3 mm rough surface, with a Identification criteria based fairly smooth seed upon Adams and Murray 2004 margin; - Curcurbita pepo- type Cyperaceae sedge achene NUMEROUS SPECIES ovate triangular; medium 1.5-2.0 mm .7 to 1.1 mm 1 mm or less smooth or rough with sometimes difficult Idenfitication criteria based elliptic paraellel striations to distinguish from upon Adams and Murray 2004 sometimes visible triangular - Cyperaceae-type Ploygonum achenes Cyperus sp. flatsedge achenes 15 SPECIES: Cyperus amuricus (Asian flatsedge); Cyperus eilliptic; triangular variable 1.1-2.5 mm .6-1.2 mm .6-1.1 mm angles rounded and Idenfitication criteria based bipartitus (slender flatsedge); Cyperus dentatus (toothed obovate sides slightly concave, upon Montgomery 1977:99 - flatsedge); Cyperus diandrus (umbrella flatsedge); Cyperus surface reticulate,, Cyperus esculentus; Cyperus echinatus (globe flatsedge); Cyperus erythrorhizos (redroot style base small; faces filiculmis (Cyperus flatsedge); Cyperus esculentus (yellow nutsedge); Cyperus slightly convex lupulinus); Cyperus filicinus (fern flatsedge); Cyperus fuscus (brown flatsedge); schweinitzii (not currently Cyperus grayi (Gray's flatsedge); Cyperus lupulinus (Great Plains found in CT) flatsedge); Cyperus odoratus (fragrant flatsedge); Cyperus squarrosus (bearded flatsedge); Cyperus strigosus (strawcolored flatsedge); Kyllinga gracillima (pasture spikesedge) Ericaceae Family heath seeds NUMEROUS SPECIES variable elliptic; elliptic variable variable variable variable smooth and often Identification criteria based reticulate upon Martin and Barkley 2000:188 - Ericaceae type Galium sp. bedstraw seed 17 SPECIES : Galium album (white bedstraw); Galium aparine elliptic; ellipitic variable 1.3-3.0 mm .8-3.0 .9-3.0 mm unicate hispid and Idenfitication criteria based (stickywilly); Galium asprellum (rough bedstraw); Galium boreale obiquely verrucose; rugulose upon Montgomery 1977:185 - (northern bedstraw); Galium circaezans (licorice bedstraw); oblong Galium aparine; Galium Galium glaucum (waxy bedstraw); Galium labradoricum boreale; Galium circaezans; (northern bog bedstraw); Galium lanceolatum (lanceleaf wild Galium lanceolatum; Galium licorice); Galium mollugo (false baby's breath); Galium obtusum mollugo; Galium verum (bluntleaf bedstraw); Galium palustre (common marsh bedstraw); Galium pilosum (hairy bedstraw); Galium sylvaticum (Scotch mist); Galium tinctorium (stiff marsh bedstraw); Galium trifidum (threepetal bedstraw); Galium triflorum (fragrant bedstraw); Galium verum (Yellow Spring bedstraw) Gaylussacia sp. huckleberry seed 3 SPECIES : Gaylussacia baccata (black huckleberry); obliquely obtraingular medium 1.9 mm 1.5 mm .8 mm slightly roughned Idenfitication criteria based Gaylussacia dumosa (dwarf huckleberry); Gaylussacia frondosa elliptic upon Montgomery 1977:105 - (blue huckleberry) Gaylussacia baccata Gramineae Family grass seed NUMEROUS SPECIES elliptic; ovate variable variable variable variable smooth; embryo Idenfitication criteria based depression clearly upon Adams and Murray 2004 visible near the base of - Gramineae-type the dorsal side Taxonomic Common Part Contemporary Species Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Face View Cross Section Size Class Length Width Thickness Surface Comments Citation of Identication Identification Name Plants Database) Characteristics Criteria Ilex sp. holly seed 6 SPECIES: Ilex glabra (inkberry); Ilex laevigata (smooth obliquely obtriangular large 3.6 mm 1.7 mm 1.3 mm smooth or longuitudlly Idenfitication criteria based winterberry); Ilex montana (mountain holly); Ilex mucronata elliptic ridge upon Montgomery 1977:52 - (catberry); Ilex opaca (American holly); Ilex verticillata (common Illex verticillata winterberry) undefined nutmeat NUMEROUS SPECIES variable variable variable variable variable variable variable All nutmeat that cannot be identified to family, genus or !"#$%$&'(")%$*+,%'$)% species level undefined nutshell NUMEROUS SPECIES variable variable variable variable variable variable variable All nutshell that cannot be identified to family, genus or !"#$%$&'(")%$*+,%-.$// species level undefined seed NUMEROUS SPECIES variable variable variable variable variable variable variable All seeds that cannot be identified to family, genus or !"#$%$&'(")%$*0$$#- species level Juglans cinerea butternut nut SAME elliptic large 4 cm 2.5 cm jagged ridges Identification critieria based upon Montgomery 1977: 129 - Juglans cinerea Juglans nigra black walnut nut SAME elliptic or medium 2.5 cm 3.0 cm strongly rugose Identification critieria based ovate upon Montgomery 1977:129 - Juglans nigra Juglans sp. butternut/bla nut 3 SPECIES : Carya alba (mockernut hickory); Juglans cinera elliptic or variable 2.5-4 cm 2.5-3.0 cm jagged ridges to Nutshell is very thick Identification critieria based ck walnut (butternut); Juglans nigra (black walnut) ovate strongly rugose in comparision to upon Montgomery 1977:129 - Carya sp. (hickory) Juglans cinera; Juglans nigra
Juncus sp. rush seed 24 SPECIES: Juncus acuminatus (tapertip rush); Juncus ambiguus ovate to elliptic to small .4-.9 mm .2-.5 mm .2-.5 mm longitudinaly striate Identification criteria based (seasice rush); Juncus anthelatus (greater poverty rush); Juncus elliptic obliquely and faintly areolate; upon Montgomery 1977:129- articulatus (jointleaf rush); Juncus brachycarpus (whiteroot rush); elliptic slghtly caudate at the 130 - Juncus acuminatus, Juncus brachycephalus (smallhead rush); Juncus brevicaudatus apex and base; Juncus balticus ( Juncus (narrowpanicle rush); Juncus bufonius (toad rush); Juncus arcticus, not currently found canadensis (Canadian rush); Juncus debilis (weak rush); Juncus in CT), Juncus brevicaudatus, dichotomus (forked rush); Juncus diffusissimus (simpod rush); Juncus bufoniuss, Juncus Juncus dudleyi (Dudley's rush); Juncus effusus (common rush); dudleyi, Juncus effusus, Juncus gerardii (saltmeadow rush); Juncus greenei (Greene's Juncus filiformis (not rush); Juncus marginatus (grassleaf rush); Juncus militaris currently found in CT), (bayonet rush); Juncus nodosus (knotted rush); Juncus pelocarpus Juncus nodosus, Juncus tenuis (brownfruit rush); Juncus secundus (lopsided rush); Juncus subcaudatus (woodland rush); Juncus tenuis (poverty rush); Luzula multiflora (common woodrush) Labiatae Family mint nutlet NUMEROUS SPECIES elliptic to triangular; to medium 2mm 1.5 mm 1 mm smooth to rough; may fruit usually consists Idenfitication criteria based ovate sides are flat have fine cellular of four nutlets upon Adams and Murray 2004 and third often patterning pressed together in a - Labiatae-type is rounded sphere, each nutlet with two flat facets and one rounded facet Lactuca sp. lettuce achene 4 SPECIES: Latuca biennis (tall blue lettuce); Lactuca canadensis obliquely elliptic to large 3.5-5.6 mm 1.0-1.5 mm .2-.5 mm longtitudinally ribbed Identification critieria based (Canada lettuce); Lactuca hirsuta (hairy lettuce); Lactuca serriola elliptic to oblong with and transversely upon Montgomery 1977:82- (prickly lettuce) obvate and without rugose; pappus none to 83 - Lactuca biennis, Lactuca beak capillary bristles canadensis, Lactuca pulchella, Lactuca serriola Legumosaeae legume seed NUMEROUS SPECIES elliptic; often variable variable variable variable variable smooth despcription is for Idenfitication criteria based Family shaped like a wild legumes - for upon Adams and Murray 2004 kidney bean dometicated see - Legumosaeae type Phaselous vulgaris Myrica bayberry fruit SAME SPECIES elliptic elliptic large 3.6 mm 3.2 mm 3.2 mm verrucose Idenfitication criteria based pensylvanica upon Montgomery 1977:151 - Myrica pensylvanica Taxonomic Common Part Contemporary Species Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Face View Cross Section Size Class Length Width Thickness Surface Comments Citation of Identication Identification Name Plants Database) Characteristics Criteria Nyssa sylvatica tupelo stone SAME SPECIES ellliptic elliptic large 7.5 mm 5.8 mm 4.1 mm promininet, rounded Identification critieria based ridges with upon Montgomery 1977:49 - intervening nerves Nyssa sylvatica Phaselous common seed SAME SPECIES elliptic often elliptic small .8-1.5 cm .5 to .8 cm 3 to 5 mm smooth Identification criteria based vulgaris bean shaped like a upon Adams and Murray 2004 kidney bean - Phaseolous vulgaris- type
Phytolacca pokeweed seed SAME SPECIES elliptic elliptic medium 2.5 mm 2.9 mm 1.5 mm smooth and obsurely embryo curved and Identification critieria based americana areolate seed tending to be upon Montgomery 1977:160 - reniform Phytolacca americana Polygonaceae bindweed achene NUMEROUS SPECIES elliptic; ovate triangular variable variable variable variable smooth may be winged or Identification critieria based Family wingless; upon Adams and Murray 2004 characteristics of - Polygonaceae-type and calyx are useful in Montgomery 1977:164-168 - identification Includes speceis of the families - Polygonum, Oxyria, Rumex and Polygonum water pepper achenes SAME SPECIES ovate elliptic; medium 2.3 mm 1.8 mm 1.0 mm striate and pucticulate Identification critieria based hydropiper triangular upon Montgomery 1977:166 - Polygonum hydropiper Polygonum sp. knotweed achenes 33 SPECIES : Fagopyrum esculentum (buckwheat); Polygonella ovate; obliquely variable 2.3-3.8 mm 1.5-3.0 mm .8-2.0 faintly rugulose, Identification critieria based articulata (coastal jointweed); Polygonum achoreum (leathery elliptic; triangular; conspicuously upon Montgomery 1977:165- knotweed); Polygonum amphibium (water knotweed); Polygonum obovate elliptic longitudinally striate 167 - Polygonum achoreum, arenastrum (oval-leaf knotweed); Polygonum arifolium and areolate; smooth; Polygonum aviculare, (halberdleaf tearthumb); Polygonum aviculare (prostrate finely striate; Polygonum cilinode, knotweed); Polygonum bellardii (narrowleaf knotweed); puncticulate Polygonum coccineum, Polygonum buxiforme (box knotweed); Polygonum careyi (Carey's Polygonum convolvulus, smartweed); Polygonum cespitosum (Oriental lady's thumb); Polygonum douglasii, Polygonum cilinode (fringed black bindweed); Polygonum Polygonum hydropiper, convolvulus (black bindweed); Polygonum cuspidatum (Japanese Polygonum lapathifolium, knotweed); Polygonum erectum (erect knotweed); Polygonum Polygonum natans, glaucum (seaside knotweed); Polygonum hydropiper Polygonum pensylvanicum, (marshpepper knotweed); Polygonum hydropiperoides (swamp Polygonum persicaria, smartweed); Polygonum lapathifolium (curly knotweed); Polygonum punctatum, Polygonum minus (pgymy smartweed); Polygonum nepalense Polygonum sagittatum, (Nepalese smartweed); Polygonum orientale (kiss me over the Polygonum scandens, garden gate); Polygonum pensylvanicum (Pennsylvania Polygonum tenue, Polygonum smartweed); Polygonum persicaria (spotted ladysthumb); virginianum Polygonum punctatum (dotted smartweed); Polygonum ramosissimum (bushy knotweed); Polygonum robustius (stout smartweed); Polygonum sachalinense (giant knotweed); Polygonum sagittatum (arrowleaf tearthumb); Polygonum scandens (climbing false buckwheat); Polygonum tenue (pleatleaf Portulaca sp. purslane seeds 2knotweed); SPECIES: Polygonum Portulaca gradifloravirginianum (rose (jumpseed) moss); Portulaca oleracea obliquely elliptic small .8 mm .7 mm .4 mm 5-6 concentric rows of embryo coiled within Identification criteria based (little hogweed) elliptic sculptured papillae the seed coast upon Montgomery 1977: 169 - Portulaca oleracea Taxonomic Common Part Contemporary Species Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Face View Cross Section Size Class Length Width Thickness Surface Comments Citation of Identication Identification Name Plants Database) Characteristics Criteria Potamogeton sp. pondweed achene 28 SPECIES: Myriophyllum pinnatum (cutleaf watermilfoil); obliquely elliptic; variable 2.0-3.5 mm 1.0-2.9 mm .8-1.7 mm obscurely areolate; outer margin slighly Identification criteria based Potamogeton alpinus (alpine pondweed); Potamogeton elliptic; oblong; pitted; rugose winged; beak termine upon Montgomery 1977: 151- amplifolius (largeleaf pondweed); Potamogeton bicupulatus elliptic; at the apex 152 - Potamogeton epihydrus; (snailseed pondweed); Pontamogeton confervoides (Tuckerman's obovate Potamogeton foliosus; pondweed); Potamogeton crispus (curly pondweed); Potamogeton Potamogeton gramineus; diversifolius (waterthread pondweed); Potamogeton epihydrus Potamogeton illinoensis; (ribbonleaf pondweed); Potamogeton foliosus (leafy pondweed); Potamogeton natans; Potamogeton friesii (Fries' pondweed); Potamogeton gramineus Potamogeton pectinatus (variableleaf pondweed); Potamogeton hillii (Hill's pondweed); (Stuckenia pectinata); Potamogeton illinoensis (Illinois pondweed); Potamogeton natans Potamogeton pusillus (floating pondweed); Potamogeton nodosus (longleaf pondweed); Potamogeton richardsonii; Potamogeton oakesianus (Oakes' pondweed); Potamogeton Potamogeton zosteriformis obtusifolius (bluntleaf pondweed); Potamogeton ogdenii (Ogden's pondweed); Potamogeton perfoliatus (claspingleaf pondweed); Potamogeton praelongus (whitesterm pondweed); Pontamogeton pulcher (spotted pondweed); Potamogeton pusillus (small pondweed); Pontamogeton richardsonii (Richardson's pondweed); Potamogeton robbinsii (Robbins' pondweed); Potamogeton spirillus (spiral pondweed); Potamogeton strictifolius (narrowleaf pondweed); Potamogeton vaseyi (vasey's) ; Potamogeton zosteriformis (flatsterm pondweed); Stuckenia pectinata (sago Prunus persica peach stone SAMEpondweed) SPECIES elliptic elliptic large variable variable variable jagged ridges pit divided into two Identification criteria based halves and can split upon Newsom (personal communication 2007) Prunus sp. plum stone 14 SPECIES: Prunus alleghaniensis (Allegheny plum); Prunus elliptic elliptic large 5.5-14 mm 3.9-11.0 mm 3.9-7.3 mm veined; slighlty margin ridged Indentiification based upon americana (American plum); Prunus avium (sweet cherry); rugulose; smooth; Montgomery 1977:181 - Prunus cerasus (sour cherry); Prunus domestica (European plum); Prunus americana; Prunus Prunus mahaleb (Mahaleb cherry); Prunus maritima (beach nigra; Prunus pensylvanica; plum); Prunus nigra (Canadian plum); Prunus pensylvanaica (pin Prunus pumila (not currently cherry); Prunus persica (peach); Prunus serotina (black cherry); found in CT); Prunus Prunus spinosa (blackthorn); Prunus susquehanae (Sesquehana serotina; Prunus virginiana sandcherry); Prunus viginiana (chokecherry) Quercus sp. oak nut 12 SPECIES: Quercus alba (white oak); Quercus bicolor (swamp elliptic; ovate circular; if large 24 mm or less 15 mm or less 15 mm or less smooth fragments of Quercus Idenfitication criteria based white oak); Quercus coccinea (scarlet oak); Quercus ilicifolia broken open, a sp. nutshell can often upon Adams and Murrary (bear oak); Quercus macrocarpa (bur oak); Quercus muehlenbergii very thin difficult to 2004 - Quercus -type (chinkapin oak); Quercus palustris (pin oak); Quercus phellos nutshell (less distinguish if Montgomery 1977:110-111 - (willow oak); Quercus prinoides (dwarf chinkapin oak); Quercus than .2 mm) is Castanea sp. nutshell Quercus alba; Quercus prinus (chestnut oak); Quercus rubra (northern red oak); Quercus visible bicolor; Quercus borealis stellata (post oak); Quercus velutina (black oak) (Quercus rubra); Quercus macrocarpa; Quercus muhlenbergii; Quercus palustris; Quercus prinodes; Quercus velutina Ranunculaceae buttercup seed NUMEROUS SPECIES variable variable variable variable variable variable variable seeds often laterally Identification criteria based Family compressed; margins upon Montgomery 1977: 170- often ridged; apex 175 - Ranuculaceae family typically tapers to persistent style
Rhus sp. sumac seed 8 SPECIES: Cotinus coggygria (European smoketree); Rhus elliptic elliptic variable 2.5-3.4 mm 2.5-4.3 mm 1.6-2.5 mm smooth; slightly ovule on a curved Identification criteria based aromatica (fragrant sumac); Rhus copallinum (winged sumac); roughened stalk and hilum upon Montgomery 1977: 50- Rhus glabra (smooth sumac); Rhus typhina (staghorn sumac); depressed 51 - Rhus aromatica; Rhus Toxicodendron radicans (eastern poison ivy); Toxicodendron copallina; Rhus radicans; rydbergii (western poision ivy); Toxicodendron vernix (poison Rhus typhina; sumac) Taxonomic Common Part Contemporary Species Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Face View Cross Section Size Class Length Width Thickness Surface Comments Citation of Identication Identification Name Plants Database) Characteristics Criteria Rubus sp. berry stone 47 SPECIES: Dalibarda repens (robin runaway); Rubus obliquely elliptic; variable 2.0-3.7 mm 1.2-2.5 mm 1.0-2.1 mm faintly reticulately margin ridged Identification criteria based allegheniensis (Allegheny blackberry); Rubus alumnus (oldfield ovate; obovate veined; puccticulate; upon Montgomery 1977: 182- blackberry); Rubus andrewsianus (Andrews' blackberry); Rubus obliquely smooth; alveolate 183 - Rubus acaulis (not aptatus (drybank dewberry); Rubus arenicola (sanddwelling elliptic currently found in CT); Rubus dewberry); Rubus argutus (sawtooth blackberry); Rubus allegheneinsis; Rubus baileyanus (Bailey's dewberry); Rubus bigelovianus (lowland chamaemorus (not currently blackberry); Rubus canadensis (smooth blackberry); Rubus found in CT); Rubus cuneifolius (sand blackberry); Rubus dissimilis (bristly Oswego flagellaris; Rubus idaeus; blackberry); Rubus elegantulus (showy blackberry); Rubus Rubus occidentalis; Rubus flagellaris (northern dewberry); Rubus floricomus (manyflower odoratus; Rubus parviflorus blackberrry); Rubus fraternalis (northeastern dewberry); Rubus (not currently found in CT); frondosus (yankee blackberry); Rubus gnarus (Pollock's Mill Rubus pubescens blackberry); Rubus hispidus (bristly dewberry); Rubus idaeus (American red raspberry); Rubus illecebrosus (strawberry raspberry); Rubus insons (New England blackberry); Rubus insulanus (island blackberry); Rubus laciniatus (cutleaf blackberry); Rubus multifer (kinnickinnick dewberry); Rubus multispinus (devil's blackberry); Rubus notatus (bristle berry); Rubus novanglicus (New England dewberry); Rubus obsessus (New York dewberry); Rubus occidentalis (black raspberry); Rubus odoratus (purpleflowering raspberry); Rubus parlinii (Parlin's dewberry); Rubus particeps (Kingston dewberry); Rubus pensilvanicus (Pennsylvania blackberry); Rubus pergratus (upland blackberry); Rubus philadelphicus (Philadelphia blackberry); Rubus phoenicolasius (wine raspberry); Rubus plicatifolius (plaitleaf dewberry); Rubus positivus (New London dewberry); Rubus pubescens (dwarf red blackberry); Rubus pugnax (pugnancious blackberry); Rubus recurvans (recurved blackberry); Rubus recurvicaulis (arching dewberry); Rubus rosa (rose blackberry); Rubus rossbergianus (Connecticut blackberry); Rubus saltuensis (Tolland County blackberry); Rubus semisetosus (swamp blackberry); Rubus setosus (setose blackberry); Rubus Scirpus sp. rush achene 37 SPECIES: Bulbostylis capillaris (densetuft hairsedge); obovate; triangular; variable .7-2.9 mm .5-2.1 mm .3-1.2 mm reticulate; faintly angles prominate Identification criteria based Eleocharis equisetoides (jointed spikesedge); Eleocharis elliptic elliptic areolate; smooth; upon Adams and Murray 2004 erythropoda (bald spikerush); Eleocharis obtusa (blunt spikerush); faintly papillose - Scirpus-type Montgomery Eleocharis ovata (ovate spikerush); Eleocharis palustris (common 1977: 101-102 - Scirpus spikerush); Eleocharis parvula (dwarf spikerush); Eleocharis americanus (Schoenoplectus quadrangulata (squarestem spikerush); Eleocharis rostellata americanus); Scirpus (beaked spikerush); Eleocharis tenuis (slender spikerush); atrovirens; Scirpus cyperinus; Eleocharis tuberculosa (cone-cup spikerush); Fimbristylis Scirpus hudsonianus autumnalis (slender fimbry); Lipocarpha micrantha (smallflower (Trichophorum alpinum); halfchaff sedge); Schoenoplectus acutus (hardstem bulrush); Scirpus lineatus (not currently Schoenoplectus americanus (chairmaker's bulrush); found in CT); Scirpus Schoenoplectus fluviatilis (river bulrush); Schoenoplectus rubriotinctus; Scirpus validus maritimus (cosmopolitan bulrush); Schoenoplectus novae-angliae (Schoenoplectus (New England bulrush); Schoenoplectus pungens (common tabernaemontani) threesquare); Schoenoplectus purshianus (weakstalk bulrush); Schoenoplectus robustus (sturdy bulrush); Schoenoplectus smithii (Smith's bulrush); Schoenoplectus subterminalis (swaying bulrush); Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani (softstem bulrush); Schoenoplectus torreyi (Torrey's bulrush); Scirpus atrocinctus (blackgirdle bulrush); Scirpus atrovirens (green bulrush); Scirpus cyperinus (woolgrass); Scirpus expansus (woodland bulrush); Scirpus georgianus (Georgia bulrush); Scirpus hattorianus (mosquito bulrush); Scirpus longii (Long's bulrush); Scirpus microcarpus (panicled bulrush); Scirpus pedicellatus (stalked bulrush); Scirpus pendulus (rufous bulrush); Scirpus polyphyllus (leafy bulrush); Trichophorum alpinu (alpine bulrush); Triticum sp. wheat seed 4Trichophorum SPECIES: Elymus planifolium repens (bashful (quackgrass); bulrush) Elymus trachycaulus elliptic circular large 3-5 mm 3 mm 3 mm smooth dorsal side has a Idenfitication criteria based (slender wheatgrass); Secale cereale (cereal rye); Triticum ridge running down upon Adams and Murray aestivum (common wheat) middle; embryo at 2004 - Triticum-type the base Taxonomic Common Part Contemporary Species Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Face View Cross Section Size Class Length Width Thickness Surface Comments Citation of Identication Identification Name Plants Database) Characteristics Criteria Vaccinium sp. blueberry seed 10 SPECIES: Ilex mucronata (catberry); Vaccinium angustifolium elliptic; obliquely variable .7-1.8 mm .5-1.2 mm .3-1.1 mm areolate; reticulate; Identification criteria based (lowbush blueberry); Vaccinium corymbosum (highbush obovate elliptic; elliptic upon Montgomery 1977: 107- blueberry); Vaccinium fuscatum (black highbush blueberry); 108 - Vaccinium Vaccinium macrocarpon (cranberry); Vaccinium myrtilloides angustifolium; Vaccinium (velvetleaf huckleberry) ; Vaccinium oxycoccos (small cranberry); caespitosum (Vaccinium Vaccinium pallidum (Blue Ridge blueberry); Vaccinium cespitosum, not currently stamineum (deerberry); Vaccinium vitis-idaea (lingonberry); found in CT); Vaccinium corymbosum; Vaccinium macrocarpon; Vaccinium myrtilloides; Vaccinium oxycoccos; Vaccinium vacillans (Vaccinium pallidum) ; Vaccinium vitis- idaea Viburnum sp. viburnum stone 13 SPECIES : Viburnum acerifolium (maplefeaf viburnum); eilliptic; elliptic large 4.7-7.9 mm 4.2-7.0 mm 1.8-3.0 mm roughened with two Identification criteria based Viburnum dentatum (sounther arrowwood); Viburnum lantana ovate ridges on one surface upon Montgomery 1977: 64- (wayfaringtree); Viburnum lantanoides (hobblebush); Viburnum and on the other; 65 - Viburnum acerifolium; lentago (nannyberry); Viburnum nudum (possumhaw); Viburnum undulate; deeply Viburnum alnifolium opulus (European cranberrybush); Viburnum plicatum (Japanese grooved (Viburnum lantanoides); snowball); Viburnum prunifolium (blackhaw); Viburnum Viburnum cassinodies rafinesqueanum (downy arrowwood); Viburnum recognitum (Viburnum nudum); Viburnum (southern arrrowwood); Viburnum setigerum (tea viburnum); dentatum; Viburnum edule Viburnum sieboldii (Siebold's arrowwood) (not currently found in CT); Viburnum lentago; Viburnum opulus; Viburnum rafinesquianum
Vicia sp. vetch seed 7 SPECIES : Vicia cracca (bird vetch); Vicia faba (fava bean); elliptic ellipitic variable 2.0-3.4 mm 2.0-3.4 mm 2.0-3.4 mm smooth Idenfitication criteria based Vicia hirsuta (tiny vetch); Vicia pannonica (Hungarian vetch); upon Montgomery 1977:141- Vicia sativa (garden vetch); Vicia tetrasperma (lentil vetch); Vicia 142 - Vicia americana; Vicia villosa (winter vetch) angustifolia; Vicia cracca; Vicia tetrasperma; Vicia villosa Viola sp. violet seed 25 SPECIES : Hybanthus concolor (eastern greenviolet); Viola obvate elliptic medium 1.5-2.6 mm .8-1.7 mm .8-1.7 mm scalariform; areolate base with caruncle Idenfitication criteria based affinis (sand violent); Viola arvensis (European field pansy); Viola and raphe ridge upon Montgomery 1977:202- blanda (sweet white violet); Viola brittoniana (northern coastal 203 - Viola arvensis; Viola violet); Viola canadensis (Canadian white violet); Viola cucullata canadensis; Viola cucullata; (marsh blue violet); Viola hirsutula (southern woodland violet); Viola eriocarpa (Viola Viola labradorica (alpine violet); Viola lanceolata (bog white pubesens); Viola fimbriatula violet); Viola macloskeyi (small white violet); Viola nephrophylla (Viola sagittata); Viola (northern bog violet); Viola odorata (sweet violet); Viola pedata pedata; Viola pubescens; (birdfoot violet); Viola pubesens (downy yellow violet); Viola Viola rostrata renifolia (white violet); Viola rostrata (longspur violet); Viola rotundifolia (roundleaf yellow violet); Viola sagittata (arrowleaf violet); Viola selkirkii (Selkirk's violet); Viola septentrionalis (northern woodland violet); Viola sororia (common blue violet); Viola striata (striped cream violet); Viola tricolor (johnny jumpup); Viola triloba (three-lobe violet) Vitis sp. grape seed 5 SPECIES: Parthenocissus quinquefolia (Virginia creeper); Vitis obovate obovate;obtria large 4.2-5.2 mm 3.7-3.8 mm 2.7-2.9 mm rugulose; smooth rounded on dorsal Idenfitication criteria based aestivalis (summer grape); Vitis labrusca (fox grape); Vitis ngular side with dorsal upon Montgomery 1977:203 - palmata (catbird grape); Vitis riparia (riverbank grape) sulcus ending in Parthenocissus vitacea; Vitis ciricular depression riparia in middel Vitaceae Family grape seed NUMEROUS SPECIES obovate variable variable variable variable variable variable Identification criteria based upon Martin and Barkley 2000 Zea mays corn seed SAME SPECIES variable rectangular; large 6 mm-1 cm 7 mmm to 1 3 - 4 mm smooth embryo depression Identification criteria based elliptic cm visible on dorsal side upon Adams and Murray 2004 - Zea mays-type Taxonomic Common Part Contemporary Species Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Face View Cross Section Size Class Length Width Thickness Surface Comments Citation of Identication Identification Name Plants Database) Characteristics Criteria Zea mays corn cupule SAME SPECIES rectangular; elliptic large 3-4 mm or 3-6 mm or 2-3 mm or smooth on the interior; variable in size, Identification criteria based often as more more more porous on the exterior shape and upon Adams and Murray 2004 irregular appearance; has a - Zea may-type edges due to deep cup-shaped breaking pocket in which two away from spikelets (each with a the cob kernel) once was present ¢ ¡ !
!""#$%&'()( ( #*+$,-.!"+&/(0,,%(/!*#-,.&1!*&,$(,0("2!$*(*3"#4( !
! 204 Taxonomic Common Contemporary Species Pequot New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Plants Database) Asclepias sp. milkweed Asclepias incarnata Asclepias sp. - Asclepias syriaca -Iroquois: (swamp milkweed); Mohegan: Stalks eaten as greens in spring Asclepias syriaca Cooked and (Parker 1910:93). Tender stems, (common milkweed); used for food leaves, and immature flower Asclepias verticillata (Tantaquidgeon clusters cooked and seasoned with (whorled milkweed); 1972:83); salt, pepper, or butter (Waugh Asclepias viridiflora 1916:117). (green comet mildweed) Carex sp. sedge Carex aquatilis (water sedge); Carex utriculata (Northwest Territory sedge) Carya sp. hickory Carya alba (mockernut Carya cordiformis - Iroquois: Carya sp. - Cherokee: Wood ash hickory); Carya Fresh nutmeats crushed, boiled, and water used as a lye to skin cordiformis (bitternut and liquid used a drink. Nutmeats corn, corn ground into a fine meal hickory); Carya ovata crushed, mixed with cornmeal and and made into bread. Nuts dried (shagbark hickory) beans or berries and make into used for future use. Nuts and bread (Waugh 1916:123). Fresh shells ground into a fine meal and nutmeats crushed and mixed with used to make soup. Wood ash, corn pudding (Parker 1910:99). salt, and black better used to cure Nut pounded, boiled, resulting oil pork (Sturtevant 1955:491); seasoned with salt and used as Seminole: Plant used for food gravy. Nutmeat oil added to the (Sturtevant 1955:491); Carya mush used by the False Face alba - Cherokee: Unspecified Societies and seasoned and mixed uses as food. with mash potatoes (Waugh 1916:123). Carya ovata - Iroquois: Fresh nutmeats crushed boiled, and oil used as baby food. Fresh nutmeats crushed, boiled and liquid used as a drink (Parker 1910:99). Fresh nutmeats crushed and mixed with bread (Parker Taxonomic Common Contemporary Species Pequot New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Plants Database) Carya sp. 1910:99) and pudding (Parker (continued) 1910:99). Nuts crushed, mixed with cornmeal and beans or berries and made into bread. Used as a oil to season with salt in gravy (Waugh 1916:123). Nutmeat oil added to the mush used by the False Faces Societies and seasoned and mixed with mash potatoes (Waugh 1916:123). Chenopodium - goosefoot Amaranthus albus Chenopod Amaranthus retroflexus- Chenopodium album-Cherokee: Amaranthus sp. (prostrate pigweed); ium sp. - Iroquois: Cooked and seasoned Young growth mixed with Amaranthus blitoides Good as a with salt, pepper, or butter (Waugh mustard leaves, morning glory (mat amaranth); green like 1916:117). Chenopodium album - leaves, or potato leaves for Amaranthus caudatus spinach Iroquois: Cooked and seasoned flavoring. Young growth (love-lies bleeding); (Simmons with salt, pepper, or butter (Waugh parboiled, fried, and eaten (Boaz Amaranthus cruentus 1990:156) 1916:117). 1966:253). Leaves mixed with (red amaranth); other leaves and used for greens Amaranthus hybridus (Perry 1975:32). (slim amaranth); Amaranthus powellii (Powell's amaranth); Amaranthus retroflexus (redroot amaranth); Chenopodium album (lambsquarter); Chenopodium murale (nettleleaf goosefoot); Chenopodium pratericola (desert goosefoot); Chenopodium rubrum (red goosefoot); Taxonomic Common Contemporary Species Pequot New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Plants Database) Comptonia sweet fern SAME peregrina Cornus sp. dogwood Cornus canadensis Cornus Cornus canadensis - Algonquin, (bunchberry dogwood); canadensis - Quebec: Berries used as a nibble Cornus sericea (redosier Abenaki: Fruits fruit Black 1980:102). dogwood) eaten for food (Rousseau 1947:170); Corylus sp. hazelnut Corylus americana Corylus americana - Iroquois: Corylus americana - Cherokee: (American hazelnut); Fresh nutmeats crushed, boiled, Nuts used for food (Hamel and Corylus cornuta (beaked and liquid used as a drink. Fresh Chiltoskey 1975:37); Chippewa: hazelnut ); Corylus nutmeats crushed and mixed with Nuts used for food in season and heterophylla (Siberian bread or corn pudding (Parker stored for winter. hazelnut) 1910:99) Nuts crushed, mixed with cornmeal and beans or berries, and made into bread (Waugh 1916:123). Nuts pounded, boiled, resulting oil seasoned with salt and used as gravy (Waugh 1916:123). Nutmeat oils added to the mush used by the False Face Societies. Nutmeats, after skimming off the oil, seasoned and mixed with mash potatoes. Corylus cornuta - Algonquin, Quebec: Nuts used for food (Black 1980:79). Iroquois: Fruit roasted and eaten (Rousseau 1945:85). Crataegus sp. hawthorne Crataeus chrysocarpa Crataegus pruinosa-Iroquois: Crataegus macrosperma - (fireberry hawthorn); Fruit mashed, made into small Cherokee: Fresh fruit used for Crataegus macrosperma cakes and dried for future use food (Perry 1975:56). (bigfruit hawthorn); (Waugh 1916:128). Raw or cooked Crataegus mollis fruit sun or fire dried and stored for Taxonomic Common Contemporary Species Pequot New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Plants Database) Crataegus sp. (downy hawthorn); future use. Dried fruit taken as a (continued) Crataegus pruinosa hunting food. Dried fruit cakes (waxyfruit hawthorn); soaked in warm water and cooked Crataegus submollis as a sauce or mixed with corn (Quebec hawthorn); bread (Waugh 1916:128). Crataegus submollis -Iroquois: Same uses as pruinosa. Cucurbita sp. gourd Cucurbita pepo (field Cucurbita pepo -Iroquois: Fresh or Cucurbita pepo -Cherokee: pumpkin) dried flesh boiled, mashed, and Species used for food (Hamel and mixed into the paste when making Chiltoskey 1975:51). Flesh used corn bread. Dried flesh pounded, for food (Hamel and Chiltoskey sifted, soaked in cold water, 1975:21). Rappahannock: Seeds sweetened, grease added, and eaten as "tid-bits" (Speck et al. baked into cakes. Flesh cut into 1942:30); strips, dried and stored away. Flesh boiled, cornmeal, and sugar added and eaten as a pudding with sugar and milk. Dried flesh pounded into fine meal or flour, boiled, sweetened, grease added, and used as a sauce. Squash eaten at feasts of ceremonial importance and longhouse ceremonies. Flesh boiled, baked in ashes or boiled, mashed and sweetened, or boiled with green beans, butter and salt, and eaten. Flesh fried and sweetened or seasoned with salt, pepper, and butter (Waugh 1916:113); Kamia: Species used for food (Gifford 1931:21); Meskwaki: Squash sliced into rings, sun dried, pressed, and Taxonomic Common Contemporary Species Pequot New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Plants Database) Cucurbita sp. stored for winter use (Smith (continued) 1928:257). Cyperus sp. flatsedge Cyperus erythrorhizos (redroot flatsedge); Cyperus esculentus (yellow nutsedge); Cyperus odoratus (fragrant flatsedge); Gaylussacia sp. huckleberr Gaylussacia baccata Gaylussacia baccata - Iroquois: Gaylussacia baccata - Cherokee: y (black huckleberry) Fruits dried, soaked in water and Berries mixed with flour or used in bread (Parker 1910:96). cornmeal, soda and water and Fruit mashed, made into small made into bread. Berries frozen cakes, and dried for future use. for future use. Berries used for Raw or cooked fruit sun or fire food. Berries used to make dried and stored for future use cobblers and pies. Berries used to (Waugh 1916:128). Fruits eaten make jam and canned for future raw. Dried fruit taken as hunting use (Perry 1975: 39). food (Waugh 1916:128). Fruits dried, soaked in water and used in pudding. berries dried, soaked in cold water, heated slowly, and mixed with bread meal or hominy in winter. Fruits dried, soaked in water, and used as a sauce (Parker 1910:96). Berries dried, soaked in cold water, heated slowly, and used as a winter sauce. Dried fruit cakes soaked in warm water and cooked as a sauce or mixed with cornbread (Waugh 1916:128). Fruits dried, soaked in water, and used in soups (Parker 1910:96).
Taxonomic Common Contemporary Species Pequot New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Plants Database) Ilex sp. holly None mentioned ethnographically except Ilex sp. Juglans cinerea butternut SAME Juglans nigra black SAME Juglans nigra -Iroquois: Fresh Juglans nigra - Cherokee: Nuts walnut nutmeats crushed, boiled, and dried in the rafters for future use. liquid used as a drink. Fresh Nuts mixed with skinned hominy nutmeats crushed and mixed with corn, water, and pinto beans bread (Parker 1910:99). Nuts (Perry 1975:43). Nuts used for crushed, mixed with cornmeal and food (Carlson and Jones beans or berries, and made into 1940:522). bread (Waugh 1916:123). Fresh nutmeats crushed and mixed with corn pudding (Parker 1910:99). Nuts pounded, boiled, resulting oil seasoned with salt and used as gravy. Nutmeats crushed and added to corn soup (Waugh 1916:123). Fresh nutmeats crushed, boiled, and oil used as a delicacy in corn bread and pudding (Parker 1910:99). Nutmeat oil added to the mush used by the FalseFace Societies. Nutmeats crushed and added to hominy. Nutmeats, after skimming off the oil, seasoned and mixed with mashed potatoes (Waugh 1916:123). Juglans sp. butternut/ Juglans cinerea black (butternut); Juglans walnut nigra (black walnut) (See above) Taxonomic Common Contemporary Species Pequot New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Plants Database) Juncus sp. rush Juncus effusus (common rush) Lactuca sp. lettuce Lactuca canadensis Lactuca canadensis - Cherokee: (Canada lettuce); Leaves cooked and eaten as greens (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:42). Phaselous common SAME SPECIES Phaselous Phaselous vulgaris -Iroquois: Phaselous vulgaris-Cherokee: vulgaris bean vulgaris- Seeds cooked, mixed with corn Beans used to make bean bread. Abenaki: bread paste, and again cooked in Beans used to make hickory nut Beans used for the making of the bread. Seedpods soup (Hamel and Chiltoskey food (Rousseau cooked and used to make soup. 1975:24). Beans used for food 1947:169). Beans boiled with green sweet (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:21). corn, meat, and seasoned with salt, pepper, and butter or fat. Dried seedpods soaked, boiled, seasoning and butter added, and eaten as a soup. Seeds washed with hot water, cooked until soft, and sugar added to make a sweet soup. Ripe seeds boiled with beer or venison, mashed until thoroughly mixed, and eaten as soup. Seedpods cooked and eaten whole or cooked with butter, squash, or meat. Seeds boiled or fried in bear or sunflower oil, seasoned and eaten. Seeds cooked "like potatoes" and mashed or pounded (Waugh 1916:103). Phytolacca pokeweed SAME SPECIES Eat like Mohegan: Iroquois: Stalks eaten as greens in Cherokee: Crushed berries and americana greens Cooked as used spring (Parker 1910:93). sour grapes strained, mixed with (Simmons for food (Speck sugar and conrmeal, and sued as a 1990: and Dexter beverage (Perry 1975:51). 157) 1952:6); Crushed berries used to add color Taxonomic Common Contemporary Species Pequot New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Plants Database) Phytolacca to canned fruit (Hamel and americana Chiltoskey 1975:50). Leaves (continued) gathered into a bundle and dried for future use (Perry 1975:51). Young shoot cut, cooked and eaten (Boaz 1966:251). Shoots, leaves, and stems parboiled, rinsed, and cooked alone or mixed with other greens and eggs. Peeled stalks cut lengthwise parboiled, dipped in egg, rolled in cornmeal, and fried lime a fish (Perry 1975:51). Polygonum water SAME SPECIES Iroquois: Whole plant, except the Cherokee: Young growth boiled, hydropiper pepper roots, used by older people as friend and eaten (Boaz 1966:253). pepper (Rousseau 1945:40). Polygonum sp. knotweed Polygonum hydropiper Polygonum hydropiper - Polygonum hydropiper - (marshpepper knotweed) Iroquois: Whole plant, except the Cherokee: Young growth boiled, roots, used by older people as friend and eaten (Boaz 1966:253). pepper (Rousseau 1945:40). Portulaca sp. purslane Portulaca oleracea Portulaca oleracea - Iroquois: (little hogweed) Cooked and seasoned with salt, pepper, or butter (Waugh 1916:118).
Prunus persica peach SAME SPECIES Iroquois: Fruit mashed, made into Cherokee: Fruit used food small cakes, and dried for future (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:47); use. Raw or cooked fruit sun or fire Seminole: Plant used for food dried and stored for future use and (Sturtevant 1955:507); used as a hunting food. Dried fruit cakes soaked in warm water and cooked as a sauce or mixed with corn bread (Waugh 1916:129). Taxonomic Common Contemporary Species Pequot New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Plants Database) Prunus sp. plum Prunus americana Prunus Prunus americana- Iroquois: Prunus americana- Cherokee: (American plum ); viginiana- Fruit sundried and boiled in water Fruit used to make juice. Fruit Prunus cerasus (sour Abenaki: Fruits to make coffee (Waugh 1916:145). used for food, Fruit used to make cherry); Prunus eaten for food Fruit mashed, made into small jelly (Hamel and Chiltoskey domestica (European (Rousseau cakes and stored for future use. 1975:50); Prunus cerasus- plum); Prunus nigra 1947:168). Dried fruit taken as a hunting food. Cherokee: Fruit used as food (Canadian plum); Dried fruit cakes soaked in warm (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:28). Prunus pensylvanaica water and cooked as a sauce or Prunus pensylvanaica - (pin cherry); Prunus mixed with corn bread (Waugh Cherokee: Fruit used for food persica (peach); Prunus 1916:128). Prunus nigra- (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:28). serotina (black cherry); Algonquin, Quebec: Fruit Eaten. Fruit used to make pies and jams Prunus viginiana Fruit made into preserves (Black (Perry 1975:58). Prunus persica- (chokecherry) 1980:95). Iroquois: Fruit mashed, Cherokee: Fruit used for food made into small cakes and dried (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:47). for future use. Raw or cooked fruit Prunus serotina- Cherokee: sun or fired dried and stored for Fruit used for food (Hamel and future use. Dried fruit taken as a Chiltoskey 1975:28). Prunus hunting food. Dried fruit cakes viginiana- Cherokee: Fruit used soaked in warm water and cooked for food (Hamel and Chiltoskey as a sauce or mixed with corn 1975:28). bread. (Waugh 1916:128). Prunus pensylvanaica - Algonquin, Quebec: Fruit eaten fresh. Fruit made into jelly (Black 1980:95). Iroquois: Fruit mashed, made into small cakes, and dried for future use. Raw or cooked fruit sun or fire dried for future use (Waugh 1916:128). Fruit used for food (Rousseau 1945:46). Dried fruit used as hunting food. Dried fruit cakes soaked in warm water and cooked as a sauce or mixed with Taxonomic Common Contemporary Species Pequot New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Plants Database) Prunus sp. corn bread (Waugh 1916:128). (continued) Prunus persica-Iroquois: Fruit mashed, made into small cakes, and dried for future use. Taken as a hunting food. Dried fruit cakes soaked in warm water and cooked as a sauce or mixed with corn bread (Waugh 1916:129). Prunus serotina -Iroquois: Fruit mashed, made into small cakes, and dried for future use. Dried fruit taken as a hunting food. Dried fruit cakes soaked in warm water and cooked as a sauce or mixed with corn bread (Waugh 1916:128). Prunus viginiana - Algonquin, Quebec: Fruits used to make a wine (Black 1980:113). Cherries eaten fresh, and made into preserves (Black 1980:96); Iroquois: Fruit mashed, made into small cakes, and dried for future use (Waugh 1916:128). Fruits dried and used as a winter food (Parker 1910:95). Raw or cooked fruit sun or fire dried and stored for future use. Dried fruit taken as a hunting food. Dried fruit cakes soaked in warm water and cooked as a sauce or mixed with corn bread (Waugh 1916:128). Fruits pulverized, mixed with dried meat flour, and eaten as a soup (Parker 1910:95). Taxonomic Common Contemporary Species Pequot New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Plants Database) Quercus sp. oak Quercus alba (white Quercus sp.- Iroquois: Fresh Quercus phellos- Seminole : Plant oak); Quercus bicolor nutmeats crushed and mixed with use for food (Sturtevant (swamp white oak); corn pudding. Acorns eaten raw by 1955:471). Quercus macrocarpa children (Parker 1910:99). (bur oak); Quercus Quercus alba-Iroquois: Acorns phellos (willow oak); used for food (Waugh 1916:123). Quercus prinus Quercus bicolor -Iroquois: Acorns (chestnut oak); Quercus used for food (Waugh 1916:123). rubra (northern red oak); Quercus prinus- Iroquois: Acorns Quercus stellata (post used for food (Blankinship oak); Quercus velutina 19056123). Quercus rubra - (black oak) Iroquois: Acorns used for food (Waugh 1916:123). Rhus sp. sumac Rhus aromatica Rhus glabra- Iroquois: Bobs Rhus Copaillnum- Cherokee: (fragrant sumac); Rhus boiled and used as a drink in the Berries used for food (Hamel and copallinum (winged winter (Parker 1910:96). Sprouts Chiltoskey 1975:57). Rhus sumac); Rhus glabra eaten raw (Parker 1910:93). Fresh glabra- Cherokee: Fruits eaten (smooth sumac) shoots peeled and eaten raw by children (Hamel and (Waugh 1916:119). Chiltoskey 1975:57). Rubus sp. berry Rubus allegheniensis Rubus sp.- Rubus sp.- Algonquin , Quebec : Rubus sp.- Cherokee: Berries (Allegheny blackberry); Abenaki: Fruits Fruit used to make preserves mixed with apples to color the Rubus argutus used to make (Black 1980:94); Iroquois: Fruits jelly red (Perry 1975:58). Berries (sawtooth blackberry); jelly (Rousseau eaten raw. Fruits dried, soaked in used to make jelly (Perry Rubus canadensis 1947:169). sugared water, cooked, and eaten 1975:58). Tips of new, young (smooth blackberry); Rubus idaeus- as a sauce. Dried berries soaked in shoots boiled with roots, and Rubus flagellaris Abenaki: Fruits honey and water and used as a eaten as soup (Teit 1928:89). (northern dewberry); eaten for food ceremonial food by the Bear Rubus allegheniensis - Rubus frondosus (Rousseau Society (Parker 1910:95). Rubus Cherokee: Fruit used to make (yankee blackberry); 1947:169). canadensis - Iroquois: Berries, juice. Fruit used for food (Hamel Rubus idaeus (American water and maple sugar used to and Chiltoskey 1975:26). Rubus red raspberry); Rubus make a drink for home argutus - Cherokee: Fruit used laciniatus (cutleaf consumption and longhouse to make juice. Fruit used for food blackberry); Rubus ceremonies. Fruit mashed, made (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:26). Taxonomic Common Contemporary Species Pequot New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Plants Database) Rubus sp. occidentalis (black into small cakes, and dried for Rubus flagellaris- Cherokee: (continued) raspberry); Rubus future use. Dried fruit taken as a Fruit used to make juice, and for odoratus hunting food. Dried fruit cakes food (Hamel and Chiltoskey (purpleflowering soaked in warm water and cooked 1975:26). Rubus idaeus- raspberry); Rubus as a sauce or mixed with cornbread Cherokee: Fruit used for food pubescens (dwarf red (Waugh 1916:127). Rubus idaeus (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:52). blackberry) - Algonquin , Quebec: Fruit eaten Rubus occidentalis- Cherokee: fresh, and preserved (Black Fruit used for food (Hamel and 1980:92). Algonquin , Tete-de- Chiltoskey 1975:52). Fresh fruit Boule : Fruits eaten for food used for food. Fruit used to make (Raymound 1962:130); Rubus pies, and preserves. Fruit canned odoratus - Algonquin , Quebec : for future use (Perry 1975:57 ). Fruit used for food (Black Rubus odoratus - Cherokee: Fruit 1980:92); Rubus occidentalis - used for food (Hamel and Iroquois: Fruits dried, soaked in Chiltoskey 1975:52). Fruit used to water, and used in bread (Parker make pies and jellies. Fruit 1910:95). Fruit mashed, made into canned for future use (Perry small cakes and dried for future 1975:57). use. Raw or cooked fruit sun or fire dried and stored for future use. Dried fruit taken as a hunting food (Waugh 1916:127). Fruits dried, soaked in water, and used in pudding. Berries dried, soaked in cold water, heated slowly, and mixed with bread meal or hominy in water. Fruits dried, soaked in water, and used as a sauce. Berries dried and soaked in cold water, heated slowly, and used as a winter sauce (Parker 1910:95). Dried fruit cakes soaked in warm water and cooked as a sauce or mixed with Taxonomic Common Contemporary Species Pequot New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Plants Database) Rubus sp. corn bread (Waugh 1916:127). (continued) Fruits dried, soaked in water, and used in soups (Parker 1910:95). Rubus odoratus -Iroquois: Fruit mashed, made into small cakes, and dried for future use. Raw or cooked fruit sun or fire dried and stored for future use. Dried fruit taken as a hunting food. Dried fruit cakes soaked in warm water and cooked as a sauce or mixed with corn bread (Waugh 1916:127). Rubus pubescens - Iroquois: Fruit used for food (Parker 1910:95). Scirpus sp. rush Eleocharis palustris (common spikerush); Triticum sp. wheat Elymus trachycaulus (slender wheatgrass); Triticum aestivum (common wheat) Vaccinium sp. blueberry Vaccinium Vaccinium Vaccinium angustifolium - angustifolium (lowbush angustifolium- Iroquois: Fruit mashed, made into blueberry); Vaccinium Abenaki: Frutis small cakes, and dried for future corymbosum (highbush eaten for food use. Raw or cooked fruit sun or fire blueberry); Vaccinium (Rousseau dried and stored for future use. macrocarpon 1947:171). Fruit Dried fruit taken as a hunting food (cranberry); Vaccinium used as food (Waugh 1916:128). Flowers used myrtilloides (velvetleaf (Rousseau to make preserves (Rousseau huckleberry ); 1947:152). 1945:96). Dried fruit cakes soaked Vaccinium oxycoccos in warm water and cooked as a (small cranberry); sauce or mixed with cornbread Vaccinium vitis-idaea (Waugh 1916:128). Flowers eaten (lingonberry); fresh (Rousseau 1945:96). Taxonomic Common Contemporary Species Pequot New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Plants Database) Vaccinium sp. Vaccinium corymbosum- (continued) Algonquin , Quebec : Berries canned or used to make fruit pemmican and pate. Berries used fresh. Berries used to make pies, cobblers, and upside-down cakes, and dried for future use. Raw or cooked fruit sun or fire dried and stored for future use. dried fruit taken as hunting food. Dried fruit cakes soaked in warm water and cooked as a sauce or mixed with corn bread (Waugh 1916:128). Vaccinium macrocarpona- Algonquin , Quebec : Berries used for food (Black 1980:105); Algonquin , Tete-de-Boule : Fruits eaten for food (Raymound 1962:134); Iroquois: Frit mashed, made into small cakes, and dried for future use. Raw or cooked fruit sun or fire dried and stored for future use. Dried fruit taken as a hunting food. Dried fruit cakes soaked in warm water and cooked as a sauce or mixed with corn bread (Waugh 1916:128) . Vaccinium oxycoccos- Iroquois: Fruit mashed, made into small cakes, and dried for future use. Raw or cooked fruit sun or fire dried and stored for future use. Dried fruit taken as a hunting food. Taxonomic Common Contemporary Species Pequot New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Plants Database) Vaccinium sp. Dried fruit cakes soaked in warm (continued) water and cooked as a sauce or mixed with corn bread (Waugh 1916:128). Viburnum sp. viburnum Viburnum lentago Viburnum Viburnum lentago - Iroquois: (nannyberry); Viburnum nudum- Fruit mashed, made into small nudum (possumhaw); Abenaki: Fruit cakes, and dried for future use. Viburnum opulus used for food Raw or cooked fruit sun or fire (European (Rousseau dried and stored for future use. cranberrybush); 1947:152). Dried fruit taken as a hunting food. Viburnum plicatum Grains used for Dried fruit cakes soaked in warm (Japanese snowball); food (Rousseau water and cooked as a sauce or Viburnum prunifolium 1947:173). mixed with corn bread (Waugh (blackhaw); 1916:128). Viburnum opulus- Algonquin , Quebec : Berries eaten fresh. Berries made into preserves (Black 1980:107); Iroquois : Fruit mashed, made into small cakes, and dried for future use. Dried fruit taken as a hunting food. Dried fruit cakes soaked in warm water and cooked as a sauce or mixed with corn bread (Waugh 1916:128). Vicia sp. vetch Vicia faba (fava bean) Viola sp. violet Viola blanda (sweet Viola blanda - Cherokee - white violet) Leaves and stems mixed with other greens, parboiled, rinsed, and fried with grease and sea salt until soft (Perry 1975:60). Vitis sp. grape Parthenocissus Vitis aestivalis/Vitis labrusca - quinquefolia (Virginia Cherokee: Fruit mixed with sour creeper); Vitis aestivalis grape, pokeberry juice, sugar, and (summer grape); Vitis cornmeal used as a juice. Fruit Taxonomic Common Contemporary Species Pequot New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Plants Database) Vitis sp. labrusca (fox grape); used to make juice and dumplings (continued) Vitis riparia (riverbank (Perry 1975:60). Fruit used for grape) food (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:37 and Perry 1975:60). Zea mays corn SAME SPECIES Abenaki: Seeds Iroquois: Seeds boiled into a Cherokee: Corn used for food used to make liquor and used in the preparation (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:30). soup (Rousseau of food for infants. Seeds used to Seminole : Seeds used for food 1947:175). make a meal gruel for babies (Sturtevant 1955:473); (Waugh 1916:71). Stalks cut between the joints and chewed to quench the thirst (Sturtevant 19Elmore 19Cook 1930:119). Dried, roasted seeds boiled in water to make coffee (Waugh 1916:145). Seeds boiled into a liquor and used as a beverage or made into soup. Seeds ground into a meal or flower and used to make boiled bread. Seeds ground, mixed with hot water, molded, dropped into boiling water, and eaten as dumplings. Seeds, pumpkin mush, and maple sugar used to make pudding. Seeds used to make hominy. Seeds used to make succotash. Seeds used to make popcorn. Seeds used with beans, squash, and meats to make soups and broths. Seeds used to make wedding bread or bread placed in the coffin with the corpse. Seeds used for ceremonial occasions, such as False-Face Society Taxonomic Common Contemporary Species Pequot New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Plants Database) Zea mays functions. Seeds eaten raw or (continued) cooked while traveling or hunting. Corn on the cob roasted and eaten (Waugh 1916:71).
Taxonomic Common Other Regions (Moerman 1998) Identification Name Asclepias sp. milkweed Ascelpias sp. - Cahuilla: Seeds ground into flour. Parboiled leaves used as greens from May until June (Bean and Saubel 1972:43); Jemez: Immature seeds used for food (Cook 1930:20); Karok: Juice used for chewing gum (Merriam 1966:212); Kiowa: Young fruits, after first removing the outer "hairy" surface, cooked and eaten (Vestal and Schultes 1939:47); Navajo: Plant eaten raw or boiled (Elmore 1944:69); Tewa: roots or immature pods eaten (Robbins et al. 1916:54); Asclepias incarnata - Menominee: Heads, deer broth, or fat used to make soup. Heads also added to cornmeal mush. Dried heads stored for winter use (Smith 1923:205). Asclepias syriaca - Chippewa: Plant eaten before a feast to increase the appetite. Flowers cut up, stewed, and eaten like preserves (Densmore 1928:320). Tender leaves, young green seedpods, sprouts, and tops cooked as greens (Gilmore 1933:140); Dakota: Sprouts used in early spring for food (Baker 1981:363); Meskwaki: Buds used in soups. Buds cooked with meat or added to cornmeal mush, tastes like okra. Dried buds stored away in paper bags for winter use (Smith 1928:256); Ojibwa: Young pods cooked like spinach (Arnason et al. 1981:2205). Fresh flowers and shoot tips, mucilaginous like okra when cooked, used in meat soups. Dried flowers freshened in the wintertime, made into soup (Smith 1932:397); Omaha: Tender shoots boiled and eaten as a vegetable (Arnason et al. 1981:341). Young shoots used for food like asparagus. Inflorescence, before the flower buds opened, and young fruits used as greens (Gilmore 1913:325). Boiled young sprouts, floral bud clusters, and young, firm green fruits used for food; Pawnee, Ponca, and Winnebago: Boiled young sprouts, floral bud clusters, and young, firm green fruits used for food (Gilmore 1913:109); Potawatomi: Flowers and buds used to thicken meat soups and to impart a very pleasing flavor to the dish (Smith 1933:96). Asclepias verticillata - Hopi: Leaves and young shoots boiled with meat and eaten (Fewkes 1896:18). Asclepias viridiflora - Blackfoot: Root pieces stored for winter soups. Plant used for spice soups. Fresh roots used for food (Hellson 1974:101). Carex sp. sedge Carex sp. - Klamath: Pith juiced used as beverage. Fresh stems and tuberous base of stem used for food (Coville 1897:92 ); Montana, Indian: Young stems used for food (Blankinship 1905:9 ); Navajo, Kayenta: Seeds ground, cooked into mush, and eaten (Wyman and Harris 1951:16); Thompson: Used as a general forage plant (Gifford 1933:515); Carex aquatilis - Alaska Native: Stem bases eaten raw (Heller 1953:129). Carex utriculata- Gosiute: Lower: tender stems and root parts eaten by children (Chamberlin 1911:365). Carya sp. hickory Carya sp. - Kalmath: Pith juice used as a beverage. Fresh stems used as food (Coville 1897:92); Montana Indian: Young stems used for food (Blankinship 1905:9); Navajo, Kayenta: Seeds ground, cooked into a mush and eaten (Wyman and Harris 1951:16); Thompson: Used as general forage plant (Gifford 1933:515 ). Carex aquatilis - Alaska Native: Stem bases eaten raw (Heller 1953:129). Carex utriculata - Gosiute: Lower, tender stems and root parts eaten by children (Chamberlin 1911:365). Carya alba - Choctaw: Pounded nutmeat boiled, made into past, and eaten as a broth or soup. Carya ovata - Dakota, Omaha, Pawnee, Ponca and Winnebago: Nuts used to make soup. Sap used to make sugar. Hickory chops boiled to make sugar. Nuts eaten plan or with honey (Gilmore 1913:74); Lakota: Nuts used for food (Rogers 1980:49); Meskwaki: Nuts stored for winter use (Smith 1928:259); Ojibwa: Nuts used for food (Smith 1932:405); Omaha, Pawnee, Ponca and Winnebago: Nuts used to make soup. Sap used to make sugar. Hickory chips used to make sugar. Nuts eaten plain or with honey (Gilmore 1913:74).
Chenopodium - goosefoot Chenopodium sp.- Havasupai: Seeds parched, ground fine, boiled, thickened, made into balls, and eaten as dumplings. Amaranthus sp. Seeds ground, kneaded into thick paste, rolled into little balls, boiled and eaten as marbles (Blankinship 1905:66). Seeds ground and eaten as a ground or parched meal (Blankinship 1905:67). Seeds used for food (Blankinship 1905:217); Isleta : Leaves used as greens (Jones 1931:25); Keresan: Leaves used for greens (White 1962:560); Malecite: Species used for food (Speck and Dexter 1952:6); Navajo: Seeds used to make bread. Seeds used to make a stiff porridge. Seeds of several species ground and used like corn (Elmore 1944:44); Papago: Leaves eaten as greens in midsummer (Castetter and Underhill 1935:14). Greens used for food (Castetter and Bell 1942:61); Pima: Leaves boiled, salted, strained, fried in grease, and eaten as greens; Yaqui: Leaves eaten as greens (Curtin 1949:70); Yavapai: Parched, ground, boiled seeds used for food. Leaves and stems boiled for greens (Gifford 1936:256). Amaranthus albus -Apache, Chiricahua & Mescalero: Seeds winnowed, ground into flour and used to make bread (Castetter and Opler 1936:48). Eaten without preparation or cooked with green chile and meat or animal bones (Castetter and Opler 1936:46); Apache, White Mountain: Seeds used for food (Reagan 1929:155); Cochiti: Young plants eaten as greens (Castetter:16); Navajo, Ramah: Threshed seeds ground into flower (Vestal 1952:25). Amaranthus blitoides - Acroma: Young plants boiled and dried for winter use (Castetter:15); Apache, White Mountain: Seeds used for food (Reagan 1929:155); Hopi: Ground seeds used to make mush (Vestal 1940:162). Seeds used as food (Castetter:22). Seeds formerly prized as food (Fewkes 1896:18); Seeds cooked and eaten as greens (Whiting 1939:74); Klamath: Seeds used for food (Coville 1962:96); Laguna: Young plants boiled and dried for winter use (Castetter:15). Seeds ground into meal (Castetter:22). Young plants boiled and eaten as greens (Castetter:15); Montana Indian: Seeds formerly used as articles of the diet. Used as a potherb (Blankinship 1905:6); Navajo: Plant used as a sheep forage. Seeds ground into meal and made into stiff porridge or mixed with goat's milk and made into gruel. Seeds ground into a meal and used for food (Elmore 1944:45). Boiled and eaten like spinach, boiled and fried in lard, or canned; Spanish American: Boiled and eaten like spinach, or fried and used for food (Robbins et al. 1916:53); Zuni: Seeds originally eaten raw, but later ground with black cornmeal, made into balls, and eaten (Stevenson 1915:65). Amaranthus caudatus - Cocopa, Mohave: Fresh plants baked and eaten. Plants cooked and eaten as greens. Plants cooked, rolled into a ball, baked, and stored (Castetter and Bell 1942:200). Amaranthus cruentus- Hopi: plant used as a red coloring for paper bread distributed at kachina exhibitions (Fewkes 1896:18). Heads dried and used as a brilliant pink die for wafer bread (Whiting 1939:74); Keresan: leaves eaten as greens (White 1962::558); Navajo, Ramah: Threshed seeds ground into flour (Vestal 1952:25); Sia: Seeds used for food. Leaves used as greens (White 1962::107); Zuni: Feathery part of plant ground into a fine meal and used to color ceremonial bread red (Stevenson 1915:87). Amaranthus hybridus-Acoma: Young plants boiled and dried for winter use. Young plants boiled and eaten as greens (Castetter:16); Havasupai: Seeds parched, ground fine, boiled, and thickened, made into balls, and eaten as dumplings (Blankinship 1905:66). Seeds parched, ground and used to make mush. Seeds parched ground and used to make soup (Blankinship 1905:66). Leaves and squash flowers boiled, aground, and fresh or dried corn and water added to make soup (Blankinship 1905:74). Leaves of young plants cooked like spinach (Blankinship 1905:218). Young, Fresh, tender leaves boiled, drained, balled into individual portions, and served (Blankinship 1905:66); Keres, Western: Collected and ground with meal for food. Young, tender plants used for greens like spinach. Plant used as winter food by boiling and drying for winter storage (Swank 1932:26); Laguna: Young plants boiled and dried for winter use. Young plants boiled and eaten as greens (Castetter:16). Amaranthus powellii - Hopi: Chenopodium - Seeds used for food. Leaves used as greens (Colton 1974:283). Amaranthus retroflexus-Acoma: Young plants boiled Amaranthus sp. and dried for winter use. Young plants boiled and eaten as greens (Castetter:15); Apache, Chiricahua & Mescalero: (continued) Seeds winnowed, ground into flour, and used to make bread (Castetter and Opler 1936:48). Leaves eaten without preparation or cooked with green chile and meat or animal bones (Castetter and Opler 1936:46); Cochiti: Young plants eaten as greens (Castetter:16); Isleta: Fresh, tender, young leaves eaten as greens (Jones 1931:21); Jemez: Young plant used for food many generations ago (Cook 1930:20); Kres, Western: Seeds collected and ground with meal for food. Young, tender plants used for greens like spinach. Plant boiled and dried for winter storage (Swank 1932:26); Laguna: Young plants boiled and eaten as greens (Castetter:15); Mendocino Indian: Small, shiny black seeds used to make pinole (Chesnut 1902:346); Navajo: Seeds ground, boiled, mixed with corn flour, and made into dumplings. Seeds ground, boiled, and mixed with corn flour into a gruel (Steggerda 1941:222). Seeds used for food. Leaves and seeds mixed with grease and eaten (Elmore 1944:46). Boiled and eaten like spinach, boiled and fried in lard, or canned (Castetter:15). Leaves boiled and eaten like spinach. Leaves boiled and canned (Elmore 1944:46); Navajo, Ramah: Seeds winnowed, ground with maize, made into bread, and used as a ceremonial food in Nightway. Leaves used as spring greens, boiled with meat, boiled alone, or boiled and fried with meat or fat. Seeds stored for winter use (Vestal 1952:26); Pueblo, Spanish American: Boiled and eaten like spinach, boiled and fried in lard, or canned (Castetter:15); Tewa: Boiled or fried and used for food (Robbins et al. 1916:53). Chenopodium album-Alaska Native: Fresh leaves, properly cooked, furnished significant amounts of vitamins C and A. Young tender leaves and stems used as a substitute for spinach or other greens. young, tender leaves and stems cooked in a small amount of boiling water and eaten (Heller 1953:21); Apache: Young plants cooked as greens (Castetter:16); Apache, Chiricahua & Mescalero: Eaten without preparation or cooked with green chile and meat or animal bones (Castetter and Opler 1936:46); Dakota: Young, tender plant cooked as pottage (Gilmore 1913:78). Young plants boiled for food (Gilmore 1913:36); Diegueno: Leaves cooked and eaten as greens (Hedges 1986:17); Eskimo, Inupiat: Leaves and stems dried for future use. Leaves and stems frozen for future use. Leaves and stems eaten raw or cooked as hot greens with beans (Jones 1984:64); Hopi: Ground seeds used to make mush (Vestal 1940:160). Leaves cooked with meat (Castetter:16). Leaves boiled and eaten with fat (Fewkes 1896:18). Boiled and eaten with other foods (Whiting 1939:73); Kawaiisu: Upper leaves boiled, "rinsed" in cold water, and fried in grease and salt (Zigmond 1981:19); Lakota: Used as cooked greens (Rogers 1980:43); Luiseno: Leaves used as greens (Sparkman 1908:233); Mendocino Indian: Young leaves boiled and eaten as greens (Chesnut 1902:346); Miwok: Boiled greens dried and stored for later use. Boiled greens used for food (Barrett and Gifford 1933:159); Montana Indian: seeds ground into flour and made into bread. Young plant used as a potherb (Blankinship 1905:9); Navajo: Seeds dried and used like corn (Elmore 1944:43). Seeds ground and eaten as a nutrient (Hocking 1956:149). Young, tender plants eaten raw, boiled as herbs alone or with other foods (Elmore 1944:43); Navajo, Ramah: Seeds winnowed, ground with maize, made into bread, and used as a ceremonial food in Nightway. Foods Stored for winter use (Vestal 1952:24); Ojibwa: Young plant cooked as greens (Arnason et al. 1981:2209). Leaves eaten as greens (Reagan 1928:240); Omaha: Young, tender plant cooked as pottage (Gilmore 1913:78); Paiute: Seeds parched, ground, and eaten as meal (Kelly 1932:98). Species used for food (Steward 1933:244); Papago: Mixed with roasted cholla buds and eaten as a vegetable stew (Castetter and Underhill 1935:16); Pawnee: Young, tender plant cooked as pottage (Gilmore 1913:78). Pima, Gila River: Leaves used for food (Rea 1991:7); Pueblo: Young plants cooked as greens (Castetter:16); Chenopodium - Shuswap: Leaves boiled with butter, salt, and pepper and cooked as greens (Palmer 1975:61); Spanish American: Amaranthus sp. Young plants cooked as greens (Castetter:16); Thompson: Boiled leaves eaten as greens (Turner et al. 1990:203). Zuni: (continued) Young plants cooked as greens (Castetter:16). Chenopodium murale- Cahuilla: Boiled shoots and leaves eaten as greens (Bean and Saubel 1972:52). Mohave: Young shoots boiled as greens (Castetter and Bell 1942:202). Papago: Seeds used for food (Castetter and Bell 1942:62). Stalks eaten as greens in the summer (Castetter and Underhill 1935:14); Pima: Seeds parched, ground, and eaten as pinole (Russell 1908:73 ). Chenopodium pratericola -Pima, Gila River: Leaves boiled and eaten (Rea 1991:7). Chenopodium rubrum- Gosiute: Seeds used for food (Chamberlin 1911:366). Comptonia sweet fern Comptonia peregrina - Chippewa : Leaves used to make a hot, tea-like beverage (Gilmore 1933:127); Ojibwa: Leaves peregrina used to line buckets when picking blueberries and cover them to prevent spoiling (Smith 1932:420). Cornus sp. dogwood Cornus canadensis - Chippewa: Berries eaten raw (Densmore 1928:321); Cree, Woodlands: Fruit eaten as a fresh nibble (Leighton 1985:36); Eskimo, Alaska: Gathered and mixed with other berries (Anderson 1939:715 ); Haisla and HanakSiala: Berries mashed, mixed with oolichan (candlefish) grease, and eaten as a dessert. Berries dried for winter use (Comption 1933:234); Hesquiat: Raw berries eaten with dogfish oil by the elders of the village at a big feast (Turner and Efrat 1982:63); Kwakiutl, Southern: Pulpy berries extensively used for food (Turner et al. 1973:281); Makah: Berries eaten fresh; Nitinaht : Berries eaten fresh and raw (Gunther 1973:43); Potawatomi: berries used for food (Smith 1933:98); Salish: Berries used for food (Smith 1933:98); Salish: Berries used for food (Turner and Bell 1971:81). Cornus sericea -Thompson: Fruit eaten as a dessert. Berries and saskatoon berries smashed together, dried, rehydrated, and eaten in the winter. The berries were also pounded with chokecherries, seeds and all, and used for food. Bitter, seedy fruits eaten alone or smashed with dried, "white" saskatoon berries (Turner et al. 1990:204). Corylus sp. hazelnut Corylus americana - Chippewa: Nuts used for food in season and stored for winter; Dakota: Nuts used as a body for soup and eaten raw with honey (Gilmore 1913:74); Menominee and Meskwaki: Nuts, in the milk stage, eaten and also dried for winter use (Smith 1923:630 and Smith 1928:256); Ojibwa: Nuts eaten as food and newly gathered nuts before the kernel had hardened were favored (Smith 1932:397); Omaha: Nuts used as a body for soup (Gilmore 1913:74) and eaten plain or mixed with honey (Gilmore 1913:326); Ponca and Winnebago: Nuts used as a body for soup or eaten raw with honey (Gilmore 1913:74). Corylus cornuta - Cree, Woodlands: (Nuts used for food and nuts collected in quantity to use at a latter time (Leighton 1985:37). Salish: Nuts used for food (Turner and Bell 1971:79). Thompson: Nuts eaten for refreshment (Turner et al. 1990:190). Crataegus sp. hawthorne Crataegus chrysocarpa- Blackfoot: Berries used for food. Certain conditions had to be met before the berries were eaten. Otherwise, they would cause stomach cramps. The procedure was to offer the tree a gift, for boys a little bow and arrow made from the thorns, for the girls a pair of miniature moccasins fashioned from the leaves. In return, the tree would not allow the berries to "bite" the stomach. The gifts were placed on the tree and the berries collected (Hellson 1974:102); Lakota: fruits eaten for food (Rogers 1980:56); Ojibwa : fruit used as food (Reagan 1928:236); Omaha: Twigs used to make a hot, aqueous, tea-like beverage (Gilmore 1913:329). Fruit eaten by children fresh from the hand (Gilmore 1913:326). Fruit sometimes eaten as a food, but mostly as a famine food (Gilmore 1913:87). Fruit eaten by adults in times of famine (Gilmore 1913:326); Ponca: Fruit sometimes used for food, but mostly as a famine food (Gilmore 1913:87); Potawatomi: Fruit eaten by deer, bears, and sometimes the indians (Smith 1933:107); Winnebago: fruit sometimes used for food, but mostly as a famine food (Gilmore 1913:87). Crataegus mollis - Omaha: twigs used to Crataegus sp. make a hot, aqueous, tea-like beverage (Gilmore 1913:329). Fruit eaten by children fresh from the hand. Fruit eaten by (continued) adults in times of famine (Gilmore 1913:326). Cucurbita sp. gourd Cucurbita pepo - Apache, White Mountain: Blossoms baked as parts of certain kinds of cakes. Fresh used for food. Blossoms used for food (Reagan 1929:156); Cocopa: Dried fruit strips stored and mixed with flesh of stored whole pumpkins to improve flavor. Parched seeds used for food. Fresh boiled with rind on and sometimes mixed with maize meal. Roasted flesh eaten with fingers (Gifford 1933:266); Kamia: Species used for food (Gifford 1931:21); Meskwaki: Squash sliced into rings, sun dried pressed and stored for winter use (Smith 1928:257); Navajo: Fruit pulp and seeds used for food (Hocking 1956:150). Navajo, Ramah: Blossoms used as seasoning for soup. Pumpkin cultivated and used for food. Pumpkin peeled, cut into strips, sun dried, and stored in cellars or ground holes for winter use (Vestal 1952:47); Ojibwa: Pumpkin rings dried for winter use (Smith 1932:400); Okanagan-Colville: Species used for food (Turner et al. 1980:98); Papago: Rind hung in long spirals from house roofs to dry, tied into bundles, stored and used for food (Castetter and Underhill 1935:45). Pima: Fruit grown for food (Castetter and Bell 1942:101). Seeds roasted, cracked, and the kernels eaten (Curtin 1949:72); Zuni: Fresh squash cut into spiral strips, folded into hanks, and hung up to dry for winter use. Blossoms cooked in grease and used as a delicacy in combination with other foods. Fresh squash, either whole or in pieces, roasted in ashes and used for food (Stevenson 1915:67). Cyperus sp. flatsedge Cyperus sp. - Pima, Gila River: Tubers eaten as a snack food primarily by children and roots boiled and eaten (Rea 1991:5,7). Cyperus erythrorhizos - Kamia: Pulverized seeds cooked in mush (Gifford 1931:24). Cyperus esculentus - Costanoan: Tubers eaten (Bocek 1984:255); Paiute, Northern: Roots dried, ground, and mixed with other foods. Roots eaten raw (Fowler 1989:44); Pomo, Kashaya: Tubers on the rootstock eaten raw, baked, or boiled like potatoes (Goodrich and Lawson 1980:78). Cyperus odoratus - Cocopa and Mohave: Seeds used for food(Castetter and Bell 1942:192); Pima: Tubers eaten (Curtin 1949:99). Gaylussacia sp. huckleberry Gaylussacia baccata - Ojibwa: Species used for food (Reagan 1928:238). Ilex sp. holly Ilex sp. - Comanche: Leaves used to make a beverage (Carlson and Jones 1940:522). Juglans cinerea butternut Juglans sp.- Apache, Western: Walnuts pulverized, mixed with mescal juice, and used as a dip for cornbread. Nuts parched with corn, ground, and eaten by the pinch (Buskirk 1986:187). Juglans nigra black walnut Juglans nigra- Comanche : Nuts used for food (Carlson and Jones 1940:522). Nuts stored for winter use (Carlson and Jones 1940:531). Dakota: Nuts used to make soup. Nuts eaten plain or with honey (Gilmore 1913:74). Kiowa: Nuts used for food (Vestal and Schultes 1939:20). Lakota: Nuts used for food (Rogers 1980:49). Meskwaki: Nuts were relished (Smith 1928:259). Omaha: Nuts used to make soup (Gilmore 1913:74). Nuts eaten plain or mixed with honey (Gilmore 1913:326 ). Pawnee, Ponca, Winnebago (Gilmore 1913:74): Nuts used to make soup. Nuts eaten plain or with honey. Juglans sp. butternut/black Juglans sp.- Apache, Western: Walnuts pulverized, mixed with mescal juice, and used as a dip for corn bread. Nuts walnut parched with corn, ground, and eaten by the pinch (Buskirk 1986:187). Juncus sp. rush Juncus effusus -Snuqualmie: Early sprouts eaten raw (Gunther 1973:23). Lactuca sp. lettuce Phaselous common bean Phaselous vulgaris - Apache, White Mountain : Beans used for food (Reagan 1929:159). Havasupai : Beans parched, vulgaris ground, and added to hot water to make soup. Beans cooked with fresh corn, cooked in hot ashes under a fire, or boiled. Beans stored in granaries or in frame houses for later use (Blankinship 1905:227); Menominee: Berry used as a staple Phaselous article of food (Smith 1923:69). Navajo: Beans boiled and used in stews. Beans formed a large part of the vegetable diet vulgaris (Speck 1917:221). Navajo Ramah: plants, after harvesting the beans, used as stock feed. Beans cultivated and stored for (continued) use during the winter (Vestal 1952:33). Ojibwa: Similar to white man's navy bean. original source of all the best commercial pole beans, used alone or in many peculiar combinations (Smith 1932:406). Papago: Beans threshed, dried on the ground or roofs, stored and used for food (Castetter and Underhill 1935:32). Beans grown for food (Castetter and Bell 1942:99). Potawatomi: a great number of varieties of beans were used (Smith 1933:104). Sia: Cultivated beans used for food (White 1962:106). Tewa: Beans used as a staple food (Robbins et al. 1916:100). Zuni: Beans boiled and fried or crushed, boiled beans mixed with mush, baked in cornhusks, and used for food. Boiled and fried beans used for food (Stevenson 1915:69). Phytolacca pokeweed Malcite: Shoots used for food (Speck and Dexter 1952:6). americana Polygonum water pepper hydropiper Polygonum sp. knotweed Polygonum sp. - Paiute: Species used for food (Steward 1933:244). Portulaca sp. purslane Portulaca sp.- Pima, Gila River: Leaves used as greens (Rea 1991:5). Portulaca oleracea - Acoma: Plants cooked with meat and eaten like spinach (Castetter:43); Apache, Chiricahua and Mescalero: Eaten without preparation or cooked with green chile and meat or animal bones (Castetter and Opler 1936:46); Hopi: Cooked in gravy (Whiting 1939:75); Isleta: Plants oven dried, stored, and used as greens during the winter (Castetter:43). Plants dried in ovens, stored, and used as greens in the winter (Jones 1931:39); Keres, Western: Plant cooked with meat as green (Swank 1932:62); Laguna: Plants cooked with meat and eaten like spinach (Castetter:43); Luiseno: Plants used for greens (Sparkman 1908:232); Navajo: Seeds used for food (Elmore 1944:47); Navajo, Ramah: Leaves used as a potherb and leaves boiled as greens with meat (Rea 1991:7); Pima, Gila River: Leaves boiled and eaten (Rea 1991:7); Tewa: Fleshy plant tops boiled and eaten (Robbins et al. 1916:59). Prunus persica peach Havasupai : Dried fruits pounded, stewed, and the water drunk. Fruit split open, pitted and sun dried for later consumption (Blankinship 1905:224); Hopi: Fruits split open and dried for winter use. Fruits eaten fresh (Whiting 1939:79); Keres, Western - Fresh peaches eaten for food and peaches dried for winter use (Swank 1932:63); Keresan: Fruit eaten fresh and dried for winter use (White 1962::562); Navajo, Ramah: Favorite fruit used for food (Vestal 1952:31). Prunus sp. plum Prunus sp.- Apache, Mescalero: Berries ground, formed into cakes and dried. Berries eaten fresh (Basehart 1974:48); Coer d' Alene: Berries eaten fresh (Teit 1928:89); Melecite: Fruits eaten fro food (Speck and Dexter 1952:6 ); Micmac: Bark used to make a beverage (Speck and Dexter 1951:258); Navajo: Fruits eaten as soon as they were picked (Elmore 1944:54); Oweekeno: Fruit used for food (Comption 1933:111); Thompson : Berries collected in large quantities and cured (Teit 1928:237). Prunus americana -Apache, Mescalero : fruits dried and stored for future food use (Basehart 1974:50); Cheyenne : Fruits, sugar, and flower used to make a pudding. Fruits pulverized, sundried, boiled, and eaten as a delicacy (Hart 1991:35). Sun dried plums stored for winter use (Grinnell 1905:177); Chippewa : Berries cooked, spread on birch bark into little cakes, dried, and stored for winter use. Berries eaten raw (Densmore 1928:321); Crow : Ripe plums used fresh. ripe plums dried for winter use (Blankinship 1905:19); Dakota : Fruit boiled, pitted, and dried for Prunus sp. winter use (Baker 1981:364). Highly valued fruit pitted and dried for winter use (Gilmore 1913:87). Highly valued fruit (continued) eaten fresh and raw (Gilmore 1913:87). fruit made into a sauce (Baker 1981:364); Isleta : Fruits eaten for food. Fruits eaten fresh (Castetter:46). Fruit eaten for food (Jones 1931:46); Kiowa : Fruit gathered in great quantities and used immediately. Fruit gathered in great quantities, dried, and stored for winter use (Vestal and Schultes 1939:129); Lakota : Fruits eaten fresh (Kraft 1990:37). Fruits eaten for food (Rogers 1980:56). Fruits dried and eaten during famines (Kraft 1990:37); Meskwaki : plumbs eaten fresh. Plums eaten fresh. Plums made into plum butter for winter use (Smith 1928:263); Ojibwa : Fruit dried for winter use. Fruit eaten fresh. dried fruit ground into flower and used to make soup (Reagan 1928:235); Omaha : Fruit pitted and dried for winter use (Gilmore 1913:326). Highly valued fruit pitted and dried for winter use (Gilmore 1913:87). Fruit eaten fresh in season (Gilmore 1913:326). Highly valued fruit eaten fresh and raw. Highly valued fruit cooked as a sauce; Pawnee : Highly valued fruit eaten fresh and raw, cooked as a sauce, or dried with the pits for winter use; Ponca, Winnebago: Highly valued fruit pitted and dried for winter use. Highly valued fruit eaten fresh and raw. Highly valued fruit cooked as a sauce (Gilmore 1913:87). Prunus nigra- Meskwaki : Plums eaten fresh. Plums made into plum butter for winter use (Smith 1928:263). Ojibwa : Large quantities of plums found in thickets and gathered for food and preserves (Smith 1932:409). Prunus pensylvanaica - Cree, Woodlands: Juice used to make jelly (Leighton 1985:53); Ojibwa : Fruit dried for winter use and eaten fresh (Reagan 1928:235). Berries used for food. The pin cherry was abundant around the Flambeau Reservation and the Ojibwe were fond of it. It was an education in itself to see a group of Ojibwe women working on mats with a supply of fruit laden branches beside them. With one hand they would start a stream of berries into the mouth and the stream of cherry stones ejected from the other corner of the mouth seemed ceaseless. The Pillager Ojibwe also had the tree and used the same manner (Smith 1932:409). Dried fruit ground into a flower and used to make soup (Reagan 1928:235); Potawatomi : Cherries eaten as the women worked making baskets (Smith 1933:108). Prunus persica - Havasupai: Dried fruits pounded, stewed, and the water drunk. Fruit split open, pitted, and sun dried for later consumption (Blankinship 1905:224); Hopi : Fruits split open and dried for winter use. Fruits eaten fresh (Whiting 1939:79); Keres, Western : Fresh peaches eaten for food. Peaches dried for winter use (Swank 1932:63); Keresan : Fruit dried for winter use, and eaten fresh (White 1962:562); Navajo, Ramah : Favorite fruit used for food (Vestal 1952:31); Seminole : Plant used for food (Sturtevant 1955:507). Prunus serotina - Chippewa: Twigs used to make a beverage (Densmore 1928:321). Berries cooked, spread on birch bark and little cakes, dried, and stored for winter use. Berries eaten raw (Densmore 1928:321). Mahuana : Berries eaten mainly to quench the thirst (Rogers 1980:70); Menominee : Cherries, if eaten when picked and allowed to stand for some time, said to make the Indian drunk. Cherries eaten fresh (Smith 1923:71); Ojibwa : Ripe cherries used to make whisky (Smith 1932:409). Fruit dried for winter use (Reagan 1928:235). This cherry was preferred to all other wild cherries and dried for winter use (Smith 1932:409). Fruit eaten fresh. Dried fruit ground into flower and used to make soup (Reagan 1928:235); Potawatomi : Cherries used mostly in wine or whisky. Cherries used for food (Smith 1933:108). Prunus viginiana - Apache, Western: Berries eaten raw (Buskirk 1986:190). Blackfoot : juice given as a special drink to husbands or the favorite child. Berries greased, sun dried, and stored for future use. crushed berries mixed with back fat, and used to make soup (Hellson 1974:104). Berry soup used for most ceremonial events (Hellson 1974:26). Peeled sticks inserted into roasting meat as a spice. Berries considered a staple (Hellson 1974:104). Cheyenne : Fruits pounded, formed into flat cakes, sun dried, and used as a winter food. Berries boiled, sugar and flower added, and eaten as a pudding (Hart Prunus sp. 1991:35); Chippewa : twigs used to make a beverage (Densmore 1928:317). Fruits pounded, dried, and used for food (continued) (Densmore 1928:321); Cree, Woodlands : Fruit and pits, sometimes with fish eggs, crushed, mixed with grease, and eaten. Fruit used to make pancake syrup (Leighton 1985:53); Lakota : Leaves used to make a tea during the Sun Dance. Berries eaten fresh (Kraft 1990:38). Fruits eaten for food (Rogers 1980:57). Berries mixed with cornstarch and sugar to make a pudding. Small branches sucked or chewed for thirst during the Sun Dance (Kraft 1990:38); Menominee : bark boiled into regular tea and drunk with meals. Cherries eaten fresh (Smith 1923:71); Meskwaki : Bark made into beverage, and cherries eaten raw (Smith 1928:263); Montana Indian: Berries pulverized, shaped into round cakes, sun dried, and stored for winter use, and used to make pemmican. Berries eaten raw. Berries mixed with sugar and flower and used to make pudding. Berries pulverized, shaped into round cakes, sun dried, and used in soups and stews (Hart 1992:42); Ojibwa : Fruit dried for winter use (Reagan 1928:235). Berries used fresh (Arnason et al. 1981:2222). Fruit of this cherry was liked, especially after the fruit had been frosted (Smith 1932:409). Dried fruit ground into flower and mixed with dried meat flower for soup (Arnason et al. 1981:2222). Okanagan-Colville: Berries mashed, seeds and all, and sun dried into thin cakes. Berries eaten fresh. Berries stored for winter use (Turner et al. 1980:127); Omaha : fruit ponded with the pits, made into thin cakes, and dried for winter use. Fruit eaten fresh. (Gilmore 1913:326); Potawatomi: Cherry used for food and for seasoning or flavoring wine (Smith 1933:108); Thompson: Fruit used to make wine and juice. Fruit, with the pit, dried for future use. Fruit used for food. Fruit used to make syrup. Fruit, with the pit, canned for future use (Turner et al. 1990:264). Quercus sp. oak Quercus sp.- Apache, Mescalero: Acorns boiled, pounded, and mixed with mescal. Acorns eaten raw (Basehart 1974:41); Chippewa : Acorns, with the tannin removed by using wood ash lye and leached out with water, used for food (Gilmore 1933:129); Comanche : Acorns used for food (Carlson and Jones 1940:524); Concow : Acorns made into bread and eaten. Acorns used for food (Bocek 1984:248); Malecite : Acorns ground into a meal and used to make soup (Barrett and Gifford 1933:142); Navajo : Dried acorns ground into flour. Acorns boiled like beans and roasted over coals (Elmore 1944:40); Round Valley Indian: Nuts dried, cracked, pulverized, water added, and the dough made into bread, or brownish red mush (Chesnut 1902:333). Quercus alba - Menominee : Acorns boiled, simmered to remove lye, ground, sifted, and made into pie. Acorns boiled, simmered to remove lie, ground sifted, and made into mush with bear oil seasoning. Acorns boiled, simmered to remove lye, ground, sifted, cooked in soup stock to flavor, and eaten (Smith 1923:66). Meskwaki : Ground scorched acorns made into a drink similar to coffee. Dried acorns made into mush (Smith 1928:257). Ojibwa : Acorns soaked in lye water to remove bitter tannin taste, dried for storage, and used to make soup. Lye for leaching acorns was obtained by soaking wood ashes in water. Acorns were put in a net bag and then soaked in the lye, then rinsed several times in warm water. the acorns were then dried for storage, and when wanted, pounded into a coarse flour which was used to thicken soups and form a sort of mush (Smith 1932:401). Quercus macrocarpa - Cheyenne: Acorns formerly used for food (Hart 1991:26); Chippewa : Acorns roasted in ashes or boiled, mashed, and eaten with grease or duck broth. Acorns boiled, split open and eaten like a vegetable (Densmore 1928:320); Dakota : Acorns leached with basswood ashes to remove the bitter taste and used for food (Gilmore 1913:75); Lakota : Acorns chopped and cooked in soups and meats. Acorns chopped, cooked over fire, and eaten (Kraft 1990:31); Ojibwa : Acorns treated with lye to remove bitterness and eaten (Smith 1932:402). Omaha , Pawnee , Ponca , Winnebago : Acorns leached with basswood ashes to remove the bitter taste and used as food (Gilmore 1913:75). Quercus rubra-Dakota : Acorns Quercus sp. leached with basswood ashes to remove the bitter taste and used for food (Gilmore 1913:75); Ojibwa : Acorns leached (continued) with lye and used as one of the most important starchy foods (Smith 1932:402); Omaha : Acorns freed from tannic acid by boiling with wood ashes and used for food (Gilmore 1913:327). Acorns leached with basswood ashes to remove the bitter taste and used for food; Pawnee , Ponca : Acorns leached with basswood ashes to remove the bitter taste and used for food (Gilmore 1913:75); Potawatomi : Dried, ground acorns used as a flour to make gruel. Hardwood ashes and water furnished the lye for soaking the acorns, to swell them and remove the tannic acid. A bark bag or reticule served to hold the acorns while they were washed through a series of hot and cold water to remove the lye. Then they aired dried in the sun and became sweet and palatable. They were ground on depressions of rocks which served as a mortar with a stone pestle, to a flour, which was cooked as gruel, sometimes called samp (Smith 1933:100). Quercus stellata- Kiowa : Acorns used to make a drink similar to coffee. Dried, pounded acorns used for food (Vestal and Schultes 1939:22). Quercus velutina- Lakota : Acorns used to make flour (Rogers 1980:49); Ojibwa : Acorns with tannic acid extracted, equally as good as other acorns (Smith 1932:402). Rhus sp. sumac Rhus aromatica -Midoo: Berries pounded and eaten (Merriam 1966:312). Rhus glabra - Apache , Chirichaua and Mescalero : Bark eaten by children as a delicacy (Castetter and Opler 1936:44); Comanche : Fruits eaten by children (Carlson and Jones 1940:524); Gosiute : Berries used for food (Chamberlin 1911:379); Meskwaki : Berries and sugar sued to make a cooling drink in the summer time and stored for winter use (Smith 1928:255); Ojibwa : Fresh or dried berries sweetened with maple sugar and made into a hot or cool beverage like lemonade (Smith 1932:397); Okanagan - Colville : seed heads used to make tea (Turner et al. 1980:59). Rubus sp. berry Rubus sp.- Carrier : Berries used to make jelly ( Carrier Linguistic Committee 1973:79); Okanagon : Berries used as a principal food (Teit 1928:238); Paiute : Berries used for food (Mahar 1953:83); Sanpoil and Nespelm : Berries eaten dried. Berries eaten raw or dried (Ray 1932:102); Spokan : Berries used for food (Teit 1928:343). Rubus allegheniensis- Chippewa : Fruit dried for winter use. Fruit eaten fresh (Gilmore 1933:133). Menominee : Berries eaten fresh. Berries made into pies. Berries dried for winter use (Smith 1923:71); Meskwaki : Berries eaten fresh. Berries made into pies. Berries made into jams, and sun dried for winter use (Smith 1928:246); Ojibwa : Berries used to make jam for winter use (Smith 1932:409). Potawatomi : Blackberries only used for food (Smith 1933:108). Rubus canadensis-Chippewa : Fruit used for food (Gilmore 1933:133); Ojibwa : Berries used fresh, and preserved (Arnason et al. 1981:2223). Rubus frondosus - Chippewa : Berries cooked, spread on birch bark into little cakes, dried, and stored for winter uses. Berries eaten raw (Densmore 1928:321); Rubus idaeu- Alaska Native: Berries eaten raw, and made into jellies and jams (Heller 1953:93); Bella Coola : Berries eaten fresh, and cooked into jam (Turner 1973:209); Cree, Woodlands : Fruit eaten with dried fish flesh and fish oil. Young, leafy shoots peeled and the tender inner part eaten (Leighton 1985:57); Eskimo , Inupat : Berries used to make traditional desert (Jones 1983:107); Koyukon : Berries used for food (Nelson 1983:55). Okanagan -Colville : Berries dried for future use. Berries frozen for future use. Berries eaten fresh. Berries canned for future use (Turner et al. 1980:131); Tanana, Upper: Berries frozen for future use (Kari 1985:12). Berries eaten raw, plain, or mixed raw with sugar, grease, or the combination of the two. Berries fried in grease with sugar or dried fish eggs. Berries boiled with sugar and flour to thicken. Berries used to make pies. Berries used to make jam and jelly. Berries preserved alone or in grease and stored in a birch bark basket in an underground cache (Kari 1985:12); Thompson : Fruit steamed, dried, and made into a cake. Fruit sun dried loose on mats. Fruit frozen or made into a jam. Rubus sp. Fruit eaten fresh (Turner et al. 1990:269). Rubus laciniatus - Hoh : Fruits stewed and used for food. Fruits eaten raw. (continued) Fruits canned and saved for future use (Reagan 1936:63); Makah : Fresh fruit used for food. Fruit used to make preserves, and jams (Gill 1983:272); Quileute : Fruits stewed and used for food. Fruits eaten raw. fruits canned and saved for future food use (Reagan 1936:63). Rubus occidentalis-Chippewa : Fruit dried for winter use, and eaten fresh (Gilmore 1933:133); Dakota : Young leaves steeped to make a tea like beverage. Fruit dried for winter use, and eaten fresh (Gilmore 1913:84); Lakota : Fruits eaten for food (Rogers 1980:57); Menominee : Berries eaten fresh, not important as a fresh fruit (Smith 1923:71); Meskwaki : Root bark used to make tea. Berries eaten fresh, and sun dried for winter use (Smith 1928:264); Ojibwa : Berries used fresh, and preserved (Arnason et al. 1981:2224); Omaha , Pawnee , Ponca : leaves used to make a hot, aqueous, tea-like beverage (Gilmore 1913:84). Fruit dried for winter use, and eaten fresh (Gilmore 1913:326); Thompson : Sprouts or young shoots eaten like rhubarb (Gifford 1933:484). Rubus odoratus - Chippewa : Fruit eaten fresh, and dried for winter use (Gilmore 1933:133). Rubus pubescens- Cree, Woodlands : Fruit eaten fresh (Leighton 1985:57). Scirpus sp. rush Sciripus sp. - Cahuilla : Pollen used to make cakes. Roots ground into flour. Seeds eaten raw or ground into mush (Bean and Saubel 1972:139); Costanoan : Roots eaten raw or ground into flour and cooked (Bocek 1984:255); Keres, Western : Tender shoots used for food (Swank 1932:68); Luiseno : Tender young shoots eaten raw (Sparkman 1908:233); Pima, Gila River : Tubers eaten as snack food primarily by children (Rea 1991:5); Thompson : Fleshy rootstocks baked and eaten (Gifford 1933:481). Eleocharis palustris - Paiute : Bulbs used for food (Steward 1933:245). Eleocharis sp . - Paiute : Bulbs used for food (Steward 1933:245); Triticum sp. wheat Elymus sp. - Pomo, Kashaya : Grain grounded into a fine powder and sued in pinole (Goodrich and Lawson 1980:101). Triticum aestivum - Apache , White Mountain : Seeds used to make bread (Reagan 1929:161); Cahuilla : Parched seeds ground into flour and used to make mush (Bean and Saubel 1972:142); Hailsa and HanakSiala : Grains used to make bread and used for food (Comption 1933:208); Navajo, Ramah : Species used for food (Vestal 1952:17); Okanagan - Colville : Kernels boiled until open and eaten (Turner et al. 1980:57); Papago : Used for making native bread and grains trampled, winnowed, softened with water, pounded and dried, and ground into flour (Castetter and Underhill 1935:37); Pima : Seeds ground into meal, water and salt added and dough used to make tortillas and cakes. Parched, ground and eaten as a thin gruel (Russell 1908:76); Pomo, Kashaya : Seed used in mush and to make flour for bread (Goodrich and Lawson 1980:54); Sia : Corn and wheat used for food (White 1962:106); Zuni : Dried, ground wheat mixed with water to make a beverage. Wheat made into flour and used to make doughnuts (Stevenson 1915:71). Vaccinium sp. blueberry Vaccinium angustifolium- Menominee : Sun dried berries and dried sweet corn sweetened with maple sugar and stored for winter use (Smith 1923:66). Ojibwa : Berries sun dried for winter use (Smith 1932:401). Berries eaten fresh. Berries canned for future use (Reagan 1928:238). Vaccinium macrocarpon- Anticosti : Fruits stored for winter use (Rousseau 1946:68); Chippewa : Berries cooked and used for food (Densmore 1928:321); Ojibwa : Fruit used for food (Reagan 1928:238). Vaccinium oxycoccos-Alaska Native: Fruit eaten raw. Fruit cooked and used for food (Heller 1953:103); Algonquin , Quebec : Berries used for food (Black 1980:105); Algonquin , Tete-de-Boule : Fruits eaten for food (Raymound 1962:134); Anticosti : Fruits stored for winter use (Rousseau 1946:68); Clallam : Leaves used to make tea (Fleidher 1980:200); Cree, Woodlands : Fresh berries used for food. Berries stewed and eaten with smoked fish. Berries picked in the fall and stored outside in birch bark containers for winter use (Leighton 1985:47); Eskimo, Alaska : Berries Vaccinium sp. eaten occasionally, but not considered an important food source (Ager 1980:37); Eskimo, Inupiat : Berries whipped with (continued) frozen fish eggs, fish (whitefish, sheepfish, or pike), blubber, and eaten. (Berries boiled with sugar, water, and flour into a pudding. Berries boiled with dried fruit and eaten with meat or used as topping for ice cream, yogurt, or cake. Whole or mashed berries used cooked or raw, whipped with fat, and made into a sauce. Berries boiled with sugar, water, and flour and eaten with meats. Berries boiled, cooled, blackberries or blueberries added, and stored for winter use (Jones 1983:104); Haisla & HanakSiala : Berries boiled and stored in barrels of oolichan (candlefish) grease for winter use (Comption 1933:247); Hesquiat ; Raw berries, without sugar, eaten with oil. Berries stored with water in jars. Berries made into jam (Turner and Efrat 1982:67); Kitasoo : Berries used for food (Comption 1933:336); Klallam : Berries stored in boxes or baskets until soft and brown and used for food (Gunther 1973:45); Makah : Fruit eaten fresh (Gill 1983:307). Berries stored in boxes or baskets until soft and brown and used for food (Gunther 1973:45). Fruit used to make pies, jellies, and jams. Fruit canned for future use (Gill 1983:307); Menominee : Berries sweetened with maple sugar and eaten (Smith 1923:65); Nitinaht : Berries formerly eaten in fall (Turner et al. 1983:109); Ojibwa : Fruit used for food (Reagan 1928:238). This was an important wild food (Smith 1932:401); Oweekeno : Berries used for food (Comption 1933:100); Potawatomi : Berries sweetened with maple sugar and always used as an article of food (Smith 1933:99); Quinault : Berries stored in boxes or baskets until soft and brown and used for food (Gunther 1973:45); Salish, Coast : Fruits dried and used for food. Berries eaten fresh (Turner and Bell 1971:83); Tanana, Upper: Berries frozen for future use. Berries eaten raw, plain, or mixed with sugar, grease, or the combination of the two. Berries fried in grease with sugar or dried fish eggs. Berries boiled with sugar and flower to thicken. Berries used to make pies, jams, and jellies. Berries preserved alone or in grease and stored in a birch bark basket in an underground cache (Kari 1985:10); Thompson ; Fresh fruit used for food. This fruit was not dried because it remained fresh for a long time and could be picked any time until winter (Turner et al. 1990:221). Vaccinium vitis-idaea - Alaska Native: Berries mixed with rose hip pulp and sugar to make jam. Berries cooked as a sauce. Berries stored for future use (Heller 1953:109); Carrier : Berries used to make jam (Carrier Linguistic Committee 1973:76); Eskimo , Arctic : Juice diluted and sweetened to make a refreshing beverage. Berries frozen and stored until the next spring. Berries used to make jams and jellies (Porsild 1953:22); Eskimo, Inupiat : Berries whipped with frozen fish eggs and eaten as a frozen dessert. Raw berries mashed with canned milk and seal oil into a dessert. Berries cooked with fish eggs, fish (whitefish, sheefpish, or pike), blubber, and eaten. Berries boiled with sugar, water and flour into a pudding. Berries boiled with dried fruit and eaten with meat or used as a topping for ice cream, yogurt, or cake. Whole or mashed berries used cooked or raw, whipped with fat, and made into a sauce. Berries boiled with sugar, water, and flour into a topping for hot cakes or bread. Berries boiled with sugar, water, and flour and eaten with meats. Berries boiled, cooled, black berries or blueberries added, and stored for winter use (Jones 1983:86); Koyukon : Berries frozen for winter use (Nelson 1983:55); Tanna, Upper : Berries frozen for future use (Kari 1985:9). Berries used for food (Guedon 1974:28). Berries eaten raw, plain, or mixed raw with sugar, grease, or the combination of the two. Berries fried in grease with sugar or dried fish eggs. Berries boiled with sugar and flour to thicken (Kari 1985:9). Berries preserved in caches (Guedon 1974:28). Berries preserved alone or in grease and stored in a birch bark basket in an underground cache (Kari 1985:9). Viburnum sp. viburnum Viburnum lentago -Dakota : Fruit eaten from the hand, but not gathered in quantity (Gilmore 1913:115); Menominee : Berries used for food (Smith 1923:63); Ojibwa : Berries eaten fresh from the bush. Berries used in jam with wild grapes Viburnum sp. (Smith 1932:398); Omaha , Pawnee , Ponca , Winnebago : Fruit eaten from the hand, but not gathered in quantity (continued) (Gilmore 1913:115). Viburnum nudum - Algonquin , Quebec : Berries used for food (Black 1980:107). Viburnum opulus- Chippewa : Fresh and dried fruits used as an acid sauce (Gilmore 1933:141); Menominee : Berries used for food (Smith 1923:63); Okanagon , Thompson : Fruits occasionally used for food (Perry 1952:38). Viburnum prunifolium- Meskwaki : Berries eaten raw. Berries cooked into jam (Smith 1928:256). Vicia sp. vetch Vicia sp. - Papago : Threshed, dried on the ground or roofs, storied and used for food (Castetter and Underhill 1935:33); Thompson : Used as common forage plants (Gifford 1933:515); Vicia faba - Sia : Cultivated beans for food (White 1962:206). Viola sp. violet Viola sp. - Leaves cooked with other potherbs and eaten (Boaz 1966:253); Vitis sp. grape Parthenocissus quinquefolia - Chippewa : Stalks cut, boiled, peeled and the sweetish substance between the bark and the wood used for food (Densmore 1928:320). Vitis sp. - Comanche : Dried fruits stored for later use and used for food (Carlson and Jones 1940:524); Hualapai: Fruit used to make juice and sun dried and stored for later use. Also eaten raw from the vine (Watahomigie 1982:23). Vitis riparia - Omaha : Fruit dried for winter use and eaten fresh in season (Gilmore 1913:326). Zea mays corn Cahuilla : Ground into meal, boiled, and eaten (Bean and Saubel 1972:153); Chippewa : Used to make "hominy." Kernels pounded into a meal and used to make "parched corn soup." Fresh ears roasted into husks and used for food (Densmore 1928:319); Chocktaw : Seeds parched and mixed with water or boiled with or without meat (Bushnell 1909:8-9); Dakota : Ripe, parched corn ground into a meal and used for food. Ripe corn hulled with lye from ashes and used to make hominy. Sun drills corn silks ground with parched corn for sweetness. Sun dried corn silks stored for future use (Gilmore 1913:67); Delaware, Oklahoma : Dry, unparched corn made into flour and used to make bread. Ears boiled, cooled, the grains dried and used for food. Ears sun dried, grains pounded into hominy grits and used for food. Dried corn boiled in alkaline liquid and hulls combined with fresh or dried meat for stew. Used as the staple vegetable food to provide nourishment for the soul and the body. Ears roasted and used for food. Dried corn boiled in alkaline liquid and hulls eaten with milk and sugar or fried with potatoes (Tantaquidgeon 1972:55); Havasupai : Seeds used to make wafer bread (Spier 1928:103). Seeds used to make bread. Seeds parched, ground fine, boiled, thickened, made into balls, and eaten as dumplings. Seeds ground, kneaded into a thick paste, rolled into little balls, boiled and eaten as marbles (Blankinship 1905:66). Seeds parched, ground, and used to make mush. Seeds parched, ground, and used to make soup. Seeds ground and eaten as a ground or parched meal (Blankinship 1905:67). Seeds eaten fresh, baked on the cob, roasted, or boiled. Seeds pit baked and stored for winter use (Blankinship 1905:66); Hopi : Seeds ground into meal and used to make wafer bread (Whiting 1939:67). Pit baked, husked, strung, and sun dried (Whiting 1939:69). Grains soaked in water with juniper ash, boiled, and washed to make hominy. Made into hominy and other dishes, plant constituted the main food supply. Ground into meal (Whiting 1939:67). Ears pit baked, husked, strung, sun dried, and used as a sweetener in the winter. Pit baked and eaten immediately (Whiting 1939:69); Isleta : Ground corn used to make a slightly intoxicating beverage. Cornmeal used to make various breads. Parched corn eaten as a confection. Cornmeal used to make a mush. Parched corn eaten as a staple. Evaporated liquid from crushed, soaked stalks used to make sugar. Corn husks used to wrap tamales. Cornmeal used to make mush, dried and stored for winter use (Jones 1931:46); Kamia : Species used for food (Gifford 1931:21); Kres, Western : Cornmeal used as one of the main foods (Swank 1932:77); Kiowa : valued as a Zea mays food (Vestal and Schultes 1939:17); Menominee : Scorched or parched corn often used as a substitute for coffee. (continued) Parched, ground corn mixed with bear oil and used as a trail ration. Roasted popcorn pounded into a meal added to dried venison, maple sugar, or wild rice or all three. Ears roasted and made into hominy. Ears parboiled and the kernels sun dried for winter use (Smith 1923:66); Meskwaki : Boiled or parched corn eaten or made into corn hominy grits. Boiled or parched corn stored for winter use (Smith 1928:257); Navajo : Cornmeal and juniper ash water used to make a beverage. Corn and juniper ash used to make bread and dumplings. Corn and meat boiled all night into hominy. Cornmeal porridge, served in wedding baskets, used as a nuptial dish. Green corn roasted, shelled, ground, dried, and wrapped in corn husks, like tamales, for journeys. Immature corn pounded, mixed with pumpkin, wrapped in a corn husk, and baked in ached. Leaves eaten like lettuce (Elmore 1944:27); Navajo, Ramah : Cornmeal used to make ceremonial cakes. Young corn and cob eaten. Roasted, dried corn on the cob stored for winter use (Vestal 1952:18); Ojibwa : Kernels dried for winter use. Several sorts of corn were grown, modern and ancient. Ears were roasted and made into hominy (Smith 1932:402); Omaha : Ripe, parched corn ground into a meal and used for food. Ripe corn hulled with lye from ashes and used to make hominy (Gilmore 1913:67). Sun dried corn silks ground with parched corn for sweetness. Sun dried corn silks stored for future use (Gilmore 1913:68); Papago : Grains parched, dried on mats on roofs, and used for food. Cornmeal used ceremonially. Whole ears roasted in open pits, dried, grains removed, winnowed, and ground into meal. Whole ears roasted in open pits, dried, grains removed, winnowed, and cooked whole with meat (Castetter and Underhill 1935:34); Pawnee : Ripe, parched corn ground into a meal and used for food. Ripe corn hulled with lye from ashes and used to make hominy. Sun dried corn silks ground with parched corn for sweetness. Sun dried silks stored for future use (Gilmore 1913:67); Pima : Ground, baked in large cakes, and used for food. Boiled with ashes, dried, hulls washed or, dried, parched with coals, and made into gruel (Russell 1908:72); Ponca : Ripe, parched corn ground into a meal and used for food. Ripe corn hulled with lye from ashes and used to make hominy. Sun dried corn silks ground with parched corn for sweetness. Sun dried silks stored for future use (Gilmore 1913:67); Potawatomi : Elm Bark Bags, filled with corn or beans and peas, buried in the ground to keep fro the winter (Smith 1933:101); Pueblo: Cornmeal used ceremonially (Castetter and Underhill 1935:34); Sea : Corn and wheat, the most important foods, used for food (White 1962:106); Tewa : Corn ground and sifted into boiling water to make a gruel formerly drunk in the morning. Cornmeal mixed with cold water and drunk as a nourishing drink. Corn ground on a matate, formed into cakes, rolled, and baked. Used as a staple food (Robbins et al. 1916:78); Zuni : Popped corn ground as fine as possible, mixed with cold water, strained, and used as a beverage. Toasted or untoasted corn ground into a flour and used to make bread. Corn used to make gruel. Corn used to make popcorn. Toasted or untoasted corn ground into a flour and used to make bread eaten as a staple on journeys (Stevenson 1915:73).
Plant Taxa listed in the USDA Plant Database in Connecticut Not Recorded in Native American Food Practices Related to Plants
1) Asclepias amplexicaulis (clasping milkweed); Asclepias exaltata (poke milkweed);); Asclepias purpurascens (purple milkweed); Asclepias quadrifolia (fourleaf milkweed); Asclepias tuberosa (butterfly milkweed)
2) Carex abscondita (thicket sedge); Carex acutiformis (lesser pond sedge); Carex aestivalis (summer sedge); Carex alata (broadwing sedge); Carex albicans (whitetinge sedge); Carex albolutescens (greenwhite sedge); Carex albursina (white bear sedge); Carex alopecoidea (foxtail sedge); Carex amphibola (eastern narrowleaf sedge); Carex annectens (yellowfruit sedge); Carex appalachica (Appalachian sedge); Carex arctata (dropping woodland sedge); Carex argyrantha (hay sedge); Carex atlantica (prickly bog sedge); Carex aurea (golden sedge); Carex backii (Back's sedge); Carex bailey i (Bailey's sedge); Carex barrattii (Barratt's sedge); Carex bebbii (Bebb's sedge); Carex bicknellii (Bicknell's sedge); Carex blanda (eastern woodland sedge); Carex brevior (shortbeak sedge); Carex bromoides (brome-like sedge); Carex brunnescens (brownish sedge); Carex bullata (button sedge); Carex bushii (Bush's sedge); Carex buxbaumii (Buxbaum's sedge); Carex canescens (silvery sedge); Carex castanea (chestnut sedge); Carex cephaloidea (thinleaf sedge); Carex cephalophora (oval-leaf sedge); Carex collinsii (Collins' sedge); Carex communis (fibrousroot sedge); Carex comosa (longhair sedge); Carex conoidea (openfield sedge); Carex crawei (Crawe's sedge); Carex crawfordii (Crawford's sedge); Carex crinita (frindged sedge); Carex cristatella (crested sedge); Carex cryptolepis (northeastern sedge); Carex cumulata (clustered sedge); Carex davisii (Davis' sedge); Carex debilis (white edge sedge); Carex deweyana (Dewy sedge); Carex diandra (lesser panicled sedge); Carex digitalis (slender woodland sedge); Carex disperma (softleaf sedge); Carex eburnea (bristleleaf sedge); Carex echinata (star sedge); Carex emoryi (Emory's sedge); Carex exilis (coastal sedge); Carex festucacea (fescue sedge); Carex flava (yellow sedge); Carex folliculata (northern long sedge); Carex formosa (handsome sedge); Carex glaucodea (blue sedge); Carex gracilescens (slender looseflower sedge); Carex gracillimia (graceful sedge); Carex granularis (limestone meadow sedge); Carex grayi (Gray's sedge); Carex grisea (inflated narrow-leaf sedge); Carex gynandra (nodding sedge); Carex haydenii (Hayden's sedge); Carex hirsutella (fuzzy wuzzy sedge); Carex hirta (hammer sedge); Carex hirtifolia (pubescent sedge); Carex hitchcockiana (Hitchcock's sedge); Carex hormathodes (marsh straw sedge); Carex hystericina (bottlebrush sedge); Carex interior (inland sedge); Carex intumescens (greater bladder sedge); Carex lacustris (hairy sedge); Carex laevivaginata (smoothshearth sedge); Carex lapponica (Lapland sedge); Carex lasiocarpa (woollyfruit sedge); Carex laxiculmis (spreading sedge); Carex laxiflora (broad looseflower sedge); Carex leptalea (bristlystalked sedge); Carex leptonervia (nerveless woodland sedge); Carex limos a (mud sedge); Carex livida (livid sedge); Carex longii (Long's sedge); Carex lucorum (Blue Ridge sedge); Carex lupuliformis (false hop sedge); Carex lupulina (hop sedge); Carex lurida (shallow sedge); Carex magellanica (boreal bog sedge); Carex merritt-fernaldii (Fernald'a sedge); Carex mesochorea (midland sedge); Carex molesta (troublesome sedge); Carex muehlenbergii (Muhlenberg's sedge); Carex nigra (smooth black sedge); Carex nigromarginata (black edge sedge); Carex normalis (greater straw sedge); Carex novae-angliae (New England sedge); Carex oligocarpa (richwoods sedge); Carex oligosperma (fewseed sedge); Carex ormostachya (necklace spike sedge); Carex pallescens (pale sedge); carex panicea (grass-like sedge); Carex pauciflora (fewflower sedge); Carex pedunculata (longstalk sedge); Carex pellita (woolly sedge); Carex pensylvanica (Pennsylvania sedge); Carex plantaginea (plantainleaf sedge); Carex platyphylla (broadleaf sedge); Carex polymorpha (variable sedge); Carex prairea (prairie sedge); Carex prasina (drooping sedge); Carex projecta (necklace sedge); Carex pseudocyperus (cypress-like sedge); Carex radiata (eastern star sedge); Carex retroflexa (reflexed sedge); Carex retrorsa (knotsheath sedge); Carex rosea (rosy sedge); Carex scabrata (eastern rough sedge); Carex schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sedge); Carex scoparia (broom sedge); Carex seorsa (weak stellate sedge); Carex siccata (dryspike sedge); Carex silicea (beach sedge); Carex sparganioides (bur-reed sedge); Carex spicata (prickly sedge); Carex sprengelii (Sprengel's sedge); Carex squarrosa (squarrose sedge); Carex sterilis (dioecious sedge); Carex stipata (awlfruit sedge); Carex straminea (eastern straw sedge); Carex striatula (lined sedge); Carex stricta (upright sedge); Carex styloflexa (bent sedge); Carex swanii (Swan's sedge); Carex tenera (quill sedge); Carex tetanica (rigid sedge); Carex
tincta (tinged sedge); Carex tonsa (shaved sedge); Carex torta (twisted sedge); Carex tribuloides
£ ¤ ¥ (blunt broom sedge); Carex trichocarpa (hairyfuirt sedge); Carex trisperma (threeseeded sedge); Carex tuckermanii (Tukerman's sedge); Carex typhina (cattail sedge); Carex umbellata (parasol sedge); Carex vesicaria (blister sedge); Carex vestita (velvet sedge); Carex virescens (ribbed sedge); Carex viridula (little green sedge); Carex vulpinoidea (fox sedge); Carex willdenowii (Willdenow's sedge); Carex woodii (pretty sedge)
3) Carya glabra (pignut hickory); Carya ovalis (red hickory)
4) Amaranthus blitum (purple amaranth); Amaranthus cannabinus (tidalmarsh amaranth); Amaranthus pumilus (seaside amaranth); Amaranthus spinosus (spiny amaranth); Amaranthus tuberculatus (roughfruit amaranth); Chenopodium ambrosiodes (Mexican tea); Chenopodium berlandieri (pitseed goosefoot); Chenopodium bonus-henricus (good King Henry); Chenopodium botrys (Jerusalem oak goosefoot); Chenopodium capitatum (blite goosefoot); Chenopodium glaucum (oakleaf goosefoot); Chenopodium simplex (mapleleaf goosefoot); Chenopodium standleyanum (Standley's goosefoot); Chenopodium urbicum (city goosefoot)
5) Cornus alternifolia (alternateleaf dogwood); Cornus amomum (silky dogwood); Cornus florida (flowering dogwood); Cornus obliqua (silky dogwood); Cornus racemosa (gray dogwood); Cornus rugosa (roundleaf dogwood)
6) Corylus heterophylla (Siberian hazelnut)
7) Crataegus anomala (Arnold hawthorne); Crataegus brainerdii (Brainerd's hawthorne); Crataegus compta (adorned hawthorn); Crataegus crus-galli (cockspur hawthorn); Crataegus dilatata (broadleaf hawthorn); Crataegus dissona (northern hawthorn); Crataegus dodgei (Dodge's hawthorn); Crataegus flabellata (fanleaf hawthorn); Crataegus holmesiana (Holmes' hawthorne); Crataegus intricata (Copenhagen hawthorne); Crrataegus iracunda (stolonbearing hawthorn); Crataegus jesupii (Jesup's hawthorn); Crategus lucorum (grove hawthorn); Crataegus lumaria (roundleaf hawthorn); Crataegus membranacea (tissueleaf hawthorn0; Crataegus monogyna (oneseed hawthorn); Crataegus pedicellata (scarlet hawthorn); Crataegus pequotorum (Connecticut hawthorn); Crataegus pringlei (Pringle's hawthorn); Crataegus punctata (dotted hawthorn); Crataegus scabrida (rough hawthorn); Crataegus schuettei (Schuette's hawthorn); Crataegus spatiosa (New London hawthorn); Crataegus suborbiculata (Caughuawaga hawthorn); Crataegus succulenta (fleshy hawthorn)
8) Cyperus amuricus (Asian flatsedge); Cyperus bipartitus (slender flatsedge); Cyperus dentatus (toothed flatsedge); Cyperus diandrus (umbrella flatsedge); Cyperus echinatus (globe flatsedge); Cyperus filicinus (fern flatsedge); Cyperus fuscus (brown flatsedge); Cyperus grayi (Gray's flatsedge); Cyperus lupulinus (Great Plains flatsedge); Cyperus squarrosus (bearded flatsedge); Cyperus strigosus (strawcolored flatsedge); Kyllinga gracillima (pasture spikesedge)
9) Gaylussacia dumosa (dwarf huckleberry); Gaylussacia frondosa (blue huckleberry)
10) Ilex glabra (inkberry); Ilex laevigata (smooth winterberry); Ilex montana (mountain holly); Ilex mucronata (catberry); Ilex opaca (American holly); Ilex verticillata (common winterberry)
11) Juncus acuminatus (tapertip rush); Juncus ambiguus (seasice rush); Juncus anthelatus (greater poverty rush); Juncus articulatus (jointleaf rush); Juncus brachycarpus (whiteroot rush); Juncus brachycephalus (smallhead rush); Juncus brevicaudatus (narrowpanicle rush); Juncus bufonius (toad rush); Juncus canadensis (Canadian rush); Juncus debilis (weak rush); Juncus dichotomus (forked rush); Juncus diffusissimus (simpod rush); Juncus dudleyi (Dudley's rush); Juncus gerardii (saltmeadow rush); Juncus greenei (Greene's rush); Juncus marginatus (grassleaf rush); Juncus militaris (bayonet rush); Juncus nodosus (knotted rush); Juncus pelocarpus (brownfruit rush); Juncus secundus (lopsided rush); Juncus subcaudatus (woodland rush); Juncus tenuis (poverty rush); Luzula multiflora (common woodrush)
12) Latuca biennis (tall blue lettuce); Lactuca hirsuta (hairy lettuce); Lactuca serriola (prickly lettuce)
£ ¤ ¦
13) Fagopyrum esculentum (buckwheat); Polygonella articulata (coastal jointweed); Polygonum achoreum (leathery knotweed); Polygonum amphibium (water knotweed); Polygonum arenastrum (oval-leaf knotweed); Polygonum arifolium (halberdleaf tearthumb); Polygonum aviculare (prostrate knotweed); Polygonum bellardii (narrowleaf knotweed); Polygonum buxiforme (box knotweed); Polygonum careyi (Carey's smartweed); Polygonum cespitosum (Oriental lady's thumb); Polygonum cilinode (fringed black bindweed); Polygonum convolvulus (black bindweed); Polygonum cuspidatum (Japanese knotweed); Polygonum erectum (erect knotweed); Polygonum glaucum (seaside knotweed); Polygonum hydropiperoides (swamp smartweed); Polygonum lapathifolium (curly knotweed); Polygonum minus (pgymy smartweed); Polygonum nepalense (Nepalese smartweed); Polygonum orientale (kiss me over the garden gate); Polygonum pensylvanicum (Pennsylvania smartweed); Polygonum persicaria (spotted ladysthumb); Polygonum punctatum (dotted smartweed); Polygonum ramosissimum (bushy knotweed); Polygonum robustius (stout smartweed); Polygonum sachalinense (giant knotweed); Polygonum sagittatum (arrowleaf tearthumb); Polygonum scandens (climbing false buckwheat); Polygonum tenue (pleatleaf knotweed); Polygonum virginianum (jumpseed)
14) Portulaca gradiflora (rose moss)
15) Prunus alleghaniensis (Allegheny plum); Prunus avium (sweet cherry); Prunus domestica (European plum); Prunus mahaleb (Mahaleb cherry); Prunus maritima (beach plum); Prunus spinosa (blackthorn); Prunus susquehanae (Sesquehana sandcherry)
16) Quercus coccinea (scarlet oak); Quercus ilicifolia (bear oak); Quercus muehlenbergii (chinkapin oak); Quercus palustris (pin oak); Quercus prinoides (dwarf chinkapin oak)
17) Cotinus coggygria (European smoketree); Rhus typhina (staghorn sumac); Toxicodendron radicans (eastern poison ivy); Toxicodendron rydbergii (western poision ivy); Toxicodendron vernix (poison sumac)
18) 47 SPECIES: Dalibarda repens (robin runaway); Rubus alumnus (oldfield blackberry); Rubus andrewsianus (Andrews' blackberry); Rubus aptatus (drybank dewberry); Rubus arenicola (sanddwelling dewberry); Rubus baileyanus (Bailey's dewberry); Rubus bigelovianus (lowland blackberry); Rubus cuneifolius (sand blackberry); Rubus dissimilis (bristly Oswego blackberry); Rubus elegantulus (showy blackberry); Rubus floricomus (manyflower blackberrry); Rubus fraternalis (northeastern dewberry); Rubus gnarus (Pollock's Mill blackberry); Rubus hispidus (bristly dewberry); Rubus illecebrosus (strawberry raspberry); Rubus insons (New England blackberry); Rubus insulanus (island blackberry); Rubus multifer (kinnickinnick dewberry); Rubus multispinus (devil's blackberry); Rubus notatus (bristle berry); Rubus novanglicus (New England dewberry); Rubus obsessus (New York dewberry); Rubus parlinii (Parlin's dewberry); Rubus particeps (Kingston dewberry); Rubus pensilvanicus (Pennsylvania blackberry); Rubus pergratus (upland blackberry); Rubus philadelphicus (Philadelphia blackberry); Rubus phoenicolasius (wine raspberry); Rubus plicatifolius (plaitleaf dewberry); Rubus positivus (New London dewberry); Rubus pugnax (pugnancious blackberry); Rubus recurvans (recurved blackberry); Rubus recurvicaulis (arching dewberry); Rubus rosa (rose blackberry); Rubus rossbergianus (Connecticut blackberry); Rubus saltuensis (Tolland County blackberry); Rubus semisetosus (swamp blackberry); Rubus setosus (setose blackberry); Rubus vermontanus (Vermont blackberry)
19) Bulbostylis capillaris (densetuft hairsedge); Eleocharis equisetoides (jointed spikesedge); Eleocharis erythropoda (bald spikerush); Eleocharis obtusa (blunt spikerush); Eleocharis ovata (ovate spikerush); Eleocharis parvula (dwarf spikerush); Eleocharis quadrangulata (squarestem spikerush); Eleocharis rostellata (beaked spikerush); Eleocharis tenuis (slender spikerush); Eleocharis tuberculosa (cone-cup spikerush); Fimbristylis autumnalis (slender fimbry); Lipocarpha micrantha (smallflower halfchaff sedge); Schoenoplectus acutus (hardstem bulrush); Schoenoplectus americanus (chairmaker's bulrush); Schoenoplectus fluviatilis (river bulrush); Schoenoplectus maritimus (cosmopolitan bulrush); Schoenoplectus novae-angliae (New England bulrush); Schoenoplectus pungens (common
threesquare); Schoenoplectus purshianus (weakstalk bulrush); Schoenoplectus robustus (sturdy
£ ¤ § bulrush); Schoenoplectus smithii (Smith's bulrush); Schoenoplectus subterminalis (swaying bulrush); Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani (softstem bulrush); Schoenoplectus torreyi (Torrey's bulrush); Scirpus atrocinctus (blackgirdle bulrush); Scirpus atrovirens (green bulrush); Scirpus cyperinus (woolgrass); Scirpus expansus (woodland bulrush); Scirpus georgianus (Georgia bulrush); Scirpus hattorianus (mosquito bulrush); Scirpus longii (Long's bulrush); Scirpus microcarpus (panicled bulrush); Scirpus pedicellatus (stalked bulrush); Scirpus pendulus (rufous bulrush); Scirpus polyphyllus (leafy bulrush); Trichophorum alpinu (alpine bulrush); Trichophorum planifolium (bashful bulrush)
20) Elymus repens (quackgrass); Secale cereale (cereal rye)
21) 10 SPECIES: Ilex mucronata (catberry); Vaccinium fuscatum (black highbush blueberry); Vaccinium pallidum (Blue Ridge blueberry); Vaccinium stamineum (deerberry)
22) Viburnum acerifolium (maplefeaf viburnum); Viburnum dentatum (sounther arrowwood); Viburnum lantana (wayfaringtree); Viburnum lantanoides (hobblebush); Viburnum plicatum (Japanese snowball); Viburnum rafinesqueanum (downy arrowwood); Viburnum recognitum (southern arrrowwood); Viburnum setigerum (tea viburnum); Viburnum sieboldii (Siebold's arrowwood)
23) Vicia cracca (bird vetch; Vicia hirsuta (tiny vetch); Vicia pannonica (Hungarian vetch); Vicia sativa (garden vetch); Vicia tetrasperma (lentil vetch); Vicia villosa (winter vetch)
24) Hybanthus concolor (eastern greenviolet); Viola affinis (sand violent); Viola arvensis (European field pansy); Viola brittoniana (northern coastal violet); Viola canadensis (Canadian white violet); Viola cucullata (marsh blue violet); Viola hirsutula (southern woodland violet); Viola labradorica (alpine violet); Viola lanceolata (bog white violet); Viola macloskeyi (small white violet); Viola nephrophylla (northern bog violet); Viola odorata (sweet violet); Viola pedata (birdfoot violet); Viola pubesens (downy yellow violet); Viola renifolia (white violet); Viola rostrata (longspur violet); Viola rotundifolia (roundleaf yellow violet); Viola sagittata (arrowleaf violet); Viola selkirkii (Selkirk's violet); Viola septentrionalis (northern woodland violet); Viola sororia (common blue violet); Viola striata (striped cream violet); Viola tricolor (johnny jumpup); Viola triloba (three-lobe violet)
25) Vitis palmata (catbird grape)
£ ¤ ¨ !""#$%&'()( ( #*+$,-.!"+&)(/#%&)&$!0()!*#-,.&1!*&,$(,2("0!$*(*3"#4( !
239!
Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Acalypha sp. cooperfleaf Acalypha virginica Acalphya virginica- (Virginia three seed Cherokee: root used for mercury) kidney aid or "dropsy" (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:61) Asclepias sp. milkweed Asclepias exaltata Asclepias sp.- Asclepias incarnata - Asclepias sp. - (poke milkweed); Mohegan: Iroquois : Cold Delaware : Infusion of Asclepias incarnata Dried root used infusion of roots pounded roots used for (swamp milkweed); for pleurisy applied to heal a epilepsy in those born Asclepias quadrifolia (Tantaquidgeon baby's navel. during certain phases of (fourleaf milkweed); 1972:70,128) Decoction of plants the moon (Tantaquidgeon Asclepias syriaca taken for too little 1972:39); Natchez: (common milkweed); urine. Decoction of Infusion of root taken for Asclepias tuberosa plants taken for the "kidney trouble and (butterfly milkweed); kidneys. Decoction of Bright's disease" Asclepias verticillata plants taken for lame (Swanton 1928: 667). (whorled milkweed); backs (Herrick Infusion of roots taken Asclepias viridiflora 1977:418). Compound for kidney troubles and (green comet decoction of roots nephritis (Taylor mildweed) taken as a wash for 1940:52). Plant used for stricture (Herrick syphilis (Swanton 1977:417). Infusion of 1928:668, 177:52); roots taken and used Asclepias quadrifolia - as a wash to give Cherokee : Infusion of strength. Dried stems root taken with root of made into cord and "virgin's bower" for used for tooth headache. Rubbed on extraction. Decoction warts to remove them. of plants taken for too Plant taken for "dropsy." much urine. Plant taken for a laxative. Decoction of plants Plant taken for "gravel." used to increase one's Infusion of root taken for strength to be able to venereal diseases (Hamel Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Asclepias sp. physically punish a and Chiltoskey 1975:44). (continued) witch (Herrick Asclepias syriac a- 1977:418). Asclepias Cherokee : Infusion of syriaca- Iroquois: root taken with root of Stalks cooked as "virgin's bower" for greens and used for backache. Rubbed on rheumatism (Parker warts to remove them. 1910:93). Infusion of Plant taken for "dropsy." dried, pulverized roots Plant taken as a laxative. and rhizomes taken by plant taken for "gravel." women for temporary infusion of root taken for sterility (Rousseau venereal diseases. 1945:59). Used for Infusion given for warts, bee stings, and "milksick" (mastitis) cuts. Infusion of (Hamel and Chiltoskey leaves taken as a 1975:40). Asclepias stomach medicine. tuberos a- Cherokee : Compound decoction Used for breast, stomach, of plants taken to and intestinal pains. prevent hemorrhage Seeds boiled in "new after childbirth. milk" and used for Compound used for diarrhea. Used as an dropsy (Herrick expectorant and taken for 1977:417). Compound pleurisy. Infusion used decoction of roots for "bloody flux." taken for stricture Infusion of root used for (Herrick 1977:416). heart trouble. Seeds or Poultice of cotton root used as a gentle applied to sick parts laxative. Used as an (Rousseau 1945:15). expectorant and taken for Asclepias tuberosa - pleurisy and lung Iroquois: Infusion of inflammations (Hamel roots used as a wash and Chiltoskey Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Asclepias sp. for arms, shoulders, 1975:27). Delaware: (continued) and body for lifting. Roots used for Poultice of smashed rheumatism. Roots roots applied to legs, administered to women and running shoes following childbirth. dampened or washed Roots used for pleurisy for running strength (Tantaquidgeon (Herrick 1977:416). 1972:37); Carex sp. sedge Carex brevior Carex brevior - Carex sp. - Cherokee: (shortbeak Iroquois: Compound Leaves taken to "check sedge); Carex of infusion of plant bowels" for antidiarrheal plantaginea taken for evacuation infusion (Hamel and (plantainleaf sedge); of the placenta Chiltoskey 1972:54) Carex platyphylla (Herrick 1977:275). Delaware : Infusion of (broadleaf sedge); Carex oligosperma - pounded roots used for Carex prasina Iroquois: Compound epilepsy in those born (drooping sedge); decoction taken as an during certain phases of Carex utriculata emetic before running the moon (Tantaquidgeon (Northwest Territory or playing lacrosse 1972:39). sedge); Carex (Herrick 1977:275). vulpinoide a (fox Carex platyphylla - sedge); Iroquois: Used several ways to "wash the snowsnake," a snowsnake medicine (Herrick 1977:274). Carex prasina - Iroquois: Decoction taken as a emetic and when "stomach is bad from an unknown cause." (Herrick 1977:275). Carex Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Carex sp. vulpinoidea - (continued) Iroquois: Other compound decoction of roots used as a "rooster fighting medicine" (Herrick 1977:265). Carpinus beech SAME Delaware, Ontario: Cherokee: Compound caroliniana Root or bark in a infusion taken for flux, compound infusion "navel yellowness", taken for "diseases cloudy urine and inner particular to women". bark taken for difficult Also taken as a tonic urination with discharge for "general debility" (Hamel and Chiltoskey (Tantaquidgeon 1972:39) . 1942:68) Iroquois - Vine used in decoction as a wash for babies with diarrhea and used as a wash for affected parts of "Italian itch"; Decoction used to facilitate childbirth and for parturition; compound used for "big injuries"; Compound decoction of bark chips taken for consumption (Herrick 1977:299). Carya sp. hickory Carya alba Carya alba- Carya alba- Cherokee: (mockernut hickory); Delaware, Ontario : Used for female Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Carya sp. Carya cordiformis Compound infusion of obstructions. Used for (continued) (bitternut hickory); bark taken for "female poliomyelitis pain. Used Carya ovata (shagbark disorder." Compound for colds. Bark used as a hickory) infusion of bark taken dressing for cuts. Used as as a tonic for general a diaphoretic. Used as an disability emetic. Used to (Tantaquidgeon invigorate the stomach. 1942:82). Carya Used for bile. Used for cordiformis - poliomyelitis pain. Bark Iroquois : Nutmeat oil chewed for sore mouth formerly used for the (as C. tomentosa, Hamel hair, either alone or and Chiltoskey 1975:38). mixed with bear Chewed inner bark used grease (Waugh for sore mouth (as C. 1916:123). Carya tomentosa , Taylor ovata - Delaware, 1940:14). Infusion of Ontario : Compound bark taken by ballplayers infusion of bark taken to make limbs supple (as for "diseases peculiar C. tomentosa , Hamel and to women." Chiltoskey 1975:38). Compound infusion of bark taken for "general debility" (Tantaquidgeon 1942:68); Iroquois: Compound decoction with white from inside bark taken by adults for worms. Decoction of bark taken for arthritis (Herrick 1977:297). Nutmeat oil formerly used for Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Carya sp. the hair, either alone (continued) or mixed with bear grease (Waugh 1916:123). Chenopodium goosefoot Amaranthus Chenopodium Amaranthus Amaranthus hybridus - - Amaranthus hybridus (slim album - retroflexus- Iroquois : Cherokee : Used as an sp. amaranth); Mohegan: Decoction and doll ingredient in a green corn Amaranthus Infusion of used to "Make a medicine. Astringent retroflexus (redroot leaves taken for person break out like leaves used for profuse amaranth); hoarseness canser" (Herrick menstruation (Hamel and Amaranthus spinosus (Tantaquidgeon 1977:316). Chiltoskey 1975:23). (spiny amaranth); 1972:70,128). Chenopodium album- Amaranthus retroflexus - Chenopodium album Iroquois : Cold Cherokee : Used as an (lambsquarter); infusion of whole ingredient in a green corn Chenopodium plant taken for medicine. Leaves used to ambrosiodes (Mexican diarrhea (Herrick "relieve profuse tea); Chenopodium 1977:315). Compound menstration" (Hamel and botry s (Jerusalem oak used as salve on burns Chiltoskey 1975:23). goosefoot); (Herrick 1977:316). Amaranthus spinosus - Chenopodium Compound decoction Cherokee: Used as an capitatum (blite used as wash and ingredient in a green corn goosefoot); applied as poultice medicine. Astringent when bothered by leaves used for profuse milk flow (Herrick menstration (Hamel and 1977:315). Chiltoskey 1975:23). Chenopodium album- Cherokee: Cooked salad greens eaten to "keep healthy" (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:42). Chenopodium botrys- Cherokee : Cold infusion taken orally and used to Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Chenopodium moisten head for - Amaranthus headache. Decoction of sp. (continued) any part of plant in sweet milk given for worms. Cold infusion taken orally to moisten head for colds. Warm infusion of root taken in winter for "feaver diseased" (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:41). Chenopodium ambrosiodes - Creek : Unspecified plant part used "in cases of feaver" (Swanton 1928:657). Plant used as a feaver medicine (Taylor 1940:22). plant used for a "great any ailments." Plant used as a "sort of spring tonic" (Swanton 1928:657; Taylor 1940:22); Natchez : Plant given to children for worms. Plant used as a feaver medicine (Taylor 1940:22); Rappahannock : Stewed seeds taken for worms. Stewed seeds taken as a tonic (Speck et al. 1942:30); Seminole: Decoction of whole plant Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Chenopodium taken for worm sickness: - Amaranthus pale skin and laziness sp. (Sturtevant 1955:241). (continued) Infusion of root bark taken for stomach troubles (Sturtevant 1955:276). Plant taken and rubbed on the body for lion disease: chest cramps, nervousness, and walking continually (Sturtevant 1955:233). Decoction of whole plant taken for worm sickness: pale skin and laziness (Sturtevant 1955:241). Comptonia sweet fern SAME Take along Mohegan: Algonquin, Quebec : Delaware: Infusion of peregrina with Weecup, Infusion of Infusion of leaves plant, mallow root, elder Sage or Hysop leaves used as a taken or crushed leaf flowers, and dwarf elder with burned poison ivy perfume inhaled for used as a blood purifier. powdered lotion (as M. headaches (Black Infusion of plant used for bone before or asplenifolia 1980:149); blisters. Infusion of plant, after meal Tantaquidgeon Shinnecock: Infusion mallow root, elder (Occum 1754 1972:74, 30); of leaves rubbed on flowers, and dwarf elder in Brooks Penobscot: the skin for itch (Carr used to remove mucus 2006:45) Put Infusion of and Westey 1945: from the lungs and forr on hair to leaves rubbed 119). Shinnecock: bladder inflammation. darken it and on skin fro Infusion of leaves Infusion of plant, mallow good for poison ivy (as rubbed on the skin for root, elder flowers, and poison ivy M. asplenifolia itch (Carr and Westey dwarf elder used for (Butler 1939 in Speck 1945: 119). scrofula (as Myrica Simmons 1917:309). asplenifolia 1990:157). Tantaquidgeon 1972:35) Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Cornus sp. dogwood Cornus alternifolia Cornus Cornus alternifolia- Cornus alternifolia- (alternate leaf canadensis - Iroquois : Compound Cherokee : Bark chewed dogwood); Cornus Abenaki: Used decoction of bark for headache. Compound amomum (silky for side pains taken for colds and infusion of bark and root dogwood); Cornus (144:170). coughing (Herrick used for childhood canadensis 1977:407). Poultice of diseases like worms and (bunchberry powdered bark measles. Compound dogwood); Cornus applied to heal the infusion taken for florida (flowering navel and blisters diarrhea. Infusion of dogwood); Cornus (Herrick 1977:407). beaten bark used for racemosa (gray Infusion of bark bathing after "poisons of dogwood); Cornus applied as poultice to any kind." Infusion rugosa (roundleaf swollen areas. taken" for blood." Root dogwood); Cornus Compound decoction bark astringent and sericea (redosier of bark taken as an compound infusion taken dogwood) emetic, especially for for diarrhea. Root bark coughs (Herrick used for unspecified 1977:407). Plant used poultices and poultice of in wash for eyes. bark ooze applied to Compound decoction ulcers. Infusion of flower of bark taken by taken to "sweat off flu." pregnant women who Root bark used as an have had gonorrhea. antiseptic and astringent. Poultice of powdered Root bark used as a bark applied to heal febrifuge. Infusion of navel. Decoction of flower taken for colic. bark taken to vomit Infusion of bark used by for coughs or women for backache. bronchial coughs Root bark used as a (Herrick 1977:406). stimulant. Infusion of Compound decoction inner bark taken for "lost of bark taken for voice." root bark used as tuberculosis (Herrick a tonic (Hamel and Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Cornus sp . 1977:407). Compound Chiltoskey 1975:32). (continued) infusion used as wash Potawatomi: Infusion of on parts affected by bark used as a wash for venereal disease granulation of the eyelids (Herrick 1977:406). (Smith 1933:54). Cornus Cornus amomum - canadensis - Delaware : Iroquois : Compound Bark used for body pains decoction of roots (Tantaquidgeon taken for urinating 1972:31); Roots used as a pain. Infusion of bark tonic (Tantaquidgeon used as wash or 1972:31); powdered bark Rappahannock : Infusion applied to gonorrhea of root bark taken for sores (Herrick diarrhea. Decoction of 1977:402). Complex dried bark from roots compound decoction used to purify the blood. used as wash for Decoction of dried bark affected parts of from roots used as a tonic "italian itch." (Speck et al. 1942:33). Decoction of bark Cornus florida - taken as an emetic Cherokee: Bark chewed (Herrick 1977:403). for headache. Compound Compound decoction infusion of bark and root of roots taken as a used for childhood laxative. Infusion of diseases like worms and bark used as wash to measles (Hamel and make babies sleep Chiltoskey 1975:32). (Herrick 1977:402). Infusion of bark used as a Poultice of smashed bath and given to bark applied for children with worms goiter. Infusion of (Taylor 1940:46). bark taken for chest Compound infusion congestion (Herrick taken "for blood." Root Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Cornus sp. 1977:403). Compound bark astringent and (continued) decoction of roots compound infusion taken taken for urinating for diarrhea. Root bark pain (Herrick used for unspecified 1977:402). Cornus poultices and poultice of canadensis - bark ooze applied to Algonquin, Quebec : ulcers (Hamel and Infusion of leaves Chiltoskey 1975:32). used as a cathartic tea Root bark used for (Black 1980:122); wounds (Whitthoft Algonquin, Tete-de- 1947:74). Infusion of Boule : Decoction of flower taken "to sweat plant and other plants off flu." Root bark used used for colds. Plant as an antiseptic and mixed with other astringent. Root bark plants and used by used as a febrifuge. women for Infusion of flower taken stomachaches for colic. Infusion of bark (Raymound used by women for 1945:128); Iroquois : backache (Hamel and Decoction of whole Chiltoskey 1975:32). plant taken for Infusion of bark used as a coughs, fevers, and bath and given to tuberculosis (Herrick children with worms 1977:402). Cornus (Taylor 1940:46). Root florida- Iroquois: bark used in poultices Compound decoction (Whitthoft 1947:74). of stems and roots Root bark used as a taken for blood chills stimulant. Infusion of (Herrick 1977:402). inner bark taken for "lost Cornus racemosa- voice" (Hamel and Iroquois : Decoction Chiltoskey 1975:32). of bark applied as a Decoction of inner bark Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Cornus sp. poultice to cuts (as C. taken to loosen phlegm (continued) paniculata, Herrick for hoarseness (Taylor 1977:405). Compound 1940:46). Root bark used decoction taken, used as a tonic (Hamel and as a wash, and Chiltoskey 1975:32). poultice applied to swollen abdomen. Compound poultice of bark applied to swollen legs after the birth of a baby. Compound powder poultice "put in bag, place penis in bag and tie around waist" (Herrick 1977:406). Decoction of bark applied as a poultice to cuts on horses (Herrick 1977:405). Cornus rugosa - Iroquois : Bark taken as a general cathartic or emetic. Decoction of bark taken as an emetic. Compound decoction of roots taken for kidneys. Compound infusion of smashed roots taken for tuberculosis (Herrick 1977:405).
Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Corylus sp. hazelnut Corylus americana Corylus Corylus americana - Corylus americana - (American hazelnut); cornuta- Iroquois : Compound Cherokee : Infusion of Corylus cornuta Abenaki: Used decoction taken for scraped bark taken for (beaked hazelnut); for sore eyes "summer disease -- hives. Compound of Corylus heterophylla (144:155). vomiting, diarrhea and inner bark taken "to (Siberian hazelnut) Decoction of cramps." Raw nuts vomit bile" (Hamel and bark and bark taken for hay fever, Chiltoskey 1975:37). from two other childbirth Decoction of inner bark plants used for hemorrhage, and taken to induce vomiting eye pain prenatal strength when unable to retain (144:165). (Herrick 1977:297). food (Taylor 1940:16). Compound infusion taken as a blood purifier and prenatal strength (Herrick 1977:298). Nutmeat oil formerly used for the hair, either alone or mixed with bear grease (Waugh 1916:123). Compound decoction of roots given when "baby's teeth are coming in" (Herrick 1977:297). Compound decoction of buds taken for hay fever (Herrick 1977:298). Corylus cornuta - Algonquin, Quebec : Infusion of branches and leaves used for intestinal Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Corylus sp. disorders. Infusion of (continued) branches and leaves used for heart troubles (Black 1980:151); Algonquin, Tete-de- Boule : In fusion of branch tips taken for heart problems (Raymound 1945:128); Thompson: Buds chewed to a become good singer (Turner et al. 1990:190). Crataegus sp . hawthorne Crataegus Crataegus punctata - chrysocarpa (fireberry Iroquois : Infusion of hawthorn); little branches without Crataegus punctata leaves and other (dotted hawthorn); plants taken for large Crataegus submollis stomachs (Rousseau (Quebec hawthorn); 1945:46). Compound of decoction of shoots and bark taken to stop menstrual flow and taken to prevent "breaking out like cancer" caused by witchcraft (Herrick 1977:351). Crataegus submollis - Iroquois : Decoction and doll used to "make a person break out like Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Crataegus sp . cancer" (Herrick (continued) 1977:351). Cucurbita sp. gourd Cucurbita pepo (field Cucurbita pepo - Cucurbita pepo - pumpkin) Iroquois: Infusion of Cherokee : Seeds eaten seeds given to for worms. Used as an children with reduced ingredient in green corn urination (Rousseau medicine. Taken as a 1945:61). diuretic. Taken for "dropsy." Browned seeds eaten for bed-wetting. Taken for "gravel," "scalding of the urine," and spasms of the urinary passage (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:51). Cyperus sp. flatsedge Cyperus esculentus (yellow nutsedge) Galium sp . bedstraw Galium aparine Galium aparine Galium sp .- Iroquois : Galium aparine - (stickywilly); Galium - Penobscot : Cold infusion of Cherokee : Infusion asprellum (rough Compound smashed roots used as taken to "move bowles" bedstraw); Galium infusion of plant a "basket or beddler's (Hamel and Chiltoskey boreale (northern taken for medicine." Compound 1975:36). Galium bedstraw); Galium "spitting up of plants used for circaezans - Cherokee : circaezans (licorice blood." blindness. Compound Taken for coughs. Used bedstraw); Galium Compound decoction of roots and as an expectorant. Taken tinctorium (stiff marsh infusion of plant seeds taken for urine for asthma. Taken for bedstraw); Galium taken for kidney stoppage. Infusion of hoarseness (Hamel and trifidum (threepetal trouble. plants used as wash Chiltoskey 1975:43). bedstraw); Galium Compound for parts affected by Galium triflorum - triflorum (fragrant infusion of plant venereal disease Cherokee: Infusion bedstraw); taken as a tonic. (Herrick 1977:439). taken for gallstones Compound Galium aparine - (Hamel and Chiltoskey infusion of plant Iroquois : Compound 1975:25). Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Galium sp . taken for infusion of plants used (continued) gonorrhea as a wash for poison (Speck ivy and itch (Herrick 1917:311). 1977:439). Galium triflorum - Iroquois : Compound used as a love medicine. Poultice of whole plant applied to babies for backaches. Compound decoction taken and poultice applied to swollen testicles or ruptures (Herrick 1977:440). Gaylussacia huckleberry Gaylussacia baccata Gaylussacia Galyussacia baccata - Galyussacia sp. - sp. (black huckleberry) baccata - Iroquois: Berries Chickasaw: Roots used Mohegan: considered "good" for for delirium (Taylor Used as food the blood (Parker 1940:48). Galyussacia (Tantaquidgeon 1910:96). Berries used baccata - Cherokee : 1972:131) ceremonially by those Infusion of leaves and desiring health and infusion of bark taken for prosperity for the dysentery and Bright's coming season disease (Hamel and (Waugh 1916:142). Chiltoskey 1975:39). Berries considered "good" for the liver (Parker 1910:96). Ilex sp. holly Ilex opaca (American Ilex verticillata - Illex sp. - Alabama: holly); Ilex verticillata Iroquois: Decoction Inner bark used as an (common winterberry) of bark taken as a eyewash (Swanton physic and emetic. 1928:665). Illex opaca - Plant taken for Alabama: Decoction of Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Illex sp. biliousness, to retain bark used as a wash for (continued) vigor and emetic for sore eyes (Taylor craziness (Herrick 1940:37); Catawba: 1977:373). Compound Infusion of leaves taken decoction of roots for sores and measles taken for hay fever (Speck 1937:188). (Herrick 1977:374). Decoction of leaves taken for measles (Taylor 1940:37). Cherokee: Berries chewed for "colics" and "dyspepsia" (Leaves used for cramped muscles (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:38). Juglans butternut SAME Iroquois: Compound Cherokee: Infusion of cinerea decoction of plants bark taken to check taken for urinating bowels. Pills from inner pain. Compound bark used as a cathartic decoction with bark and compound ). Pills taken to kill worms in prepared from inner bark adults. Compound and used as a cathartic decoction taken as a (Whitthoft 1947:75). blood purifier for venereal disease (Herrick 1977:295). Decoction of bark taken as a physic and cathartic (Herrick 1977:296). Compound decoction with bark taken to induce pregnancy (Herrick 1977:294). Infusion or Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Juglans chewed bark applied cinerea to bleeding wounds. (continued) Compound decoction of bark or shoots taken as a laxative. Compound decoction taken for yellow skin and too much gall. Compound infusion of buds used as mouthwash for mouth ulcers. Compound decoction with plant taken for "loss of senses during menses." Juice used for toothache. Compound decoction used as poultice for infected and swollen tubercular glands. Compound decoction of plants taken for urinating pain. Decoction of shoots taken as a laxative and for venereal disease (Herrick 1977:295). Juglans nigra black walnut SAME Iroquois: Poultice of Cherokee: Infusion used bark applied fro as a wash for sores. headache. Compound Infusion of inner bark decoction with brandy taken for smallpox and taken as a blood infusion of leaves used Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Juglans nigra purifier (Herrick for goiter. "Bark used (continued) 1977:296). Nutmeat cautiously in medicine oil formerly used for because it is poisonous." the hair, either alone Bark chewed for or mixed with bear toothache (Hamel and grease (Waugh Chiltoskey 1975:61). 1916:123). Decoction Delaware: Juice from of bark taken a green hulls of fruits laxative. Poultice of rubbed over areas bark applied for infected by ringworm. "craziness." and Sap used in applications infusion used as a for inflammations. Three medicine for rain bundles of bark boiled to (Herrick 1977:296). make a strong tea and used for 2 days to remove intestinal bile (Tantaquidgeon 1972:29). Rappahannock: Root bark taken to prevent dysentery (Speck et al. 1942:32). Compound with northside bark used as a poultice for chills (Speck et al. 1942:31). Infusion of root bark taken to "roughen the intestines" (Speck et al. 1942:32). Juglans sp. butternut/ Juglans cinerea black walnut (butternut); Juglans nigra (black walnut) (See Types Above) Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Juncus sp. rush Juncus bufonius (toad Juncus bufonius - Juncus effusus - rush);; Juncus effusus Iroquois: Compound Cherokee: Decoction (common rush); decoctions used as a used "to dislodge spoiled Juncus tenuis wash for entire body; saliva." Infusion given to (poverty rush); Compound decoction babies to prevent taken as an emetic; lameness (Hamel and Compound decoction Chiltoskey 1975:53). taken to "give strength to runners and other athletes" (Herrick 1977:279). Lactuca sp. lettuce Latuca biennis (tall Lactuca canadensis - Lactuca canadensis - blue lettuce ); Lactuca Iroquois: Compound Cherokee: Used for pain canadensis (Canada infusion of roots and and infusion given "for lettuce); Lactuca bark taken for back calming nerves." Used as serriola (prickly pain. Compound an ingredient in a green lettuce) infusion of roots and corn medicine. Infusion bark taken for dark used as a stimulant. circles and buffy eyes. Infusion given Poultice of smashed for"milksick" (Hamel roots applied to severe and Chiltoskey 1975:42). bleeding from a cut. Lactuca serriola - Compound infusion of Cherokee: Poultice of roots and bark taken soaked seeds used for for kidney trouble boils (as L. vulgaris (Herrick 1977:478). Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:20). Myrica bayberry SAME SPECIES Myrica sp. - Myrica sp. - Creek : pensylvanica Mohegan: Bark Compound decoction of used as a blood leaves taken after a burial purifier and for as an emetic before kidney trouble. eating (Swanton (Tantaquidgeon 1928:664). Delaware: Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Myrica 1972:130-131). Bark used as a purifier pensylvanica and kidney purifier (continued) (Tantaquidgeon 1972:35). Nyssa tupelo SAME SPECIES Cherokee: Compound sylvatica given for worms (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:26). Infusion of bark used as a bath and given to children with worms (Taylor 1940:47). Compound decoction given for diarrhea and inner bark used as part of "drink to vomit bile" (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:26). Decoction of inner bark taken to cause vomiting when unable to retain food (Taylor 1940::47). Strong ooze from root dripped into eyes (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:26). Infusion given for childbirth and infusion of bark given for "flooding." and compound infusion of bark used for "bad disease" (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:26). Used as a ingredient in Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Nyssa drink for "milky urine" sylvatica (Hamel and Chiltoskey (continued) 1975:26). Creek: Decoction of bark used a bath and taken for pulmonary tuberculois (Taylor 1940:47). Phytolacca pokeweed SAME SPECIES Mohegan: Iroquois: Stalks Cherokee: Infusion of americana Poultice of cooked as greens and berry taken for arthritis. mashed berries used for rheumatism Roots and berries or applied to sore (Parker 1910:93). berry wine used for breasts Plant used as a rheumatism. Cooked (Tantaquidgeon cathartic (Herrick greens eaten or infusion 1972:74, 130) 1977:316). Decoction of root taken to build the of stems taken for blood. Poultice used for chest colds (Herrick ulcers and swellings and 1977:317). Compound infusion of root used for with undried roots eczema. Salve used on applied as a salve on "uclerours sores" and bunions. Poultice of dried, crushed roots crushed roots applied prinked on old sores. to bruises. Raw Cold infusion of powered berries rubbed on skin root taken for kidneys lumps. Plant used as a (Hamel and Chiltoskey emetic and 1975:50). Plant used in a expectorant (Herrick side dish with laxative 1977:316). Compound properties (Whitthoft infusion of whole 1977:251). Compound roots used for liver used for "white swelling" sickness (Herrick (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1977:317). "Tie in a 1975:50). Berries used popular tree, then for medicine (Perry place amoung roots," 1975:51); Delaware: Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Phytolacca as a love medicine. Roasted, crushed roots americana Decoction of roots used with sarsaparilla and (continued) applied as a poultice mountain grape barks for to sprains, bruises, rheumatism, as a blood and swollen joints. purifier and stimulant. Plant used for Roots roasted and the bewitchment (Herrick salve used for chronic 1977:316). sores and glandular swellings (Tantaquidgeon 1972:32). Rappahannock: Infusion of berries taken for dysentery. Fermented infusion of leaves taken for rheumatism. Compound infusion with roots applied to ivy poison and poultice of mashed root applied to wart until it bleeds. Steam from decoction of roots used for piles (Speck et al. 1942:29). Seminole: Berries eaten as an analgesic (Sturtevant 1955:167). Berries eaten pains and rheumatism (Sturtevant 1955:285). Polygonum water pepper SAME SPECIES Iroquois: Poultice of Cherokee: Taken for hydropiper wetted plant applied painful urination and to the forehead for infusion mixed with meal headaches (Rousseau used for pain. Infusion of Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Polygonum 1945:140). Decoction root given to children for hydropiper of plant taken for diarrhea and leaves (continued) fever, chills and rubbed on thumb to "when cold". prevent thumb sucking. Decoction of small Used for "scaldhead" and piece of plant taken to poison fish. Infusion for indigestion. Whole mixed with meal for pain. plant used for children Taken for "gravel", with swollen glands painful urination and (Herrick 1977:314). bloody urine (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:55). Polygonum sp. knotweed Fagopyrum Fagopyrum Polygonum aviculare - esculentum esculentum- Cherokee: Tannin for (buckwheat); Iroquois : Decoction painful urination. Polygonum of plant given when Infusion mixed with meal amphibium (water "baby is sick because used as poultice for pain. knotweed); of mother's adultery." Infusion of root given to Polygonum Decoction taken by children with diarrhea. arenastrum (oval-leaf mother "who is Used for "scaldhead." knotweed);; running around, Leaves rubbed on the Polygonum aviculare making baby sick children's thumb to (prostrate knotweed); (Herrick 1977:313). prevent thumb sucking. Polygonum careyi Polygonum sp. - Used to poison fish and (Carey's smartweed); ; Algonquin, Quebec : infusion mixed with meal Polygonum Leaves used for and used as poultice for hydropiper bleeding (Black pain. Used as poultice for (marshpepper 1980:161). "swelled and inflamed knotweed); Polygonum parts." Taken for Polygonum arenastrum- "gravel," painful lapathifolium (curly Iroquois : Decoction urination, and bloody knotweed); of whole plant used urine. Polygonum Polygonum for miscarriage hydropiper - Cherokee : pensylvanicum injuries. Powdered, Taken for painful Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Polygonum sp. (Pennsylvania dry root placed in urination. Infusion mixed (continued) smartweed); other person's tea as a with meal used as a Polygonum persicaria love medicine. poultice for pain. (spotted ladysthumb); Decoction of whole Infusion of root given to Polygonum plant used for lame children for diarrhea. punctatum (dotted back. Decoction of Used for "scaldhead." smartweed); plant mixed with feed Leaves rubbed on Polygonum and given to heifers to children's thumbs to ramosissimum (bushy restore their milk prevent thumb sucking. knotweed); (Herrick 1977:314). Used to poison fish and Polygonum Polygonum infusion mixed with meal virginianum aviculare - Iroquois: used as a poultice for (jumpseed) Infusion of plant and pain. Used as a poultice another plant given to for "swelled and children for diarrhea inflamed parts." Taken (Rousseau 1945:40). for "gravel," painful Compound poultice of urination, and bloody raw plants applied to urine (Hamel and cuts and wounds. Chiltoskey 1975:55). Compound decoction Polygonum persicaria - taken and poultice Cherokee: Decoction used for baby's broken mixed with meal and coccyx (Herrick used as a poultice for 1977:313). Infusion of pain. Crushed leaves plant and another rubbed on poison ivy. plant given to children Infusion taken for for diarrhea “gravel" (Hamel and (Rousseau 1945:40). Chiltoskey 1975:26). Polygonum Polygonum virginianum - hydropiper - Cherokee: Hot infusion Iroquois : Poultice of of leaves with bark of wetted plant applied honey locust given for to the forehead for whooping cough (as Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Polygonum sp. headaches (Rousseau Tovara virginiana Hamel (continued) 1945:40). Decoction and Chiltoskey 1975:42) of plant taken for feaver, chills, and "when cold." Decoction of small piece of plant taken for indigestion. Whole plant used for children with swollen stomachs (Herrick 1977:314). Polygonum pensylvanicum - Iroquois: Decoction of plant given to horses for colic and "when urine is bound up" (Herrick 1977:314). Polygonum persicaria - Iroquois: Decoction of plant used as a foot and leg soak in rheumatism. Plant used for heart trouble. Plant rubbed over horses to keep flies away (Herrick 1977:315). Polygonum punctatum - Iroquois : Compound decoction Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Polygonum sp. taken for "loss of (continued) senses during menses" (Herrick 1977:315). Portulaca sp. purslane Portulaca oleracea Portulaca oleracea - Portulaca oleracea - (little hogweed) Iroquois : Good Cherokee: Compound Medicine to cure you decoction taken for if someone has given worms and juice used for you some bad earache (Hamel and medicine. Poultice of Chiltoskey 1975:51). mashed plant used on Rappahannock: burns and poultice of Compound decoction of entire plant used on bruised leaves applied as bruises (Herrick salve for "footage" 1977:318). trouble (Speck et al. 1942:28). Potamogeton pondweed Potamogeton natans Potamogeton sp. - sp. (floating pondweed); Iroquois : Compound of poultice bound to "soreness all over in men from being witched" (Herrick 1977:272). Prunus peach SAME SPECIES Prunus Cherokee: Decoction or persica serotina - teaspoon of parched seed cold remedy kernels taken for worms (Simmons and infusion of scraped 1990:157); bark taken for vomiting. Cherry along Infusion of any part taken with pitch pine as a purgative. Used for buds good for skin disease and leaves young women wrung in cold water used with menstrual to bathe swelling. Strong problems infusion taken for fever. Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Prunus (Occum 1754 Infusion of leaves taken persica in Brooks for sick stomach (Hamel (continued) 2006:47) and Chiltoskey 1975:47, 48); Delaware: Infusion of leaves used to expel pinworms. Infusion of leaves used by children for vomiting (Tantaquidgeon 1972:31). Rappahannock: Infusion of fresh or dried leaves taken for kidney trouble (Speck et al. 1942:33). Prunus sp. plum Prunus americana Prunus Prunus Prunus americana - (American plum); ; americana - pensylvanaica - Cherokee: Bark used to Prunus cerasus (sour Mohegan: Algonquin, Quebec : make cough syrup. cherry); Prunus nigra Infusion of Infusion of bark taken Infusion of bark taken for (Canadian plum); twigs taken for for coughs. Infusion the kidneys. Infusion of Prunus pensylvanaica asthma of bark taken for bark taken for the bladder (pin cherry); Prunus (Tantaquidgeon infections. Infusion of (Hamel and Chiltoskey persica (peach); 1928:270). bark taken for 1975:50). Prunus serotina (black Infusion of bronchitis (Black Rappahannock: "An cherry); Prunus twigs taken for 1980:184); ingredient of a medicine viginiana asthma Algonquin, Tete-de- made after diagnosis" (chokecherry) (Tantaquidgeon Boule : Poultice of (Speck et al. 1972:74, 130); boiled, shredded 1942:31).Prunus nigra- Prunus innerbark applied to Algonquin, Quebec: serotina - bleeding umbilical Infusion of roots used as Penobscot: cord (Raymound a medicinal tea (Black Infusion of bark 1945:130); Prunus 1980: 184); Prunus taken for persica- Iroquois: cerasus - Cherokee : Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Prunus sp. coughs. Infusion Compound of roots Compound used as a (continued) of berries taken applied as a salve to blood tonic. Infusion of as a "fine bitter burns (Herrick bark taken for colds. tonic" (Speck 1977:359). Bark and Infusion of bark used to 1917:310); another bark used to wash sores and ulcers. make cough syrup Infusion or decoction of (Rousseau 1945:91). bark used for fevers, Prunus serotina- including the " Great Delaware, Ontario: chill" Boiled fruit used Compound infusion of for "blood discharged bark taken for from bowels." Used in "diseases particular to steam bath for women." Compound indigestion, biliousness, infusion of bark taken and jaundice. Warm as a tonic for general infusion given when debility labor pains begin. (Tantaquidgeon Compound of barks 1942:68, 82); added to corn whisky and Mohegan: Ripe fruit used to break out fermented 1 year and measles. Infusion of bark used for dysentery used for "thrash." (Tantaquidgeon Decoction of inner bark 1928:264). Liquid used for laryngitis from fermented fruit (Hamel and Chiltoskey taken for dysentery 1975:28,29). Prunus (Tantaquidgeon pensylvanaica - 1972:74, 130). Cherokee: Compound Compound infusion of used as a blood tonic. leaves and bones Infusion of bark taken for taken with molasses colds. Infusion of bark for colds. Infusion of taken for coughs. buds, leaves or bark Astringent root bark used taken with sugar for in a wash for old sores Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Prunus sp. colds (Carr and and ulcers. Infusion or (continued) Westey 1945:118). decoction of bark used Compound infusion for fevers, including the taken, hot at night and "great chill." Boiled fruit cold in the morning, used for "blood for colds discharged from bowels." (Tantaquidgeon Used in steam bath for 1928:264). Fruit put indigestion, biliousness, in bottle and allowed and jaundice. Warm to stand, taken for infusion given when stomach trouble (Carr labor pains begin. and Westey Compound of barks 1945:118). Complex added to corn whisky and compound infusion used to break out including wild cherry measles. Infusion of bark bark taken as a spring used to "thrash." tonic (Tantaquidgeon Decoction of inner bark 1928:266); Iroquois : used for laryngitis Decoction of bark (Hamel and Chiltoskey taken or poultice 1975:28,29). Prunus applied to forehead persica - Cherokee : and neck for Decoction or teaspoon of headaches (Herrick parched seed kernels 1977:362). Compound taken for worms. infusion of bark and Infusion of scraped bar roots taken as a blood eaten for vomiting. purifier (Herrick Infusion of any part taken 1977:361). Infusion of as a purgative. Used for roots and other roots skin diseases and leaves taken by young wring in gold water and mothers for thick used to bathe selling. blood (Rousseau Strong infusion taken for 1945:46). Compound fever. Infusion of leaves Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Prunus sp. of roots applied as a taken for sick stomach (continued) salve to burns (Hamel and Chiltoskey (Herrick 1977:362). 1975:47, 48); Delaware: Infusion or decoction Infusion of leaves used to of bark taken or expel pinworms. Infusion inhaled for colds or of leaves used by sore throats (Herrick children for vomiting 1977:361). Decoction (Tantaquidgeon of bark taken for 1972:31). Prunus consumption or an serotina - Cherokee: "old cough" (Herrick Compound used as a 1977:360). Compound blood tonic. Infusion of decoction taken for bark taken for coughs. "sores all over the Astringent root bark used body caused by bad to wash old sores and blood." Compound ulcers. Infusion or poultice of bark decoction of bark used applied to chancres for fevers, including the caused by syphilis or "great chill" (Hamel and cuts (Herrick Chiltoskey 1975:28,29). 1977:361). Compound Decoction of bark used decoction used as as a wash for chills and wash for parts fevers (Taylor 1940:28). affected by "Italian Infusion of bark taken for itch" (Herrick fevers (Whitthoft 1977:362). Compound 1947:74). Boiled fruit decoction of plants used for "blood taken to vomit for discharged from bowels." sleepiness and Used in steam bath for weakness (Herrick indigestion, biliousness, 1977:361). Decoction and jaundice. Warm of bark taken for colds infusion given when and fever (Herrick labor pains begin (Hamel Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Prunus sp. 1977:360). Compound and Chiltoskey 1975:28, (continued) decoction taken when 29). Decoction of bark a woman has a used as a wash for ague miscarriage (Herrick (Taylor 1940:28). 1977:361). Decoction Infusion of bark used for of bark taken for too "trash." Decoction of much gall. Decoction inner bark used for of bark used as a laryngitis (Hamel and steam bath for babies Chiltoskey 1975:28, 29). with bronchitis. Delaware: Bark used for Decoction of bark diarrhea. Fruits used to taken for soreness and make cough syrup. lung inflammation. Combined with other Infusion of bark taken roots and used as a tonic for colds and sore (Tantaquidgeon throats (Herrick 1972:32). 1977:361); Rappahannock: Narraganset: Infusion of buds, leaves, Infusion of buds, or bark taken with sugar leaves, or bark taken for colds (Carr and with sugar for colds Westey 1945:118). (Carr and Westey Infusion of bark or 1945:118); berries with honey used Shinnecock: for coughs, if stale it is Compound infusion of poisonous. Infusion of leaves and boneset fresh or dried bark taken taken with molasses as an appetizer. Infusion for colds. Infusion of of fresh or dried bark buds, leaves, or bottle taken as a tonic (Speck et and allowed to stand, al. 1942:26); Prunus Then taken for viginiana - Cherokee : stomach trouble (Carr Compound used as a and Westey blood tonic. Infusion of Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Prunus sp. 1945:118). Prunus bark taken for colds. (continued) viginiana- Infusion of bark taken for Algonquin, Quebec: coughs. Astringent root Infusion of bark and bark used in a wash for sweet flag taken for old sores and ulcers. coughs (Black Infusion or decoction of 1980:185). Blackfoot: bark used for fevers, Berry juice used for including the "great chill" diarrhea. Infusion of (Hamel and Chiltoskey cambium and 1975:28,29). Decoction saskatoon taken as a of bark used as a wash purge, and by nursing for chills and fevers mothers to pass (Taylor 1940:28). Boiled medicinal qualities to fruit used for biliousness, baby. Berry juice used and jaundice. Warm for sore throats infusion given when (Hellson 1974:68); labor pains begin. Prunus viginiana - Compound of barks Iroquois : Bark used added to corn whisky and for diarrhea. Stalk used to break out measles used for hemorrhages. (Hamel and Chiltoskey Stalk used as a blood 1975:28,29). Decoction purifier (Herrick of bark used as a wash 1977:359). Decoction for ague (Taylor of plant taken as a 1940:28). Infusion of cough syrup (Herrick bark used for "thrash." 1977:360). Inner bark Decoction of inner bark used for wounds used for laryngitis (Herrick 1977:359). (Hamel and Chiltoskey Compound decoction 1975:28,29). Decoction of stalks taken to of inner bark used for prevent hemorrhage hoarseness (Taylor after childbirth. 1940:28). Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Prunus sp. Compound decoction (continued) of plants and bark taken for cholera (Herrick 1977:360). Stalk used for prenatal care. Compound decoction of roots taken for consumption. Decoction of branches, leaves, and berries given to horses for diarrhea (Herrick 1977:359). Quercus sp. oak Quercus alba (white Quercus alba Quercus sp.- Quercus sp. - Quercus sp.- Alabama: oak ); Quercus bicolor - Cook and Mohegan: Delaware, Ontario : Decoction of bark used (swamp white oak); steep and drink Infusion of bark Compound infusion of as a wash for bad Quercus coccinea for dysentery used as liniment bark taken fry smelling sores on the (scarlet oak); Quercus as a last for muscular "diseases particular to head or feet. Decoction ilicifolia (bear oak); emergency. pains (Carr and women." Compound of bark taken as emetic Quercus macrocarpa Used just once Westey infusion of bark taken for lung troubles. Boiled (bur oak); Quercus (Bultler 1939 1945:121). as a tonic bark used for sore throat muehlenbergii in Simmons Infusion of inner (Tantaquidgeon (Swanton 1928:665). (chinkapin oak); 1990:156) bark used as 1942:68,82); Quercus alba - Quercus palustris (pin liniment for Shinnecock: Infusion Cherokee: Bark used for oak); Quercus phellos humans and of bark used as chronic dysentery. (willow oak ); Quercus horses with pain liniment for muscular Astringent bark chewed rubra (northern red (Tantaquidgeon pains. Infusion of bark for mouth sores. Infusion oak); Quercus stellata 1972:75). used as liniment for of bark applied to soar, (post oak); Quercus Infusion of bark muscular pains. chapped skin. Used as a velutina (black oak) used as a Infusion of bark used antiseptic. Bark used as liniment for as liniment for an emetic (Hamel and horses with pain muscular pains (Carr Chiltoskey 1975:46, Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Quercus sp. (Tantaquidgeon and Westey 203:74). Bark used after (continued) 1972:75,132); 1945:121). long, intermittent fevers Penobscot: Quercus alba - and as a wash for chills Acorns eaten to Delaware, Ontario : and fevers. Bark used for induce thirst and Compound infusion of indigestion and "any plenty of water bark taken fry debility of the system." thought to be "diseases particular to Bark chewed for mouth beneficial women." Compound sores. Infusion of bark (Speck infusion of bark taken taken for asthma. 1917:309). as a tonic Decoction of inner bark Infusion of bark (Tantaquidgeon used for "lost voice." taken for 1942:68,82); Houma: Bark used as a tonic. bleeding piles Crushed root mixed Unspecified liquid (Speck with whisky and used preparation taken for 1917:310); as liniment on "milky urine" (Hamel rheumatic parts and Chiltoskey 1975:46); (Speck 1941:56); Delaware : Infusion of Quercus bark used for severe muehlenbergii - coughs. Infusion of bark Delaware, Ontario : used as a disinfectant. Infusion of bark taken Infusion of bark used as a for vomiting douche. Infusion of bark (Tantaquidgeon used for sore throats 1942:68, 82). (Tantaquidgeon 1972:30). Quercus palustris - Delaware : Infusion of inner bark taken for intestinal pains (Tantaquidgeon 1942:25,78). Quercus phellos - Seminole: Decoction of wood bits or bark applied externally Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Quercus sp. as an analgesic (continued) (Sturtevant 1955:167). Decoction of wood or bark used as a bath for aches and pains (Sturtevant 1955:286). Decoction of bark used for ballgame sickness: sores, back or limb pains, and hemorrhoids. Decoction of wood or bark used as a bath for sores and cuts (Sturtevant 1955:269,286). Decoction of wood ashes placed on the tongue to cleanse the body (Sturtevant 1955:250). Quercus rubra - Cherokee: Bark used for chronic dysentery. Astringent bark chewed for mouth sores. Infusion of bark applied to sore, chapped skin. Bark used as an antiseptic. Bark used as an emetic. Bark used after long, intermittent fevers and as a wash for chills and fevers. Bark used for indigestion and "any debility of the system." Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Quercus sp. Bark chewed for mouth (continued) sores. Infusion used for "lost voice" (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:46). Decoction of inner bark used for hoarseness (Taylor 1940:17). Bark used as a tonic. Unspecified liquid preparation taken for "milky urine" (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:46); Delaware: Infusion of bark used for severe coughs. Infusion of bark used for hoarseness (Tantaquidgeon 1972:30). Rappahannock: Infusion of north side bark taken as an appetizer. Decoction of bark and leaves taken as a beneficial beverage (bitters) (Speck err al. 1942:26). Quercus stellata- Cherokee: Bark used for chronic dysentery (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:46). Infusion of twig juice taken for dysentery (Taylor 1940:18). Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Quercus sp. Astringent bark chewed (continued) for mouth sores. Infusion of bark applied to sore, chapped skin. Bark used as an antiseptic. Bark used as an emetic. Bark used after long, intermittent fevers, and as a wash for chills and fevers. Bark used for indigestion and "any debility of the system." Bark chewed for mouth sores. Infusion of bark taken for asthma. Decoction of inner bark used for “lost voice." Bark used as a tonic. Unspecified liquid preparation taken for "milky urine" (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:46). Infusion of inner bark taken for difficult urination with discharge. Quercus velutina - Cherokee: Bark used for chronic dysentery. Astringent bark chew for mouth sores. Infusion of bark applied to sore, chapped skin. Used as a antiseptic. Bark used as Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Quercus sp. an emetic. Bark used (continued) after long, intermittent fevers and as a wash for chills and fevers. Bark used for indigestion and "any debility of the system." Bark chewed for mouth sores. Infusion of bark taken for asthma. Decoction of inner bark used for "lost voice." Bark used as a tonic. Unspecified liquid preparation taken for "milky urine" (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:46); Delaware: Infusion of inner bark used as a gargle for colds and hoarseness (Tantaquidgeon 1972:30). Rhus sp. sumac Rhus aromatic Rhus hirta - Rhus copallinum- Rhus aromatica- (fragrant sumac); Berries used to Iroquois : Sprouts Delaware: Poultice of Rhus copallinum make a tea for used as an alternative roots applied to sores and (winged sumac); Rhus throat aid (Parker 1910:93). skin eruptions. Infusion glabra ( smooth (Bulter 1939 in Toxicodendron of leaves used to cleanse sumac); Simmons radicans - Algonquin, and purify skin eruptions. Toxicodendron 1990:157). Quebec: Leaves Berries used to make radicans (eastern rubbed on the skin mouthwash. Infusion of poison ivy); affected by a poison roots used for venereal Toxicodendron ivy reaction (as Rhus disease (Tantaquidgeon rydbergii (western radicans 18:194). 1972:32). Rhus glabra- Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Rhus sp. poision ivy); Toxicodendron Cherokee: Red berries (continued) Toxicodendron vernix rydbergii- Iroquois: eaten for vomiting. (poison sumac) Poultice of plant Infusion poured over applied to the skin as sunburn blisters (Hamel a vesicant for water in and Chiltoskey 1975:57). the blood (as Rhus Decoction of bark used radicans var. as a wash for blisters rydbergii Rogers (Taylor 1940:36). 1980:33). Infusion of bark taken "to make human milk flow abundantly." Red berries chewed for bed-wetting (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:57). Toxicodendron radicans - Cherokee: Decoction given as an emetic (as Rhus radicans 80:41). Toxicodendron vernix- Cherokee : Plant considered poison and used in some form as a wash for foul ulcers. Plant considered poison and taken in some form for fever. Plant considered poison and taken in some form for ague. Plant considered poison and taken in some form for clap and "gleet" or ulcerated bladder. Plant considered poison Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Rhus sp. and taken in some form (continued) for asthma and phthisic. Plant considered poison and taken in some form for ulcerated bladder. Plant considered poison and taken in some form for clap and "gleet" (as Rhus vernix Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:57). Rubus sp. berry Rubus allegheniensis Rubus Rubus sp.- Rubus sp.- Cherokee: (Allegheny hispidus - Algonquin, Tete-de- Root chewed for coughs blackberry); Rubus Cooked and Boule : Infusion of (Whitthoft 1947:74). aptatus (drybank drank for shredded branches Rubus allegheniensis- dewberry); Rubus dysentery taken for bronchial Cherokee: Infusion of argutus (sawtooth (Bulter 1939 in trouble (Raymound root or leaf used for blackberry); Rubus Simmons 1945:130); Iroquois: diarrhea. Infusion given canadensis (smooth 1990:155) Tender, new shoots for rheumatism (Hamel blackberry); Rubus used as a blood and Chiltoskey 1975:26). cuneifoliu s (sand remedy (Parker Compound, astringent, blackberry); Rubus 1910:95). Infusion of and tonic infusion of root flagellaris (northern roots and other roots used as a wash for piles dewberry); Rubus taken by young (Hamel and Chiltoskey frondosus (yankee mothers for thick 1975:25,26). Washed blackberry); Rubus blood (Rousseau root chewed for coated idaeus ( American red 1945:48). Roots used tongue. Used as a raspberry); Rubus as an effectual stimulant. Used with laciniatus (cutleaf astringent (Parker honey as a wash for sore blackberry); Rubus 1910:95). Rubus throat. Used as a tonic. occidentalis (black allegheniensis- Compound decoction raspberry); Rubus Iroquois: Compound taken to regulate odoratus of plant used as snuff urination (Hamel and (purpleflowering for headaches Chiltoskey 1975:26). Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Rubus sp. raspberry); Rubus (Herrick 1977:357). Infusion of bark taken for (continued) pubescens (dwarf red Plant used as a urinary troubles (Taylor blackberry); diarrhea medicine. 1940:29). Used for Compound decoction venereal disease (Hamel of roots taken by all and Chiltoskey 1975:26). ages as a blood Rappahannock: Root or remedy (Herrick berry infusion taken for 1977:356). Compound diarrhea, an overdose decoction of roots would cause numbness. taken for coughs and Infusion of dried, brown colds. Poultice of runners taken for smashed roots applied dyspepsia (Speck et al. to a baby's sore navel 1942:29). Rubus after birth. Compound argutus -Cherokee: of plant used as a Infusion of root or leaf snuff for catarrh used for diarrhea. (Herrick 1977:357). Infusion given for Compound decoction rheumatism (Hamel and of roots taken for Chiltoskey 1975:26). tuberculosis. Infusion Compound, astringent, of roots used to make and tonic infusion of root dogs good hunters and used as a wash for piles ensure them from (Hamel and Chiltoskey theft (Herrick 1975:25, 26). Compound 1977:356). Rubus infusion of root used for canadensis - Iroquois : piles. Washed root Berries, maple sap, chewed for coated and water used to tongue. Used as a make a medicine stimulant. Used with (Waugh 1916:142). honey as a wash for sore Rubus idaeus - throat. Used as a tonic. Algonquin, Quebec: Compound decoction of Root used for taken to regulate Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Rubus sp. diarrhea. Root had urination. Used for (continued) medicinal value venereal disease (Hamel (Black 1980:180). and Chiltoskey 1975:26). Algonquin, Tete-de- Rubus canadensis- Boule: Decoction of Seminole : Infusion of roots used for bloody roots taken for chronic urine (Raymound conditions (Sturtevant 1945:130); Iroquois : 1955:272). Rubus Decoction of leaves flagellaris - Cherokee : taken for "burning and Infusion of root or leaf pain when passing used for diarrhea. water." Compound Infusion given for used when the "blood rheumatism (Hamel and is bad and sores break Chiltoskey out on the neck." 1975:26).Compound, Decoction of roots astringent, and tonic taken as a blood infusion of root used as a purifier. Decoction of wash for piles (Hamel leaves taken as a and Chiltoskey physic. Compound 1975:25,26). Compound used for boils. infusion of root used for Decoction of leaves piles. Washed root taken as an emetic. chewed for coated Compound decoction tongue. Used as a taken by "ladies who stimulant. Used with are run down from honey as a wash for sore period sickness." throat. Used as a tonic. decoction of roots Compound decoction taken for low or high taken to regulate blood pressure. urination. Used for Decoction of leaves venereal disease (Hamel taken for the kidneys. and Chiltoskey 1975:26). Decoction of leaves Rubus idaeus - Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Rubus sp. taken for bile. Cherokee: Strong (continued) Compound used for infusion of red raspberry laziness. Plant used as leaves used for childbirth a tonic. Compound pains. Thorny branch decoction of roots used to scratch taken for gonorrhea rheumatism. Taken as a (Herrick 1977:355). purgative. Root chewed Leaves, rhizomes for cough. Infusion taken from another plant, as a tonic for boils. and wheat flour given Leaves highly astringent to cows at birthing and decoction taken for (Rousseau 1945:48). bowel complaint. Used as Rubus occidentalis- wash for old and foul Iroquois: Compound sores and infusion taken decoction of roots as tonic for boils. Taken taken for diarrhea as an emetic. Roots used with blood. Leaves for toothache (Hamel and used as a physic. Chiltoskey 1975:52). Leaves used as an Rubus occidentalis - emetic. Leaves used Cherokee: Strong for removing bile. infusion of red raspberry Decoction of roots, leaves used for childbirth stalks, and leaves pains. Thorny branch given to children with used to scratch whooping cough. rheumatism. Taken as a Compound decoction purgative (Hamel and of roots taken for Chiltoskey 1975:52). gonorrhea. Decoction Infusion of roots taken as taken by a hunter and a cathartic by women his wife to prevent her during menses (Taylor from fooling around 1940:30). Chewed for (Herrick 1977:356). cough. Infusion taken as Rubus odoratus - a tonic for boils. Leaves Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Rubus sp. Iroquois: Decoction highly astringent and (continued) of scraped bark or decoction taken for roots taken for bowel complaint. Used as diarrhea. Decoction wash for old and foul taken as a blood sours and infusion taken medicine and blood as an emetic by women purifier (Herrick during menses (Taylor 1977:354). Roots used 1940:30). Decoction for colds (Herrick taken for bowel 1977:355). Compound complaint. Strong decoction taken and infusion used for used as a wash for childbirth pains and venereal disease decoction used for chancres and sores menstrual period (Hamel (Herrick 1977:354). and Chiltoskey 1975:52). Berries eaten in late Infusion of roots taken as summer or dried in an emetic and cathartic winter and used as a by women during menses diuretic (Parker (Taylor 1940:30). 1910:96). Decoction Infusion taken as a tonic or infusion of for boils. Roots used for branches used to settle toothache (Hamel and the stomach (Herrick Chiltoskey 1975:52). 1977:355). Compound Rubus odoratus - infusion of plants Cherokee : Strong taken by women who infusion of red raspberry have a miscarriage’s leaves used for childbirth Compound decoction pains. Thorny branch of stalks and leaves used to scratch taken as a kidney rheumatism. Taken as a medicine. Decoction purgative. Root chewed given as a blood for cough. Infusion taken medicine and for as a tonic for boils. Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Rubus sp. bowels of newborn Leaves highly astringent (continued) babies. Compound and decoction taken for decoction taken and bowel complaint. Used as used as wash for wash for old and foul venereal disease sores and infusion taken chancres and sores as tonic for boils. Taken (Herrick 1977:354). as an emetic. Roots used for toothache (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:52). Scrupis sp. sedge Triticum sp. wheat Triticum aestivum Triticum aestivum - (common wheat) Iroquois: Wheat flour, rhizomes from another plant and raspberry leaves given to cows at birthing (Rousseau 1945). Vaccinium sp. blueberry Vaccinium Vaccinium Vaccinium sp.- Vaccinum sp.- angustifolium oxycoccos- Iroquois: Compound Alabama: Plant used for (lowbush blueberry); Mohegan : Plant decoction used as many unspecified Vaccinium used wash for parts ailments (Swanton macrocarpon medicinally for affected by "Italian 1928:664). (cranberry); unspecified Itch ." Compound Vaccinium purpose (as decoction of plants myrtilloides Oxycocus taken for stricture (velvetleaf microcarpus (Herrick 1977:411). huckleberry) ; 176:130); Vaccinium Vaccinium oxycoccos angustifolium - (small cranberry); Algonquin, Quebec : Vaccinium vitis-idaea Infusion of leaves (lingonberry); given to infants for colic. Infusion of leaves used by women Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Vaccinium sp. after miscarriage (continued) (Black 1980:217); Iroquois: Berries used ceremonially by those desiring health and prosperity for the coming season (as V.pennsylvanicum Waugh 1916:42). Viburnum sp. viburnum Viburnum Viburnum Viburnum sp.- Viburnum acerifolium- acerifolium opulus - Iroquois : Infusion of Cherokee: Infusion taken (maplefeaf viburnum); Penobscot: plant taken as a to prevent recurrent Viburnum Infusion of contraceptive (Herrick spasms. Root bark taken lantanoides berries taken for 1977:445). Viburnum as a diaphoretic. (hobblebush); swollen glands acerifolium - Compound infusion Viburnum lentago and mumps Iroquois : Infusion of taken for fever. (nannyberry); (Speck bark taken and applied Compound infusion Viburnum nudum 1917:310). as poultice for pain taken for smallpox and (possumhaw); caused by witchcraft. ague. Infusion of bark Viburnum opulus Infusion of plants used as a wash for sore (European taken to suppress tongue. Bark taken as a cranberrybush); excessive menses. tonic (Hamel and Viburnum Infusion of plants Chiltoskey 1975:62). prunifolium taken by men for Viburnum nudum- (blackhaw) stricture and painful Cherokee: Infusion urination. Infusion of taken to prevent recurrent bark taken and applied spasms. Root bark used as a poultice for pain as a diaphoretic. caused by witchcraft Compound infusion (Herrick 1977:447). taken for fever. Viburnum Compound infusion lantanoides - taken for smallpox and Algonquin, Tete-de- ague. Infusion of bark Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Viburnum sp. Boule: Leaves used as a wash for sore (continued) mashed and rubbed on tongue. Root bark used as the head for migraines a tonic (as V. cassinoides (Raymound Hamel and Chiltoskey 1945:134). Iroquois : 1975:62). Viburnum Compound decoction prunifolium - Cherokee: of plants taken for Infusion taken to prevent worms caused by recurrent spasms. Root venereal disease. bark taken as a Decoction of roots diaphoretic. Compound taken as a blood infusion taken for fever. medicine. Decoction Compound infusion of plants taken for a taken for smallpox and score chest and loss of ague. Infusion of bark breath. Compound used as a wash for sore decoction of plants tongue. Root bark taken taken for worms as a tonic. (Hamel and caused by venereal Chiltoskey 1975:62); disease (Herrick Delaware: Root bark 1977:446). Viburnum combined with leaves of lentago - Delaware, other plants and used to Ontario : compound strengthen female infusion of leaves generative organs taken for measles (Tantaquidgeon (Tantaquidgeon 1972:31). 1942:66, 82); Iroquois: Decoction of roots taken for spitting blood. Compound decoction taken to vomit during initial stages of consumption (Herrick Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Viburnum sp. 1977:448). Viburnum (continued) opulus- Iroquois: Berries considered "good" for the blood and liver (Parker 1910:96). Vicia sp. vetch Vicia faba (fava Vicia sativa- Vicia villosa- bean); Vicia sativa Iroquois: Decoction Rappahannock: (garden vetch) Vicia of plant taken by Compound infusion with villosa (winter vetch) women with dried leaves taken for suppressed menses. sores. Compound Decoction of plant infusion with dried leaves taken by women with taken for stomach pain swollen external (Speck et al. 1942:35). organs. Cold infusion of plant used as a love medicine (as V.angustifolia 87:365). Viola sp. violet Viola canadensis Viola sp.- Iroquois: Viola cucullata- (Canadian white Poultice of smashed Cherokee: Poultice of violet); Viola plants applied to leaves used for headache. cucullata (marsh blue wounds. Infusion of Infusion taken for violet); Viola roots used as a wash dysentery. Infusion taken nephrophylla for eyes. Compound for blood. Infusion taken (northern bog violet); decoction of roots for colds. Infusion with Viola odorata (sweet taken as a panacea. sugar taken for cough. violet); Viola pedata Infusion of roots taken Poultice of crushed root (birdfoot violet); Viola by mother and baby applied to boils. Infusion pubesens (downy when baby gets sick. sprayed up the nose of yellow violet); Viola Poultice of smashed the catarrh. Infusion rotundifolia roots applied to boils taken as spring tonic (roundleaf yellow on horse's head (Hamel and Chiltoskey Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Viola sp. violet); Viola sagittata (Herrick 1977:386). 1975:60). Viola pedata- (continued) (arrowleaf violet); Viola pubesens - Cherokee: Poultice of Viola sororia Iroquois: Decoction leaves used for headache. (common blue violet); of plant taken and Infusion taken for Viola striata (striped used as wash for dysentery. Infusion taken cream violet); facial eruptions for blood. Infusion taken (Herrick 1977:387). for colds. Infusion with Viola sagittata- sugar taken for cough. Iroquois: compound Poultice of crushed root used to detect applied to boils. Infusion bewitchment (Herrick sprayed up nose for 1977:386). Viola catarrh. Infusion of root striata- Iroquois: used to soak corn before Plant used to make a planting to keep off girl sick and crazy by insects (Hamel and her rejected suitor Chiltoskey 1975:60). after he has been Viola pubesens - refused by her parents Cherokee: Poultice of (Herrick 1977:387) leaves used for headache. Infusion taken for dysentery. Infusion taken for blood. Infusion taken for colds. Infusion with sugar taken for cough. Poultice of crushed root applied to boils. Infusion sprayed up nose for catarrh. Infusion taken as spring tonic (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:60). Viola rotundifolia - Cherokee: Poultice of leaves used for headache. Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Viola sp. Infusion taken for (continued) dysentery. Infusion taken for blood. Infusion taken for colds. Infusion with sugar taken for cough. Poultice of crushed root applied to boils. Infusion sprayed up nose for catarrh. Infusion taken as spring tonic (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:60). Viola sororia-Cherokee : Poultice of leaves used for headache. Infusion taken for dysentery. Infusion taken for blood. Infusion taken for colds. Infusion with sugar taken for cough. Poultice of crushed root applied to boils. Infusion sprayed up nose for catarrh. Infusion taken as spring tonic (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:60). Vitis sp. grape Vitis aestivalis Vitis labrusca - Vitis labrusca- Vitis aestivalis- (summer grape); Vitis Mohegan : Iroquois: Decoction Cherokee: Compound labrusca (fox grape); Poultice of of roots mixed with taken for diarrhea. leaves bound to feed to assist horse Infusion of leaf taken the head for conception (Herrick "for blood." Taken as a headache 1977:383). "fall tonic" and infusion (Tantaquidgeon taken "for stomach." 1928:264). Wilted leaves used to Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Vitis sp. Poultice of draw soreness from (continued) leaves applied to breast after birth of a painful area child. Infusion of leaf (Tantaquidgeon taken for liver. 1972:77, 132). Compound decoction Poultice of used to wash child's leaves bound to mouth for thrush. the head for Compound infusion of fever bark taken for "bad (Tantaquidgeon disease." Compound take 1928:264). for "irregular urination" (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:37). Infusion of bark taken for urinary troubles (Taylor 1940:41); Seminole: Decoction of leaves and stems taken for headaches (as V. rufotomenstosa 169:282). Infusion of plant added to food after a recent death (Sturtevant 1955:342). Plant used as an emetic during religious ceremonies. (Sturtevant 1955:409). Decoction of leaves and stems taken for stomachaches (Sturtevant 1955:282). Plant used for chronically ill babies (Sturtevant 1955:328). Vitis Taxonomic Common Medical Plant Types Mashantucket New England Northeast Southeast Identification Name in CT (Based Upon Pequot USDA Plant Database 2010) Vitis sp. labrusca- Cherokee: (continued) Compound take for diarrhea. Infusion of leaf taken "for blood." Taken as a "fall tonic" an infusion taken "for stomach." Wilted leaves used to draw soreness from breast after birth of a child. Infusion of leaf taken for liver. Compound decoction used to wash child's mouth for thrush. Compound infusion of bark taken for "bad disease." Compound take for "irregular urination" (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:37). Infusion of bark taken for urinary troubles (Taylor 1940:41). Zea mays corn SAME SPECIES Mohegan: Cherokee: "Smut" from Decoction of plant used as salve. dried cobs used Infusion taken for as a wash for "gravel." Parched grains poison ivy rash eaten for "long wind" (Tantaquidgeon (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1972:77); 1975:30). ! ! Taxonomic Common Other Regions (Moreman 1995) Identification Name Acalypha sp. copperfleaf Asclepias sp. milkweed Asclepias sp.- Cahuilla : Gum applied to insect sting pain (Bean Saubel 1972:43); Delaware, Oklahoma : Infusion of pounded roots of five species taken for epileptic fits (Tantaquidgeon 1942:32, 74); Navajo : Infusion of crushed, dried leaves taken for stomach troubles (Elmore 1955:69); Tewa: Plant used for sore breasts (Robbins et al. 1916:54). Asclepias exaltata - Omaha, Ponca : Raw root eaten for stomach trouble (Gilmore 1919:110). Asclepias incarnata -Chippewa : Infusion of root used as a strengthening bath for children. Infusion of root used as a strengthening bath for children and adults (Densmore 1928:364). Meskwaki: Infusion of root used to drive the tapeworms from a person in 1 hour. Root used as a diuretic. Root used as an emetic (Smith 1928:205). Asclepias syriaca - Chippewa : Cold decoction of root added to food to produce postpartum milk flow (Densmore 1928:360); Menominee: Buds eaten or decoction of root used for chest discomfort (Densmore 1932:130); Ojibwa : Root used as a female remedy for unspecified ailment (Smith 1932:357); Potawatomi: Root used for unspecified ailments (Smith 1933:42); Rapahannock: Milk of fresh plant applied to warts and ringworm (Speck et al. 1942:32); Delaware, Oklahoma : Root used for rheumatism. Root used to make a drink taken by women after childbirth. Root used for pleurisy (Tantaquidgeon 1942:31,74); Menominee : Poultice of root used for decoction taken for bruises and swellings (Densmore 1932:132). Simple or compound poultice of pulverized root used on cuts, wounds, and bruises (Smith 1923:25). Poultice of root used or decoction taken for lameness. Decoction of pounded root taken as a tonic (Densmore 1932:132); Navajo, Ramah : Plant used in ceremonial chanting. Decoction or infusion of various plant parts used for dog or coyote bites. Plant used for influenza (Vestal 1952:39); Omaha : Ceremony connected with the obtaining and distribution of this prized root. Fresh and dried root used in several ways on wounds and sores. Root eaten raw for bronchial and pulmonary trouble. Root eaten raw for bronchial trouble (Gilmore 1919:109); Rappahannock: Poultice of bruised leaves bound to snake bites (Speck et al. 1942:30). Asclepias verticillata - Choctaw : Root used as a sudorific. Root chewed, saliva swallowed, and strong decoction taken for snakebite. Root used as a stimulant (Campbell 1951:287); Hopi: Infusion of entire plant taken by nursing mother with scanty flow of milk (56:18); Lakota : Used by mothers to increase their milk (Rogers 1980:34); Navajo: Plant used for nose troubles. Plant used for throat troubles (Elmore 1955:96). Asclepias viridiflora - Blackfoot : Poultice of chewed roots applied to swellings. Poultice of chewed roots applied to rashes. Poultice of chewed roots applied to diarrhea rash (Hellson 1974:75). Poultice of chewed roots applied to sore eyes (Hellson 1974:80). Poultice of chewed roots applied to diarrhea rash and nursing baby's sore gums (Hellson 1974:75). Root chewed for sore throats (Hellson 1974:71); Lakota: Pulverized roots given to children with diarrhea; Infusion of whole plant taken by mothers to increase their milk. Pulverized roots given to children with diarrhea (Rogers 1980:34). Carex sp. sedge Carex plantaginea - Menominee: Root used as a charm to prevent snakebite and spittle from chewed root used on snakebite (Smith 1923:34). Carex utriculata - Gosiute: Lower, tender stems and root parts eaten by children (Chamberlin 1911:365). Carex sp. - Gosiute : Root used as medicine (Chamberlin 1911:365); Songish : Leaves eaten to induce abortions (Turner et al. 1971:73). Carpinus Beech caroliniana Taxonomic Common Other Regions (Moreman 1995) Identification Name Carya sp. hickory Carya cordiformis- Meskwaki : Infusion of bark taken "to make the urine free." Infusion of bark taken "to make the bowels loose." Infusion of bark taken for "simple sicknesses" (Smith 1928:224). Carya ovata- Chippewa : Fresh, small shoots steamed as inhalant for headache. Fresh small shoots placed on hot stones as herbal steam for headache (as Hicoria alba Densmore 1928:338). Chenopodium goosefoot Amaranthus hybridus -Keres, Western : Infusion of plant used for the stomach (Swank 1932:26). Amaranthus - Amaranthus retroflexus - Keres, Western : Infusion of plant used for the stomach (Swank 1932:26); Navajo, Ramah : Stem, 3 inches sp. long, made into snake figurine for snake infection (Vestal 1952:26). Chenopodium album - Carrier : Decoction of plant taken to improve the blood (31:86). Cree, Woodlands : Decoction of plant taken for painful limbs (Leighton 1985:35); Eskimo, Inupiat : Leaves and stems cooked with beans to reduce the intestinal gas from eating the beans (98:64); Mendocino Indian: Leaves used for stomachaches (Chesnut 1902:346); Meskwaki : Infusion of root used for urethral itching (Smith 1928:209); Navajo : Plant used as a nutrient (Hocking 1956:149); Navajo, Kayenta : Poultice of plant applied to buns (Wyman and Harris 1951:20); Navajo, Ramah: Seem, 3 inches long, made into snake figurine for snake infection (Vestal 1952:24); Paiute : Leaf chewed as an emetic (as C. alba, Steward 1933:317); Potawatomi : Plant considered: a medical food used to prevent or cure scurvy (Smith 1933:47). Leaves included in a diet for scurvy or to prevent it (Smith 1933:98). Chenopodium ambrosiodes - Houma : Poultice of crushed leaves applied for headaches. Decoction of leaves in milk given to children for worms (Speck 1941:63); Koasati : Decoction of leaves taken for worms (Taylor 1940:22); Mahuna : Roots used for delayed menstrual period (Romero 1954:14); Miwok: Plant used as a wash for rheumatic parts. Poultice of boiled or raw plant applied to swellings. Plant used for toothache or an ulcerated tooth. Plant used as wash for gonorrhea and injected into affected parts( (Barrett and Gifford 1933:168); Chenopodium capitatum - Cahuilla : Decoction of entire plant used for stomach disorders (Bean Saubel 1972:52); Costanoan: Decoction of root applied as a poultice for numb or paralyzed limbs (Bocek 1984:11); Kawaiisu : Plant used as a hair wash. Decoction of leaves and stems taken as an emetic. Plant considered poisonous (Zigmond 1981:19). Comptonia sweet fern Chippewa: Burned, dried leaves used as incense in religious ceremonies. Infusion of leaves taken for fevers. Leaves used peregrina for medicine (as Myrica asplenifolia , Gilmore 1933:127); Delaware, Oklahoma: Infusion of plant taken as blood purifier. Infusion of plant applied to blisters and leaves used for poison ivy rash. Infusion of plant taken to help remove mucus from the lungs. Plants used for scrofula; Complex compound containing plant used for bladder inflammation (as Myrica asplenifolia , Tantaquidgeon 1942:29, 76); Malecite: Infusion of plant and yarrow used as a liniment for swelling (Mechling 1959:245). Plants smoked and used for catarrh (Mechling 1959:248); Menominee : Plant used as a seasoned and potent medicine in childbirth. Compound containing leaves sprinkled on medicine to kill a hated person (Smith 1923:42). Compound decoction of root taken as a mild tonic (Densmore 1932:133); Micmac : Root used for headache and inflammation. Leaves used for sprains, swellings, poison ivy, and inflammation (Chandler et al. 1979: 56). Leaves used for swellings and poison ivy (as Myrica asplenifolia Chandler et al. 1979:56). Leaves used for sprains (Chandler et al. 1979: 56). Leaves used for catarrh (Chandler et al. 1979: 56). Berries, bark, and leaves used as an "exhilarant" and beverage (Chandler et al. 1979: 56); Ojibwa: Infusion or decoction of leaves taken for flux and stomach cramps (as M. asplenifolia Smith 1932:375); Potawatomi: Infusion of leaves used for itch (as M. asplenifolia . Smith 1933:65); Taxonomic Common Other Regions (Moreman 1995) Identification Name Cornus sp. dogwood Cornus alternifolia - Chippewa : Inner bark used as a cough remedy (Gilmore 1919: 138). Compound decoction of root used as a wash or compress for sore eyes. Infusion of scraped root used as a wash or on a compress for sore eyes (Densmore 1928:360). Roots used as a charm on muskrat traps (Densmore 1928:376); Menominee: Bark liquid injected rectaly and poultice of bark applied to anus for diarrhea. One reported case: Poultice of bark plus something else cured facial cancer. Bark used to make a liquid and injected rectally for piles (Smith 1923:32:33); Ojibwa: Inner bark used as an emetic (Smith 1932:366). Menominee: Plant known as maimakwukwa and infusion of bark injected rectally for diarrhea. Plant known as kinnikinnick and bark smoked ceremonially (Smith 1923:32). Cornus canadensis - Carrier, Northern : Used as a medicine for unspecified malady; Carrier, Southern : Strong decoction of plan, without berries, used as an eyewash (150:62); Delaware, Oklahoma : Compound containing bark used for body pain (Tantaquidgeon 1942:26, 74) and compound containing root used as a tonic (Tantaquidgeon 1942:26,74);; Hoh : Infusion of bitter bark used as a tonic (137:66); Malecite, Micmac: Infusion of roots, leaves, and berries used for fits (Mechling 1959:256); Montagnais : Infusion of plant used as a medicine for paralysis (Smith 1933:315:); Ojibwa : Infusion of root used for infant colic (Smith 1933:366, 367); Paiute : Mashed roots strained through a clean cloth and used as an eyewash for eye soreness, and the removal of foreign objects (Mahar 1953:98); Quileute : Infusion of bitter bark used as a tonic (137:66); Thompson : Leaf ash or powdered, toasted leaves sprinkled on sores (Steedman 1928:458). Houma: Decoction of root or bark scrapings taken for feaver. Decoction of root or bark scrapings taken for malaria (Speck 1941:55). Cornus racemosa - Meskwaki : Infusion of bark held in mouth for neuralgia. Infusion of bark used, especially for children, as an enema for flux. Infusion of bark held in mouth for toothache. Smudged bark used to revive an unconscious patient. Infusion of root used for consumption (as C. paniculata 152:218,219); Ojibwa: Infusion of bark used for flux. Bark forced into the anus for pile (as C. paniculata 153:364). Cornus sericea - Cree, Hudson Bay : Decoction of bark taken as an emetic for colds coughs, and fevers (Holmes 1884:303); Ojibwa : Bark smoked for various ceremonies. Bark used for medicinal purposes (Reagan 1928:237); Thompson : Fruit considered a good "tonic," especially for intestinal worms. Decoction of branches, wild rose, and chokecherry branches taken for diarrhea and vomiting. Decoction of branches taken for colds. Plant used as a medicine for anything by the elderly. Decoction of plant, squaw currant, branches, and fir or tamarack used as a baby bath. Sap used on arrowheads for the poisonous effect upon animals. Decoction of plant, squaw current branches, and fir or tamarack used as a baby bath (Turner et al. 1990:204). Corylus sp. hazelnut Corylus americana - Chippewa : Compound containing charcoal pricked into temples with needles for headache (Densmore 1933:338). Menominee: Inner bark used "with other herbs as a binder to cement the virtues of all" (Smith 1923:26); Ojibwa: Poultice of boiled bark applied to help close and heal cuts (Smith 1932:359). Crataegus sp. hawthorne Crataegus chrysocarpa - Blackfoot: Decoction of dried berries taken during the winter as a mild laxative (Hellson 1974:66). Objibwa, South: Compound decoction of root taken for diarrhea (Hoffman 1891:200); Potawatomi: Fruit used for stomach complaints (Smith 1933:76). Crataegus sp. - Chippewa: Compound decoction of root taken for back pain and for "female" weakness (Densmore 1933:356). Roots used for consumption (Gilmore 1919:132); Ojibwa: Fruit and bark used to make a medicine for women only (Smith 1932:384). Cucurbita sp. gourd Menominee: Pulverized seeds taken in water "to facilitate the passage of urine" (Smith 1923:33); Meskwaki: Decoction of Taxonomic Common Other Regions (Moreman 1995) Identification Name Cucurbita sp. stem used for "female ills" (Smith 1928:220); Navajo: Leaves used for upset stomachs (Hocking 1956:150); Pima: Ground (continued) seed paste used to cleanse and soften the skin (Curtin 1949:72); Zuni: Ingredient of "schumakwe cakes" and used externally for rheumatism and swelling. Poultice of seeds and blossoms applied to cactus scratches (Stevenson 1915:45,46). Cyperus sp. flatsedge Cyperus esculentus - Navaji, Ramah : Plant used as a ceremonial emetic (Blankinship 1905:19); Pima: Roots chewed for colds and coughs. Poultice of chewed roots applied to snakebites (Curtin 1949:98). Cyperus sp. -Hawaiian : Buds, leaves, roots, and other plants pounded and resulting liquid used a bath for body aches (Akana 1922:45); Tanana, Upper : Infusion of underground stems taken for colds (Kari 1985:9); Yavapai: Decoction of dried, pulverized root taken for colds, dusted on sores and taken for stomachaches (Gifford 1936:261). Galium sp. bedstraw Galium sp.- Costanoan : Decoction of plant taken for dysentery. Decoction of plant used externally for rheumatism. Decoction of plant used externally for wounds (Bocek 1984:24). Neeshenam : Poultice of heated leaves and stems applied for rheumatism (Powers 1874:376); Galium aparine - Chippewa : Cold infusion of stems rubbed on skin troubles (Gilmore 1919:141); Cowlitz : Infusion of plant used as a bath for women to be successful in love. Plant considered poisonous (Gunther 1973:46); Gosiute: Plant used as a horse medicine (Chamberlin 1911:370); Meskwaki: Decoction of whole plant taken as an emetic (Smith 1928:243); Micmac: Parts of plant used for persons spitting blood and gonorrhea. Parts of plant used for kidney trouble. Parts of plant used for gonorrhea. (Chandler et al. 1979:56); Nitinaht : Plant good for the hair, making it grow long (Gill 1983:316); Ojibwa : Infusion of whole plant used as a diuretic. Infusion of whole plant used for kidney trouble, Gravel, urine stoppage, and allied ailments (Smith 1932:386); Galium boreale - Choctaw: Decoction of whole plant used as a "deobstruent." Decoction of whole plant used to prevent pregnancy. Whole plant used as a diaphoretic. Whole plant used as a diuretic (Campbell 1951:287); Cree, Hudson Bay: Leaves used as a diuretic (Holmes 1884:303); Shuswap : Plant considered poisonous (Palmer 1975:68). Galium tinctorium - Ojibwa : Infusion of whole plant used for "beneficial effect upon the respiratory organs" (Smith 1932:286,387). Galium trifidum - Ojibwa : Infusion of plant used for skin diseases like eczema and ringworm. Infusion of plant used for skin diseases like scrofula (Smith 1932:387). Galium triflorum - Karok : Plant placed in women's bed as a love medicine (Scheneck and Gifford 1952:389); Klallam : Poultice of smashed plants applied to the hair to make it grow (Gunther 1973:46); Kwakiutl : Nettles or vines and then hellebore used to rub the chest for chest pain (Boaz 1966:379, 183:291); Makah: Poultice of smashed plants applied to hair to make it grow (Gunther 1973:46); Menominee: Infusion of herb used "to clear up kidney troubles" (Smith 1923:51); Miwok: Decoction of plant taken as a tea for dropsy (Barrett and Gifford 1933:170); Quinault: Poultice of smashed plants applied to the hair to make it grow (Gunther 1973:46). Gaylussacia huckleberry Galyussacia sp. - Rappahannock : Infusion of dried fresh roots taken for stomach (Speck et al. 1942:34) sp. Ilex sp. holly Illex opaca - Choctaw : Decoction of leaves used as drops for sore eyes (Taylor 1940:37); Koasati: Infusion of bark rubbed on areas affected by itching (Taylor 1940:37). Ilex verticillata - Delaware, Oklahoma: Believed that holly grows where a person was frightened (Tantaquidgeon 1972:31); Ojibwa: Bark used for diarrhea (Smith 1932:355). Juglans butternut Chippewa: Decoction of plant sap taken as a cathartic (Gilmore 1919:127); Malecite: Infusion of bark used as a purgative cinerea (Mechling 1959:245); Menominee: Syrup from sap used as a standard "physic"(Smith 1923:38,39); Meskwaki: Decoction Taxonomic Common Other Regions (Moreman 1995) Identification Name Juglans of twig bark or decoction of wood and bark taken as a cathartic (Smith 1928:244); Micmac: Bark used as a purgative cinerea (Chandler et al. 1979:57); Potawatomi: Bark used as a physic and infusion of inner bark taken as a tonic (Smith (continued) 1933:60,61). Juglans nigra black walnut Comanche: Pulverized leaves rubbed on affected part for ringworm (Carlson 1940:522). Delaware, Oklahoma: Strong decoction of bark taken as a cathartic. Juice from green hull of fruit taken as a cathartic. Juice from green hull of fruit rubbed on skin for ringworm. Sap applied to any inflammation. Strong decoction of bark taken as an emetic (Tantaquidgeon 1942:24, 76). Decoction of bark taken "to remove bile form the intestines" (Tantaquidgeon 1942:24). Houma: Infusion of nutshells used as a wash for "the itch." Decoction of mashed leaves taken for relief from "blood pressure" (Speck 1941:66); Kiowa: Decoction of root bark taken to kill "worms" (Vestal and Schultes 1939:21); Meskwaki: Inner bark used as a very strong physic. Coiled and charred twig bark and old bark applied in water for snakebite (Smith 1928:224,225); Juglans sp. butternut/black Juglans sp. - Apache, Western: Juice used to clear maggots from wounds. (Buskirk 1986:187) walnut Juncus sp. rush Juncus effusus - Karok: Stems and leaves placed in the fire and the medicine man prayed over it (Baker 1986:33). Lactuca sp. lettuce Latuca biennis - Bella Coola : Decoction of root taken for body pain, but not pain in the limbs. Decoction of root taken for diarrhea. Decoction of root taken for vomiting. Decoction of root taken for hemorrhage, body pain, and heart trouble. Decoction of root taken for heart trouble, hemorrhage, and pain (as L. spicata Smith 1929:65); Ojibwa : Infusion of plant used for caked breast and to ease lactation. (as L. spicata Smith 1929:364,365); Potawatomi: Plant used as a medicine for unspecified illness (as L. spicata154:52). Lactuca canadensis- Chippewa : Milky sap from fresh plant rubbed on warts (Densmore 1928:350); Menominee: Milky juice of plant rubbed on poison ivy eruptions (Smith 1923:31). Lactuca serriola - Houma : Poultice of crushed leaves applied to forehead for headaches (Smith 1928:68); Seminole: Seeds used for adult's sickness caused by adultery: headache, body pains, and crossed fingers (Sturtevant 1955:256). Seeds burned to smoke the body for insanity (Sturtevant 1955:293). Myrica bayberry Myrica sp. - Delaware, Oklahoma : Bark used as blood purifier. Compound containing root taken for "female generative pensylvanica organs" and kidney trouble (Tantaquidgeon 1942:29,76). Nyssa tupelo Houma : Decoction of root or bark taken for worms (158:55); Koasati: Decoction of bark taken and applied to gun wounds sylvatica (Taylor 1940:47). Phytolacca pokeweed Delaware, Oklahoma : Strong infusion of roots and twigs used as herbal steam for rheumatism and compound containing americana roots used as a blood purifier and stimulant (Tantaquidgeon 1942:27,78). Mahuna : Roots used for severe, neuralgic pains. Leaves used for skin diseases and to remove pimples and blackheads (Romero 1954:65). Micmac : Leaves used for bleeding wounds (Chandler et al. 1979:59). Polygonum water pepper Malecite: Infusion of dried leaves used for dropsy (Mechling 1959:244). hydropiper Polygonum sp. knotweed Polygonum amphibium - Cree, Woodland s: Poultice of fresh roots applied directly to blisters in the mouth. Powdered roots added to a many herb remedy and used for various ailments (Leighton 1985:51). Okanagan-Colville: Infusion of Taxonomic Common Other Regions (Moreman 1995) Identification Name Polygonum sp. dried, pounded roots taken or raw root eaten for chest colds (Turner et al. 1980:113). Polygonum aviculare - Choctaw : (continued) Strong infusion of whole plant taken to prevent abortion (Campbell 1951:286); Mendocino Indian : Decoction of whole plant used as an astringent (Chesnut 1902:345); Navajo, Ramah: Warm infusion of plant taken for stomachache. (Vestal 1952:23); Thompson: Decoction of whole plant taken, especially by children, for diarrhea (Turner et al. 1990:238). Polygonum careyi - Potawatomi : Infusion of entire plant taken for cold accompanied by fever (Smith 1933:72). Polygonum hydropiper - Malecite : Infusion of dried leaves used for dropsy (Mechling 1959:244). Polygonum lapathifolium - Apache, White Mountain : Plant used for medicinal purposes (136:159); Kres, Western : Infusion of plant taken for stomach trouble (Swank 1932:62); Navajo, Ramah : Cold infusion of plant used as ceremonial chant lotion (Vestal 1952:23,24); Potawatomi: Infusion of whole plant used for fever (Smith 1933:72); Zuni: Decoction of plant taken as an emetic and a purgative (Stevenson 1915:58). Polygonum pensylvanicum- Chippewa : Infusion of plant tops taken for epilepsy (Gilmore 1919:129); Menominee: Infusion of leaf taken for "hemorrhage of blood from the mouth." Compound infusion of leaf taken to aid postpartum healing (Smith 1923:47); Meskwaki: Used to wipe anus for bloody flux. Used for piles (Smith 1928:236,237). Polygonum persicaria - Chippewa : Decoction of leaves and flowers taken for stomach pain. Simple or compound decoction of flowers and leaves taken for stomach pain (Densmore 1928:344). Polygonum punctatum - Chippewa : Compound decoction of leaves and flowers taken for stomach pain (Densmore 1928:344); Houma: Decoction of root taken for pains and swellings in the legs and joints (Speck 1941:58). Polygonum ramosissimum - Navajo, Ramah : Infusion of plant taken for stomachache. Plant used as a "life medicine" (Vestal 1952:24). Portulaca sp. purslane Portulaca oleracea - Hawaiian : Plant and other plants pounded, squeezed and resulting liquid taken to check run-down conditions (Akana 1922:24). Keres, Western : Infusion of leaf stems used for diarrhea. Infusion of leaf stems used as an antiseptic wash for blood clots. Raw leaves rubbed in mouth for difficulty in opening the mouth (Swank 1932:62); Navajo: Plant used for pain and taken for stomachaches and used to "cure sick people". (Elmore 1955:47); Potamogeton pondweed Potamogeton natans - Navajo, Ramah : Decoction of plant taken as ceremonial emetic (Vestal 1952:15). sp. Prunus persica peach Koasati: Leaves rubbed on the scratches of tired legs (Taylor 1940:27). Navajo: Plant and dried fruit used as a purgative (Elmore 1955:96); Prunus sp. plum Prunus sp.- Apache, Mescalero : Berries used for diarrhea. Ripe mashed and used for burns (Basehart 1974:48). Chippewa: Poultice of fresh root or decoction of dried root applied to ulcers (Densmore 1928:354). Poultice of fresh root or decoction of dried root applied to "broken breast" (Densmore 1928:360); Creek: Decoction of root taken for dysentery (Swanton 1928:659); Koasati: Infusion of inner bark taken for dyspepsia (Taylor 1940:27); Malecite: Used to make medicines (Speck and Dexter 1952:6). Prunus americana - Cheyenne: Branches used for the Sun Dance ceremony. Smashed fruits used for mouth disease (Hart 1981:35); Chippewa: Compound decoction of root taken for worms (Densmore 1928:346).Compound poultice of inner bark applied to cuts and wounds (Densmore 1928:352). Compound decoction of inner bark used as a disinfectant wash (Densmore 1928:376); Meskwaki: Root bark used as an astringent medicine for mouth cankers (Smith 1928: 242); Ojibwa, South: Compound decoction of small rootlets taken for diarrhea (Hoffman 1891:200). Omaha: Poultice of boiled root bark applied to skin abrasions (Gilmore 1919:87). Meskwaki: Taxonomic Common Other Regions (Moreman 1995) Identification Name Prunus sp. Infusion of bark used to settle stomach when it will not retain food (Smith 1928:242). Prunus pensylvanaica - Cree, (continued) Woodlands: Infusion of inner bark used for sore eyes (Leighton 1985:53); Gitksan: Bark used for medicine (Gottesfeld 1992:152); Malecite: Outer layer of dried leaves used as a powder for prickly heat (Mechling 1959:250). Infusion of bark used for erysipelas (Mechling 1959:250). Outer layer of dried leaves used for chafed babies (Mechling 1959:250); Micmac: Wood used for chafed skin and prickly heat. Bark used for erysipelas (Chandler et al. 1979:59). Ojibwa: Inner bark used as a cough remedy (Smith 1932:385). Ojibwa, South: Decoction of crushed root taken for stomach pains. Decoction of crushed root taken for stomach disorders (Hoffman 1891:199); Potawatomi: Infusion of inner bark taken internal pain and cough (Smith 1933:77). Wet'suwet'en: Bark used for coughs (Gottesfeld 1992:152). Prunus persica - Koasati: Leaves rubbed on scratches of tired legs (Taylor 1940:27); Navajo: Plant used as a purgative (Elmore 1955:96). Dried fruit used as a purgative (Elmore 1955:54); Rappahannock: Infusion of fresh or dried leaves taken for kidney trouble (Speck et al. 1942:33). Prunus serotina- Chippewa: Compound decoction of root taken for worms (Densmore 1928:346). Powder containing powdered root applied to burns (Densmore 1928:354). Compound poultice of inner bark applied to cuts and wounds (Densmore 1928:352). Poultice of fresh roots or decoction of bark used as a wash for "scrofulous neck." Powder containing powdered root applied to ulcers (Densmore 1928:354). Compound decoction of inner bark used as a disinfectant wash (Densmore 1928:366). Decoction of root given for "cholera infantum" (Densmore 1928:346). Delaware, Oklahoma: Bark used as a diarrhea remedy. Fruit used to make cough syrup. Compound containing bark taken as a tonic (Tantaquidgeon 1942:27,28); Mahuna: Infusion of bark or roots taken for coughs (Romero 1954:18); Malecite: Infusion of bark,"beaver castor," and gin used for colds. Castor or castorecum is a strong smelling, brown, concrete substance from the perpetual follicles of the beaver. It has long been used in medicine as a stimulant and antispasmodic, and also in the manufacture of perfume. Infusion of bark, beaver castor, and gin used for coughs. Infusion of bark, beaver castor, and gin used by men for consumption (Mechling 1959:249); Micmac: Bark used for colds. Bark used for coughs. Bark used for smallpox. Fruit used as a tonic. Bark used for consumption (Chandler et al. 1979:60). Compound infusion of leaves and bones taken with molasses for colds. Infusion of buds, leaves or bark taken with sugar for colds (Carr and Westey 1945:118). Compound infusion taken, hot at night and cold in the morning, for colds (Tantaquidgeon 1928:264). Fruit put in bottle and allowed to stand, taken for stomach trouble (Carr and Westey 1945:118). Complex compound infusion including wild cherry bark taken as a spring tonic (Tantaquidgeon 1928:266); Ojibwa, South: Infusion of inner bark taken for chest pain and soreness. Poultice of bruised, or chewed inner bark applied to sores (Hoffman 1891:199); Penobscot: Infusion of bark taken for coughs. Infusion of berries taken as a "fine bitter tonic" (Speck 1917:310); Potawatomi: Inner bark used as seasoner for medicines (Sparkman 1908:77); Prunus viginiana- Algonquin, Quebec: Infusion of bark and sweet flag taken for coughs (Black 1980:185). Blackfoot: Berry juice used for diarrhea. Infusion of cambium and saskatoon taken as a purge, and by nursing mothers to pass medicinal qualities to baby. Berry juice used for sore throats (Hellson 1974:68); Chippewa : Decoction of inner bark taken for cramps (Densmore 1928:344). Compound infusion of inner bark taken for hemorrhages from the lungs (Densmore 1928:340). Compound decoction of inner bark used as a cathartic blood cleanser for scrofula (Densmore 1928:354). Decoction of bark used as a wash to strengthen the hair and make it grow (Densmore 1928:350). Compound decoction of inner bark used as a disinfectant wash (Densmore 1928:366). Taxonomic Common Other Regions (Moreman 1995) Identification Name Prunus sp. Decoction of inner bark taken for stomach cramps (Densmore 1928:344). Decoction of inner bark gargled for sore throat (continued) (Densmore 1928:342); Cree, Hudson Bay: Decoction of fresh bark taken for diarrhea (Holmes 1884:303); Cree, Woodlands: Decoction of roots taken for diarrhea (Leighton 1985:53); Crow : Infusion of bark used for diarrhea and dysentery. Infusion of bark used for cleansing burns. Infusion of bark used for cleansing sores; Flathead: Infusion used for intestinal worms. Infusion of bark used for diarrhea and dysentery. Bark resin warmed, strained, cooled, and used for sore eyes; Gros Ventre: Infusion of bark used for diarrhea and dysentery (Hart 1942:42); Kutenai: Infusion of bark used for diarrhea and dysentery (82:42); Menominee: Infusion of inner bark or decoction of inner bark applied to man or beast for wounds or galls. Sweetened infusion of bark given to children for diarrhea. Poultice of inner bark applied to heal wound or gall on humans or beasts (Smith 1923:49,50); Meskwaki: Decoction of bark used as an astringent, and spoken of as "a puckering." Infusion of root bark used for stomach troubles and as a sedative. Decoction of root bark used as an astringent, rectal douche for piles (Smith 1928:242); Micmac: Bark used for diarrhea (Chandler et al. 1979:60); Navajo, Ramah: Cold infusion of dried fruit taken for stomachache. Leaves used as an emetic in various ceremonies. Cold infusion of dried fruit taken for stomachache. Dried fruit used as a "life medicine" (Vestal 1952:31); Ojibwa: Infusion of inner bark taken for lung trouble (Smith 1932:358). Ojibwa, South : "Branchlets" used in unspecified manner during gestation (Hoffman 1891:199); Okanagan-Colville: Decoction of wood, branches and bark taken for diarrhea, colds, and coughs. Poultice of wood scraped until pasty and applied to woman's stomach to eliminate the "stretch marks." Mashed seeds taken as a stomach medicine. Decoction of branches and red willow roots used as a general tonic for any type of sickness (188:127); Penobscot : Infusion of bark taken for diarrhea (Speck 1917:310); Potawatomi: Bark used in an eyewash and berries used to make tonic drink (Smith 1933:77,78); Sanpoil: Decoction of bark taken for diarrhea (131:221); Thompson: Decoction of twigs taken for diarrhea. Decoction of broken sticks taken for colds. Decoction of branches, sometimes with red willow branches and wild rose roots, taken for colds, coughs, and influenza. Decoction of branches, sometimes with red willow branches and wild rose roots, taken as a laxative. Decoction of broken sticks taken for a sick feeling (Turner 1990:264). Quercus sp. oak Quercus sp.- Atsugewi: Decoction taken by women to prevent blood poising. Decoction taken by women to prevent catching cold during the birth ordeal (as Q. cambrium Garth 1953:140); Chippewa: Poultice of chewed, fresh or dry root applied to wounds as a styptic (Densmore 1928:356); Costanoan : Infusion of acorns used for diarrhea. Decoction of bark used for toothaches and to tighten loose teeth (Bocek 1984:20); Creek : Compound decoction of bark used as a wash to strengthen children unable to walk (Swanton 1928:665); Dakota: Decoction of root bark given for bowel trouble, especially in children (Gilmore 1919:75); Malecite: Used to make medicines (Speck and Dexter 1952:6); Mendocino Indian : Plant used for fattening (Chesnut 1902:26); Neeshenam : Burning pitch smoke inhaled for rheumatism. Poultice of powdered acorns applied to burns or scalds. Burning pitch smoke inhaled for colds and coughs (Powers 1874: 374). Pitch rubbed on wounds, sores, or arrow wounds. Poultice of hot pitch and powdered, burned acorns applied to mourning widows (Powers 1874:375); Omaha, Pawnee, Ponca, Winnebago : Decoction of root bark given for bowel trouble, especially in children (Gilmore 1919:75). Quercus alba - Delaware, Oklahoma : Infusion of bark taken for severe cough (Tantaquidgeon 1942:25, 78). Strong infusion of bark used to cleanse bruises and ulcers (Tantaquidgeon 1942:25). Compound containing bark used as an antiseptic (Tantaquidgeon 1942:78). Infusion of bark used as an excellent douche. Taxonomic Common Other Regions (Moreman 1995) Identification Name Quercus sp. Bark used in many medical compounds (Tantaquidgeon 1942:25, 78). Strong infusion of bark gargled for sore throat (continued) (Tantaquidgeon 1942:25); Houma: Crushed root mixed with whisky and used as liniment on rheumatic parts (Speck 1941:56); Menominee: Inner bark used in compounds (Smith 1923:36). Meskwaki: Compound containing bark used for diarrhea. Decoction of inner bark taken to "throw up phlegm from the lungs" (Smith 1928:221); Quercus macrocarpa - Chippewa : Decoction of root or inner bark taken for cramps. Decoction of inner b ark used for cramps (Densmore 1928:340). Compound decoction of inner bark prepared ceremonially for heart trouble (Densmore 1928:338). Compound decoction of inner bark taken for lung trouble (Densmore 1928:340); Menominee: compound decoction of inner bark taken for suppressed menses caused by cold (Densmore 1932:133); Meskwaki: Compound containing wood and inner bark used to expel pinworms (Smith 1928:221,222); Ojibwa: Bark used to bandage a broken foot or leg (Smith 1932:369). Quercus muehlenbergii - Quercus palustris - Delaware, Oklahoma: Infusion of bark taken for intestinal pains (Tantaquidgeon 1942:25,78). Quercus rubra- Chippewa : Compound decoction of inner bark used for severe coughs. Infusion of bark prepared ceremonially for heart trouble (Densmore 1928:338); Delaware, Oklahoma: Infusion of bark taken for severe cough. Infusion of bark taken for hoarseness (Tantaquidgeon 1942: 25,78); Mahuna: Plant juice used for straightening and setting loose teeth (Romero 1954:25); Malecite: Infusion of plant and fir buds or cones used for diarrhea (Mechling 1959: 224); Infusion of bark or roots used for diarrhea (Mechling 1959:225); Micmac: Roots and bark used for diarrhea (Chandler et al. 1979:60); Ojibwa: Decoction of bark taken for internal blood diseases (Reagan 1928:231). Bark used for "heart troubles and bronchial affections" (Smith 1932:369,370). Plant used for medicinal purposes (Smith 1932:242). Infusion of root bark taken for gonorrhea (Smith 1932:231); Ojibwa, South : Decoction of root bark and inner bark taken for diarrhea (Hoffman 1891:198); Potawatomi: Inner bark used for flux (Smith 1933:58); Quercus stellata - Choctaw: Decoction of bark taken for stomachaches (Taylor 1940:18); Creek: Bark used to make a drink taken for dysentery (Swanton 1928:659). Infusion of bark taken for dysentery (Taylor 1940:18). Quercus velutina - Delaware, Oklahoma : Infusion of inner bark taken and used as a gargle for colds and hoarseness (Tantaquidgeon 1942:25, 78); Menominee: Decoction of crushed bark used as a wash for sore eyes (Smith 1923:36); Meskwaki: Compound containing inner bark used for lung troubles (Smith 1928:222). Rhus sp. sumac Rhus aromatica- Natchez : Red berries eaten for vomiting. Infusion poured over sunburn blisters (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:57). Decoction of bark used as a wash for blisters (Taylor 1940:36). Infusion of bark taken "to make human milk flow abundantly." Red berries chewed for bed-wetting (Hamel and Chiltoskey 1975:57); Ojibwa: Bark and berries used in medicine ceremonies. Bark and berries used for medicinal purposes (Reagan 1928:234 ); Ojibwa, South : Compound decoction of root taken for diarrhea (Hoffman 1891:201) . Rhus copallinum - Creek : Decoction of root taken for dysentery (Swanton 1928:659, 177:36); Delaware, Oklahoma: Leaves and root used in "ceremonial tobacco mixture." Poultice of roots or infusion of leaves used for sores and skin eruptions. Berries used to make mouthwash. Infusion of root taken for venereal disease (Tantaquidgeon 1942:26,78); Koasati: Decoction of leaves used as a bath and given to babies to make them walk (Taylor 1940:36); Ojibwa: Bark and berries used in medicine ceremonies. Bark and berries used for medicinal purposes (Reagan 1928:234). Rhus copallinum- Chippewa : Decoction of "growth, which sometimes appears on the tree" used for dysentery (Densmore 1928:344). Infusion of roots taken for colds. Infusion of roots taken as an emetic (Gilmore Taxonomic Common Other Regions (Moreman 1995) Identification Name Rhus sp. 1919:135). Compound decoction of blossoms used as mouthwash for teething children (Densmore 1928:342). Blossoms (continued) chewed for sore mouth (Gilmore 1919:135). Compound decoction of flower used as a mouthwash for teething child (Densmore 1928:342). Infusion of plants taken for asthma (Gilmore 1919:135); Creek: Decoction of root taken for dysentery (Swanton 1928:659, 177:36). Leaves mixed with tobacco and smoked for "all cephalitic and pectoral complaints" (Swanton 1928:659); Flathead: Fruits used as purgative. Infusion of green or dried branches taken for tuberculosis (82:55); Kiowa: Plant used for tuberculosis (Vestal and Schultes 1939:37); Kutenai: Roots squeezed and juice swallowed for sore throat (82:55); Meskwaki: Root bark used as a rubefacient, to raise a blister on the patient. Decoction of root taken as an appetizer by invalids (Smith 1928:200); Micmac: Parts of plant used for earaches (Chandler et al. 1979:60); Nez Perce: Leaves moistened and used for skin rashes (82:55). Ojibwa: Bark and berries used in medicine ceremonies (Reagan 1928:234). Inner bark of trunk or twig used in compounds as astringents. Infusion of blossoms used as a wash for sore eyes. Infusion of root bark used as a "hemostatic" (Smith 1932:354). Bark and berries used for medicinal purposes (Reagan 1928:234). Poultice of leaves used for unspecified conditions (Smith 1932:354); Okanagan-Colville: Decoction of branches with seed heads used for an itchy scalp condition. Milky latex used as a salve on sores. Decoction of seed heads taken by women during childbirth. Infusion of bark and/or roots taken and applied externally to the chest for a ""tight chest." Decoction of branches with seed heads used as bathing water for frost-bitten limbs. Decoction of seed heads used as bathing water for gonorrhea (Turner et al. 1980:59); Okanagon: Root chewed for sore mouth or tongue (Perry 1952:41); Omaha: Decoction of root taken for painful urination and retention of urine (Gilmore 1919:99,100). Poultice of plants applied for poisoning (Gilmore 1913:335). Infusion used as wash for sores and powdered plants applied to wounds and open sores (Gilmore 1913:334). Poultice of leaves or fruits applied "in case of poising of the skin." Decoction of root taken "in case of retention of urine." Decoction of root used as a postpartum styptic wash. Decoction of fruits used as a postpartum styptic wash. Decoction of root taken for painful urination and retention of urine; Pawnee: Decoction of fruit used for "bloody flux." Decoction of fruit used for dysmenorrhea (Guedon 1974:99, 100); Sanpoil : Mashed leaves rubbed on sore lips. Leaves chewed and held in the mouth for sore gums (Ray 1932:219); Sioux: Decoction of fruits used by women for hemorrhaging after parturition. Poultice of bruised and wetted leaves or fruits used for poisoned skin. Infusion of roots used for urine retention and painful urination (82:55); Thompson: Decoction of shredded bark with another plant taken for ulcers. Infusion of plant used after internal surgery, to make the wounds heal faster (Turner et al. 1990:149). Root chewed for sore mouth or tongue (Perry 1952:41, 164:466). Decoction of plant considered poisonous if too strong or taken in large dose (Steedman 1928:512). Decoction of stems and roots taken for syphilis (Steedman 1928:466). Houma: Decoction of leaves taken as a tonic and "rejuvenator" (Speck 1941:59); Kiowa: Plant used for running or nonhealing sores. Whole or broken leaves rubbed over boils or skin eruptions (as Vestal 1932:38); Navajo, Ramah: Compound containing plant used to poison arrows (Vestal 1952:35); Thompson: Plant considered poisonous because it caused skin irritations. One informant said that it affected her eyes, causing temporary blindness (as R.r.187:149). Toxicodendron rydbergii - Lakota : poisonous plant caused a rash resembling venereal disease (Rogers 1980:33). Toxicodendron vernix- Chippewa: Plant considered poisonous ( as R. v. 71:135).
Taxonomic Common Other Regions (Moreman 1995) Identification Name Rubus sp. berry Rubus sp.- Carrier: Decoction of stems taken by women with sickness in their womb (Carrier 1973:79); Carrier, Northern : Compound decoction of inner bark taken for body sores. Compound decoction of inner bark taken for paralysis. Compound decoction of inner bark taken for constitutional weakness (150:58); Choctaw: Infusion of roots taken for dysentery. Decoction of roots taken as a tonic to improve circulation (Taylor 1940:29); Eskimo, Western : Berries eaten for diarrhea (Lantis 1959:15); Klallam : Roots used for colds (Gunther 1973:36); Malecite: Infusion of 1 -foot section of tree used by children with diarrhea (Mechling 1959:255); Rubus allegheniensis- Chippewa: Infusion of roots taken for diarrhea. Infusion of roots taken by pregnant women threatened with miscarriage (Guedon 1974:133); Menominee: Infusion of root used as a wash for sore eyes. Poultice of infusion of root used for unspecified ailments (Smith 1923:50); Meskwaki: Decoction of root used as an antidote for poison. Root extract used for sore eyes and stomach trouble (Smith 1928:243 ); Ojibwa: Infusion of root used to "arrest flux." Decoction of canes taken as a diuretic (Smith 1932:385, 386). Potawatomi: Root bark used by the Prairie Potawatomi for sore eyes (Smith 1933:79). Rubus canadensis - Delaware, Oklahoma: Vine and berries used for dysentery (Tantaquidgeon 1942:78); Menominee: Simple or compound decoction of root used for dysentery (Densmore 1932:131). Rubus frondosus- Chippewa: Decoction of root taken for "stoppage of periods" (Densmore 1928:358). Compound decoction of root taken for lung trouble (Densmore 1928:340). Cree, Woodlands: Decoction of stem and upper part of the roots used to help a woman recover after childbirth, and to slow menstrual bleeding. Fruit used as a heart medicine. Decoction of stem and upper part of the roots used for teething sickness (Leighton 1985:57); Menominee: Root used as a seasoner for medicines (Smith 1923:50); Okanagan- Colville: Decoction of branches taken for diarrhea. Decoction of branches taken as a physic. Decoction of branches taken for heartburn. Decoction of roots taken for constipation (188131). Rubus occidentalis - Chippewa: Compound decoction of root taken for back pain (Densmore 1928:356); Menominee: Root used with Hypericum sp. for consumption in the first stages (Smith 1923:50); Ojibwa, South : Decoction of scraped root given to children for bowel trouble (Gilmore 1919:84,85). Rubus pubescens - Okanagon : Decoction of leaves taken for vomiting of blood and blood-spitting. Decoction of leaves taken as a stomach tonic; Thompson: Decoction of leaves taken for vomiting of blood and blood- spitting. Decoction of leaves taken as a stomach tonic. (Perry 1952:41,164:466). Decoction of root taken as tonic for stomach (Steedman 1928:466). Scirpus sp. rush Scirpus sp. - Houma : Decoction of plant used as a wash for weak legs and given to nervous, fretful, crying children (Speck 1941:60). Triticum sp. wheat Elymus sp. - Comanche : Single looped blades used as eye scrapers for removing cataracts (Jones 1986:5). Vaccinium sp. blueberry Vaccinium sp.- Eskimo, Western : Decoction of berries taken for diarrhea (Lantis 1959:15). Makah: Infusion of leaves used for kidney disorders (Gill 1983:310). Chippewa: Dried flowers placed on hot stones as inhalant for "craziness" (Densmore 1928:338); Ojibwa: Infusion of leaves taken as a blood purifier (as V. pennsylvanicum153:369). Vaccinium macrocarpon - Montagnais: Infusion of branches used as a medicine for pleurisy (as Oxycoccus macrocarpus Speck 1917:316). Vaccinium myrtilloides - Cree, Woodlands: Decoction of leafy stems, or of plant, used to bring menstruation. Decoction of stems used to prevent pregnancy. Decoction of stems used to prevent pregnancy. Decoction of leafy stem, or of plant used to make a person sweat. Decoction of leafy stems, or of plant, used as a "woman's medicine," used to bring Taxonomic Common Other Regions (Moreman 1995) Identification Name Vaccinium sp. blood after childbirth, and used to slow excessive menstrual bleeding. Decoction of leafy stems taken to prevent (continued) miscarriage. Decoction of plant taken to prevent miscarriage (Leighton 1985:63); Potawatomi: Root bark used for unspecified ailment (as V.canadense Smith 1933:57). Ojibwa: Infusion of plant taken by person with slight nausea (Smith 1932:369). Vaccinium vitis-idaea - Tanna, Upper : Berries eaten raw or juice used for colds and coughs. Berries chewed or juice gargled for sore throat (Kari 1985:9). Viburnum sp. viburnum Viburnum acerifolium - Chippewa: Decoction of inner bark taken for cramps (Densmore 1928:344). Compound decoction of scraped inner bark taken as an emetic. Cool infusion of bark taken as an emetic (Densmore 1928:346). Decoction of inner bark taken for stomach cramps (Densmore 1928:344); Menominee: Infusion of inner bark taken for cramps (Smith 1923:29). Infusion of inner bark taken for colic (Smith 1923:28). Viburnum lentago - Chippewa: Infusion of leaves taken or poultice leaves applied for dysuria (Gilmore 1919:142); Malecite: Infusion of roots used for irregular menstruation (Mechling 1959:258); Micmac: Roots used for irregular menstruation (Chandler et al. 1979:63); Ojibwa: Infusion of inner bark used as a diuretic (Smith 1932:361). Viburnum opulus - Meskwaki: Decoction of root taken by "one who feels pain over his entire body" (Smith 1928:208); Micmac: Bark used for swollen glands and mumps (Chandler et al. 1979:63); Montagnais: Decoction of plant used as a salve for sore eyes (Speck 1917:316); Viburnum prunifolium- Delaware, Oklahoma: Compound containing root bark used as a tonic for the "female generative organs" (Tantaquidgeon 1942:26, 80); Micmac: Infusion of plant taken before and during parturition (194:28). Vicia sp. vetch Vicia faba- Navajo: Plant used in the coyote Chant for medicine. Plant considered poisonous (Elmore 1955:59). Vicia sativa - Snohomish: Infusion of plant used on the hair for headaches (as V.ngustifolia 79:39). Viola sp. violet Viola sp.- Costanoan: Plant used as a salve and poultice of boiled plant applied to sores (Bocek 1984:9); Thompson: Infusion of mashed leaves and stalks used as a medicine for dogs. Juice used in dogs' noses to clear out the nostrils and enable them to track deer better (Turner et al. 1990:291). Viola canadensis - Ojibwa, South: Decoction of root used for pains near the bladder (Hoffman 1891:201). Viola cucullata - Ute : Roots used as a medicine (Chamberlin 1909:37). Viola nephrophylla- Navajo, Ramah: Plant seed as a ceremonial emetic (Vestal 1952:36). Viola pubesens - Ojibwa, South : Decoction of root taken in small doses for sore throat (Hoffman 1891:201); Potawatomi: Root used for various hear diseases (Smith 1933:87,88). Vitis sp. grape Vitis aestivalis -Choctaw : Used as a "refrigerant." "Water of the grape vine" taken and used as a wash to induce lactation. Used as a tonic (Campbell 1951:287). Zea mays corn Kres, Western : Pollen eaten for almost any kind of medicine (Swank 1932:77); Navajo: Poultice of plant applied as ceremonial medicine for sore throats. Leaves used in mixture for the Night Chant medicine. One part of the Night Chant medicine consists of "blue pollen," wild plants, and tobacco to which was added the leaves from the southwest, watermelon leaves from the northwest, and muskmelon leaves from the northeast. Poultice of plant applied as ceremonial medicine for sore throats (Elmore 1955:27); Tewa: Blue cornmeal and water used for "palpitations for pains." Warm ear of corn rubbed with foot for child's glandular swelling in neck. Black corn with red streaks good for menstruating women. Blue cornmeal and water used for "heart-sickness," "palpitations or pains" (Robbins et al. 1916:97). Plant Taxa listed in the USDA Plant Database in Connecticut Not Recorded in Native American Medicinal Practices
1) Acalypha gracilens (slender threeseed mercury); Acalypha rhomboidea (common threeseed mercury)
2) Asclepias amplexicaulis (clasping milkweed); Asclepias purpurascens (purple milkweed)
3) Carex abscondita (thicket sedge); Carex acutiformis (lesser pond sedge); Carex aestivalis (summer sedge); Carex alata (broadwing sedge); Carex albicans (whitetinge sedge); Carex albolutescens (greenwhite sedge); Carex albursina (white bear sedge); Carex alopecoidea (foxtail sedge); Carex amphibola (eastern narrowleaf sedge); Carex annectens (yellowfruit sedge); Carex appalachica (Appalachian sedge); Carex aquatilis (water sedge); Carex arctata (dropping woodland sedge); Carex argyrantha (hay sedge); Carex atlantica (prickly bog sedge); Carex aurea (golden sedge); Carex backii (Back's sedge); Carex bailey i (Bailey's sedge); Carex barrattii (Barratt's sedge); Carex bebbii (Bebb's sedge); Carex bicknellii (Bicknell's sedge); Carex blanda (eastern woodland sedge); Carex bromoides (brome-like sedge); Carex brunnescens (brownish sedge); Carex bullata (button sedge); Carex bushii (Bush's sedge); Carex buxbaumii (Buxbaum's sedge); Carex canescens (silvery sedge); Carex castanea (chestnut sedge); Carex cephaloidea (thinleaf sedge); Carex cephalophora (oval-leaf sedge); Carex collinsii (Collins' sedge); Carex communis (fibrousroot sedge); Carex comosa (longhair sedge); Carex conoidea (openfield sedge); Carex crawei (Crawe's sedge); Carex crawfordii (Crawford's sedge); Carex crinita (frindged sedge); Carex cristatella (crested sedge); Carex cryptolepis (northeastern sedge); Carex cumulata (clustered sedge); Carex davisii (Davis' sedge); Carex debilis (white edge sedge); Carex deweyana (Dewy sedge); Carex diandra (lesser panicled sedge); Carex digitalis (slender woodland sedge); Carex disperma (softleaf sedge); Carex eburnea (bristleleaf sedge); Carex echinata (star sedge); Carex emoryi (Emory's sedge); Carex exilis (coastal sedge); Carex festucacea (fescue sedge); Carex flava (yellow sedge); Carex folliculata (northern long sedge); Carex formosa (handsome sedge); Carex glaucodea (blue sedge); Carex gracilescens (slender looseflower sedge); Carex gracillimia (graceful sedge); Carex granularis (limestone meadow sedge); Carex grayi (Gray's sedge); Carex grisea (inflated narrow-leaf sedge); Carex gynandra (nodding sedge); Carex haydenii (Hayden's sedge); Carex hirsutella (fuzzy wuzzy sedge); Carex hirta (hammer sedge); Carex hirtifolia (pubescent sedge); Carex hitchcockiana (Hitchcock's sedge); Carex hormathodes (marsh straw sedge); Carex hystericina (bottlebrush sedge); Carex interior (inland sedge); Carex intumescens (greater bladder sedge); Carex lacustris (hairy sedge); Carex laevivaginata (smoothshearth sedge); Carex lapponica (Lapland sedge); Carex lasiocarpa (woollyfruit sedge); Carex laxiculmis (spreading sedge); Carex laxiflora (broad looseflower sedge); Carex leptalea (bristlystalked sedge); Carex leptonervia (nerveless woodland sedge); Carex limos a (mud sedge); Carex livida (livid sedge); Carex longii (Long's sedge); Carex lucorum (Blue Ridge sedge); Carex lupuliformis (false hop sedge); Carex lupulina (hop sedge); Carex lurida (shallow sedge); Carex magellanica (boreal bog sedge); Carex merritt-fernaldii (Fernald'a sedge); Carex mesochorea (midland sedge); Carex molesta (troublesome sedge); Carex muehlenbergii (Muhlenberg's sedge); Carex nigra (smooth black sedge); Carex nigromarginata (black edge sedge); Carex normalis (greater straw sedge); Carex novae-angliae (New England sedge); Carex oligocarpa (richwoods sedge); Carex ormostachya (necklace spike sedge); Carex pallescens (pale sedge); carex panicea (grass-like sedge); Carex pauciflora (fewflower sedge); Carex pedunculata (longstalk sedge); Carex pellita (woolly sedge); Carex pensylvanica (Pennsylvania sedge); Carex polymorpha (variable sedge); Carex prairea (prairie sedge); Carex projecta (necklace sedge); Carex pseudocyperus (cypress-like sedge); Carex radia ta (eastern star sedge); Ca rex retroflexa (reflexed sedge); Carex retrorsa (knotsheath sedge); Carex rosea (rosy sedge); Carex scabrata (eastern rough sedge); Carex schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sedge); Carex scoparia (broom sedge); Carex seorsa (weak stellate sedge); Carex siccata (dryspike sedge); Carex silicea (beach sedge); Carex sparganioides (bur-reed sedge); Carex spicata (prickly sedge); Carex sprengelii (Sprengel's sedge); Carex squarrosa (squarrose sedge); Carex sterilis (dioecious sedge); Carex stipata (awlfruit sedge); Carex straminea (eastern straw sedge); Carex striatula (lined sedge); Carex stricta (upright sedge); Carex styloflexa (bent sedge); Carex swanii (Swan's sedge); Carex tenera (quill sedge); Carex tetanica (rigid sedge); Carex tincta (tinged sedge); Carex tonsa (shaved sedge); Carex torta (twisted sedge); Carex tribuloides (blunt broom sedge); Carex trichocarpa (hairyfuirt sedge);
Carex trisperma (threeseeded sedge); Carex tuckermanii (Tukerman's sedge); Carex typhina (cattail
© sedge); Carex umbellata (parasol sedge); Carex vesicaria (blister sedge); Carex vestita (velvet sedge); Carex virescens (ribbed sedge); Carex viridula (little green sedge); Carex willdenowii (Willdenow's sedge); Carex woodii (pretty sedge)
4) Carya glabra (pignut hickory); Carya ovalis (red hickory)
5) Amaranthus albus (prostrate pigweed); Amaranthus blitoides (mat amaranth); Amaranthus blitum (purple amaranth); Amaranthus cannabinus (tidalmarsh amaranth); Amaranthus caudatus (love-lies bleeding); Amaranthus cruentus (red amaranth); Amaranthus powellii (Powell's amaranth); Amaranthus pumilus (seaside amaranth); Amaranthus tuberculatus (roughfruit amaranth); Chenopodium berlandieri (pitseed goosefoot); Chenopodium bonus-henricus (good King Henry); Chenopodium glaucum (oakleaf goosefoot); Chenopodium murale (nettleleaf goosefoot); Chenopodium pratericola (desert goosefoot); Chenopodium rubrum (red goosefoot); Chenopodium simplex (mapleleaf goosefoot); Chenopodium standleyanum (Standley's goosefoot); Chenopodium urbicum (city goosefoot)
6) Cornus obliqua (silky dogwood)
7) Crataegus anomala (Arnold hawthorne); Crataegus brainerdii (Brainerd's hawthorne); Crataegus compta (adorned hawthorn); Crataegus crus-galli (cockspur hawthorn); Crataegus dilatata (broadleaf hawthorn); Crataegus dissona (northern hawthorn); Crataegus dodgei (Dodge's hawthorn); Crataegus flabellata (fanleaf hawthorn); Crataegus holmesiana (Holmes' hawthorne); Crataegus intricata (Copenhagen hawthorne); Crrataegus iracunda (stolonbearing hawthorn); Crataegus jesupii (Jesup's hawthorn); Crategus lucorum (grove hawthorn); Crataegus lumaria (roundleaf hawthorn); Crataegus macrosperma (bigfruit hawthorn); Crataegus membranacea (tissueleaf hawthorn); Crataegus mollis (downy hawthorn); Crataegus monogyna (oneseed hawthorn); Crataegus pedicellata (scarlet hawthorn); Crataegus pequotorum (Connecticut hawthorn); Crataegus pringlei (Pringle's hawthorn); Crataegus pruinosa (waxyfruit hawthorn); Crataegus scabrida (rough hawthorn); Crataegus schuettei (Schuette's hawthorn); Crataegus spatiosa (New London hawthorn); Crataegus suborbiculata (Caughuawaga hawthorn); Crataegus succulenta (fleshy hawthorn)
8) Cyperus amuricus (Asian flatsedge); Cyperus bipartitus (slender flatsedge); Cyperus dentatus (toothed flatsedge); Cyperus diandrus (umbrella flatsedge); Cyperus echinatus (globe flatsedge); Cyperus erythrorhizos (redroot flatsedge); Cyperus filicinus (fern flatsedge); Cyperus fuscus (brown flatsedge); Cyperus grayi (Gray's flatsedge); Cyperus lupulinus (Great Plains flatsedge); Cyperus odoratus (fragrant flatsedge); Cyperus squarrosus (bearded flatsedge); Cyperus strigosus (strawcolored flatsedge); Kyllinga gracillima (pasture spikesedge)
9) Galium album (white bedstraw); Galium glaucum (waxy bedstraw); Galium labradoricum (northern bog bedstraw); Galium lanceolatum (lanceleaf wild licorice); Galium mollugo (false baby's breath); Galium obtusum (bluntleaf bedstraw); Galium palustre (common marsh bedstraw); Galium pilosum (hairy bedstraw); Galium sylvaticum (Scotch mist); Galium verum (Yellow Spring bedstraw)
10) Gaylussacia dumosa (dwarf huckleberry); Gaylussacia frondosa (blue huckleberry)
11) Ilex glabra (inkberry); Ilex laevigata (smooth winterberry); Ilex montana (mountain holly); Ilex mucronata (catberry);
12) Juncus acuminatus (tapertip rush); Juncus ambiguus (seasice rush); Juncus anthelatus (greater poverty rush); Juncus articulatus (jointleaf rush); Juncus brachycarpus (whiteroot rush); Juncus brachycephalus (smallhead rush); Juncus brevicaudatus (narrowpanicle rush); Juncus canadensis (Canadian rush); Juncus debilis (weak rush); Juncus dichotomus (forked rush); Juncus diffusissimus (simpod rush); Juncus dudleyi (Dudley's rush; Juncus gerardii (saltmeadow rush); Juncus greenei (Greene's rush); Juncus marginatus (grassleaf rush); Juncus militaris (bayonet rush); Juncus nodosus (knotted rush); Juncus pelocarpus (brownfruit rush); Juncus secundus (lopsided rush); Juncus
subcaudatus (woodland rush); Luzula multiflora (common woodrush)
©
13) Lactuca hirsuta (hairy lettuce)
14) Polygonella articulata (coastal jointweed); Polygonum achoreum (leathery knotweed); Polygonum arifolium (halberdleaf tearthumb); Polygonum bellardii (narrowleaf knotweed); Polygonum buxiforme (box knotweed); Polygonum cespitosum (Oriental lady's thumb); Polygonum cilinode (fringed black bindweed); Polygonum convolvulus (black bindweed); Polygonum cuspidatum (Japanese knotweed); Polygonum erectum (erect knotweed); Polygonum glaucum (seaside knotweed); Polygonum hydropiperoides (swamp smartweed); Polygonum minus (pgymy smartweed); Polygonum nepalense (Nepalese smartweed); Polygonum orientale (kiss me over the garden gate); Polygonum robustius (stout smartweed); Polygonum sachalinense (giant knotweed); Polygonum sagittatum (arrowleaf tearthumb); Polygonum scandens (climbing false buckwheat); Polygonum tenue (pleatleaf knotweed)
15) Portulaca gradiflora (rose moss);
16) Myriophyllum pinnatum (cutleaf watermilfoil); Potamogeton alpinus (alpine pondweed); Potamogeton amplifolius (largeleaf pondweed); Potamogeton bicupulatus (snailseed pondweed); Pontamogeton confervoides (Tuckerman's pondweed); Potamogeton crispus (curly pondweed); Potamogeton diversifolius (waterthread pondweed); Potamogeton epihydrus (ribbonleaf pondweed); Potamogeton foliosus (leafy pondweed); Potamogeton friesii (Fries' pondweed); Potamogeton gramineus (variableleaf pondweed); Potamogeton hillii (Hill's pondweed); Potamogeton illinoensis (Illinois pondweed Potamogeton nodosus (longleaf pondweed); Potamogeton oakesianus (Oakes' pondweed); Potamogeton obtusifolius (bluntleaf pondweed); Potamogeton ogdenii (Ogden's pondweed); Potamogeton perfoliatus (claspingleaf pondweed); Potamogeton praelongus (whitesterm pondweed); Pontamogeton pulcher (spotted pondweed); Potamogeton pusillus (small pondweed); Pontamogeton richardsonii (Richardson's pondweed); Potamogeton robbinsii (Robbins' pondweed); Potamogeton spirillus (spiral pondweed); Potamogeton strictifolius (narrowleaf pondweed); Potamogeton vaseyi (vasey's) ; Potamogeton zosteriformis (flatsterm pondweed); Stuckenia pectinata (sago pondweed)
17) Prunus alleghaniensis (Allegheny plum); Prunus domestica (European plum); Prunus mahaleb (Mahaleb cherry); Prunus maritima (beach plum); Prunus spinosa (blackthorn); Prunus susquehanae (Sesquehana sandcherry);
18) Quercus prinoides (dwarf chinkapin oak); Quercus prinus (chestnut oak);
19) Cotinus coggygria (European smoketree); Rhus typhina (staghorn sumac);
20) Dalibarda repens (robin runaway); Rubus alumnus (oldfield blackberry); Rubus andrewsianus (Andrews' blackberry); Rubus arenicola (sanddwelling dewberry); Rubus baileyanus (Bailey's dewberry); Rubus bigelovianus (lowland blackberry); Rubus dissimilis (bristly Oswego blackberry); Rubus elegantulus (showy blackberry); Rubus floricomus (manyflower blackberrry); Rubus fraternalis (northeastern dewberry); Rubus gnarus (Pollock's Mill blackberry); Rubus hispidus (bristly dewberry); Rubus illecebrosus (strawberry raspberry); Rubus insons (New England blackberry); Rubus insulanus (island blackberry); Rubus multifer (kinnickinnick dewberry); Rubus multispinus (devil's blackberry); Rubus notatus (bristle berry); Rubus novanglicus (New England dewberry); Rubus obsessus (New York dewberry); Rubus parlinii (Parlin's dewberry); Rubus particeps (Kingston dewberry); Rubus pensilvanicus (Pennsylvania blackberry); Rubus pergratus (upland blackberry); Rubus philadelphicus (Philadelphia blackberry); Rubus phoenicolasius (wine raspberry); Rubus plicatifolius (plaitleaf dewberry); Rubus positivus (New London dewberry); Rubus pugnax (pugnancious blackberry); Rubus recurvans (recurved blackberry); Rubus recurvicaulis (arching dewberry); Rubus rosa (rose blackberry); Rubus rossbergianus (Connecticut blackberry); Rubus saltuensis (Tolland County blackberry); Rubus semisetosus (swamp blackberry); Rubus setosus (setose blackberry); Rubus vermontanus (Vermont blackberry)
21) Bulbostylis capillaris (densetuft hairsedge); Eleocharis equisetoides (jointed spikesedge); Eleocharis
erythropoda (bald spikerush); Eleocharis obtusa (blunt spikerush); Eleocharis ovata (ovate spikerush);
© Eleocharis palustris (common spikerush); Eleocharis parvula (dwarf spikerush); Eleocharis quadrangulata (squarestem spikerush); Eleocharis rostellata (beaked spikerush); Eleocharis tenuis (slender spikerush); Eleocharis tuberculosa (cone-cup spikerush); Fimbristylis autumnalis (slender fimbry); Lipocarpha micrantha (smallflower halfchaff sedge); Schoenoplectus acutus (hardstem bulrush); Schoenoplectus americanus (chairmaker's bulrush); Schoenoplectus fluviatilis (river bulrush); Schoenoplectus maritimus (cosmopolitan bulrush); Schoenoplectus novae-angliae (New England bulrush); Schoenoplectus pungens (common threesquare); Schoenoplectus purshianus (weakstalk bulrush); Schoenoplectus robustus (sturdy bulrush); Schoenoplectus smithii (Smith's bulrush); Schoenoplectus subterminalis (swaying bulrush); Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani (softstem bulrush); Schoenoplectus torreyi (Torrey's bulrush); Scirpus atrocinctus (blackgirdle bulrush); Scirpus atrovirens (green bulrush); Scirpus cyperinus (woolgrass); Scirpus expansus (woodland bulrush); Scirpus georgianus (Georgia bulrush); Scirpus hattorianus (mosquito bulrush); Scirpus longii (Long's bulrush); Scirpus microcarpus (panicled bulrush); Scirpus pedicellatus (stalked bulrush); Scirpus pendulus (rufous bulrush); Scirpus polyphyllus (leafy bulrush); Trichophorum alpinu (alpine bulrush); Trichophorum planifolium (bashful bulrush)
22) Elymus repens (quackgrass); Elymus trachycaulus (slender wheatgrass); Secale cereale (cereal rye)
23) Ilex mucronata (catberry); Vaccinium corymbosum (highbush blueberry); Vaccinium fuscatum (black highbush blueberry); Vaccinium pallidum (Blue Ridge blueberry); Vaccinium stamineum (deerberry)
24) Viburnum dentatum (sounther arrowwood); Viburnum lantana (wayfaringtree); Viburnum plicatum (Japanese snowball); Viburnum rafinesqueanum (downy arrowwood); Viburnum recognitum (southern arrrowwood); Viburnum setigerum (tea viburnum); Viburnum sieboldii (Siebold's arrowwood)
25) Vicia cracca (bird vetch); Vicia hirsuta (tiny vetch); Vicia pannonica (Hungarian vetch); Vicia tetrasperma (lentil vetch);
26) Hybanthus concolor (eastern greenviolet); Viola affinis (sand violent); Viola arvensis (European field pansy); Viola blanda (sweet white violet); Viola brittoniana (northern coastal violet); Viola hirsutula (southern woodland violet); Viola labradorica (alpine violet); Viola lanceolata (bog white violet); Viola macloskeyi (small white violet) ; Viola odorata (sweet violet); Viola renifolia (white violet); Viola rostrata (longspur violet); Viola selkirkii (Selkirk's violet); Viola septentrionalis (northern woodland violet); Viola tricolor (johnny jumpup); Viola triloba (three-lobe violet)
27) Parthenocissus quinquefolia (Virginia creeper); Vitis palmata (catbird grape); Vitis riparia (riverbank grape)
© !""#$%&'(%( ( )!*&+!+(,!+#-./&0!+&.$(.1("2!$+(+3"#4 !
309!
Contemporary Species Identified in CT (Based Upon USDA Plants Database) Used for Habitat Categorization (Information Not Present in Individual Charts for Each Habitat) Acalypha sp. 3 SPECIES: Acalypha gracilens (slender threeseed mercury); Acalypha rhomboidea (common threeseed mercury); Acalypha virginica (Virginia threeseed mercury)
Asclepias sp. 9 SPECIES: Asclepias amplexicaulis (clasping milkweed); Asclepias exaltata (poke milkweed); Asclepias incarnata (swamp milkweed); Asclepias purpurascens (purple milkweed); Asclepias quadrifolia (fourleaf milkweed); Asclepias syriaca (common milkweed); Asclepias tuberosa (butterfly milkweed); Asclepias verticillata (whorled milkweed); Asclepias viridiflora (green comet mildweed)
Carex sp. 151 SPECIES: Carex abscondita (thicket sedge); Carex acutiformis (lesser pond sedge); Carex aestivalis (summer sedge); Carex alata (broadwing sedge); Carex albicans (whitetinge sedge); Carex albolutescens (greenwhite sedge); Carex albursina (white bear sedge); Carex alopecoidea (foxtail sedge); Carex amphibola (eastern narrowleaf sedge); Carex annectens (yellowfruit sedge); Carex appalachica (Appalachian sedge); Carex aquatilis (water sedge); Carex arctata (dropping woodland sedge); Carex argyrantha (hay sedge); Carex atlantica (prickly bog sedge); Carex aurea (golden sedge); Carex backii (Back's sedge); Carex bailey i (Bailey's sedge); Carex barrattii (Barratt's sedge); Carex bebbii (Bebb's sedge); Carex bicknellii (Bicknell's sedge); Carex blanda (eastern woodland sedge); Carex brevior (shortbeak sedge); Carex bromoides (brome-like sedge); Carex brunnescens (brownish sedge); Carex bullata (button sedge); Carex bushii (Bush's sedge); Carex buxbaumii (Buxbaum's sedge); Carex canescens (silvery sedge); Carex castanea (chestnut sedge); Carex cephaloidea (thinleaf sedge); Carex cephalophora (oval-leaf sedge); Carex collinsii (Collins' sedge); Carex communis (fibrousroot sedge); Carex comosa (longhair sedge); Carex conoidea (openfield sedge); Carex crawei (Crawe's sedge); Carex crawfordii (Crawford's sedge); Carex crinita (frindged sedge); Carex cristatella (crested sedge); Carex cryptolepis (northeastern sedge); Carex cumulata (clustered sedge); Carex davisii (Davis' sedge); Carex debilis (white edge sedge); Carex deweyana (Dewy sedge); Carex diandra (lesser panicled sedge); Carex digitalis (slender woodland sedge); Carex Disperma (softleaf sedge); Carex eburnea (bristleleaf sedge); Carex echinata (star sedge); Carex emoryi (Emory's sedge); Carex exilis (coastal sedge); Carex festucacea (fescue sedge); Carex flava (yellow sedge); Carex folliculata (northern long sedge); Carex formosa (handsome sedge); Carex glaucodea (blue sedge); Carex gracilescens (slender looseflower sedge); Carex gracillimia (graceful sedge); Carex granularis (limestone meadow sedge); Carex grayi (Gray's sedge); Carex grisea (inflated narrow-leaf sedge); Carex gynandra (nodding sedge); Carex haydenii (Hayden's sedge); Carex hirsutella (fuzzy wuzzy sedge); Carex hirta (hammer sedge); Carex hirtifolia (pubescent sedge); Carex hitchcockiana (Hitchcock's sedge); Carex hormathodes (marsh straw sedge); Carex hystericina (bottlebrush sedge); Carex interior (inland sedge); Carex intumescens (greater bladder sedge); Carex lacustris (hairy sedge); Carex laevivaginata (smoothshearth sedge); Carex lapponica (Lapland sedge); Carex
lasiocarpa (woollyfruit sedge); Carex laxiculmis (spreading sedge); Carex
laxiflora (broad looseflower sedge); Carex leptalea (bristlystalked sedge); Carex leptonervia (nerveless woodland sedge); Carex limos a (mud sedge); Carex livida (livid sedge); Carex longii (Long's sedge); Carex lucorum (Blue Ridge sedge); Carex lupuliformis (false hop sedge); Carex lupulina (hop sedge); Carex lurida (shallow sedge); Carex magellanica (boreal bog sedge); Carex merritt-fernaldii (Fernald'a sedge); Carex mesochorea (midland sedge); Carex molesta (troublesome sedge); Carex muehlenbergii (Muhlenberg's sedge); Carex nigra (smooth black sedge); Carex nigromarginata (black edge sedge); Carex normalis (greater straw sedge); Carex novae-angliae (New England sedge); Carex oligocarpa (richwoods sedge); Carex oligosperma (fewseed sedge); Carex ormostachya (necklace spike sedge); Carex pallescens (pale sedge); carex panicea (grass-like sedge); Carex pauciflora (fewflower sedge); Carex pedunculata (longstalk sedge); Carex pellita (woolly sedge); Carex pensylvanica (Pennsylvania sedge); Carex plantaginea (plantainleaf sedge); Carex platyphylla (broadleaf sedge); Carex polymorpha (variable sedge); Carex prairea (prairie sedge); Carex prasina (drooping sedge); Carex projecta (necklace sedge); Carex pseudocyperus (cypress-like sedge); Carex radiata (eastern star sedge); Carex retroflexa (reflexed sedge); Carex retrorsa (knotsheath sedge); Carex rosea (rosy sedge); Carex scabrata (eastern rough sedge); Carex schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sedge); Carex scoparia (broom sedge); Carex seorsa (weak stellate sedge); Carex siccata (dryspike sedge); Carex silicea (beach sedge); Carex sparganioides (bur-reed sedge); Carex spicata (prickly sedge); Carex sprengelii (Sprengel's sedge); Carex squarrosa (squarrose sedge); Carex sterilis (dioecious sedge); Carex stipata (awlfruit sedge); Carex straminea (eastern straw sedge); Carex striatula (lined sedge); Carex stricta (upright sedge); Carex styloflexa (bent sedge); Carex swanii (Swan's sedge); Carex tenera (quill sedge); Carex tetanica (rigid sedge); Carex tincta (tinged sedge); Carex tonsa (shaved sedge); Carex torta (twisted sedge); Carex tribuloides (blunt broom sedge); Carex trichocarpa (hairyfuirt sedge); Carex trisperma (threeseeded sedge); Carex tuckermanii (Tukerman's sedge); Carex typhina (cattail sedge); Carex umbellata (parasol sedge); Carex utriculata (Northwest Territory sedge); Carex vesicaria (blister sedge); Carex vestita (velvet sedge); Carex virescens (ribbed sedge); Carex viridula (little green sedge); Carex vulpinoidea (fox sedge); Carex willdenowii (Willdenow's sedge); Carex woodii (pretty sedge) Carpinus SAME caroliniana
Carya sp. 5 SPECIES : Carya alba (mockernut hickory); Carya cordiformis (bitternut hickory); Carya glabra (pignut hickory); Carya ovalis (red hickory); Carya ovata (shagbark hickory) Chenopodium 25 SPECIES: Amaranthus albus (prostrate pigweed); Amaranthus blitoides - Amaranthus (mat amaranth); Amaranthus blitum (purple amaranth); Amaranthus sp. cannabinus (tidalmarsh amaranth); Amaranthus caudatus (love-lies bleeding); Amaranthus cruentus (red amaranth); Amaranthus hybridus (slim amaranth);
Amaranthus powellii (Powell's amaranth); Amaranthus pumilus (seaside
amaranth); Amaranthus retroflexus (redroot amaranth); Amaranthus spinosus (spiny amaranth); Amaranthus tuberculatus (roughfruit amaranth); Chenopodium album (lambsquarter); Chenopodium ambrosiodes (Mexican tea); Chenopodium berlandieri (pitseed goosefoot); Chenopodium bonus- henricus (good King Henry); Chenopodium botrys (Jerusalem oak goosefoot); Chenopodium capitatum (blite goosefoot); Chenopodium glaucum (oakleaf goosefoot); Chenopodium murale (nettleleaf goosefoot); Chenopodium pratericola (desert goosefoot); Chenopodium rubrum (red goosefoot); Chenopodium simplex (mapleleaf goosefoot); Chenopodium standleyanum (Standley's goosefoot); Chenopodium urbicum (city goosefoot) Comptonia SAME peregrina
Cornus sp. 8 SPECIES: Cornus alternifolia (alternateleaf dogwood); Cornus amomum (silky dogwood); Cornus canadensis (bunchberry dogwood); Cornus florida (flowering dogwood); Cornus obliqua (silky dogwood); Cornus racemosa (gray dogwood); Cornus rugosa (roundleaf dogwood); Cornus sericea (redosier dogwood) Corylus sp. 3 SPECIES : Corylus americana (American hazelnut); Corylus cornuta (beaked hazelnut); Corylus heterophylla (Siberian hazelnut) Crataegus sp. 30 SPECIES: Crataegus anomala (Arnold hawthorne); Crataegus brainerdii (Brainerd's hawthorne); Crataeus chrysocarpa (fireberry hawthorn); Crataegus compta (adorned hawthorn); Crataegus crus-galli (cockspur hawthorn); Crataegus dilatata (broadleaf hawthorn); Crataegus dissona (northern hawthorn); Crataegus dodgei (Dodge's hawthorn); Crataegus flabellata (fanleaf hawthorn); Crataegus holmesiana (Holmes' hawthorne); Crataegus intricata (Copenhagen hawthorne); Crrataegus iracunda (stolonbearing hawthorn); Crataegus jesupii (Jesup's hawthorn); Crategus lucorum (grove hawthorn); Crataegus lumaria (roundleaf hawthorn); Crataegus macrosperma (bigfruit hawthorn); Crataegus membranacea (tissueleaf hawthorn); Crataegus mollis (downy hawthorn); Crataegus monogyna (oneseed hawthorn); Crataegus pedicellata (scarlet hawthorn); Crataegus pequotorum (Connecticut hawthorn); Crataegus pringlei (Pringle's hawthorn); Crataegus pruinosa (waxyfruit hawthorn); Crataegus punctata (dotted hawthorn); Crataegus scabrida (rough hawthorn); Crataegus schuettei (Schuette's hawthorn); Crataegus spatiosa (New London hawthorn); Crataegus submollis (Quebec hawthorn); Crataegus suborbiculata (Caughuawaga hawthorn); Crataegus succulenta (fleshy hawthorn) Cucurbita sp. Cucurbita pepo (field pumpkin)
Cyperus sp. 15 SPECIES: Cyperus amuricus (Asian flatsedge); Cyperus bipartitus (slender flatsedge); Cyperus dentatus (toothed flatsedge); Cyperus diandrus (umbrella flatsedge); Cyperus echinatus (globe flatsedge); Cyperus erythrorhizos (redroot flatsedge); Cyperus esculentus (yellow nutsedge); Cyperus filicinus (fern flatsedge); Cyperus fuscus (brown flatsedge); Cyperus grayi (Gray's flatsedge); Cyperus lupulinus (Great Plains flatsedge); Cyperus odoratus (fragrant flatsedge); Cyperus squarrosus (bearded flatsedge); Cyperus
strigosus (strawcolored flatsedge); Kyllinga gracillima (pasture spikesedge)
Galium sp. 17 SPECIES : Galium album (white bedstraw); Galium aparine (stickywilly); Galium asprellum (rough bedstraw); Galium boreale (northern bedstraw); Galium circaezans (licorice bedstraw); Galium glaucum (waxy bedstraw); Galium labradoricum (northern bog bedstraw); Galium lanceolatum (lanceleaf wild licorice); Galium mollugo (false baby's breath); Galium obtusum (bluntleaf bedstraw); Galium palustre (common marsh bedstraw); Galium pilosum (hairy bedstraw); Galium sylvaticum (Scotch mist); Galium tinctorium (stiff marsh bedstraw); Galium trifidum (threepetal bedstraw); Galium triflorum (fragrant bedstraw); Galium verum (Yellow Spring bedstraw) Gaylussacia 3 SPECIES : Gaylussacia baccata (black huckleberry); Gaylussacia dumosa sp. (dwarf huckleberry); Gaylussacia frondosa (blue huckleberry)
Ilex sp. 6 SPECIES: Ilex glabra (inkberry); Ilex laevigata (smooth winterberry); Ilex montana (mountain holly); Ilex mucronata (catberry); Ilex opaca (American holly); Ilex verticillata (common winterberry) Juglans SAME cinerea
Juglans nigra SAME
Juglans sp. 3 SPECIES : Carya alba (mockernut hickory); Juglans cinera (butternut); Juglans nigra (black walnut) Juncus sp. 24 SPECIES: Juncus acuminatus (tapertip rush); Juncus ambiguus (seasice rush); Juncus anthelatus (greater poverty rush); Juncus articulatus (jointleaf rush); Juncus brachycarpus (whiteroot rush); Juncus brachycephalus (smallhead rush); Juncus brevicaudatus (narrowpanicle rush); Juncus bufonius (toad rush); Juncus canadensis (Canadian rush); Juncus debilis (weak rush); Juncus dichotomus (forked rush); Juncus diffusissimus (simpod rush); Juncus dudleyi (Dudley's rush); Juncus effusus (common rush); Juncus gerardii (saltmeadow rush); Juncus greenei (Greene's rush); Juncus marginatus (grassleaf rush); Juncus militaris (bayonet rush); Juncus nodosus (knotted rush); Juncus pelocarpus (brownfruit rush); Juncus secundus (lopsided rush); Juncus subcaudatus (woodland rush); Juncus tenuis (poverty rush); Luzula multiflora (common woodrush) Lactuca sp. 4 SPECIES: Latuca biennis (tall blue lettuce); Lactuca canadensis (Canada lettuce); Lactuca hirsuta (hairy lettuce); Lactuca serriola (prickly lettuce) Myrica SAME SPECIES
pensylvanica
Nyssa SAME SPECIES sylvatica
Phaselous SAME SPECIES vulgaris Phytolacca SAME SPECIES americana Polygonum SAME SPECIES hydropiper Polygonum 33 SPECIES : Fagopyrum esculentum (buckwheat); Polygonella articulata sp. (coastal jointweed); Polygonum achoreum (leathery knotweed); Polygonum amphibium (water knotweed); Polygonum arenastrum (oval-leaf knotweed); Polygonum arifolium (halberdleaf tearthumb); Polygonum aviculare (prostrate knotweed); Polygonum bellardii (narrowleaf knotweed); Polygonum buxiforme (box knotweed); Polygonum careyi (Carey's smartweed); Polygonum cespitosum (Oriental lady's thumb); Polygonum cilinode (fringed black bindweed); Polygonum convolvulus (black bindweed); Polygonum cuspidatum (Japanese knotweed); Polygonum erectum (erect knotweed); Polygonum glaucum (seaside knotweed); Polygonum hydropiper (marshpepper knotweed); Polygonum hydropiperoides (swamp smartweed); Polygonum lapathifolium (curly knotweed); Polygonum minus (pgymy smartweed); Polygonum nepalense (Nepalese smartweed); Polygonum orientale (kiss me over the garden gate); Polygonum pensylvanicum (Pennsylvania smartweed); Polygonum persicaria (spotted ladysthumb); Polygonum punctatum (dotted smartweed); Polygonum ramosissimum (bushy knotweed); Polygonum robustius (stout smartweed); Polygonum sachalinense (giant knotweed); Polygonum sagittatum (arrowleaf tearthumb); Polygonum scandens (climbing false buckwheat); Polygonum tenue (pleatleaf knotweed); Polygonum virginianum (jumpseed) Portulaca sp. 2 SPECIES: Portulaca gradiflora (rose moss); Portulaca oleracea (little hogweed) Potamogeton 28 SPECIES: Myriophyllum pinnatum (cutleaf watermilfoil); Potamogeton sp. alpinus (alpine pondweed); Potamogeton amplifolius (largeleaf pondweed); Potamogeton bicupulatus (snailseed pondweed); Pontamogeton confervoides (Tuckerman's pondweed); Potamogeton crispus (curly pondweed); Potamogeton diversifolius (waterthread pondweed); Potamogeton epihydrus (ribbonleaf pondweed); Potamogeton foliosus (leafy pondweed); Potamogeton friesii (Fries' pondweed); Potamogeton gramineus (variableleaf pondweed); Potamogeton hillii (Hill's pondweed); Potamogeton illinoensis (Illinois pondweed); Potamogeton natans (floating pondweed); Potamogeton nodosus (longleaf pondweed); Potamogeton oakesianus (Oakes' pondweed); Potamogeton obtusifolius (bluntleaf pondweed); Potamogeton ogdenii (Ogden's pondweed); Potamogeton perfoliatus (claspingleaf pondweed); Potamogeton praelongus (whitesterm pondweed); Pontamogeton pulcher (spotted pondweed); Potamogeton pusillus (small pondweed); Pontamogeton richardsonii (Richardson's pondweed); Potamogeton robbinsii (Robbins' pondweed); Potamogeton spirillus (spiral pondweed); Potamogeton strictifolius (narrowleaf pondweed); Potamogeton vaseyi (vasey's) ;
Potamogeton zosteriformis (flatsterm pondweed); Stuckenia pectinata (sago
pondweed)
Prunus SAME SPECIES persica Prunus sp. 14 SPECIES: Prunus alleghaniensis (Allegheny plum); Prunus americana (American plum); Prunus avium (sweet cherry); Prunus cerasus (sour cherry); Prunus domestica (European plum); Prunus mahaleb (Mahaleb cherry); Prunus maritima (beach plum); Prunus nigra (Canadian plum); Prunus pensylvanaica (pin cherry); Prunus persica (peach); Prunus serotina (black cherry); Prunus spinosa (blackthorn); Prunus susquehanae (Sesquehana sandcherry); Prunus viginiana (chokecherry) Quercus sp. 12 SPECIES: Quercus alba (white oak); Quercus bicolor (swamp white oak); Quercus coccinea (scarlet oak); Quercus ilicifolia (bear oak); Quercus macrocarpa (bur oak); Quercus muehlenbergii (chinkapin oak); Quercus palustris (pin oak); Quercus phellos (willow oak); Quercus prinoides (dwarf chinkapin oak); Quercus prinus (chestnut oak); Quercus rubra (northern red oak); Quercus stellata (post oak); Quercus velutina (black oak) Rhus sp. 8 SPECIES: Cotinus coggygria (European smoketree); Rhus aromatica (fragrant sumac); Rhus copallinum (winged sumac); Rhus glabra (smooth sumac); Rhus typhina (staghorn sumac); Toxicodendron radicans (eastern poison ivy); Toxicodendron rydbergii (western poision ivy); Toxicodendron vernix (poison sumac)
Rubus sp. 47 SPECIES: Dalibarda repens (robin runaway); Rubus allegheniensis (Allegheny blackberry); Rubus alumnus (oldfield blackberry); Rubus andrewsianus (Andrews' blackberry); Rubus aptatus (drybank dewberry); Rubus arenicola (sanddwelling dewberry); Rubus argutus (sawtooth blackberry); Rubus baileyanus (Bailey's dewberry); Rubus bigelovianus (lowland blackberry); Rubus canadensis (smooth blackberry); Rubus cuneifolius (sand blackberry); Rubus dissimilis (bristly Oswego blackberry); Rubus elegantulus (showy blackberry); Rubus flagellaris (northern dewberry); Rubus floricomus (manyflower blackberrry); Rubus fraternalis (northeastern dewberry); Rubus frondosus (yankee blackberry); Rubus gnarus (Pollock's Mill blackberry); Rubus hispidus (bristly dewberry); Rubus idaeus (American red raspberry); Rubus illecebrosus (strawberry raspberry); Rubus insons (New England blackberry); Rubus insulanus (island blackberry); Rubus laciniatus (cutleaf blackberry); Rubus multifer (kinnickinnick dewberry); Rubus multispinus (devil's blackberry); Rubus notatus (bristle berry); Rubus novanglicus (New England dewberry); Rubus obsessus (New York dewberry); Rubus occidentalis (black raspberry); Rubus odoratus (purpleflowering raspberry); Rubus parlinii (Parlin's dewberry); Rubus particeps (Kingston dewberry); Rubus pensilvanicus (Pennsylvania blackberry); Rubus pergratus (upland blackberry); Rubus philadelphicus (Philadelphia blackberry); Rubus phoenicolasius (wine raspberry); Rubus plicatifolius (plaitleaf dewberry); Rubus positivus (New London dewberry); Rubus pubescens (dwarf red blackberry); Rubus pugnax (pugnancious blackberry); Rubus recurvans (recurved blackberry); Rubus recurvicaulis (arching dewberry); Rubus rosa (rose blackberry); Rubus rossbergianus (Connecticut blackberry); Rubus
saltuensis (Tolland County blackberry); Rubus semisetosus (swamp
blackberry); Rubus setosus (setose blackberry); Rubus vermontanus (Vermont blackberry)
Scirpus sp. 37 SPECIES: Bulbostylis capillaris (densetuft hairsedge); Eleocharis equisetoides (jointed spikesedge); Eleocharis erythropoda (bald spikerush); Eleocharis obtusa (blunt spikerush); Eleocharis ovata (ovate spikerush); Eleocharis palustris (common spikerush); Eleocharis parvula (dwarf spikerush); Eleocharis quadrangulata (squarestem spikerush); Eleocharis rostellata (beaked spikerush); Eleocharis tenuis (slender spikerush); Eleocharis tuberculosa (cone-cup spikerush); Fimbristylis autumnalis (slender fimbry); Lipocarpha micrantha (smallflower halfchaff sedge); Schoenoplectus acutus (hardstem bulrush); Schoenoplectus americanus (chairmaker's bulrush); Schoenoplectus fluviatilis (river bulrush); Schoenoplectus maritimus (cosmopolitan bulrush); Schoenoplectus novae-angliae (New England bulrush); Schoenoplectus pungens (common threesquare); Schoenoplectus purshianus (weakstalk bulrush); Schoenoplectus robustus (sturdy bulrush); Schoenoplectus smithii (Smith's bulrush); Schoenoplectus subterminalis (swaying bulrush); Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani (softstem bulrush); Schoenoplectus torreyi (Torrey's bulrush); Scirpus atrocinctus (blackgirdle bulrush); Scirpus atrovirens (green bulrush); Scirpus cyperinus (woolgrass); Scirpus expansus (woodland bulrush); Scirpus georgianus (Georgia bulrush); Scirpus hattorianus (mosquito bulrush); Scirpus longii (Long's bulrush); Scirpus microcarpus (panicled bulrush); Scirpus pedicellatus (stalked bulrush); Scirpus pendulus (rufous bulrush); Scirpus polyphyllus (leafy bulrush); Trichophorum alpinu (alpine bulrush); Trichophorum planifolium
(bashful bulrush)
Triticum sp. 4 SPECIES: Elymus repens (quackgrass); Elymus trachycaulus (slender wheatgrass); Secale cereale (cereal rye); Triticum aestivum (common wheat)
Vaccinium 10 SPECIES: Ilex mucronata (catberry); Vaccinium angustifolium (lowbush sp. blueberry); Vaccinium corymbosum (highbush blueberry); Vaccinium fuscatum (black highbush blueberry); Vaccinium macrocarpon (cranberry); Vaccinium myrtilloides (velvetleaf huckleberry) ; Vaccinium oxycoccos (small cranberry); Vaccinium pallidum (Blue Ridge blueberry); Vaccinium stamineum (deerberry); Vaccinium vitis-idaea (lingonberry); Viburnum sp. 13 SPECIES : Viburnum acerifolium (maplefeaf viburnum); Viburnum dentatum (sounther arrowwood); Viburnum lantana (wayfaringtree); Viburnum lantanoides (hobblebush); Viburnum lentago (nannyberry); Viburnum nudum (possumhaw); Viburnum opulus (European cranberrybush); Viburnum plicatum (Japanese snowball); Viburnum prunifolium (blackhaw); Viburnum rafinesqueanum (downy arrowwood); Viburnum recognitum (southern arrrowwood); Viburnum setigerum (tea viburnum); Viburnum sieboldii (Siebold's arrowwood) Vicia sp. 7 SPECIES : Vicia cracca (bird vetch); Vicia faba (fava bean); Vicia hirsuta (tiny vetch); Vicia pannonica (Hungarian vetch); Vicia sativa (garden vetch); Vicia tetrasperma (lentil vetch); Vicia villosa (winter vetch)
Viola sp. 25 SPECIES : Hybanthus concolor (eastern greenviolet); Viola affinis (sand violent); Viola arvensis (European field pansy); Viola blanda (sweet white violet); Viola brittoniana (northern coastal violet); Viola canadensis (Canadian white violet); Viola cucullata (marsh blue violet); Viola hirsutula (southern
woodland violet); Viola labradorica (alpine violet); Viola lanceolata (bog
white violet); Viola macloskeyi (small white violet); Viola nephrophylla (northern bog violet); Viola odorata (sweet violet); Viola pedata (birdfoot violet); Viola pubesens (downy yellow violet); Viola renifolia (white violet); Viola rostrata (longspur violet); Viola rotundifolia (roundleaf yellow violet); Viola sagittata (arrowleaf violet); Viola selkirkii (Selkirk's violet); Viola septentrionalis (northern woodland violet); Viola sororia (common blue violet); Viola striata (striped cream violet); Viola tricolor (johnny jumpup); Viola triloba (three-lobe violet) Vitis sp. 5 SPECIES: Parthenocissus quinquefolia (Virginia creeper); Vitis aestivalis (summer grape); Vitis labrusca (fox grape); Vitis palmata (catbird grape); Vitis riparia (riverbank grape)
Zea mays SAME SPECIES
!
coniferous damp to dry mixed or dry deciduous dry deciduous WOODLAND alluvial cleared deciduous woodland mountain deciduous deciduous woods and CATEGORIZATION woods woodlands woods paths woods woods woods clearings Potamogeton sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prunus persica 0 0000000 Prunus sp. 0 0 0 00 000 Quercus sp. 0 0 0 00 010 Rhus sp. 0 0 0 00 000 Rubus sp. 0 0 0 00 000 Scirpus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Triticum sp. 0 0 0 00 000 Vaccinium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Viburnum sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Vicia sp. 0 0 0 00 000 Viola sp. 0 0 0 00 000 Vitis sp. 0 0 0 00 000 Zea mays 0 0000000 dry sandy dry open dry rich dry rocky dry rocky or dry sandy deciduous dry to mesic WOODLAND deciduous dry open deciduous decidious sandy soil in alluvial woods and deciduous CATEGORIZATION woods woods woods woods open woods woods clearings woods Acalypha sp. 00000 00 0 Asclepias sp. 00000 00 0 Carex sp. 10101 11 0 Carpinus caroliniana 00000 00 0 Carya sp. 00000 00 0 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 00000 00 0 Comptonia peregrina 00000 00 0 Cornus sp. 00000 00 0 Corylus sp. 00000 00 0 Crataegus sp. 00000 00 0 Cucurbita sp. 00000 00 0 Cyperus sp. 00000 00 0 Galium sp. 00000 00 0 Gaylussacia sp. 00000 00 0 Ilex sp. 00000 00 0 Juglans cinerea 00000 00 0 Juglans nigra 00000 00 0 Juglans sp. 00000 00 0 Juncus sp. 00000 00 0 Lactuca sp. 00000 00 0 Myrica pensylvanica 00000 00 0 Nyssa sylvatica 00000 00 0 Phaselous vulgaris 00000 00 0 Phytolacca americana 00000 00 0 Polygonum hydropiper 00000 00 0 Polygonum sp. 01000 00 0 Portulaca sp. 00000 00 0 dry sandy dry open dry rich dry rocky dry rocky or dry sandy deciduous dry to mesic WOODLAND deciduous dry open deciduous decidious sandy soil in alluvial woods and deciduous CATEGORIZATION woods woods woods woods open woods woods clearings woods Potamogeton sp. 00000 00 0 Prunus persica 00000 00 0 Prunus sp. 00000 00 0 Quercus sp. 0 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 Rhus sp. 01000 00 0 Rubus sp. 00000 00 0 Scirpus sp. 00000 00 1 Triticum sp. 00000 00 0 Vaccinium sp. 01000 00 0 Viburnum sp. 00000 00 0 Vicia sp. 00000 00 0 Viola sp. 01000 00 0 Vitis sp. 00000 00 0 Zea mays 00000 00 0 fertile dry upland dry, often dry, often decidious or mixed WOODLAND fields and rocky sandy dry, sandy or mixed floodplain mesic mixed CATEGORIZATION woods dry woods woods woodlands rocky woods woods forests woods woods Acalypha sp. 0 000 0 0 000 Asclepias sp. 0 100 0 0 000 Carex sp. 0 100 1 0 110 Carpinus caroliniana 0 000 0 0 000 Carya sp. 0 000 0 0 001 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 0 010 0 0 000 Comptonia peregrina 0 000 0 0 000 Cornus sp. 0 100 0 0 000 Corylus sp. 0 000 0 0 000 Crataegus sp. 0 000 0 0 000 Cucurbita sp. 0 000 0 0 000 Cyperus sp. 0 001 0 0 000 Galium sp. 0 000 0 0 000 Gaylussacia sp. 0 100 0 0 000 Ilex sp. 0 000 0 0 000 Juglans cinerea 0 000 0 0 000 Juglans nigra 0 000 0 0 000 Juglans sp. 0 000 0 0 001 Juncus sp. 0 000 0 0 000 Lactuca sp. 0 000 0 0 000 Myrica pensylvanica 0 000 0 0 000 Nyssa sylvatica 0 000 0 0 000 Phaselous vulgaris 0 000 0 0 000 Phytolacca americana 0 000 0 0 000 Polygonum hydropiper 0 000 0 0 000 Polygonum sp. 0 000 0 0 000 Portulaca sp. 0 000 0 0 000 fertile dry upland dry, often dry, often decidious or mixed WOODLAND fields and rocky sandy dry, sandy or mixed floodplain mesic mixed CATEGORIZATION woods dry woods woods woodlands rocky woods woods forests woods woods Potamogeton sp. 0 000 0 0 000 Prunus persica 0 000 0 0 000 Prunus sp. 0 100 0 0 000 Quercus sp. 1 001 0 1 001 Rhus sp. 0 000 0 0 000 Rubus sp. 0 000 0 0 000 Scirpus sp. 0 000 0 0 000 Triticum sp. 0 000 0 0 000 Vaccinium sp. 0 100 0 0 000 Viburnum sp. 0 100 0 0 000 Vicia sp. 0 000 0 0 000 Viola sp. 0 100 0 0 000 Vitis sp. 0 000 0 0 000 Zea mays 0 000 0 0 000 moist or wet moist low moist often moist open open or open open WOODLAND woods and coniferous deciduous woodland coniferous deciduous open often CATEGORIZATION thickets woods woods soil moist woods woods woods moist woods Acalypha sp. 00000000 Asclepias sp. 00000000 Carex sp. 00101110 Carpinus caroliniana 00000000 Carya sp. 00000010 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 00000000 Comptonia peregrina 00000010 Cornus sp. 01000000 Corylus sp. 00000000 Crataegus sp. 00000000 Cucurbita sp. 00000000 Cyperus sp. 00010000 Galium sp. 00000000 Gaylussacia sp. 00000000 Ilex sp. 00001000 Juglans cinerea 00000000 Juglans nigra 00000000 Juglans sp. 00000000 Juncus sp. 00000000 Lactuca sp. 00000000 Myrica pensylvanica 00000000 Nyssa sylvatica 00001000 Phaselous vulgaris 00000000 Phytolacca americana 00000000 Polygonum hydropiper 00000000 Polygonum sp. 10000000 Portulaca sp. 00000000 moist or wet moist low moist often moist open open or open open WOODLAND woods and coniferous deciduous woodland coniferous deciduous open often CATEGORIZATION thickets woods woods soil moist woods woods woods moist woods Potamogeton sp. 00000000 Prunus persica 00000000 Prunus sp. 00001000 Quercus sp. 00001000 Rhus sp. 00000000 Rubus sp. 00001001 Scirpus sp. 00000000 Triticum sp. 00000000 Vaccinium sp. 00001000 Viburnum sp. 00001000 Vicia sp. 00000000 Viola sp. 00001000 Vitis sp. 00000000 Zea mays 00000000 rich rich rich moist WOODLAND open wet deciduous rich dry hardwood rich mixed deciduous rich moist CATEGORIZATION woods pine woods woods woods forests woods woods woods Acalypha sp. 00000000 Asclepias sp. 00000000 Carex sp. 11111111 Carpinus caroliniana 00000010 Carya sp. 00100000 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 00000000 Comptonia peregrina 00000000 Cornus sp. 00000000 Corylus sp. 00000000 Crataegus sp. 00000000 Cucurbita sp. 00000000 Cyperus sp. 00000000 Galium sp. 00000000 Gaylussacia sp. 00000000 Ilex sp. 00000000 Juglans cinerea 00100000 Juglans nigra 00100000 Juglans sp. 00100000 Juncus sp. 00000000 Lactuca sp. 00000000 Myrica pensylvanica 00000000 Nyssa sylvatica 00000000 Phaselous vulgaris 00000000 Phytolacca americana 00000000 Polygonum hydropiper 00000000 Polygonum sp. 00000010 Portulaca sp. 00000000 rich rich rich moist WOODLAND open wet deciduous rich dry hardwood rich mixed deciduous rich moist CATEGORIZATION woods pine woods woods woods forests woods woods woods Potamogeton sp. 00000000 Prunus persica 00000000 Prunus sp. 00000000 Quercus sp. 00000000 Rhus sp. 00000000 Rubus sp. 00000000 Scirpus sp. 00000010 Triticum sp. 00000000 Vaccinium sp. 00000000 Viburnum sp. 00000000 Vicia sp. 00000000 Viola sp. 00010001 Vitis sp. 00000000 Zea mays 00000000 rich, low, damp rich, often rocky upland wet WOODLAND rich wet deciduous calcareous wooded deciduous deciduous CATEGORIZATION woods rich woods woods woods slopes rocky woods woods woods Acalypha sp. 00000000 Asclepias sp. 00000000 Carex sp. 01101011 Carpinus caroliniana 00000000 Carya sp. 00000000 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 00000000 Comptonia peregrina 00000000 Cornus sp. 01000000 Corylus sp. 00000000 Crataegus sp. 00000000 Cucurbita sp. 00000000 Cyperus sp. 00000000 Galium sp. 00000000 Gaylussacia sp. 00000000 Ilex sp. 00000000 Juglans cinerea 00000000 Juglans nigra 00000000 Juglans sp. 00000000 Juncus sp. 00000000 Lactuca sp. 00000000 Myrica pensylvanica 00000000 Nyssa sylvatica 00000000 Phaselous vulgaris 00000000 Phytolacca americana 00000000 Polygonum hydropiper 00000000 Polygonum sp. 00000000 Portulaca sp. 00000000 rich, low, damp rich, often rocky upland wet WOODLAND rich wet deciduous calcareous wooded deciduous deciduous CATEGORIZATION woods rich woods woods woods slopes rocky woods woods woods Potamogeton sp. 00000000 Prunus persica 00000000 Prunus sp. 00000000 Quercus sp. 01000000 Rhus sp. 00000000 Rubus sp. 00000100 Scirpus sp. 00000000 Triticum sp. 00000000 Vaccinium sp. 00000000 Viburnum sp. 00000100 Vicia sp. 00000000 Viola sp. 11010000 Vitis sp. 00000000 Zea mays 00000000 Total Woodland Spcecies Represented WOODLAND wet mixed wooded woodland woodland Per Plant CATEGORIZATION woods wet woods swamps borders openings woodlands woods Type Acalypha sp. 00000000 Asclepias sp. 00110115 Carex sp. 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 35 Carpinus caroliniana 00000001 Carya sp. 00000004 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 00000001 Comptonia peregrina 00000001 Cornus sp. 01100005 Corylus sp. 00010002 Crataegus sp. 00010001 Cucurbita sp. 00000000 Cyperus sp. 00000003 Galium sp. 01110104 Gaylussacia sp. 00000001 Ilex sp. 01100104 Juglans cinerea 00000001 Juglans nigra 00000001 Juglans sp. 00000003 Juncus sp. 01100003 Lactuca sp. 00000000 Myrica pensylvanica 00000000 Nyssa sylvatica 01100003 Phaselous vulgaris 00000000 Phytolacca americana 00000000 Polygonum hydropiper 00000000 Polygonum sp. 00101005 Portulaca sp. 00000000 Total Woodland Spcecies Represented WOODLAND wet mixed wooded woodland woodland Per Plant CATEGORIZATION woods wet woods swamps borders openings woodlands woods Type Potamogeton sp. 00000000 Prunus persica 00000000 Prunus sp. 00011004 Quercus sp. 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 20 Rhus sp. 00110003 Rubus sp. 00110106 Scirpus sp. 01100004 Triticum sp. 00000000 Vaccinium sp. 01100005 Viburnum sp. 00100016 Vicia sp. 00000000 Viola sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 10 Vitis sp. 00000101 Zea mays 00000000 !"!#$%#&$' ,/*0)1!0&$' $!23'0%'$-4' $-4'%3&#' FIELD CATEGORIZATION ()&*$+ ,*&!-)#.+ .-%/#$ 2&$%5+ $-4'()&*$+ $-4'2&!$%5+ .-%/#$ $-4'%3&#'+%)* Acalypha sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Asclepias sp. 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 Carex sp. 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 Carpinus caroliniana 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Carya sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 6 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 Comptonia peregrina 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 Cornus sp. 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Corylus sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Crataegus sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Cucurbita sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Cyperus sp. 7 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 Galium sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Gaylussacia sp. 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 Ilex sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Juglans cinerea 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Juglans nigra 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Juglans sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Juncus sp. 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 7 Lactuca sp. 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 Myrica pensylvanica 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Nyssa sylvatica 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Phaselous vulgaris 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 Phytolacca americana 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 Polygonum hydropiper 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Polygonum sp. 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 !"!#$%#&$' ,/*0)1!0&$' $!23'0%'$-4' $-4'%3&#' FIELD CATEGORIZATION ()&*$+ ,*&!-)#.+ .-%/#$ 2&$%5+ $-4'()&*$+ $-4'2&!$%5+ .-%/#$ $-4'%3&#'+%)* Portulaca sp. 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 Potamogeton sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Prunus persica 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Prunus sp. 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Quercus sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Rhus sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Rubus sp. 6 7 6 6 7 6 6 6 Scirpus sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Triticum sp. 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 Vaccinium sp. 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 Viburnum sp. 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 Vicia sp. 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 Viola sp. 7 7 7 6 6 7 6 6 Vitis sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Zea mays 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 $-48'+!#$4' &$.&+'%(' ()&*$' 2%)+0' FIELD CATEGORIZATION ()&*$+ ()&*$+ (&#,&-%5+ ()&*$+ .!-$&#+ 2&!$%5+ 2%)+0'()&*$+ 2&!$%5+ Acalypha sp. 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 Asclepias sp. 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 Carex sp. 6 6 6 7 6 7 7 6 Carpinus caroliniana 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Carya sp. 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 6 6 6 7 7 6 6 6 Comptonia peregrina 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Cornus sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Corylus sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Crataegus sp. 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 Cucurbita sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Cyperus sp. 6 6 6 7 6 6 7 6 Galium sp. 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 Gaylussacia sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Ilex sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Juglans cinerea 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Juglans nigra 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Juglans sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Juncus sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Lactuca sp. 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 Myrica pensylvanica 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Nyssa sylvatica 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Phaselous vulgaris 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Phytolacca americana 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 Polygonum hydropiper 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Polygonum sp. 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 $-48'+!#$4' &$.&+'%(' ()&*$' 2%)+0' FIELD CATEGORIZATION ()&*$+ ()&*$+ (&#,&-%5+ ()&*$+ .!-$&#+ 2&!$%5+ 2%)+0'()&*$+ 2&!$%5+ Portulaca sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Potamogeton sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Prunus persica 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Prunus sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Quercus sp. 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 Rhus sp. 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 Rubus sp. 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 Scirpus sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Triticum sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Vaccinium sp. 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 Viburnum sp. 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 Vicia sp. 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 Viola sp. 7 6 6 7 6 7 7 7 Vitis sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Zea mays 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 2%)+0'%3&#' 2%)+0'%3&#' FIELD CATEGORIZATION +%)* +%)* %*$'()&*$+ %*$'3!+0/-&+ %3&#'!-&!+ %3&#'5%%$+ %3&#)#.+ 3!+0/-&+ Acalypha sp. 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 Asclepias sp. 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 Carex sp. 6 6 6 6 7 7 6 7 Carpinus caroliniana 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Carya sp. 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 Comptonia peregrina 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Cornus sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Corylus sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Crataegus sp. 6 6 6 7 6 7 6 7 Cucurbita sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Cyperus sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Galium sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Gaylussacia sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Ilex sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Juglans cinerea 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Juglans nigra 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Juglans sp. 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 Juncus sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 Lactuca sp. 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 Myrica pensylvanica 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Nyssa sylvatica 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Phaselous vulgaris 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Phytolacca americana 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Polygonum hydropiper 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 Polygonum sp. 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 7 2%)+0'%3&#' 2%)+0'%3&#' FIELD CATEGORIZATION +%)* +%)* %*$'()&*$+ %*$'3!+0/-&+ %3&#'!-&!+ %3&#'5%%$+ %3&#)#.+ 3!+0/-&+ Portulaca sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Potamogeton sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Prunus persica 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Prunus sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Quercus sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Rhus sp. 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 6 Rubus sp. 6 6 6 6 7 7 6 6 Scirpus sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Triticum sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Vaccinium sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Viburnum sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Vicia sp. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Viola sp. 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 6 Vitis sp. 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 Zea mays 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 9%0!*':)&*$' ;3,&,)&+' 5&&$')#' <&3-&+�&$' ,/*0)1!0&$' 5&0' 5&08'2/$$4' =&-'=*!#0' FIELD CATEGORIZATION .-%/#$ 5&0'()&*$+ 2&!$%5+ %3&#'!-&!+ 943& Acalypha sp. 6 6 6 6 > Asclepias sp. 6 6 6 6 ? Carex sp. 6 6 7 6 7? Carpinus caroliniana 6 6 6 6 6 Carya sp. 6 6 6 6 @ Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 6 6 6 6 A Comptonia peregrina 6 6 6 6 7 Cornus sp. 6 6 6 6 7 Corylus sp. 6 6 6 6 6 Crataegus sp. 6 6 6 6 @ Cucurbita sp. 6 6 6 6 6 Cyperus sp. 7 6 6 6 A Galium sp. 6 6 7 6 > Gaylussacia sp. 6 6 6 6 7 Ilex sp. 6 6 6 6 6 Juglans cinerea 6 6 6 6 6 Juglans nigra 6 6 6 6 6 Juglans sp. 6 6 6 6 7 Juncus sp. 6 6 7 6 @ Lactuca sp. 6 6 6 6 ? Myrica pensylvanica 6 6 6 6 6 Nyssa sylvatica 6 6 6 6 6 Phaselous vulgaris 6 6 6 6 7 Phytolacca americana 6 6 6 6 > Polygonum hydropiper 6 6 7 6 > Polygonum sp. 6 6 7 6 B 9%0!*':)&*$' ;3,&,)&+' 5&&$')#' <&3-&+�&$' ,/*0)1!0&$' 5&0' 5&08'2/$$4' =&-'=*!#0' FIELD CATEGORIZATION .-%/#$ 5&0'()&*$+ 2&!$%5+ %3&#'!-&!+ 943& Portulaca sp. 6 6 6 6 7 Potamogeton sp. 6 6 6 6 6 Prunus persica 6 6 6 6 6 Prunus sp. 6 6 6 6 7 Quercus sp. 6 6 6 6 7 Rhus sp. 6 6 6 6 ? Rubus sp. 6 7 6 6 C Scirpus sp. 6 6 7 7 > Triticum sp. 6 6 6 6 7 Vaccinium sp. 6 6 6 6 > Viburnum sp. 6 6 6 6 > Vicia sp. 6 6 6 6 > Viola sp. 6 7 7 6 7A Vitis sp. 6 6 6 6 7 Zea mays 6 6 6 6 7 brackish or along alpine pools borders of saline brackish river WETLAND CATEGORIZATION streams and ponds bog margins bogs salt marshes bottomlands marshes shores Acalypha sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Asclepias sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carex sp. 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 Carpinus caroliniana 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carya sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Comptonia peregrina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cornus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corylus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crataegus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cucurbita sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cyperus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Galium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gaylussacia sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ilex sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Juglans cinerea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans nigra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juncus sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lactuca sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Myrica pensylvanica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nyssa sylvatica 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Phaselous vulgaris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phytolacca americana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polygonum hydropiper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 brackish or along alpine pools borders of saline brackish river WETLAND CATEGORIZATION streams and ponds bog margins bogs salt marshes bottomlands marshes shores Polygonum sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Portulaca sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potamogeton sp. 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Prunus persica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prunus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quercus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Rhus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rubus sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Scirpus sp. 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Triticum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vaccinium sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Viburnum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vicia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Viola sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Vitis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zea mays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 brackish salt and poluted coniferous lakes and calcareous chamaecypari wooded costal river deciduous WETLAND CATEGORIZATION rivers bogs s swamps swamps shores swamps deep water Acalypha sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Asclepias sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carex sp. 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 Carpinus caroliniana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carya sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Comptonia peregrina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cornus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corylus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crataegus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cucurbita sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cyperus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Galium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gaylussacia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ilex sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans cinerea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans nigra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juncus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lactuca sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Myrica pensylvanica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nyssa sylvatica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phaselous vulgaris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phytolacca americana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polygonum hydropiper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 brackish salt and poluted coniferous lakes and calcareous chamaecypari wooded costal river deciduous WETLAND CATEGORIZATION rivers bogs s swamps swamps shores swamps deep water Polygonum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Portulaca sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potamogeton sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Prunus persica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prunus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quercus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rubus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scirpus sp. 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Triticum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vaccinium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Viburnum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vicia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Viola sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vitis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zea mays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fresh to fresh, fresh brackish calcarious, deep to calcareous medows and brackish or lake and river WETLAND CATEGORIZATION shallow water lakes fresh marshes marshes salt water margins lake margins Acalypha sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Asclepias sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carex sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Carpinus caroliniana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carya sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Comptonia peregrina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cornus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corylus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crataegus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cucurbita sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cyperus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Galium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gaylussacia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ilex sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans cinerea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans nigra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juncus sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lactuca sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Myrica pensylvanica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nyssa sylvatica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phaselous vulgaris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phytolacca americana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polygonum hydropiper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fresh to fresh, fresh brackish calcarious, deep to calcareous medows and brackish or lake and river WETLAND CATEGORIZATION shallow water lakes fresh marshes marshes salt water margins lake margins Polygonum sp. 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 Portulaca sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potamogeton sp. 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Prunus persica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prunus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quercus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rubus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scirpus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Triticum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vaccinium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Viburnum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vicia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Viola sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vitis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zea mays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 muddy and lakes, ponds, lakes, ponds, sandy pond and quiet rivers and low, swampy marshy and river WETLAND CATEGORIZATION lake shores rivers streams woods marshes ditches shores Acalypha sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Asclepias sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carex sp. 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 Carpinus caroliniana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carya sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Comptonia peregrina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cornus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corylus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crataegus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cucurbita sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cyperus sp. 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Galium sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Gaylussacia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ilex sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans cinerea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans nigra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juncus sp. 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Lactuca sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Myrica pensylvanica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nyssa sylvatica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phaselous vulgaris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phytolacca americana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polygonum hydropiper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 muddy and lakes, ponds, lakes, ponds, sandy pond and quiet rivers and low, swampy marshy and river WETLAND CATEGORIZATION lake shores rivers streams woods marshes ditches shores Polygonum sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Portulaca sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potamogeton sp. 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Prunus persica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prunus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quercus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rubus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scirpus sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Triticum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vaccinium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Viburnum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vicia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Viola sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Vitis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zea mays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 northern muddy and muddy pond cedar open sandy river and stream swamps and often along deciduous open shurb pine barren WETLAND CATEGORIZATION margins margins bogs rivers swamps swamps swamps Acalypha sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Asclepias sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carex sp. 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 Carpinus caroliniana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carya sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Comptonia peregrina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cornus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corylus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crataegus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cucurbita sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cyperus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Galium sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Gaylussacia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ilex sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans cinerea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans nigra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juncus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lactuca sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Myrica pensylvanica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nyssa sylvatica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phaselous vulgaris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phytolacca americana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polygonum hydropiper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 northern muddy and muddy pond cedar open sandy river and stream swamps and often along deciduous open shurb pine barren WETLAND CATEGORIZATION margins margins bogs rivers swamps swamps swamps Polygonum sp. 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Portulaca sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potamogeton sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prunus persica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prunus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quercus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rubus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scirpus sp. 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Triticum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vaccinium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Viburnum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vicia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Viola sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vitis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zea mays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pond and pond and ponds and pond and lake pond and pond and stream stream sluggish WETLAND CATEGORIZATION margins river margins river shores borders margins pond margins streams Acalypha sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Asclepias sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Carex sp. 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 Carpinus caroliniana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carya sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Comptonia peregrina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cornus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corylus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crataegus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cucurbita sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cyperus sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Galium sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Gaylussacia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ilex sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Juglans cinerea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans nigra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juncus sp. 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lactuca sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Myrica pensylvanica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nyssa sylvatica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phaselous vulgaris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phytolacca americana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polygonum hydropiper 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 pond and pond and ponds and pond and lake pond and pond and stream stream sluggish WETLAND CATEGORIZATION margins river margins river shores borders margins pond margins streams Polygonum sp. 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 Portulaca sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potamogeton sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Prunus persica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prunus sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Quercus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhus sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Rubus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scirpus sp. 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 Triticum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vaccinium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Viburnum sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Vicia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Viola sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Vitis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zea mays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ponds and ponds, lakes streams in and slow pools and quiet acid rich WETLAND CATEGORIZATION shallow water streams muddy shores water quiet water bottomlands river borders Acalypha sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Asclepias sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carex sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpinus caroliniana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carya sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Comptonia peregrina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cornus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corylus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crataegus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cucurbita sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cyperus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Galium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gaylussacia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ilex sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans cinerea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans nigra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juncus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lactuca sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Myrica pensylvanica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nyssa sylvatica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phaselous vulgaris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phytolacca americana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polygonum hydropiper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ponds and ponds, lakes streams in and slow pools and quiet acid rich WETLAND CATEGORIZATION shallow water streams muddy shores water quiet water bottomlands river borders Polygonum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Portulaca sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potamogeton sp. 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 Prunus persica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prunus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quercus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Rhus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rubus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scirpus sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Triticum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vaccinium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Viburnum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vicia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Viola sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Vitis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zea mays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rocky or sandy streambeds salt and sandy or and brackish gravelly lake WETLAND CATEGORIZATION river margins river shores river thickets riverbanks streambanks marshes sores Acalypha sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Asclepias sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carex sp. 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Carpinus caroliniana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carya sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Comptonia peregrina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cornus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corylus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crataegus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cucurbita sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cyperus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Galium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gaylussacia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ilex sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans cinerea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans nigra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juncus sp. 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Lactuca sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Myrica pensylvanica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nyssa sylvatica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phaselous vulgaris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phytolacca americana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polygonum hydropiper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rocky or sandy streambeds salt and sandy or and brackish gravelly lake WETLAND CATEGORIZATION river margins river shores river thickets riverbanks streambanks marshes sores Polygonum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Portulaca sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potamogeton sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prunus persica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prunus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quercus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rubus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scirpus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Triticum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vaccinium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Viburnum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vicia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Viola sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Vitis sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Zea mays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 shallow water of ponds and shallow, creeks, calcareous shores of shallow acid shallow quiet sometimes ponds and lakes and shores of shrub WETLAND CATEGORIZATION water water shallow water tidal lakes rivers tidal rivers swamps Acalypha sp. 0 0 0 0 0000 Asclepias sp. 0 0 0 0 0000 Carex sp. 0 0 0 0 0001 Carpinus caroliniana 0 0 0 0 0000 Carya sp. 0 0 0 0 0000 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 0 0 0 0 0100 Comptonia peregrina 0 0 0 0 0000 Cornus sp. 0 0 0 0 0001 Corylus sp. 0 0 0 0 0000 Crataegus sp. 0 0 0 0 0000 Cucurbita sp. 0 0 0 0 0000 Cyperus sp. 0 0 0 0 0100 Galium sp. 0 0 0 0 0000 Gaylussacia sp. 0 0 0 0 0000 Ilex sp. 0 0 0 0 0000 Juglans cinerea 0 0 0 0 0000 Juglans nigra 0 0 0 0 0000 Juglans sp. 0 0 0 0 0000 Juncus sp. 0 0 1 0 0000 Lactuca sp. 0 0 0 0 0000 Myrica pensylvanica 0 0 0 0 0000 Nyssa sylvatica 0 0 0 0 0000 Phaselous vulgaris 0 0 0 0 0000 Phytolacca americana 0 0 0 0 0000 Polygonum hydropiper 0 0 0 0 0000 shallow water of ponds and shallow, creeks, calcareous shores of shallow acid shallow quiet sometimes ponds and lakes and shores of shrub WETLAND CATEGORIZATION water water shallow water tidal lakes rivers tidal rivers swamps Polygonum sp. 0 0 1 0 0000 Portulaca sp. 0 0 0 0 0000 Potamogeton sp. 1 1 1 0 1000 Prunus persica 0 0 0 0 0000 Prunus sp. 0 0 0 0 0000 Quercus sp. 0 0 0 0 0000 Rhus sp. 0 0 0 0 0000 Rubus sp. 0 0 0 0 0000 Scirpus sp. 0 0 1 1 0110 Triticum sp. 0 0 0 0 0000 Vaccinium sp. 0 0 0 0 0001 Viburnum sp. 0 0 0 0 0001 Vicia sp. 0 0 0 0 0000 Viola sp. 0 0 0 0 0000 Vitis sp. 0 0 0 0 0000 Zea mays 0 0 0 0 0000 sphagnum stream and stream and stream stream WETLAND CATEGORIZATION bogs springs springy areas river borders river edges stream banks borders margins Acalypha sp. 00 0 0 0 000 Asclepias sp. 00 0 0 0 000 Carex sp. 10 1 0 0 100 Carpinus caroliniana 00 0 0 0 000 Carya sp. 00 0 0 0 000 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 00 0 0 0 000 Comptonia peregrina 00 0 0 0 000 Cornus sp. 00 0 0 0 010 Corylus sp. 00 0 0 0 000 Crataegus sp. 00 0 0 0 010 Cucurbita sp. 00 0 0 0 000 Cyperus sp. 00 0 0 0 000 Galium sp. 00 0 0 1 000 Gaylussacia sp. 00 0 0 0 000 Ilex sp. 00 0 0 0 000 Juglans cinerea 00 0 0 0 000 Juglans nigra 00 0 0 0 000 Juglans sp. 00 0 0 0 000 Juncus sp. 00 0 0 0 000 Lactuca sp. 00 0 0 0 000 Myrica pensylvanica 00 0 0 0 000 Nyssa sylvatica 00 0 0 0 000 Phaselous vulgaris 00 0 0 0 000 Phytolacca americana 00 0 0 0 000 Polygonum hydropiper 00 0 0 0 000 sphagnum stream and stream and stream stream WETLAND CATEGORIZATION bogs springs springy areas river borders river edges stream banks borders margins Polygonum sp. 00 0 0 0 000 Portulaca sp. 00 0 0 0 000 Potamogeton sp. 01 0 0 0 000 Prunus persica 00 0 0 0 000 Prunus sp. 00 0 0 0 010 Quercus sp. 00 0 0 0 001 Rhus sp. 00 0 0 0 000 Rubus sp. 00 0 0 0 000 Scirpus sp. 00 0 0 0 000 Triticum sp. 00 0 0 0 000 Vaccinium sp. 00 0 0 0 000 Viburnum sp. 00 0 0 0 000 Vicia sp. 00 0 0 0 000 Viola sp. 00 0 1 0 110 Vitis sp. 00 0 0 0 000 Zea mays 00 0 0 0 000 Total Wetland Spcecies swamps and Represented bogs along Thuja wet, sandy and wooded Per Plant WETLAND CATEGORIZATION streamsides swamps the coast swamps tidal rivers peaty shores swamps Type Acalypha sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Asclepias sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Carex sp. 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 34 Carpinus caroliniana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Carya sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 Comptonia peregrina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cornus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 Corylus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crataegus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Cucurbita sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cyperus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Galium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 Gaylussacia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Ilex sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 Juglans cinerea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans nigra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juncus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 Lactuca sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Myrica pensylvanica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nyssa sylvatica 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Phaselous vulgaris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phytolacca americana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polygonum hydropiper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total Wetland Spcecies swamps and Represented bogs along Thuja wet, sandy and wooded Per Plant WETLAND CATEGORIZATION streamsides swamps the coast swamps tidal rivers peaty shores swamps Type Polygonum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 Portulaca sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potamogeton sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Prunus persica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prunus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Quercus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 Rhus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Rubus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Scirpus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 23 Triticum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vaccinium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 Viburnum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 Vicia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Viola sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Vitis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Zea mays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 saline, brackish and mostly near calcareous along the dry sandy soil mostly near the coastal near the soil along the COASTAL CATEGORIZATION coast beaches along coast dunes the coast plain coast coast Acalypha sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Asclepias sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carex sp. 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Carpinus caroliniana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carya sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Comptonia peregrina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cornus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corylus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crataegus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cucurbita sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cyperus sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Galium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gaylussacia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ilex sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Juglans cinerea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans nigra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juncus sp. 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Lactuca sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Myrica pensylvanica 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Nyssa sylvatica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phaselous vulgaris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phytolacca americana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polygonum hydropiper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 saline, brackish and mostly near calcareous along the dry sandy soil mostly near the coastal near the soil along the COASTAL CATEGORIZATION coast beaches along coast dunes the coast plain coast coast Polygonum sp. 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Portulaca sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potamogeton sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prunus persica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prunus sp. 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Quercus sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rubus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Scirpus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Triticum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vaccinium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Viburnum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vicia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Viola sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Vitis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zea mays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Coastal Spcecies turf and wet sandy Represented sands along gravel near soil near the Per Plant COASTAL CATEGORIZATION sand bars sand dunes the coast sea beaches the coast coast Type Acalypha sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Asclepias sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carex sp. 0 1 1 1 1 0 6 Carpinus caroliniana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carya sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Comptonia peregrina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cornus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corylus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crataegus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cucurbita sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Cyperus sp. 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 Galium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gaylussacia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Ilex sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Juglans cinerea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans nigra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juglans sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juncus sp. 0 1 0 1 0 0 5 Lactuca sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Myrica pensylvanica 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Nyssa sylvatica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phaselous vulgaris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phytolacca americana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polygonum hydropiper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Coastal Spcecies turf and wet sandy Represented sands along gravel near soil near the Per Plant COASTAL CATEGORIZATION sand bars sand dunes the coast sea beaches the coast coast Type Polygonum sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 Portulaca sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potamogeton sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prunus persica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prunus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Quercus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Rhus sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Rubus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Scirpus sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 Triticum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vaccinium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Viburnum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vicia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Viola sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Vitis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zea mays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ANTHROPOGENIC !"#$%& !'#+$)& )(*.'+/-)& )(*.+'/-)& %'!4-"& #")&1-""-'& DISTURBANCE '!("'#!)* ,#+*-* !'-!* 0-.&*#(" )(.1,-* )+23* 3(.* "!0$* ,#"-* Acalypha sp. 5 5 5 55555 5 Asclepias sp. 5 5 5 55555 5 Carex sp. 5 5 5 56556 5 Carpinus caroliniana 5 5 5 55555 5 Carya sp. 5 5 5 55555 5 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 5 5 5 55555 5 Comptonia peregrina 5 5 5 55565 5 Cornus sp. 5 5 5 55555 5 Corylus sp. 5 5 5 55555 5 Crataegus sp. 5 5 5 55555 5 Cucurbita sp. 5 5 5 55655 5 Cyperus sp. 5 5 5 55555 5 Galium sp. 5 5 5 55555 5 Gaylussacia sp. 5 5 5 55555 5 Ilex sp. 5 5 5 55555 5 Juglans cinerea 5 5 5 55555 5 Juglans nigra 5 5 5 55555 5 Juglans sp. 5 5 5 55555 5 Juncus sp. 6 5 6 66555 5 Lactuca sp. 5 5 5 55555 5 Myrica pensylvanica 5 5 5 55555 5 Nyssa sylvatica 5 5 5 55555 5 Phaselous vulgaris 5 6 5 55555 5 ANTHROPOGENIC !"#$%& !'#+$)& )(*.'+/-)& )(*.+'/-)& %'!4-"& #")&1-""-'& DISTURBANCE '!("'#!)* ,#+*-* !'-!* 0-.&*#(" )(.1,-* )+23* 3(.* "!0$* ,#"-* Phytolacca americana 5 5 5 55555 5 Polygonum hydropiper 5 5 5 55555 5 Polygonum sp. 5 5 5 55556 5 Portulaca sp. 5 5 5 55555 5 Potamogeton sp. 5 5 5 56555 5 Prunus persica 5 5 5 55555 5 Prunus sp. 5 5 5 55555 6 Quercus sp. 5 5 5 55555 5 Rhus sp. 5 5 5 55555 5 Rubus sp. 5 5 5 55555 5 Scirpus sp. 5 5 5 56555 5 Triticum sp. 5 5 5 55555 5 Vaccinium sp. 5 5 5 55555 5 Viburnum sp. 5 5 5 55555 5 Vicia sp. 5 5 5 55555 5 Viola sp. 5 6 5 55555 5 Vitis sp. 5 5 5 55555 5 Zea mays 5 5 5 55655 5 9#.!"& :$.,'#3#%-$(1& *!$)7& ;31-1(-*& ANTHROPOGENIC '#!)*()-*& *()-0!"8& *.#$-& 0!*.-& <-3'-*-$.-)& DISTURBANCE 3#0-'"($-* '#!)*()-* !$)&.,(18-.* 1'!18* 0!""* 3"!1-* =-'&="!$.&973- Acalypha sp. 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 Asclepias sp. 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 Carex sp. 5 6 5 5 5 6 > Carpinus caroliniana 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Carya sp. 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 Chenopodium - Amaranthus sp. 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 Comptonia peregrina 5 6 5 5 5 6 ? Cornus sp. 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 Corylus sp. 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 Crataegus sp. 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 Cucurbita sp. 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 Cyperus sp. 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 Galium sp. 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 Gaylussacia sp. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Ilex sp. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Juglans cinerea 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Juglans nigra 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Juglans sp. 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 Juncus sp. 5 6 5 5 5 6 @ Lactuca sp. 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 Myrica pensylvanica 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Nyssa sylvatica 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Phaselous vulgaris 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 9#.!"& :$.,'#3#%-$(1& *!$)7& ;31-1(-*& ANTHROPOGENIC '#!)*()-*& *()-0!"8& *.#$-& 0!*.-& <-3'-*-$.-)& DISTURBANCE 3#0-'"($-* '#!)*()-* !$)&.,(18-.* 1'!18* 0!""* 3"!1-* =-'&="!$.&973- Phytolacca americana 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 Polygonum hydropiper 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Polygonum sp. 5 6 5 6 5 6 > Portulaca sp. 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 Potamogeton sp. 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 Prunus persica 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 Prunus sp. 5 6 6 5 5 6 > Quercus sp. 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 Rhus sp. 5 6 5 5 6 6 ? Rubus sp. 6 6 5 5 5 6 ? Scirpus sp. 5 6 5 5 5 6 ? Triticum sp. 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 Vaccinium sp. 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 Viburnum sp. 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 Vicia sp. 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 Viola sp. 5 6 5 5 5 6 ? Vitis sp. 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 Zea mays 5 6 5 5 5 6 ? !""#$%&'(#( ( )&*#(&$+#$*,-&#)(,.(*/#(0,*!$&1!2(&%#$*&.&1!*&,$)( ( Includes ten sites in order of occupation: 1) 72-91 (1675-1680); (2) 72-164A (1680-1690); (3) 72-34A (1680-1690); (4) 72-58 (1760-1770); (5) 72-171 (1765-1775); (6) 72-88 (1775-1800); (7) 72-97C (1780-1785); (8) 72-161 (1780-1790); (9) 72-70B (1780-1800); and (10) 72-66 (1785-1795). ! %!'04#2#('1! ! /(&6!8!/(&)%2'11!( !5(2'#%!&#'! 8'!8!8230!'11(#2#('! 8';!8!8230!'11(#2#('!(12&(%! 0!!8! 0!&'2! 8!8!(! 230! ?6@6!8!?(50!@)2"! 6@6!8!))0!@)2"! D!7!'$'(5'! !
370!
Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 1326.03 S14/W22 63 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 16 0.16 frag Soil 72-91 3103 S05/E10 NW 2 0 10 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3111 N05/E10 NW 2 10 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3141 S15/W09 NF 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3145 N10/W20 NE NF 10 20 seed Zea mays 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3155 UNK SW 1 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 3155 UNK SW 1 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3155 UNK SW 1 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 7 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3156 N00/W01 NW 1 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 3158 UNK SW 1 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 4 0.11 frag Soil 72-91 3160 N04/W01 NE 2 20 30 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3160 N04/W01 NE 2 20 30 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3166 N05/W01 2 20 40 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3171 N05/W01 NW 2 20 30 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3173 N05/W01 NE+NW 2 40 50 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 3173 N05/W01 NE+NW 2 40 50 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3173 N05/W01 NE+NW 2 40 50 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3175 N05/W01 NE+NW 2 40 50 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3179 N05/W01 SE 2 40 50 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 3180 N05/W01 SE 2 40 50 nutshell Corylus americana 2 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3183 N05/W01 SE 2 10 20 nutshell Carya sp. 27 0.85 frag Soil 72-91 3186 N05/W01 SE 2 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3187 N05/W01 SE 2 20 25 nutshell Corylus americana 18 0.78 frag Soil 72-91 3187 N05/W01 SE 2 20 25 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3189 N07/W01 2 20 25 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3191 N07/W01 SE 2 25 35 seed Comptonia peregrina 4 0.01 whole Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 3191 N07/W01 SE 2 25 35 plant unidentified unidentified 8 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3191 N07/W01 SE 2 25 35 seed Zea mays 4 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 3194 N07/W01 NE 2 30 45 nutshell Corylus americana 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3194 N07/W01 NE 2 30 45 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3200 N08/W02 SE 2 30 40 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.08 frag Soil 72-91 3203 N09/10/W01 2 0 0 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3206 N08/W01 2 20 30 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 3233 UNK-E 5 25 35 nutshell Carya sp. 4 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 3233 UNK-E 5 25 35 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3233 UNK-E 5 25 35 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3253 N17/E00 12 20 30 seed Zea mays 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3255 UNK 12 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3255 UNK 12 0 0 seed Prunus . sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 3256 UNK 12 0 0 nutshell Corylus americana 4 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3256 UNK 12 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3256 UNK 12 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 12 0.11 frag Soil 72-91 3259 UNK 12 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 whole Soil 72-91 3260 UNK 12 0 0 nutshell Corylus americana 4 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3262 UNK 12 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3262 UNK 12 0 0 nutshell Corylus americana 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3266 UNK 15 20 30 nutshell unidentified unidentified 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3266 UNK 15 20 30 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3284 N05/06/W01 20 23 40 seed Zea mays 1 0.17 whole Soil 72-91 3285 N05/06/W01 20 23 40 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3300 S15/W09 NE 24 25 35 nutshell Carya sp. 13 0.11 frag Soil 72-91 3300 S15/W09 NE 24 25 35 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 3302.02 N06/W01/02 26 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 7 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3302.03 N06/W01/02 26 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 8 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3302.04 N06/W01/02 26 20 25 nutshell Corylus americana 4 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3302.05 N06/W01/02 26 20 25 nutshell Juglans cinerea 1 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 3303 N06/W01/02 26 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3305 UNK 26 25 35 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3305 UNK 26 25 35 nutshell Corylus americana 5 0.08 frag Soil 72-91 3308 N06/W01/02 26 20 50 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3311 UNK 26 35 50 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 3315 UNK 29 20 35 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3318 N10/W07 32 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3320 N29/E03 SE 34 10 20 nutshell Carya sp. 7 0.2 frag Soil 72-91 3323 N29/E03 NE 34 10 20 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 3323 N29/E03 NE 34 10 20 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3326 N29/E03 34 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 whole Soil 72-91 3331 N29/E03 SW 34 10 20 nutshell Carya sp. 75 0.7 frag Soil 72-91 3331 N29/E03 SW 34 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 10 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3331 N29/E03 SW 34 10 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3333 N29/S03 SW 34 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 3333 N29/S03 SW 34 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 3335 N29/E03- NW 34 10 20 nutshell Carya sp. 14 0.4 frag Soil 72-91 3335 N29/E03 NW 34 10 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 3336 N29/E03 NW 34 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3345 S19/20/E03/04 54 20 30 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 whole Soil 72-91 3346 S19/20/E03/04 54 20 30 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 3346 S19/20/E03/04 54 20 30 nutshell Corylus americana 2 0.03 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 3346 S19/20/E03/04 54 20 30 seed Prunus persica 1 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 3346 S19/20/E03/04 54 20 30 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 3359 N36/W24/28 2 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3361 N36/W27 2 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 35 0.27 frag Soil 72-91 3364 N36/W27/28 2 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 10 0.13 frag Soil 72-91 3368 N36/W29 NW+SW 2 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 12 0.16 frag Soil 72-91 3368 N36/W29 NW+SW 2 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 6 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 3369 S17/W04 NE+NW 57 20 30 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3369 N36/W29 NW+SW 2 0 0 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3370 N36/W29 NW+SW 2 0 0 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 3372 N36/W29 NW+SW 2 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 8 0.08 frag Soil 72-91 3378 N36/W29 NW+SW 2 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3378 N36/W29 NW+SW 2 0 0 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3378 N36/W29 NW+SW 2 0 0 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3388 N36/W29 NW+SW 2 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 18 0.11 frag Soil 72-91 3391 N36/W29 NW+SW 2 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 25 0.24 frag Soil 72-91 3394 N36/W29 NW+SW 2 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3394 N36/W29 NW+SW 2 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3396 N36/W29 NW+SW 2 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 75 1.71 frag Soil 72-91 3396 N36/W29 NW+SW 2 0 0 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3396 N36/W29 NW+SW 2 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 10 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 3397 N36/W29 NW+SW 2 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3402 N36/W28/29 2 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3403 N36/W24/28 2 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 8 0.12 frag Soil 72-91 3403 N36/W24/28 2 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 3406 N36/W28/29 2 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 24 0.11 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 3410 N36/W28/29 2 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3411 N36/W28/29 2 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 6 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 3411 N36/W28/29 2 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 5 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3411 N36/W28/29 2 0 0 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3414 N36/W28/29 2 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3417 N36/W28/29 2 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 15 0.17 frag Soil 72-91 3417 N36/W28/29 2 0 0 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3422 N36/W28/29 2 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 4 0.08 frag Soil 72-91 3422 N36/W28/29 2 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 4 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3424 N36/W28/29 2 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3424 N36/W28/29 2 0 0 seed unidentified unidentified 3 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 3425 N36/W28/29 2 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 200 3.19 frag Soil 72-91 3425 N36/W28/29 2 0 0 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3428 N36/W28/29 2 0 0 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3429 N36/W28/29 2 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3429 N36/W28/29 2 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3433 N37/W40 2 0 0 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3434 N37/W40 2 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3441 S06/W22 2 0 0 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 3450 S13/14/W39 2 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 44 0.49 frag Soil 72-91 3450 S13/14/W39 2 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3455 S14/15/W28 2 20 25 nutshell Carya sp. 8 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 3458 S14/15/W28 2 20 25 nutshell Carya sp. 19 0.22 frag Soil 72-91 3460 S14/15/W28 2 20 25 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 3460 S14/15/W28 2 25 30 nutshell unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3460 S14/15/W28 2 25 30 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 3460 S14/15/W28 2 25 30 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3461 S14/15/W28 2 25 30 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3461 S14/15/W28 2 25 30 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3461 S14/15/W28 2 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3462 S14/15/W28 2 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3470 S14/15/W28 NW 2 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3474 S14/15/W28 2 25 30 nutshell Carya sp. 6 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 3478 S14/15/W28 2 25 30 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 3478 S14/15/W28 2 25 30 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3480 S14/15/W28 2 25 30 nutshell Carya sp. 4 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3480 S14/15/W28 2 25 30 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3480 S14/15/W28 2 25 30 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3483 N36/W24/28 2 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3491 N00/W25 N 31 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 5 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3492 N10/W07 32 17 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 5 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 3492 N10/W07 32 17 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3494 N10/W07 32 17 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3495 N10/W07 32 17 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3495 N10/W07 32 17 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3496 N10/W07 32 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 14 0.11 frag Soil 72-91 3497 N10/W07 32 0 0 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3499 N10/W07 32 17 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3500 N10/W07 32 17 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3500 N10/W07 32 17 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3501 N10/W07 32 17 20 seed Gaylussacia sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3503 N10/W07 32 17 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 3506 N10/W07 32 17 20 nutshell Carya sp. 7 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 3508 N10/W07 32 12 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3510 N10/W07 32 12 70 nutshell Carya sp. 5 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 3513 N00/W25 S 31 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 6 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 3517 N10/W07 32 17 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3518 N10/W07 32 17 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3521 N10/W07 32 17 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3525 N00/W07 N 32A 20 30 nutshell Carya sp. 4 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 3527 N10/W07 S 32A 20 30 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3527 N10/W07 S 32A 20 30 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3535 N10/W07 S 32B 20 30 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3537 UNK 32B 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3543 N30/E05 NW 34 0 10 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3556 S15/W28 47 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 9 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3556 S15/W28 47 0 0 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3556 S15/W28 47 0 0 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3559 S15/W28 47 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 6 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3561 S15/W56 50 35 35 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 3566 S15/W56 50 35 35 nutshell unidentified unidentified 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3566 S15/W56 50 35 35 plant unidentified unidentified 5 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3573 S15/W57 49 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3574 S15/W57 49 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3577 S17/W23 61 0 0 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3580 S15/W57 SW 49 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3583 S17/W21 62 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 3586 S17/W24 62 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 3597 S18/W27 76 0 0 seed Crataegus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3597 S18/W27 76 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3598 S18/W27 76 0 0 seed Crataegus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 3600 S18/W27 76 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3600 S18/W27 76 0 0 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3600 S18/W27 76 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3603 S19/W27 77 0 0 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3603 S19/W27 77 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3605 S17/W32 NW 81 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3605 S17/W32 NW 81 0 0 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3605 S17/W32 NW 81 0 0 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3615 S20/W23 107 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 whole Soil 72-91 3623 S14/W23 64 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 6 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 3630 S19/W26 NE+NW 65 0 0 seed unidentified unidentified 10 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3636 S19/W29 NE 68 20 42 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3640 UNK 68 42 42 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3640 UNK 68 42 42 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3645 S16/W30 NW+SW 71 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3648 S17/W30 72 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3652 S18/W30 85 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3652 S18/W30 85 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3652 S18/W30 85 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3655 S16/W29 86 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3663 S16/W22 NE 90 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3667 S17/W26 94 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 3675 S18/W23 NE 106 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 3678 S18/W23 NE 106 0 0 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3733 UNK-N+S S 25 25 35 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3949 N36/W29 NE 2 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3954 S17/W32 NW 81 0 0 seed Crataegus sp. 1 0.02 whole Soil 72-91 3956 S19/W26 78 29 29 seed Crataegus sp. 3 0.05 whole Soil 72-91 3963 S17/W23 89 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3963 S17/W23 89 0 0 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 3969 S14/15/W28 SW 02A 30 30 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 4172 S14/W31 SE 30 20 20 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.13 frag Soil 72-91 5161 N01/W19 SE NF 10 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.18 frag Soil 72-91 5164 N01/W19 NE NF 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 5164 N01/W19 NE NF 10 20 seed Zea mays 2 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 7552 N38/W55 SW NF 20 25 seed Zea mays 1 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 7559 N38/W55 SE NF 20 25 seed Zea mays 1 0.14 frag Soil 72-91 7580 N38/W56 NE NF 10 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 7584 N38/W56 NW NF 20 25 seed Zea mays 1 0.08 frag Soil 72-91 9703 N37/W62 SW NF 0 5 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 9715 N37/W62 NW NF 5 10 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 10304 N37/W65 SE NF 5 10 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 10306 N37/W65 NE NF 10 15 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 11421 N37/W65 SE NF 10 15 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 11551 N42/W59 SW NF 0 5 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 11591 N42/W62 SW NF 0 10 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 11599 N42/W63 NF 10 15 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 11600 N42/W63 SW NF 10 15 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 11635 N43/W60 NW NF 10 15 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.03 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 11894 N26/W27 SE NF 10 15 seed Zea mays 4 0.16 frag Soil 72-91 11901 N26/W27 SE NF 15 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.12 whole Soil 72-91 11902 N26/W27 SE 82 15 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.13 frag Soil 72-91 11965 N27/W27 SE NF 15 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 12015 N25/W27 SW NF 5 10 seed Zea mays 1 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 12016 N25/W27 SE NF 10 15 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 12030 N25/W27 NE NF 15 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 12033 N25/W27 NW NF 20 25 seed Zea mays 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 12037 N25W27 NE NF 20 25 seed Zea mays 3 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 12038 N25/W27 NE NF 20 25 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 12048 N25/W27 NW NF 25 30 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 12051 N25/W27 NE NF 25 30 seed Zea mays 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 12057 N25/W27 NW NF 30 35 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 12069 N25/W29 NW NF 5 10 seed Zea mays 2 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 12086 N25/W29 NW 85 15 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 12086 N25/W29 NW 85 15 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 12173 N27/W31 SW NF 15 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 12186 N28/W26 SW NF 10 15 seed Zea mays 1 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 12217 N28/W31 SE NF 15 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 12221 N28/W31 NW NF 15 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 12225 N28/W31 NW NF 15 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 12251 N30/W31 NW NF 0 5 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 12253 N30/W31 SE NF 5 10 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 12268 N30/W31 NW NF 10 15 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 12268 N30/W31 NW NF 10 15 seed Zea mays 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 12275 N30/W31 SW NF 15 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.06 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 12310 N25/W28 SW NF 10 15 seed Zea mays 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 12329 N25/W28 NE NF 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 12329 N25/W28 NE NF 20 25 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 12344 N26/W30 SE 79 10 23 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 12360 N27/W26 NE NF 10 15 seed Zea mays 1 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 12394 N27/W32 NW NF 15 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 12407 N27/W32 SE NF 15 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 12434 N28/W32 NW NF 15 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 12440 N28/W32 NE NF 15 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 12468 N29/W26 NE NF 10 15 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 12501 N29/W31 SW NF 15 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 12505 N29/W31 NW NF 20 25 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.13 frag Soil 72-91 12559 N21/W31 SW NF 5 10 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 12597 N31/W32 SE NF 10 15 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 12597 N31/W32 SE NF 10 15 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 12602 N31/W32 SW NF 10 15 seed Zea mays 4 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 12609 N31/W32 SW NF 15 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 12620 N31/W32 NE NF 20 25 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 12620 N31/W32 NE NF 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 12774 N29/W32 SE NF 20 25 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 12834 N32/W32 NE NF 5 10 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 12838 N32/W32 SW NF 10 15 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 12856 N32/W32 NE NF 15 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 12861 N32/W32 SW NF 20 25 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 12864 N32/W32 SE NF 20 25 seed Zea mays 2 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 12904 N34/W32 SE NF 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 12914 N27/W33 NE NF 10 15 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 12930 N29/W33 SW NF 5 10 seed Zea mays 1 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 12934 N29/W33 NW NF 5 10 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 12963 N30/W33 SE NF 10 15 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 12967 N30/W33 NE NF 15 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 12974 N30/W33 SW NF 20 25 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 12974 N30/W33 SW NF 20 25 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 12974 N30/W33 SW NF 20 25 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 12978 N30/W33 NE NF 20 25 seed Zea mays 1 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 12990 N31/W33 SW NF 10 15 seed Zea mays 1 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 12999 N31/W33 SW NF 15 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 13003 N31/W33 NW NF 15 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 13007 N31/W33 NE NF 15 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 13016 N31/W33 SE NF 15 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 13017 N31/W33 SE NF 15 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 13017 N31/W33 SE NF 15 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13018 N31/W33 SW NF 20 25 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 13020 N31/W22 NE NF 20 25 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 13029 N31/W33 SE NF 20 25 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 13036 N31/W33 NE NF 25 27 seed Zea mays 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 13037 N31/W33 SE NF 25 27 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 13045 N31/W34 NW NF 10 15 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 13050 N31/W34 SW NF 15 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 13055 N31/W34 NW NF 15 20 seed Zea mays 3 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 13216 N28/W33 NW NF 15 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 13224 N28/W33 SW NF 15 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.04 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 13277 N33/W28 SE NF 15 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13277 N33/W28 SE NF 15 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13278 N33/W28 SE NF 15 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 13328 N34/W28 NE NF 20 25 seed Zea mays 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 13341 N34/W29 SW NF 20 25 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 13383 N34/W33 SE NF 10 15 seed Zea mays 1 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 13387 N35/W26 SW NF 15 20 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.12 frag Soil 72-91 13392 N35/W26 NE NF 15 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 13835.01 N36/W24 SW 2 10 15 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13843.02 N36/W26 SW 2 10 15 nutshell Carya sp. 4 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 13844.03 N36/W26 2 15 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13844.03 N36/W26 2 15 20 nutshell Corylus americana 2 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 13845.03 N36/W26 SW 2 20 25 nutshell Corylus americana 2 0.08 frag Soil 72-91 13884 N32/W29 SW 92(03) 50 55 seed Zea mays 1 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 13885 N32/W29 SW 92(03) 50 55 seed Zea mays 1 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 13901 N32/W29 SW 92(05a)55 60 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 13902 N32/W29 SW 92(05a)55 60 seed Zea mays 1 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 13930 N32W29 SW 92 (10)80 80 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.11 frag Soil 72-91 13937 N32W29 SW 92 (10)80 80 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 13937 N32W30 SW 92 (10)80 80 nutmeat unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13942 N32W29 SW 92 (10)85 80 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.28 frag Soil 72-91 13965 N32W29 SE 92 (01)45 40 seed Zea mays 1 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 13966 N32/W29 SE 92(01a)45 50 seed Zea mays 2 0.13 frag Soil 72-91 13973 N32W29 SE 92 (03)50 45 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.14 frag Soil 72-91 14012 N32W29 SE 92 (01)65 65 seed Zea mays 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 14016 N32W29 92 (06)70 65 nutshell Carya sp. 8 0.93 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 14046 N32W30 SE 92 (06c)80 75 nutshell Carya sp. 4 0.66 frag Soil 72-91 14046 N32W30 SE 92 (06)80 75 nutmeat unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14047 N32W29 SE 92 (06c)80 75 seed Zea mays 1 0.12 frag Soil 72-91 14058 N32W29 SE 92 (10)80 80 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 14066 N32W29 SE 92 (10)85 80 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.16 frag Soil 72-91 14077 N32W29 SE 92 (10)85 80 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.17 frag Soil 72-91 14078 N32W29 SE 92 (10)85 85 seed Zea mays 1 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 14079 N32W29 SE 92 (10)85 85 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 2 0.13 frag Soil 72-91 14118 N33/W29 SW BC 92(01) 15 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 14131 N32W29 92 (03a)70 70 seed Zea mays 1 0.2 frag Soil 72-91 14136 N32W29 92 (04)75 70 seed Zea mays 1 0.21 frag Soil 72-91 14152 N32W29 NE A 92 (06b)95 90 seed Zea mays 1 0.1 whole Soil 72-91 14182 N32W29 NE A 92 (12)100 95 seed Zea mays 1 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 14185 N32W29 NE 92 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.18 frag Soil 72-91 14197 N33N29 NE B 92 (01)40 40 seed Zea mays 1 0.15 whole Soil 72-91 14200 N33W29 NE B 92 (01c)60 60 seed Zea mays 1 0.11 whole Soil 72-91 14204 N32W29 92 (04)70 65 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.35 frag Soil 72-91 14204 N32W29 92 (04)70 65 nutmeat unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14208 N32W29 92 (04d)75 70 seed Zea mays 1 0.17 frag Soil 72-91 14211 N33W29 92 (04)75 70 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.16 frag Soil 72-91 14226 N33W29 NE B 92 (13)90 85 seed Zea mays 3 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 14231 N32W29 NE B 92 (06b)90 85 seed Zea mays 1 0.13 frag Soil 72-91 14232 N32W29 NE B 92 (06b)90 85 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 14254 N32W29 NE B 92 (06b)95 90 seed Zea mays 1 0.14 whole Soil 72-91 14277 N32W29 NW B 92 (10)86 86 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.1 frag Soil 72-91 14289 N32W29 NW C 92(10) 50 55 seed Zea mays 1 0.24 whole Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 14294 N32W29 NW C 92(01) 55 60 seed Zea mays 2 0.24 frag Soil 72-91 14299 N32W29 92 (04d)70 65 seed Zea mays 1 0.08 frag Soil 72-91 14308 N32W29 NW C 92 (01c)80 75 nutshell Carya sp. 5 0.73 frag Soil 72-91 14308 N32W29 NW C 92(01c)75 80 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14322 N32W29 NW C 92 (06)80 75 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 14329 N32W29 NW C 92 (06)85 80 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.19 frag Soil 72-91 14330 N32W29 NW C 92 (06)85 80 seed Zea mays 1 0.19 frag Soil 72-91 14332 N32W29 NW C 92 (06)80 75 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.31 frag Soil 72-91 14351 N32W29 NW C 92 (10)95 90 seed Zea mays 1 0.18 whole Soil 72-91 14372 UNK 92 (04b)0 0 seed Zea mays 1 0.18 whole Soil 72-91 14377 N32W30 92 (01c)75 70 seed Zea mays 2 0.17 frag Soil 72-91 14380 N33W30 NW CD 92 (05b)80 75 seed Zea mays 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 14402 N32W30 NW 92 (10)95 90 seed Zea mays 3 0.13 frag Soil 72-91 14726 N32W29 S 92 25 20 seed Zea mays 5 0.2 frag Soil 72-91 14727 N32W29 S 92 25 20 nutshell Carya sp. 27 0.47 frag Soil 72-91 14727 N32W29 S 92 25 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14727 N32W29 S 92 25 20 seed Zea mays 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14732 N32W29 S 92 30 25 nutshell Carya sp. 24 0.45 frag Soil 72-91 14732 N32W29 S 92 30 25 nutshell unidentified unidentified 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14732 N32W29 S 92 25 30 seed Zea mays 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 14733 N32W29 S 92 25 30 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 14742 N32W29 SE 92 35 30 nutshell Carya sp. 5 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 14742 N32W29 SE 92 35 30 seed Zea mays 2 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 14746 N32W29 SE 92 (01)40 35 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 14749 N32W29 SE 92 (01)40 35 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14749 N32W29 SE 92 (01)40 35 nutshell unidentified unidentified 4 0.02 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 14749 N32W29 SE 92 (01)40 35 seed Zea mays 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14753 N32W29 SE 92 (03)45 40 nutshell Carya sp. 4 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 14753 N32W29 SE 92 (03)45 40 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14757 N32W29 SW 92 (03)50 45 nutshell Carya sp. 13 0.49 frag Soil 72-91 14757 N32W29 SW 92 (03)50 45 seed Zea mays 2 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 14759 N32W29 SE 92 (03)50 45 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 14767 N32W29 SW 92(03) 50 55 nutshell Carya sp. 11 0.13 frag Soil 72-91 14767 N32W29 SW 92(03) 50 55 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14786 N32W29 SW 92 (05a)65 60 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14786 N32W29 SW 92 (05a)65 60 seed Gaylussacia sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 14786 N32W29 SW 92 (05a)65 60 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14786 N32W29 SW 92 (05a)65 60 seed Zea mays 5 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 14787 N32W29 SW 92 (05a)65 60 seed Rubus sp. 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 14788 N32W30 SW 92 (05a)65 60 seed Zea mays 10 0.28 frag Soil 72-91 14792.01 N32W30 SE 92 60 55 nutshell Carya sp. 56 1.33 frag Soil 72-91 14792.02 N32W30 SE 92 60 55 seed Zea mays 2 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 14792.05 N32W30 SE 92 60 55 nutshell Carya sp. 7 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 14792.05 N32W30 SE 92 60 55 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 14792.06 N32W30 SE 92 60 55 nutshell unidentified unidentified 8 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 14795 N32W29 92 (06b)75 70 nutshell Carya sp. 31 1.24 frag Soil 72-91 14795 N32W29 92 (06b)75 70 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 14795 N32W29 92 (06b)75 70 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 14803 N32W29 SW 92 (06b)75 70 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14808 N32W29 SW 92 (06b)75 70 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14816 N32W29 SW 92 (06b)80 80 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14825 N32W30 SW 92 (06b)80 80 nutshell Carya sp. 51 1.38 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 14825 N32W30 SW 92 (06b)80 80 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14825 N32/W30 SW 92(06b)80 80 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 14825 N32W30 SW 92 (06b)80 80 seed Zea mays 4 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 14842 N32W29 SW 92 (10)90 85 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14842 N32W29 SW 92 (10)90 85 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 14842 N32W29 SW 92 (10)90 85 seed Rubus sp. 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14849 N32W30 SW 92 (10)90 85 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 14854 N32W29 SW 92 (10)90 85 nutshell Carya sp. 29 1.46 frag Soil 72-91 14854 N32W29 SW 92 (10)90 85 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 14854 N32W29 SW 92(10) 85 90 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14862 N32W29 SW 92 (10)90 85 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14862 N32W29 SW 92 (10)90 85 seed Zea mays 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 14874 N32W29 SE 92(01a)45 50 nutshell Carya sp. 6 0.16 frag Soil 72-91 14876 N32W29 SE 92 (04a)50 45 seed Zea mays 5 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 14891 N32W29 SE 92(03) 50 55 seed Zea mays 5 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 14893 N32W29 SE 92(03) 50 55 nutshell Carya sp. 25 0.6 frag Soil 72-91 14893 N32W29 SE 92(03) 50 55 seed Zea mays 5 0.12 frag Soil 72-91 14895 N32W29 SE 92(06) 55 60 nutshell Carya sp. 5 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 14921 N32W29 SE 92 (04b)65 60 nutshell Carya sp. 10 0.23 frag Soil 72-91 14935 N32W29 SE 1/4 92 (07)75 70 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 14947 N32W29 SE 92 (10)85 80 nutshell Carya sp. 35 1.31 frag Soil 72-91 14947 N32W29 SE 92 (10)85 80 seed Zea mays 4 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 14961 N32W29 SE 92 (10)85 80 seed Comptonia peregrina 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14961 N32W29 SE 92 (10)85 80 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14977 N32W29 SE 92 (06c)80 75 seed Zea mays 6 0.11 frag Soil 72-91 14978 N32W29 SE 92 (06c)80 75 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 14988 N32W29 SE 92 (06c)80 75 nutshell Carya sp. 50 1.6 frag Soil 72-91 14988 N32W29 SE 92 (06c)80 75 nutshell unidentified unidentified 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14988 N32W29 SE 92 (06c)80 75 seed Zea mays 36 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 15004 N32W29 SE 92 (10)90 85 nutshell Carya sp. 18 0.97 frag Soil 72-91 15004 N32W29 SE 92 (10)90 85 nutshell Corylus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 15004 N32W29 SE 92 (10)90 85 seed Cucurbita sp. 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 15004 N32W29 SE 92 (10)90 85 nutshell unidentified unidentified 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 15027 N32/W30 NE A 92(10) 95 100 nutshell Carya sp. 6 0.11 frag Soil 72-91 15027 N32W30 NE A 92 (10)100 95 seed Prunus persica 1 0.15 frag Soil 72-91 15027 N32/W30 NE A 92(10) 95 100 seed Zea mays 4 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 15068 N32W30 NE B 92 (10)95 90 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.11 frag Soil 72-91 15069 N32W29 NE B 92 (10)95 90 nutshell unidentified unidentified 6 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 15069 N32W29 NE B 92 (10)95 90 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 15073 N32W29 NE B 92 (10)95 90 seed Zea mays 1 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 15082 N32/W30 S 92 25 30 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 15082 N32W30 S 92 30 25 seed Zea mays 2 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 15108 N32W30 SW 92 (10)85 80 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 15118 N32W30 SW 92 (10)85 80 nutshell Carya sp. 41 1.96 frag Soil 72-91 15118 N32W30 SW 92 (10)85 80 seed Zea mays 17 0.23 frag Soil 72-91 15132 N32W29 SE 92 (10)95 90 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.44 frag Soil 72-91 15132 N32W29 SE 92 (10)95 90 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 15133 N32W29 SE 92 (10)95 90 seed Zea mays 4 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 15138 N32W28 SE 92 (10)95 90 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 15149 N32W29 NE B 92 (06b)95 90 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 15155 N32W29 NE B 92 (06b)95 90 seed Zea mays 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 15167 N32W29 NE B 92 (06b)95 90 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 0.01 15167 N32W29 NE B 92 (06b)95 90 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 15167 N32W29 NE B 92 (06b)95 90 seed Zea mays 11 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 15170 N32W29 NE B 92 (06b)90 85 nutshell Carya sp. 11 0.52 frag Soil 72-91 15194 N32W29 SE 1/4 92 (06b)75 70 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 15195 N32W29 SE 1/4 92 (06b)75 70 nutshell Carya sp. 61 2.33 frag Soil 72-91 15209 N32W29 SE 1/4 92 (06b)75 70 seed Zea mays 3 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 15229 N32W29 NW C 92 (06b)80 75 seed Zea mays 2 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 15238 N32W29 NW C 92 (06b)80 75 nutshell Carya sp. 40 1.05 frag Soil 72-91 15238 N32W29 NW C 92 (06b)80 75 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 2 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 15238 N32W29 NW C 92 (06b)80 75 seed Zea mays 4 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 15243 N32W29 NW C 92 (06b)80 75 seed Zea mays 3 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 15256 N32W29 NW C 92 (06b)80 75 nutshell Carya sp. 30 1.1 frag Soil 72-91 15256 N32W29 NW C 92 (06b)80 75 seed Zea mays 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 15262 N32W29 NW C 92 (10)90 85 seed Zea mays 2 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 15272 N32W29 NW C 92 (10)90 85 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 15275 N32W29 NW C 92 (10)90 85 nutshell Carya sp. 4 0.11 frag Soil 72-91 15281 N32W29 NE A 92 (06b)90 85 nutshell Carya sp. 17 0.82 frag Soil 72-91 15281 N32W29 NE A 92 (06b)90 85 seed Zea mays 3 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 15304 N32W29 NW C 92 (06b)85 80 seed Comptonia peregrina 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 15304 N32W29 NW C 92 (06b)85 80 nutshell unidentified unidentified 11 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 15304 N32W29 NW C 92 (06b)85 80 seed Zea mays 17 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 15304 N32W29 NW C 92 (06b)85 80 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 15309 N32W29 NW C 92 (06b)85 80 seed Zea mays 2 0.23 whole Soil 72-91 15310 N32W30 NW C 92 (06b)85 80 nutshell Carya sp. 75 2.57 frag Soil 72-91 15310 N32W30 NW C 92 (06b)85 80 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 15341 N32W29 NW C 92 (06b)90 85 seed Zea mays 8 0.38 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 15360 N32W29 NW C 92 (06b)90 85 nutshell Carya sp. 20 1.06 frag Soil 72-91 15360 N32W29 NW C 92 (06b)90 85 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 15368 N32W29 NE AB 92 (06)0 0 seed Zea mays 2 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 15369 N32W29 NE AB 92 (06)0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 15381 N32W29 NE AB 92 (06)0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 17 0.99 frag Soil 72-91 15390 N32W29 NE AB 92(10) 0 0 seed Phaselous vulgaris 2 0.15 frag Soil 72-91 15391 N32W29 NE AB 92(10) 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 7 0.48 frag Soil 72-91 15391 N32W29 NE AB 92(10) 0 0 seed Prunus persica 1 0.11 frag Soil 72-91 15399 N32W29 NE AB 92(10) 0 0 seed Phaselous vulgaris 2 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 15399 N32W29 NE AB 92 (10)0 0 seed Zea mays 2 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 15416 N32W29 NE A 92 (01c)65 60 seed Zea mays 6 0.25 frag Soil 72-91 15417 N32W29 NE A 92 (01c)65 60 seed Zea mays 5 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 15418 N32W29 NE A 92(01c)60 65 nutshell Carya sp. 27 0.95 frag Soil 72-91 15418 N32W29 NE A 92(01c)60 65 seed Zea mays 2 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 15425 N32W29 NW C 92 (03)65 60 nutshell Carya sp. 4 0.16 frag Soil 72-91 15441 N32W29 S 92 (01)45 40 nutshell Carya sp. 40 0.8 frag Soil 72-91 15441 N32W29 S 92 (01)45 40 nutshell Corylus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 15441 N32W29 S 92 (01)45 40 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 15441 N32W29 S 92 (01)45 40 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 15441 N32W29 S 92 (01)45 40 seed Zea mays 28 0.39 frag Soil 72-91 15451 N32W29 NW C 92 (06)75 70 nutshell Carya sp. 16 0.75 frag Soil 72-91 15451 N32W29 NW C 92 (06)75 70 seed Zea mays 4 0.13 frag Soil 72-91 15454 N32W29 NW C 92 (06)75 70 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 15454 N32W29 NW C 92 (06)75 70 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 15454 N32W29 NW C 92 (06)75 70 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 15454 N32W29 NW C 92 (06)75 70 seed Zea mays 2 0.01 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 15467 N32W29 SE 92 40 35 seed unidentified unidentified 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 15467 N32W29 SE 92 40 35 seed Zea mays 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 15468 N32W29 SE 92 40 35 nutshell Carya sp. 23 0.33 frag Soil 72-91 15468 N32W29 SE 92 40 35 seed Zea mays 8 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 15481 N32/W29 NE-AB 92(06a)0 0 nutshell Juglans cinerea 1 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 15481 N32W29 NE AB 92 (06a)0 0 seed Zea mays 7 0.16 frag Soil 72-91 15482 N32W29 NE AB 92 (06a)0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 18 0.83 frag Soil 72-91 15482 N32W29 NE AB 92 (06a)0 0 seed Zea mays 3 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 15486 N32W29 NW D 92 (01c)80 75 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 15502 N32W29 NW C 92 (13)110 105 seed Zea mays 1 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 15504 N32W29 NW C 92 (13)110 105 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 15504 N32W29 NW C 92 (13)110 105 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 15511 N32W29 NW C 92 (10)105 100 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 15528 N32W29 NE AB 92 (03)0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.11 frag Soil 72-91 15536 N32W30 NE AB 92(01c)0 0 seed Zea mays 3 0.13 frag Soil 72-91 15539 N32W29 NE 92 (01c)0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 15539 N32/W29 NE 92(01c)0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 15547 N32W29 NE AB 92 (12)0 0 seed Zea mays 1 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 15661 N28/W25 NW NF 10 15 seed Zea mays 1 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 15662 N28/W25 SW NF 10 15 seed Zea mays 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 15664 N28/W25 SE NF 10 15 seed Zea mays 1 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 15733 N27/W36 NW NF 15 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 16338 N33/W29 SE 509 30 50 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 16351 N32W29 NE A 92 (01)35 30 nutshell Carya sp. 42 0.71 frag Soil 72-91 16351 N32W29 NE A 92 (01)35 30 nutshell Juglans sp. 1 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 16351 N32W29 NE A 92 (01)35 30 seed Zea mays 3 0.13 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 16352 N32W29 NE A 92 (01)35 30 seed Zea mays 2 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 16357 N32W29 NE A 92(01) 30 35 seed Rubus sp. 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 16366 N32W29 NE A 92 (01)40 35 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 16366 N32W29 NE A 92(01) 35 40 seed Zea mays 2 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 16374 N32W29 NE A 92 (01)50 45 nutshell Carya sp. 22 0.59 frag Soil 72-91 16374 N32W29 NE A 92 (10)50 45 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 16374 N32W29 NE A 92 (01)50 45 seed Zea mays 7 0.13 frag Soil 72-91 16382 N32W29 NE A 92(01) 55 60 nutshell Carya sp. 5 0.16 frag Soil 72-91 16392 N32W29 NW C 92 (01)35 30 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 16392 N32W29 92 (1/1c)70 65 seed Polygonum hydropiper 3 0.02 whole Soil 72-91 16392 N32W29 NW C 92 (01)35 30 seed Zea mays 4 0.12 frag Soil 72-91 16393 N32W29 NE C 92 (01)35 30 nutshell Carya sp. 4 0.08 frag Soil 72-91 16393 N32W29 NE C 92 (01)35 30 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 16394 N32W29 NW C 92 (01)35 30 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 16413 N32W29 NW C 92 (01)45 40 nutshell Carya sp. 45 0.62 frag Soil 72-91 16413 N32W29 NW C 92 (01)45 40 seed Myrica pensylvanica 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 16413 N32W29 NW C 92 (01)45 40 seed Zea mays 21 0.26 frag Soil 72-91 16414 N32W29 NW C 92(01) 40 45 seed Zea mays 4 0.11 frag Soil 72-91 16421 N32W29 NW C 92(01) 55 60 nutshell Carya sp. 14 0.37 frag Soil 72-91 16421 N32W29 NW C 92(01) 55 60 seed Vitis sp. 1 0.02 whole Soil 72-91 16421 N32W29 NW C 92(01) 55 60 seed Zea mays 5 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 16434 N32W29 SE D 92 (01)0 0 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 16436 N32W29 SE D 92 (01)0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 32 0.74 frag Soil 72-91 16438 N32W29 NW C 92(01) 50 55 seed Zea mays 6 0.11 frag Soil 72-91 16439 N32W29 NW C 92(01a)50 55 nutshell Carya sp. 10 0.78 frag Soil 72-91 16439 N32W29 NW C 92(01a)50 55 seed Zea mays 2 0.03 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 16447 N32W29 NW C 92 (1/1b)50 45 nutshell Carya sp. 12 0.43 frag Soil 72-91 16447 N32W29 NW C 92 (1/1b)50 45 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 2 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 16448 N32W29 NE C 92 (1/1b)50 45 seed Zea mays 12 0.26 frag Soil 72-91 16458 N32/W29 NW C 92(01b)55 60 nutshell Carya sp. 5 0.22 frag Soil 72-91 16462 N32W29 NE A 92 (01c)75 70 nutshell Carya sp. 37 1.52 frag Soil 72-91 16462 N32W29 NE A 92 (01c)75 70 seed Zea mays 10 0.24 frag Soil 72-91 16464 N32W29 NE A 92 (01c)75 70 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 16484 N32W29 NW C 92 (1b/1c)65 60 nutshell Carya sp. 8 0.37 frag Soil 72-91 16486 N32W30 NW C 92 (1b/1c)65 60 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 16486 N32W30 NW C 92 (1b/1c)65 60 seed Zea mays 20 0.3 frag Soil 72-91 16487 N32W29 NW C 92 (1b/1c)65 60 seed Gaylussacia sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 16487 N32W29 NW C 92 (1b/1c)65 60 seed unidentified unidentified 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 16491 N32W29 92 (1/1c)70 65 seed Zea mays 8 0.21 frag Soil 72-91 16493 N32W29 92 (1/1c)70 65 seed Comptonia peregrina 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 16493 N32W29 92 (1/1c)70 65 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 16508 N32W29 NW C 92 (01c)75 70 seed Zea mays 4 0.1 frag Soil 72-91 16509 N32W29 NW C 92 (01c)75 70 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 16510 N32W29 NW C 92 (01c)75 70 nutshell Carya sp. 10 0.53 frag Soil 72-91 16510 N32W29 NW C 92 (01c)75 70 seed Zea mays 2 0.1 frag Soil 72-91 16520 N32W29 NW C 92 (01c)80 75 seed Carex sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 16520 N32W29 NW C 92 (01c)80 75 nutshell Carya sp. 36 1.81 frag Soil 72-91 16521 N32W29 NW C 92 (01c)80 75 seed Carex sp. 7 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 16523 N32W29 NW C 92 (01c)80 75 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 16523 N32W29 NW C 92 (01c)80 75 seed Zea mays 13 0.22 frag Soil 72-91 16547 N32W29 NW C 92(02a)50 55 seed Zea mays 2 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 16548 N32W29 NW C 92(02a)50 55 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.1 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 16569 N32W29 NE AB 92 (01)0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 16569 N32W29 NE AB 92 (01)0 0 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 16569 N32W29 NE AB 92 (01)0 0 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 7 0.11 frag Soil 72-91 16569 N32W29 NE AB 92 (01)0 0 seed Zea mays 11 0.28 frag Soil 72-91 16571 N32W29 NE AB 92(01) 0 0 seed Zea mays 1 0.07 whole Soil 72-91 16572 N32W29 NE AB 92 (01)0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 22 0.47 frag Soil 72-91 16572 N32W29 NE AB 92 (01)0 0 seed Zea mays 14 0.22 frag Soil 72-91 16590 N32W29 NW D 92 (01c)85 80 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 16610 N32W29 92 (03)70 65 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 16610 N32W29 92 (03)70 65 seed Zea mays 1 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 16638 N32W29 NW C 92(03) 55 60 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 16647 N32W29 SW D 92 (13)0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.08 frag Soil 72-91 16661 N32W29 NW C 92(01) 50 55 seed Zea mays 5 0.18 frag Soil 72-91 16662 N32W29 NW C 92(01) 50 55 seed Zea mays 3 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 16665 N32W29 NW D\ 92(01) 35 55 seed Zea mays 1 0.11 whole Soil 72-91 16669 N32W29 NE B 92(01a)50 55 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 16676 N32W29 NW C 92 (1b/1c)90 85 seed Zea mays 4 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 16689 N32W29 NW D 92 (01c)65 60 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 16690 N32W29 NW D 92 (01c)65 60 seed Zea mays 3 0.27 frag Soil 72-91 16705 N32W29 NE B 92 (01)45 40 nutshell Carya sp. 17 0.35 frag Soil 72-91 16706 N32W29 NE B 92 (01)45 40 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 2 0.08 frag Soil 72-91 16706 N32W29 NE B 92 (01)45 40 seed Zea mays 4 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 16711 N32W29 NE B 92(01) 45 50 seed Zea mays 3 0.16 frag Soil 72-91 16712 N32W29 NE B 92 (01)50 45 nutshell Carya sp. 11 0.42 frag Soil 72-91 16712 N32W29 NE B 92 (01)50 45 seed Zea mays 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 16717 N32W29 NE B 92(01) 50 55 nutshell Carya sp. 19 0.84 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 16717 N32W29 NE B 92(01) 50 55 seed Zea mays 1 0.12 frag Soil 72-91 16718 N32W29 NE B 92(01) 50 55 seed Zea mays 7 0.27 frag Soil 72-91 16729 N32W29 NE A 92(01c)65 70 seed Zea mays 5 0.11 frag Soil 72-91 16730 N32W29 92 (01c)70 65 nutshell Carya sp. 21 1.19 frag Soil 72-91 16734 N32W29 NE A 92(2a-2d)55 60 seed Zea mays 5 0.13 frag Soil 72-91 16737 N32W29 NE B 92(02a)55 60 seed Zea mays 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 16738 N32W29 NE B 92(02a)55 60 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 16745 N32W29 NE B 92 (02c)65 60 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 16756 N32W29 NW C 92 (01)30 15 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 16762 N32W29 NE A 92(02a)50 55 nutshell Carya sp. 9 0.43 frag Soil 72-91 16763 N32W29 NE A 92(02a)50 55 seed Zea mays 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 16795 N32W29 92 (03)70 65 nutshell Carya sp. 7 0.21 frag Soil 72-91 16795 N32W29 92 (03)70 65 seed Zea mays 1 0.08 frag Soil 72-91 16796 N32FW29 92 (03a)70 65 seed Zea mays 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 16797 N32W29 92 (03a)70 65 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 16812 N32W29 92 (04)70 65 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 16823 N32W29 NE B 92 (01)40 35 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 16825 N32W29 NE B 92(01) 35 40 seed Zea mays 5 0.15 frag Soil 72-91 16826 N32W29 NE B 92(01) 35 40 nutshell Carya sp. 24 0.47 frag Soil 72-91 16839 N32W29 NE B 92(01) 55 60 nutshell Carya sp. 17 0.53 frag Soil 72-91 16839 N32W29 NE B 92(01) 55 60 seed Zea mays 3 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 16841 N32W29 NE B 92(01) 55 60 seed Zea mays 17 0.49 frag Soil 72-91 16852 N32W29 NE B 92 (1b/1c)65 60 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 16853 N32W29 NE B 92 (1b/1c)65 60 nutshell Carya sp. 4 0.12 frag Soil 72-91 16863 N32W29 NE B 92(01c)65 70 seed Zea mays 3 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 16864 N32W29 92 (01c)70 65 nutshell Carya sp. 12 0.42 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 16864 N32W29 92 (01c)70 65 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 16873 N32W29 NE B 92 (01c)75 70 nutshell Carya sp. 12 0.38 frag Soil 72-91 16875 N32W29 NE B 92 (01c)75 70 seed Zea mays 3 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 16889 N32W29 NW D 92 (01c)75 70 seed Comptonia peregrina 3 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 16890 N32W29 NW D 92 (01c)75 70 seed Zea mays 20 0.54 frag Soil 72-91 16891 N32W29 NW D 92 (01c)75 70 seed Zea mays 3 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 16893 N32W29 NW D 92 (01c)75 70 nutshell Carya sp. 32 2.06 frag Soil 72-91 16908 N32W29 NE B 92 (02a)45 40 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.12 frag Soil 72-91 16909 N32W29 NE B 92 (02a)45 40 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 16918 N32/W29 NE B 92(03) 55 60 nutshell Carya sp. 6 0.53 frag Soil 72-91 16938 NW32/W29 NE A 92 (04)75 70 seed Zea mays 5 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 16940 N32W29 NW A 92 (04)75 70 nutshell Carya sp. 28 2.51 frag Soil 72-91 16959 N32W29 NE A 92 (04)80 75 nutshell Carya sp. 4 0.32 frag Soil 72-91 16969 N32W29 92 (04)70 65 nutshell Carya sp. 18 1.15 frag Soil 72-91 16969 N32W29 92 (04)70 65 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 16970 N32W29 92 (04)70 65 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 16973 N32W29 92 (04)70 65 seed Carex sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 16985 N32W29 92 (04)70 65 seed Zea mays 2 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 16990 N32W29 NE B 92 (04)75 70 nutshell Carya sp. 22 1.32 frag Soil 72-91 16991 N32W29 NE B 92 (04)75 70 seed Zea mays 5 0.23 frag Soil 72-91 17004 N32W29 NE B 92 (04)80 75 nutshell Carya sp. 4 0.25 frag Soil 72-91 17014 N32W29 NW C 92 (4b/4d)75 70 seed Comptonia peregrina 4 0.02 whole Soil 72-91 17017 N32W29 NW C 92 (4b/4d)75 70 seed Zea mays 4 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 17030 N32W29 NW C 92 (4b/4d)75 70 nutshell Carya sp. 22 2.56 frag Soil 72-91 17034 N32W29 NW C 92 (04b)80 75 seed Zea mays 3 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 17043 N32W29 NW C 92 (04b)80 75 seed Gaylussacia sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 17049 N32W29 NW C 92 (04b)80 75 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.15 frag Soil 72-91 17052 N32W29 NW D 92 (04b)75 70 nutshell Carya sp. 10 0.49 frag Soil 72-91 17053 N32W29 NW D 92 (04b)75 70 seed Zea mays 3 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 17058 N32W29 NE A 92 (04c)80 75 seed Zea mays 5 0.14 whole Soil 72-91 17060 N32W29 NW D 92 (04c)80 75 nutshell Carya sp. 14 0.53 whole Soil 72-91 17060 N32W29 NW D 92 (04c)80 75 seed Zea mays 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 17072 N32/W29 NE A 92(4c/4e)85 90 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 17073 N32W29 NE A 92 (4c/4e)90 85 nutshell Carya sp. 6 0.12 frag Soil 72-91 17073 N32W29 NE A 92 (4c/4e)90 85 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17076 N32W29 NE A 92 (4c/4e)90 85 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 17102 N32W30 NW D 92 (04d)85 80 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 17103 N32W30 NE A 92 (04d)85 80 nutshell Carya sp. 6 0.24 frag Soil 72-91 17106 N32W29 NE A 92 (4c/4e)90 85 nutshell Carya sp. 9 0.7 frag Soil 72-91 17118 N32W29 NE B 92 (04b)75 70 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.24 frag Soil 72-91 17122 N32W29 NE B 92 (04d)75 70 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.17 frag Soil 72-91 17135 N32W29 NE B 92 (04d)80 75 nutshell Carya sp. 11 0.39 frag Soil 72-91 17135 N32W29 NE B 92 (04d)80 75 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 17136 N32W29 NE B 92 (04d)80 75 seed Zea mays 1 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 17153 N32W29 NW C 92 (04d)65 60 nutshell Carya sp. 18 0.22 frag Soil 72-91 17153 N32W29 NW C 92(04d)60 65 seed Zea mays 7 0.17 frag Soil 72-91 17159 N32W29 NW C 92 (04d)65 60 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17161 N32W29 NW C 92(04d)60 65 seed Phaselous vulgaris 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 17161.01 N32W29 West 1/2 92 65 60 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 17163 N32W29 92 (04d)70 65 seed Zea mays 1 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 17165 N32W29 92 (04d)70 65 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 17176 N32W29 NW B 92 (05b)80 75 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 17177 N32W29 NW D 92 (05b)80 75 nutshell Carya sp. 37 1.51 frag Soil 72-91 17177 N32W29 NW D 92 (05b)80 75 seed Zea mays 2 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 17178 N32W29 NW D 92 (05b)80 75 seed Zea mays 4 0.11 frag Soil 72-91 17189 N32W30 NW C 92 (04b)85 80 nutshell Carya sp. 5 0.27 frag Soil 72-91 17202 N32W29 NE B 92 (06)75 70 nutshell Carya sp. 11 0.58 frag Soil 72-91 17211 N32W29 NE B 92 (06)85 80 seed Myrica pensylvanica 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17219 N32W29 NE B 92 (06)85 80 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17232 N32W29 92 (06)70 65 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 17232 N32/W29 NW C 92(06) 65 70 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17243 N32W30 NW D 92 (06)75 70 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 17243 N32W30 NW D 92 (06)75 70 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17244 N32W30 NW D 92 (06)75 70 seed Zea mays 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 17247 N32W29 92 (06)70 65 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.08 frag Soil 72-91 17267 N32W29 NW D 92 (06)80 75 nutshell Carya sp. 20 0.68 frag Soil 72-91 17267 N32W29 NW D 92 (06)80 75 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17268 N32W29 NW D 92 (06)80 75 seed Zea mays 3 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 17287 N32W29 NE A 92 (06)85 80 nutshell Carya sp. 18 1.01 frag Soil 72-91 17288 N32W29 NE A 92 (06)85 80 seed Zea mays 3 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 17289 N32W29 NE A 92 (06)85 80 seed Comptonia peregrina 5 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17289 N32W29 NE A 92 (06)85 80 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17304 N32W29 NE B 92 (06)80 75 nutshell Carya sp. 9 0.71 frag Soil 72-91 17309 N32W29 NW D 92 (06)85 80 seed Zea mays 4 0.22 frag Soil 72-91 17316 N32W29 NW D 92 (06)85 80 seed unidentified unidentified 4 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 17317 N32W29 NW D 92 (06)85 80 nutshell Carya sp. 37 0.82 frag Soil 72-91 17317 N32W29 NW D 92 (06)85 80 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17334 N32W30 SW D 92 (06)0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 9 0.29 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 17337 N32W30 SW D 92 (06)0 0 seed Zea mays 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 17366 N32W29 NW C 92 (06b)95 90 seed Zea mays 3 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 17368 N32W29 NE A 92 (06b)95 90 seed Zea mays 5 0.18 frag Soil 72-91 17369 N32W29 NE A 92 (06b)95 90 nutshell Carya sp. 14 0.66 frag Soil 72-91 17369 N32W29 NE A 92 (06b)95 90 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17387 N32W29 NW D 92 (06b)85 80 nutshell Carya sp. 5 0.25 frag Soil 72-91 17387 N32W29 NW D 92 (06b)85 80 seed Zea mays 3 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 17408 N32W30 NW D 92 (06b)90 85 nutshell Carya sp. 24 0.85 frag Soil 72-91 17409 N32W30 NE D 92 (06b)90 85 seed Zea mays 4 0.16 frag Soil 72-91 17410 N32W30 NW D 92 (06b)90 85 seed Zea mays 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17411 N32W30 NW D 92 (06b)90 85 seed Gaylussacia sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 17431 N32W30 NW D 92 (06b)95 90 seed Zea mays 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 17432 N32W30 NW D 92 (06b)95 90 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17433 N32W30 NW D 92 (06b)95 90 nutshell Carya sp. 7 0.29 frag Soil 72-91 17434 N32W30 NW D 92 (06b)95 90 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17459 N32W29 NW C 92 (06c)95 90 nutshell Carya sp. 17 0.21 frag Soil 72-91 17461 N32W29 NW C 92 (06c)95 90 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17462 N32W29 NW C 92 (06c)95 90 seed Zea mays 4 0.08 frag Soil 72-91 17463 N32W29 NW C 92 (06c)95 90 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 17471 N32W29 NW D 92 (08a)75 70 seed Zea mays 2 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 17498 N32W29 NW C 92 (10)100 95 seed Zea mays 2 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 17517 N32W30 NW D 92 (10)95 90 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 17518 N32W30 NW D 92 (10)95 90 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 17528 N32W29 SE A 92 (12)100 95 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 17529 N32W29 NE A 92 (12)100 95 seed Zea mays 3 0.08 frag Soil 72-91 17539 N32W29 NE A 92 (12)105 100 seed Zea mays 2 0.02 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 17540 N32W29 NE A 92 (12)105 100 seed Zea mays 8 0.29 frag Soil 72-91 17541 N32W29 NE A 92 (12)105 100 nutshell Carya sp. 17 0.53 frag Soil 72-91 17541 N32W29 NE A 92 (12)105 100 seed Zea mays 4 0.08 frag Soil 72-91 17585 N32W30 NW C 92 (12)100 95 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17606 N32W30 NW D 92 (07)90 85 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 17606 N32W30 NW D 92 (07)90 85 cupule Zea mays 3 0.03 whole Soil 72-91 17621 N32W30 NW D 92 (12)100 95 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17621 N32/W30 NW D 92(12) 95 100 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 17650 N32W30 SW D 92 (12)0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 17651 N32W30 SW D 92 (12)0 0 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17665 N32W29 NE B 92 (12a)85 80 seed Zea mays 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 17670 N32W29 NE B 92 (13a)90 85 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17677 N32W29 NE C 92 (12a)90 85 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 17690 N32W29 NE A 92 (13)105 100 seed Zea mays 4 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 17691 N32/W29 NE A 92(13) 100 105 seed Gaylussacia sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 17704 N32W29 NE B 92 (13)105 100 seed Zea mays 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 17723 N32W29 NW C 92 (13)105 100 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17726 N32W29 NW C 92 (13)105 100 nutshell Carya sp. 6 0.08 frag Soil 72-91 17750 N32W29 NE B 92 (13a)90 85 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 17763 N32W29 NE B 92 (13a)85 80 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.14 frag Soil 72-91 17777 N32/W30 S 92 20 25 nutshell Carya sp. 23 0.61 frag Soil 72-91 17778 N32W30 S 92 25 20 seed Zea mays 27 0.48 frag Soil 72-91 17778 N32W30 S 92 25 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.27 whole Soil 72-91 17788 N32/W29 SW 92(03) 50 55 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.11 frag Soil 72-91 17792 N32/W29 SW 92(03) 50 55 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 17809 N32/W29 SW 92(05a)55 60 nutshell Carya sp. 38 1 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 17809 N32/W29 SW 92(05a)55 60 seed Zea mays 5 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 17810 N32/W29 SW 92(05a)55 60 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 17812 N32/W29 SW 92(05a)55 60 seed Zea mays 4 0.16 frag Soil 72-91 17819 N32W29 92 (05a)70 65 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17819 N32W29 92 (05a)70 65 seed Comptonia peregrina 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17828 N32W29 92 (05a)70 65 nutshell Carya sp. 13 0.89 frag Soil 72-91 17831 N32W29 92 (05a)70 65 seed Zea mays 5 0.14 frag Soil 72-91 17843 N32W29 SW 92 (07)80 80 nutshell Carya sp. 7 0.16 frag Soil 72-91 17844 N32W29 SW 92 (07)80 80 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17856 N32W29 SE 92 (03)45 40 nutshell Carya sp. 18 0.38 frag Soil 72-91 17856 N32W29 SE 92 (03)45 40 nutshell Corylus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17856 N32W29 SE 92 (03)45 40 seed Zea mays 2 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 17857 N32W29 SE 92 (03)45 40 seed Zea mays 4 0.2 frag Soil 72-91 17858 N32W29 SE 92 (03)45 40 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 17861 N32W29 SE 92 (03)45 40 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17868 N32W29 SE 92 (01)45 40 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17869 N32W29 SE 92 (01)45 40 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17879 N32W29 SE 92 (01)50 45 seed Zea mays 11 0.24 frag Soil 72-91 17883 N32/W29 SE 92(01) 45 50 nutshell Carya sp. 36 1.16 frag Soil 72-91 17883 N32W30 SE 92 (01)50 45 seed Zea mays 11 0.17 frag Soil 72-91 17886 N32/W30 SE 92 (01a)50 45 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 17886 N32W31 SE 92(01a)45 50 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 17894 N32/W31 SE 92(01a)45 50 seed Zea mays 6 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 17895 N32W32 SE 92 (01a)50 45 seed Zea mays 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 17896 N32/W32 SE 92 (01a)50 45 nutshell Carya sp. 5 0.08 frag Soil 72-91 17897 N32W33 SE 92(01a)45 50 seed Phaselous vulgaris 1 0.17 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 17897 N32/W33 SE 92 (01a)50 45 seed Zea mays 5 0.17 frag Soil 72-91 17911 N32W34 SE 92(04b)55 60 seed Zea mays 12 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 17913 N32/W34 SE 92(04b)55 60 nutshell Carya sp. 28 0.48 frag Soil 72-91 17914 N32W35 SE 92(04b)55 60 seed Rubus sp. 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 17914 N32/W35 SE 92(04b)55 60 seed Scirpus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 17931 N32W36 SE 92 (04d)65 60 seed Zea mays 11 0.24 frag Soil 72-91 17931 N32/W36 SE 92 (04d)65 60 seed Zea mays 1 0.23 whole Soil 72-91 17934 N32W37 SE 92(04b)0 0 seed Vitis sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 17935 N32W29 SE 92 (04b)65 60 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 17940 N32W29 SE 92 (04d)65 60 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17941 N32W29 SE 92 (04d)65 60 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 17941 N32W29 SE 92 (04d)65 60 seed Zea mays 6 0.2 frag Soil 72-91 17948 N32W29 SE 92 (04d)65 60 nutshell Carya sp. 18 0.72 frag Soil 72-91 17948 N32W29 SE 92 (04d)65 60 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 17949 N32/W29 SE 92(04d)60 65 seed Gaylussacia sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17949 N32W29 SE 92 (04d)65 60 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17963 N32W29 92 (06)70 65 nutshell Carya sp. 37 1.49 frag Soil 72-91 17963 N32W29 92 (06)70 65 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17963 N32W29 92 (06)70 65 seed Zea mays 5 0.11 frag Soil 72-91 17968 N32W29 92 (06)70 65 seed Zea mays 6 0.38 frag Soil 72-91 17968 N32W29 92 (06)70 65 seed Zea mays 2 0.41 whole Soil 72-91 17979 N32W29 SE 92 (12)100 95 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.04 whole Soil 72-91 17979 N32W29 SE 92 (12)100 95 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 17980 N32W29 SE 92 (12)100 95 seed Comptonia peregrina 3 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18002 N32W29 NE B 92 (02a)50 45 nutshell Carya sp. 5 0.13 frag Soil 72-91 18003 N32W29 NE B 92 (02a)50 45 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 1 0.03 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 18003 N32W29 NE B 92 (02a)50 45 seed Zea mays 5 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 18010 N32W29 NE B 92 (02a)50 45 seed Comptonia peregrina 5 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18010 N32W29 NE B 92 (02a)50 45 seed Vitis sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18014 N32W29 92 (02d)70 65 seed Gaylussacia sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18014 N32W29 92(02d)70 65 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18016 N32W29 92 (02d)70 65 nutshell Carya sp. 17 0.34 frag Soil 72-91 18033 N32W29 92 (04d)70 65 nutshell Carya sp. 8 0.43 frag Soil 72-91 18038 N32W29 92 (04d)70 65 seed Zea mays 6 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 18043 N32W29 92 (04d)70 65 seed Zea mays 1 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 18317 N32/W28 NE 102 30 40 seed Zea mays 1 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 18346.04 N26/W28 SW 80 35 40 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 18346.04 N26/W28 SW 80 35 40 seed Zea mays 1 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 18350.02 N26/W28 NW 80 35 40 seed Zea mays 1 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 18353.04 N26/W30 SE/NE 83 18 23 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18353.04 N26/W30 SE/NE 83 18 23 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18353.04 N26/W30 SE/NE 83 18 23 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18353.06 N26/W30 SE/NE 83 18 23 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18355.04 N26/W30 SE/NE 83 30 35 seed Zea mays 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18360.01 N26/W30 NE 83 18 23 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18363.01 N26/W30 SE 83 18 23 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18367.02 N31/W31 NW/SW 86 20 30 seed Zea mays 1 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 18372.04 N29/W31 NE 89 30 35 nutshell Corylus americana 2 0.02 whole Soil 72-91 18444.03 N30/W31 NE 322 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18636.02 N26/W30 SE 83 18 23 seed Zea mays 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18750.00 S10W1 E1/2 2 40 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19196.00 N35W50 NE NF 15 10 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 19200 N35W50 NE 132 20 15 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 19266 N35W51 SE NF 15 10 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 1 0.09 whole Soil 72-91 19296 N35W53 NE NF 29 15 seed Zea mays 1 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 19309 N35W56 NW NF 20 15 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 19329 N36W52 NW NF 20 15 seed Zea mays 2 0.11 frag Soil 72-91 19348 N37W51 NE NF 20 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.13 whole Soil 72-91 19363 N38W52 NW NF 15 10 seed Zea mays 4 0.13 frag Soil 72-91 19369 N38W52 SE NF 15 10 seed Zea mays 5 0.17 frag Soil 72-91 19370 N38W52 SE NF 15 10 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19374 N38W52 NE NF 15 10 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 19375 N38W52 NE NF 15 10 seed Zea mays 3 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 19378 N38W58 NE NF 20 15 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19379 N38W58 NE NF 20 15 seed Zea mays 3 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 19397 N36W47 SW NF 15 10 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19404 N36W54 NE NF 10 5 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19411 N36W54 NW NF 15 10 seed Zea mays 4 0.17 frag Soil 72-91 19412 N36W54 NE/NW NF 15 15 seed Zea mays 3 0.08 whole Soil 72-91 19415 N36W54 NW NF 20 15 seed Zea mays 4 0.25 whole Soil 72-91 19417 N36W54 NE NF 20 15 seed Zea mays 2 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 19440 N37W52 NW NF 15 10 seed Zea mays 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 19452 N38W50 NW NF 20? 20? seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19482 N36W44 NW NF 15 10 seed Zea mays 1 0.08 whole Soil 72-91 19502 N36W46 SW 152 15 10 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19525 N38W49 NW NF 10 5 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19527 N39W49 NE NF 10 5 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 19532 N39W49 NW NF 15 10 seed Zea mays 1 0.07 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 19582 S14W27 NW 2 26 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 19587 S14W27 SW 2 26 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 19588 S14W27 SW 2 26 20 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19588 S14W27 SW 2 26 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19590 S14W47 SE 2 26 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19598 S14W26 SW 2 21 20 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 19604 S14W23 NW NF 21 20 nutshell Carya sp. 5 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19606 S14W23 SE NF 21 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19610 S14W24 NW NF 21 20 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19612 S14W24 NE NF 21 20 nutshell Carya sp. 4 0.22 frag Soil 72-91 19616 S14W25 NE NF 21 21 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19619 S14W25 NW NF 21 21 plant unidentified unidentified 4 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19620 S14W25 NW NF 21 21 nutshell Juglans sp. 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19622 S14W25 SE NF 21 21 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19626 S14W30 SE 2 21 20 nutshell Juglans sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19628 S14W30 SE 2 21 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19631 S14W34 NW NF 21 20 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19633 S14W34 NE NF 21 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19636 S14W35 SE 2 21 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19667 S14W23 NE 2 21 21 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19672 S14W23 SW 2 21 21 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 19698 S15W26 NW 2 21 20 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 19699 S15W26 NW 2 21 20 plant unidentified unidentified 9 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 19705 S15W28 All 2 21 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 19716 S15W30 SE 2 21 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19726 S15W32 SW 2 21 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 19739 S15W34 NE 2 21 20 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 19749 S15W36 All 2 21 20 nutshell Juglans sp. 5 0.25 frag Soil 72-91 19750 S15W36 All 2 21 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19751 S15W36 All 2 21 20 nutshell Corylus sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19763 S16W19 SW 2 21 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 19764 S16W19 SW 2 21 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19772 S16W19 2 30 25 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19773 S16W19 2 30 25 seed Zea mays 1 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 19774 S16W19 2 30 25 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19776 S16W19 2 25 21 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 19779 S16W19 2 40 35 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19782 S16W19 2 25 21 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19783 S16W19 2 25 21 seed Zea mays 3 0.13 frag Soil 72-91 19795 S16W20 2 25 21 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19804 S16W20 2 30 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19806 S16W20 2 30 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19812 S16W22 SE 2 51 50 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19816 S16W20 2 26 21 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 19823 S16W21 NW 2 31 26 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19825 S16W21 SE - subsoil2 26 21 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19832 S16W21 NE 2 26 21 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19834 S14W21 NE 2 31 26 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19836 S16W21 subsoil 2 26 21 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19841 S16W24 NW 2 21 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19845 S16W24 N1/2 2 25 25 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19853 S16W25 N1/2 2 30 30 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.08 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 19864 S16W27 N1/2 2 30 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 19871 S16W29 NF 41 21 nutshell unidentified unidentified 4 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19871 S16W29 NF 41 21 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19878 S16W34 SE NF 21 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19883 S16W35 NW NF 21 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19887 S17W19 NE NF 21 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 5 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 19894 S17W20 SE NF 21 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19913 S17W25 NF 21 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19914 S17W25 NF 31 21 plant unidentified unidentified 5 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19915 S17W25 NF 31 21 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19915 S17W25 NF 31 21 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19932 S17W33 E1/2 NF 36 21 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.19 frag Soil 72-91 19941 S17W35 NW NF 21 20 nutshell Corylus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19942 S17W36 NW NF 21 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19950 S17W36 SW NF 21 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 19962 S18W24 E1/2 NF 21 20 seed Potamogeton sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 19966 S18W27 E1/2 76 41 21 seed Ilex sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 19971 S18W27 77 36 21 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19986 S18W32 SE NF 21 21 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19987 S18W32 SW NF 21 21 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 19988 S18W32 SW NF 21 21 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19999 S18W35 SW NF 21 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20002 S18W35 SE NF 21 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20019 S19W27 All 77, 78 m21 20 seed Ilex sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20019 S19W27 All 77, 78 m21 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20020 S19W27 All 77, 78 21 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 20028 S19W34 NW NF 21 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20040 S20W23 SW NF 21 21 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20048 S20W28 NE NF 21 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 20060 S23W27 SE NF 21 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20062 S23W27 NW NF 21 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20063 S14/15W27 2 25 25 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20063 S14/15W27 2 25 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20072 S14W27 2 25 25 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20076 S14W27 2 30 30 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20079 S14W26 2 25 25 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20082 S14W26 2 25 25 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 20146 S15W31 2 41 21 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20150 S15W31 2 46 21 seed Myrica pensylvanica 3 0.02 whole Soil 72-91 20150 S15W31 2 46 21 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20156 S15W32 S1/2 2 55 55 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20160 S15W32 S1/2 2 35 35 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20168 S16W29 2 41 21 seed Myrica pensylvanica 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20170 S16W28 2 41 21 plant unidentified unidentified 4 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 20282 N36W46 NW 152 A,B,C20 A/B 16 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 20282 N36W46 NW 152 A,B,C20 A/B 16 seed Zea mays 1 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 20287 N36W46 NE 152 A,B,C20 A/B 16 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 20291 N36W46 SE 152 A,B,C20 A/B 16 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 3 0.23 frag Soil 72-91 20292 N36W46 SE 152 A,B,C20 A/B 16 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.11 frag Soil 72-91 20292 N36W46 SE 152 A,B,C20 A/B 16 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20292 N36W46 SE 152 A,B,C20 A/B 16 plant unidentified unidentified 4 0.16 frag Soil 72-91 20292 N36W46 SE 152 A,B,C20 A/B 16 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 20294 N36W46 SW 152 A,B,C20 A/B 16 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 1 0.05 whole Soil 72-91 20295 N36W46 SW 152 20 16 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 4 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 20296 N36W46 SW 152 20 16 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 20297 N36W46 E 152 26 20 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 1 0.03 whole Soil 72-91 20297 N36W46 E 152 26 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 10 0.39 frag Soil 72-91 20297 N36W46 E 152 26 20 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20305 N36W48 S 138 61 21 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 1 0.04 whole Soil 72-91 20305 N36W48 S 138 61 21 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20307 N36W48 S 138 26 26 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 1 0.04 whole Soil 72-91 20308 N38W48 S 138 26 26 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.74 frag Soil 72-91 20332 N37W47 All 2 46 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20332 N37W47 All 2 46 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20336 N37W47 SW 2 41 21 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 20344 N37W50 NE 2 45 45 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 5 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 20348 N37W48 N 2 46 26 nutshell Corylus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20348 N37W48 N 2 46 26 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 20348 N37W48 N 2 46 26 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20350 N38W48 S 138 46 21 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.29 frag Soil 72-91 20353 N37W48 NW 2 41 26 seed Myrica pensylvanica 7 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 20353 N37W48 NW 2 41 26 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 20353 N37W48 NW 2 41 26 seed Zea mays 1 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 20356 N37W48 NE 2 41 26 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20369 N38W49 S 2 31 26 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 20381 N38W50 All 2 21 20 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20384 N38W50 S 2 36 21 seed Myrica pensylvanica 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20393 N38W51 All 149 20 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.15 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 20395 N38W51 All 149 24 17 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.28 frag Soil 72-91 20403 N32W52 NE 127 26 21 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.09 frag Soil 72-91 20403 N32W52 NE 127 26 21 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 20421 N38W51 SW 2 51 26 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 20425 N38W51 SW 149 51 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 20428 N38W51 SE 2 26 21 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 1 0.06 whole Soil 72-91 20432 N38W52 S1/2 2 55 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 20442 S13W47 All 2 21 21 seed Myrica pensylvanica 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 12691C N25/W27 SW NF 25 30 seed Zea mays 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 12693D N25/W28 SW NF 5 10 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 12694D N25/W28 SW NF 10 15 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 12720C N29/W31 SW NF 10 15 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.08 frag Soil 72-91 12721C N29/W31 NF 15 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 12722C N29/W31 NF 20 25 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 12738D N33/W30 NF 5 10 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13148B N31/W30 NF 20 25 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 13154B N32/W32 SW NF 15 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13155E N32/W32 SW NF 20 25 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 13678D N24/W25 SW NF 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13691C N27/W25 SW NF 10 15 seed Zea mays 1 0.08 frag Soil 72-91 13692C N27/W25 SW NF 15 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13692C N27/W25 SW NF 15 20 seed Zea mays 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 13698E N28/W25 SW NF 10 15 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 13698F N28/W25 SW NF 10 15 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13702D N28/W33 SW NF 15 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 13719C N30/W29 SW NF 20 25 seed Zea mays 1 0.04 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 13729B N30/W33 SW NF 15 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13730A N30/W33 SW NF 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13732C N31/W25 SW NF 10 15 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 13734D N31/W26 SW NF 5 10 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 13734D N31/W26 SW NF 5 10 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13758C N32/W27 SW NF 15 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 13758D N32/W27 SW NF 15 20 seed Crataegus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 13760C N32/W28 SW NF 10 15 nutshell Carya sp. 4 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 13760C N32/W28 SW NF 10 15 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 13762B N32/W30 SW NF 10 15 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 13762B N32/W30 SW NF 10 15 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13770C N33/W26 SW NF 15 20 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 13773C N33/W27 SW NF 10 15 nutshell Carya sp. 5 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 13773C N33/W27 SW NF 10 15 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 13773C N33/W27 SW NF 10 15 seed Zea mays 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 13777D N33/W28 SW NF 15 20 nutshell Carya sp. 4 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 13784C N33/W32 SE NF 5 10 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 13788C N34/W24 SW NF 5 10 plant unidentified unidentified 8 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 13790D N34/W24 SW NF 15 20 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13806C N34/W29 NE NF 25 30 nutshell unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13806C N34/W29 NE NF 25 30 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13809D N34/W31 SW NF 15 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13809D N34/W31 SW NF 15 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13809D N34/W31 SW NF 15 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13809D N34/W31 SW NF 15 20 plant unidentified unidentified 5 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13812D N34/W32 SW NF 15 20 plant unidentified unidentified 5 0.01 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 13812D N34/W32 SW NF 15 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13817C N35/W25 NW NF 0 10 seed Zea mays 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 13819C N35/W25 SW NF 15 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13823C N35/W26 SW NF 15 20 nutshell Carya sp. 21 0.28 frag Soil 72-91 13832C N35/W32 SW NF 20 25 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13846D N37/W24 SW NF 0 10 seed Crataegus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 13847C N37/W24 SW NF 10 15 seed Crataegus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 13847C N37/W24 SW NF 10 15 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 13847C N37/W24 SW NF 10 15 plant unidentified unidentified 10 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 13848B N37/W24 SW NF 15 20 plant unidentified unidentified 4 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 13853C N37/W25 SW NF 20 25 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 14421B N23/W31 SW NF 15 20 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 14433D N26/W33 SW NF 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14433E N26/W33 SW NF 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 14439C N28/W34 SW NF 10 15 nutshell unidentified unidentified 4 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 14450B N35/W33 NE NF 5 10 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 14459C N39/W24 SW NF 10 15 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 14462C N39/W24 SW NF 25 30 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14476C N25/W32 SW NF 5 10 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14482B N25/W33 SW NF 15 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14482B N25/W33 SW NF 15 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 14483C N25/W33 SW NF 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14494C N29/W34 SW NF 15 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 14495E N29/W34 SW NF 20 25 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14511B N35/W30 SW NF 10 15 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14637A N38/W24 SW NF 15 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 14638B N38/W24 SW NF 10 15 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 14656C N32/W36 SW NF 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 14661D N23/W31 NW NF 5 10 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14661D N23/W31 NW NF 5 10 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 14664B N24/W26 NE NF 5 10 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 14676A N24/W34 SW NF 15 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14698D N31/W35 SW NF 5 10 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 14700D N31/W35 SW NF 10 15 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 14708F N33/W33 SW NF 10 15 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14708F N33/W33 SW NF 10 15 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14713E N33/W36 SW NF 15 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14713E N33/W36 SW NF 15 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14714C N33/W36 SW NF 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 14722B N39/W25 SW NF 20 25 nutshell Carya sp. 4 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 14722B N39/W25 SW NF 20 25 nutshell Corylus americana 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 15043A N26/W36 SW NF 5 10 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 15043A N26/W36 SW NF 5 10 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 15050B N31/W37 NE NF 10 15 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 15052C N31/W37 NW NF 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 15052C N31/W37 NW NF 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 15053B N31/W37 SW NF 25 30 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 15084C N25/W36 SW NF 5 10 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 15090B N29/W36 SW NF 10 15 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 15090F N29/W36 SW NF 10 15 seed Vitis sp. 1 0.02 whole Soil 72-91 18378A N31/W30 NW 95 20 30 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18397B N28/W30 116 47 52 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.03 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 18398B N22/E0 SE 117 25 30 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18402B N22/E0 SE 117 20 30 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18402E N22/E0 SE 117 20 30 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18464B N31W33 SW NF 35 27 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18474B N34W33 SW NF 20 15 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18474D N34W33 SW NF 20 15 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 18482B N32W29 S1/2 NF nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 18482C N32W29 S1/2 NF seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18493B N29W28 SE NF 48 25 seed Comptonia peregrina 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18502C N35W57 SW F.2 PM 40541 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18504C N25W29 NE NF 35 25 nutshell Corylus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18517A N0W2/S1W2 NE NF 30 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18522B N9E0 SE F.2 PM 30552 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18532C N34W57 NW 2 40 5 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18542B N18E0 SE/SW 2 45 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18543D N18E0 SW/SE 2 45 20 nutshell Carya sp. 6 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18547B N18E0 NW 2 45 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18548E N19E0 SW 2 40 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18548F N19E0 SW 2 40 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18549F N19E0 SW 2 40 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18549G N19E0 SW 2 40 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 1.5 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18551B N20E0 NW 2 45 22 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18552C N20E0 NW 2 45 22 nutshell Corylus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18554A N20E0 SW 2 45 22 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18556B N20E0 SW 2 45 22 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18558D N21E0 NW 2 45 40 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 18558E N21E0 NW 2 45 40 seed Comptonia peregrina 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18558H N21E0 NW 2 45 40 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18559B N21E0 SW 2 40 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18560B N22E0 SW 2 40 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18560C N22E0 SW 2 40 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18560D N22E0 SW 2 40 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18560E N22E0 SW 2 40 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18560H N22E0 SW 2 40 20 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18562C N22E0 NW 2 40 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18562C N22E0 NW 2 40 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18562D N22E0 NW 2 40 20 seed Carex sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18564A N22E0 SW 2 25 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18566A N23E0 SW 2 40 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18568D N24E0 SW 2 40 25 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18570A N24E0 NW 2 30 25 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18571A N24E0 NW 2 30 25 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18571D N24E0 NW 2 30 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18572A N24E0 NW 2 30 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18577A N6W1 NE/SE 2 50 30 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18577C N6W1 NE/SE 2 50 30 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18577D N6W1 NE/SE 2 50 30 nutshell Juglans sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18578E N6W1 SE/NE 2 50 30 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18578E N6W1 SE/NE 2 50 30 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18578G N6W1 SE/NE 2 50 30 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18578H N6W1 SE/NE 2 50 30 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18578I N6W1 SE/NE 2 50 30 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 18579G N6W1 NE/SE 2 50 30 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18579I N6W1 SE/NE 2 50 30 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18580F N7W1 NE 2 45 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18580G N7W1 NE 2 45 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18581D N7W1 NE 2 45 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 4.5 0.02 whole Soil 72-91 18581P N7W1 NE 2 45 20 nutshell Carya sp. 8 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 18581T N7W1 NE 2 45 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18581T N7W1 NE 2 45 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18582B N7W1 SW 2 45 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18582E N7W1 SW 2 45 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 1.5 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18583P N7W1 SW 2 45 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 18584C N8W1 N 2 45 20 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18586A N9W1 2 23 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18590C N14W1 NE 2 35 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18592C N45W57 NW 2 40 5 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18596B N34W57 2 25 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18597B N34W57 2 30 25 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18597B N34W57 2 30 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18598C N34W57 2 30 25 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18603B N34W57 SW 2 40 30 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18603D N34W57 SW 2 40 30 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18603F N34W57 SW 2 40 30 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18603F N34W57 SW 2 40 30 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18604A N34W57 SW 2 40 30 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18606A N34W57 2 40 35 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18608I N35W57 NW 2 no depthno depthnutshell Corylus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 18608I N35W57 NW 2 no depthno depthplant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18608J N35W57 NW 2 no depthno depthseed Comptonia peregrina 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18608J N35W57 NW 2 no depthno depthseed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18610A N35W57 SW 2 no depthno depthseed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18611B N35W57 S1/2 2 no depthno depthseed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18611B N35W57 S1/2 2 no depthno depthseed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18611D N35W57 S1/2 2 no depthno depthplant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18611E N35W57 S1/2 2 no depthno depthnutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18611G N35W57 S1/2 2 no depthno depthseed Myrica pensylvanica 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18611G N35W57 S1/2 2 no depthno depthseed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18612A N35W57 NE 2 45 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18612A N35W57 NE 2 45 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18612F N35W57 NE 2 45 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18614A N35W57 SE 2 45 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18616A N35W57 NE 2 50 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18622A N36W25 NE 2 55 25 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18623A N36W25 NE 2 55 25 seed Comptonia peregrina 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18623E N36W25 NE 2 55 25 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18625C N36W25 NW 2 55 25 nutshell Corylus sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18625F N36W25 NW 2 55 25 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18627B N36W26 NW 2 50 25 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18627D N36W26 NW 2 50 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18629B N36W24/N37W24 2 45 20 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18629C N36W24/N37W24 2 45 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18629D N36W24/N37W24 2 45 20 plant unidentified unidentified 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18630B N36W24/N37W24 2 45 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 18633D N36W24/N37W24E1/2 2 45 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18633E N36W24/N37W24E1/2 2 45 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18633F N36W24/N37W24E1/2 2 45 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18637B N37W25/N36W25SW/NW 2 45 25 nutshell Corylus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18637B N37W25/N36W25SW/NW 2 45 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18637D N37W25/N36W25SW/NW 2 45 25 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18639E N37W25/N36W25SW/NW 2 45 25 seed Comptonia peregrina 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18639H N37W26/N36W26SW/NW 2 45 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18640B N37W26/N36W26SW/NW 2 45 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18640C N37W26/N36W26SW/NW 2 45 25 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18640E N37W26/N36W26SW/NW 2 45 25 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18641A N37W26/N36W26SW/NW 2 45 25 nutshell Corylus sp. 2 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 18641A N37W26/N36W26SW/NW 2 45 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18643C N36W57 2 50 25 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 18646C N36W57 All 2 25 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18648A N36W57 SecH 2 50 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18648B N36W57 2 50 25 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18648B N36W57 2 50 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18649C N36W47 All 2 25 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18650E N37W57 NW 2 30 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18656E N37W58 2 30 25 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18660G N37W59 NE 2 30 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18662A N37W59 NE 2 35 30 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18666A N38W56 SE 2 40 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18666A N38W56 SE 2 40 25 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18666A N38W56 SE 2 40 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 18666A N38W56 SE 2 40 25 seed Zea mays 2 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 18666B N38W56 SE 2 40 25 nutshell Corylus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18666B N38W56 SE 2 40 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18668E N38W56 SE 2 no depthno depthseed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18668F N38W56 SE 2 no depthno depthseed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18669C N38W56 NW 2 50 25 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18671A N38W56 NW 2 50 25 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18671E N38W56 NW 2 50 25 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18672C N38W56 NW 2 65 25 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18672D N38W56 NW 2 65 25 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18672D N38W56 NW 2 65 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18672D N38W56 NW 2 65 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18673A N38W56 NW 2 65 25 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18673C N38W56 NW 2 65 25 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18673C N38W56 NW 2 65 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18675H N38W60 SW 2 30 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18675H N38W60 SW 2 30 25 plant unidentified unidentified 5 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18676J N38W60 NW 2 30 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18677A N38W60 NE 2 45 35 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18678A N38W60 NW 2 35 25 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 whole Soil 72-91 18678B N38W60 NW 2 35 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18679E N38W60 NE 2 35 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18680C N39W50 SW 2 no depthno depthseed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18680C N39W50 SW 2 no depthno depthplant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18680D N39W50 SW 2 no depthno depthseed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18680H N39W50 SW 2 no depthno depthnutshell unidentified unidentified 3 0.02 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 18682C N39W56 2 50 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18683A N39W56 2 50 25 seed Comptonia peregrina 1.5 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18683B N39W56 2 50 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18683C N39W56 2 50 25 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18684H N39W57 NE 2 45 25 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18684H N39W57 NE 2 45 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18684I N39W57 NE 2 45 25 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18684J N39W57 NE 2 45 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 5 0.02 whole Soil 72-91 18684K N39W57 NE 2 45 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18685B N39W60 NE 2 no depthno depthseed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18685C N39W60 NE 2 no depthno depthseed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18686E N40W52 SW 2 43 25 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18686E N40W52 SW 2 43 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1.5 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18686E N40W52 SW 2 43 25 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18687E N40W57 NE 2 35 21 seed Myrica pensylvanica 2.5 0.02 whole Soil 72-91 18687E N40W57 NE 2 35 21 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18688B N40W57 NE 2 35 21 seed Myrica pensylvanica 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18688B N40W57 NE 2 35 21 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18688C N40W57 NE 2 35 21 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18688D N40W57 NE 2 35 21 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18688D N40W57 NE 2 35 21 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18688D N40W57 NE 2 35 21 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18689C N40W57 SE 2 45 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18690B N40W57 NW 2 35 21 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18690B N40W57 NW 2 35 21 seed Myrica pensylvanica 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18690B N40W57 NW 2 35 21 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 18692A N40W57 SE 2 40 22 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18693C N40W57 NW 2 40 21 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18702B N41W59 NE 2 45 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18704D N41W58 SW 2 35 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18705D N41W58 SE 2 55 23 seed Myrica pensylvanica 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18706B N41W58 SE 2 45 25 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18706C N41W58 SE 2 45 25 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18706D N41W58 SE 2 45 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18706D N41W58 SE 2 45 25 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18706F N41W58 SE 2 45 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 3 0.02 whole Soil 72-91 18706F N41W58 SE 2 45 25 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18706F N41W58 SE 2 45 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18706F N41W58 SE 2 45 25 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18706H N41W58 SE 2 45 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18707B N41W58 SW 2 40 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18714A N28W28 SE 73 40 35 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18714C N28W28 SE 73 40 35 seed Comptonia peregrina 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18714D N28W28 SE 73 40 35 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18716C N28W28 NW 73 45 30 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18717C N35W27 SE/SW 104 30 25 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18719C UNK NW 2 35 30 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18719C UNK NW 2 35 30 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18719C UNK NW 2 35 30 seed Vaccinium sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18721C N0E0 SW/SE 122 22 20 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18722U N1W1 NW 2 40 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18729C S5E0 SW NF 25 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 18731B S7E0 NE NF 30 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18735A S1W1 SE 120 30 20 nutmeat unidentified unidentified 2 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 18736B S1W1 NW 2 40 20 nutshell Carya sp. 7 0.18 frag Soil 72-91 18736B S1W1 NW 2 40 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.08 frag Soil 72-91 18736B S1W1 NW 2 40 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18736D S1W1 NW 2 40 20 plant unidentified unidentified 26 0.05 frag Soil 72-91 18736E S1W1 NW 2 40 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 9 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18736E S1W1 NW 2 40 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18737F S2W1 SW 2 40 20 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18737F S2W1 SW 2 40 20 plant unidentified unidentified 5 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18738C S3W1 SW 2 25 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18738D S3W1 SE 2 25 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18739D S6W1 NW 2 30 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18740A S7W1 SW/NW 2 40 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18740C S7W1 SW/NW 2 40 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18741C S8W1 SW 2 45 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18741C S8W1 SW 2 45 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18742B S8W1 NW 2 40 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18742B S8W1 NW 2 40 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18742B S8W1 NW 2 40 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18743A S8W1 NW 2 40 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18743C S8W1 NW 2 40 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18743C S8W1 NW 2 40 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18743C S8W1 NW 2 40 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 18743F S8W1 NW 2 40 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 8 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18744D S9W1 SE 2 40 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 4 0.01 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 18744E S9W1 SE 2 40 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18744G S9W1 SE 2 40 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18744G S9W1 SE 2 40 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18744G S9W1 SE 2 40 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18744G S9W1 SE 2 40 20 plant unidentified unidentified 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18746A S9W1 SE 2 45 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18747B S9W1 NW 2 45 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 18747C S9W1 NW 2 45 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18748B S9W1 NE 2 45 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18749C S9W1 NW 2 45 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 whole Soil 72-91 18749C S9W1 NW 2 45 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18749C S9W1 NW 2 45 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18749D S9W1 NW 2 45 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18749F S9W1 NW 2 45 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18750B S10W1 E1/2 2 40 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18750G S10W1 E1/2 2 40 20 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18751A S10W1 E1/2 2 40 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18752A S10W1 W1/2 2 40 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18752B S10W1 W1/2 2 40 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18752B S10W1 W1/2 2 40 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18752B S10W1 W1/2 2 40 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18752B S10W1 W1/2 2 40 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 18752B S10W1 W1/2 2 40 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 18752D S10W1 W1/2 2 40 20 plant unidentified unidentified 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19013D N20E0 W1/2 2 45 22 nutshell Corylus sp. 1 0.06 frag Soil 72-91 19014C N1W1 NW 2 60 40 nutshell Corylus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feat. U.D. L.D Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-91 19015F S1W1 SW 2 40 20 plant unidentified unidentified 10 0.03 frag Soil 72-91 19015H S1W1 SW 2 40 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 2 0.03 whole Soil 72-91 19015I S1W1 SW 2 40 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19015K S1W1 SW 2 40 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19015M S1W1 SW 2 40 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19016C S1W1 SW 2 40 20 seed Comptonia sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19016E S1W1 SW 2 40 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19016H S1W1 SW 2 40 20 seed Comptonia sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 19019C S7W1 SW/NW 2 40 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19019G S7W1 SW/NW 2 40 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19020C S8W1 SW 2 45 20 seed Comptonia sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19020C S8W1 SW 2 45 20 plant unidentified unidentified 9 2 frag Soil 72-91 19020D S8W1 SW 2 45 20 seed Comptonia sp. 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 19020D S8W1 SW 2 45 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-91 19021D S9W1 SE 2 45 20 seed Comptonia sp. 7 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19022B S9W1 SW 2 45 20 seed Comptonia sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19022D S9W1 SW 2 45 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19023C S9W1 SW 2 45 20 seed Comptonia sp. 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-91 19120B N36W48 SE 138 15 10 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19124B N36W49 NW NF 15 10 seed Zea mays 1 0.07 frag Soil 72-91 19131B N36W48 SW 138 20 15 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 1 0.04 frag Soil 72-91 19250B N33W57 NE 144 15 10 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-91 19455D S9W1 SW 2 45 20 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 frag Soil Mass Site Inventory # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Con. Sample 72-164A 28.01 N473E77 NE 0 10 NF nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Exc. 72-164A 29.01 N473W77 SE 0 10 NF nutshell Quercus sp. 1 0.01 frag Exc. 72-164A 89.00 N470W76 SW 0 10 NF nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 3 0.03 frag Exc. 72-164A 103.00 N475W77 NW 0 10 NF nushell Corylus americana 1 0.11 frag Exc. 72-164A 132.01 N471W73 NE 0 10 NF nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.14 frag Exc. 72-164A 150.00 N477W75 SW 0 10 NF nutmeat unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.63 frag Exc. 72-164A 154.00 N477W75 NW 0 10 NF nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.135 frag Exc. 72-164A 182.05 N472W80 SE 10 20 1 nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 50 0.1 frag Soil 72-164A 182.17 N472W80 SE 10 20 1 bud unidentifiable unidentifiable 5 0.1 frag Soil 72-164A 182.22 N472W80 SE 10 20 1 seed Asclepias sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 182.23 N472W80 SE 10 20 1 seed Gaylussacia sp. 2 0.1 frag Soil 72-164A 182.24 N472W80 SE 10 20 1 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 4 0.1 frag Soil 72-164A 182.25 N472W80 SE 10 20 1 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 7 0.1 frag Soil 72-164A 183.06 N472W80 NE 10 20 1 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 3 0.4 frag Soil 72-164A 184.09 N472W80 SW 10 20 1 bud unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.1 frag Soil 72-164A 185.06 N472W80 NW 10 20 1 cupule cf. Zea mays 1 0.1 frag Soil 72-164A 185.09 N472W80 NW 10 20 1 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.1 frag Soil 72-164A 196.00 N473W76 SW 10 20 NF plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.02 frag Exc. 72-164A 221.08 N473W80 NW 10 20 1 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.1 frag Soil 72-164A 221.11 N473W80 NW 10 20 1 nutmeat unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.1 frag Soil 72-164A 221.16 N473W80 NW 10 20 1 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.1 frag Soil 72-164A 222.05 N473W80 SW 10 20 1 nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.1 frag Soil 72-164A 223.10 N473W80 SE 10 20 1 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 9 0.1 frag Soil 72-164A 223.11 N473W80 SE 10 20 1 nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.1 frag Soil 72-164A 224.04 N473W80 NE 10 20 1 nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.1 frag Soil 72-164A 242.00 N478W80 NE 0 10 NF nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.08 frag Exc. 72-164A 284.00 N473/W78 SE 0 10 1 seed Cornus sp. 1 0.07 frag Exc. 72-164A 285.02 N473W78 SW 0 10 1 bark unidentifiable unidentifiable 5 0.34 frag Exc. 72-164A 344.00 N475W76 NW 10 20 NF nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.17 frag Exc. 72-164A 352.00 N475W81 SE 0 10 NF nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.05 frag Exc. 72-164A 366.01 N471W77 NW 0 10 NF nutshell Quercus sp. 1 0.01 frag Exc. Mass Site Inventory # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Con. Sample 72-164A 383.01 N470W74 NW 0 10 NF plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Exc. 72-164A 385.01 N470W74 SW 10 20 NF plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Exc. 72-164A 386.01 N470W74 SW 10 20 NF nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.51 frag Exc. 72-164A 392.00 N471W71 SW 0 10 NF nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.21 frag Exc. 72-164A 411.00 N474W73 SW 10 20 NF nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.05 frag Exc. 72-164A 877.10 N473W79 SW 10 20 1 nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 877.16 N473W79 SW 10 20 1 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 6 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 877.17 N473W79 SW 10 20 1 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 878.06 N473W79 SE 10 20 1 seed Gaylussacia sp 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 880.09 N473W78 NW 10 15 1 bud unidentifiable unidentifiable 4 0.08 frag Soil 72-164A 880.10 N473W78 NW 10 15 1 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 881.14 N473W78 SW 10 20 1 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 883.13 N472W79 SW 3 16 1 nutmeat unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.07 frag Soil 72-164A 883.15 N472W79 SW 3 16 1 nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 6 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 883.16 N472W79 SW 3 16 1 seed Identifiable Identifiable 14 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 883.17 N472W79 SW 3 16 1 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 6 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 883.18 N472W79 SW 3 16 1 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 885.06 N472W79 NE 3 16 1 seed Chenopodium sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 885.11 N472W79 NE 3 16 1 bud unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 885.12 N472W79 NE 3 16 1 nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 886.07 N472W73 SW 10 15 4 bud unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 886.08 N472W73 SW 10 15 4 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-164A 886.13 N472W73 SW 10 15 4 nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 887.05 N472W73 NW 30 40 4 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 890.05 N472W78 NW 3 10 1 nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 10 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 890.06 N472W78 NW 3 10 1 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 890.14 N472W78 NW 3 10 1 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 891.04 N472W78 SW 3 10 1 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 5 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 891.05 N472W78 SW 3 10 1 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 891.08 N472W78 SW 3 10 1 bud unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 891.10 N472W78 SW 3 10 1 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil Mass Site Inventory # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Con. Sample 72-164A 891.11 N472W78 SW 3 10 1 nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 891.13 N472W78 SW 3 10 1 seed Chenopodium sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 892.05 N472W78 SE 3 10 1 bud unidentifiable unidentifiable 24 0.07 frag Soil 72-164A 892.09 N472W78 SE 3 10 1 nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 10 0.09 frag Soil 72-164A 892.12 N472W78 SE 3 10 1 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 892.13 N472W78 SE 3 10 1 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 892.14 N472W78 SE 3 10 1 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 10 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 892.15 N472W78 SE 3 10 1 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 8 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 892.16 N472W78 SE 3 10 1 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 11 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 892.17 N472W78 SE 3 10 1 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 7 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 893.09 N472W78 NE 3 10 1 nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.07 frag Soil 72-164A 893.09 N472W78 NE 3 10 1 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 11 0.06 frag Soil 72-164A 893.13 N472W78 NE 3 10 1 bud unidentifiable unidentifiable 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 893.15 N472W78 NE 3 10 1 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 893.16 N472W78 NE 3 10 1 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 894.06 N474W77 East 1/2 20 35 3 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-164A 894.07 N474W77 East 1/2 20 35 3 seed Chenopodium sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feature U. D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-34A 15.04 S1E0 NE 2 7 10 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 64.02 N0E0 SW NF 0 5 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 93 N5E0 SE NF 0 5 nutshell Corylus americana 8 0.03 frag Soil 72-34A 141 N3E0 NE FA7 0 5 nut Corylus americana 8 0.06 frag Soil 72-34A 142.07 N3E0 SW FA7 5 10 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-34A 142.09 N3E0 SW FA7 5 10 seed unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 142.13 N3E0 SW FA7 5 10 plant unidentified unidentified 6 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 482 N5W6 SE NF 0 10 nut Corylus americana 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-34A 515 S2E2 NW NF 10 15 nut Corylus americana 1 0.09 frag Soil 72-34A 532 S3E1 NE NF 0 10 nut Corylus americana 4 0.08 frag Soil 72-34A 592.03 S1W6 SE 5 15 20 plant unidentified unidentified 5 0.02 frag Soil 72-34A 615.09 N0W1 ALL 1 10 15 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 616.04 N1E0 NE FA2 10 15 plant unidentified unidentified 7 0.02 frag Soil 72-34A 628.06 N1E5 NE NF 8 15 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 651.01 N3E3 NW 6 0 0 nut Corylus americana 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-34A 651.02 N3E3 NW 6 10 15 seed Cornaceae Family 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 698.01 N5E2 NW FAPPM 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 716.01 N5E3 NW NF 30 35 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 773 N7E4 SE PPM 15 20 seed Comptonia perigrina 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 788.02 S1E0 SW 2 15 15 cone/bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 788.04 S1E0 SW 2 15 15 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 790.02 S1W6 SE 5 25 25 seed Zea mays 1 0.04 frag Soil 72-34A 790.05 S1W6 SE 5 25 25 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-34A 792.02 N4E3 6 10 15 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 799.02 N4E3 6 10 15 seed Zea mays 3 0.04 frag Soil 72-34A 799.12 N4E3 6 10 15 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 800.02 N4E3 6 15 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-34A 800.08 N4E3 6 15 20 seed Comptonia perigrina 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 801.02 N4E3 6 20 24 cone/bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 802.02 N4E3 6 10 15 seed Comptonia perigrina 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 802.05 N4E3 6 10 15 nut Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feature U. D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-34A 802.12 N4E3 6 10 15 plant unidentified unidentified 20 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 802.16 N4E3 6 10 15 plant unidentified unidentified 20 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 804.02 N4E3 6 10 15 seed Comptonia perigrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 804.07 N4E3 6 10 15 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 804.09 N4E3 6 10 15 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 921.03 S5E5 SE 36 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 8 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 924.02 S10E2 37 15 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 924.03 S10E2 37 15 20 plant unidentified unidentified 5 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 929.01 S7E4 ALL 38 15 20 seed Acalypha sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-34A 929.02 S7E4 ALL 38 15 20 nutmeat unidentified unidentified 4 0.06 frag Soil 72-34A 930.05 S7E4 ALL 38 15 20 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 934.02 S8E3 South 1/2 39A 15 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-34A 935.02 S8E3 South 1/2 39A 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 937.02 S9E3 SE 39C 20 30 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 943.03 S13E1 NW 40 20 25 nut unidentified unidentified 1 0.08 frag Soil 72-34A 943.04 S13E1 NW 40 20 25 nut Carya sp sp. 13 0.28 frag Soil 72-34A 962.05 S8E6 35 50 70 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 962.07 S8E6 35 50 70 plant unidentified unidentified 50 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 962.08 S8E6 35 50 70 seed (Ericaceae 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 962.09 S8E6 35 50 70 cone/bud unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 962.1 S8E6 35 50 70 nut unidentified unidentified 3 0.03 frag Soil 72-34A 962.11 S8E6 35 50 70 bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 963.02 S8E6 35 50 70 seed Comptonia perigrina 12 0.02 frag Soil 72-34A 963.03 S8E6 35 50 70 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 963.04 S8E6 35 70 80 plant unidentified unidentified 50 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 963.05 S8E6 35 70 80 cone/bud unidentified unidentified 7 0.02 frag Soil 72-34A 963.08 S8E6 35 50 70 seed Nyssa sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-34A 963.09 S8E6 35 50 70 seed Gaylussacia sp. 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 964.03 S8E6 35 90 100 plant unidentified unidentified 8 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 964.04 S8E6 35 90 100 seed Nyssa sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-34A 964.05 S8E6 35 90 100 seed Comptonia perigrina 1 0.01 whole Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feature U. D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-34A 965.02 S8E6 35 100 110 plant unidentified unidentified 15 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 972.07 N1E0 SW 2 10 15 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 1006.02 N1E0 SW FA2 10 15 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 1007 35 0 0 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-34A 1008 35 0 0 seed Comptonia perigrina 4 0.01 whole Soil 72-34A 1009 35 0 0 bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 1010 35 0 0 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 1011.01 35 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 6 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 1012 35 0 0 seed Cornus florida 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-34A 1013.01 35 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 6 0.01 frag Soil 72-34A 1014.02 North 1/2 35 80 90 seed Gaylussacia sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-34A 1014.03 North 1/2 35 80 90 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil Mass Site Inventory # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample
N196/E527/ 72-58 602.01 N196/E527 SE/SW 2 20 30 nutshell Corylus americana 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 984.01 N186/E525 E 7 20 30 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 1132.02 N196/E517 NE 4 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 8 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 1132.04 N196/E517 NE 4 10 20 seed unidentified unidentified 7 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 1170.06 N182/E525 NW 6 15 25 plant unidentified unidentified 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 1170.07 N182/E525 NW 6 15 25 seed Vaccinium sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 1170.08 N182/E525 NW 6 15 25 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 1170.11 N182/E525 NW 6 15 25 germ Zea mays 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 1171.02 N182/E525 NW 6 15 25 seed Myrica sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 1171.03 N182/E525 NW 6 15 25 seed Ilex sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 1171.04 N182/E525 NW 6 15 25 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 1171.05 N182/E525 NW 6 15 25 nutshell Quercus sp. 16 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 1172.05 N182/E525 NW 6 25 35 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 1172.06 N182/E525 NW 6 25 35 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 1172.07 N182/E525 NW 6 25 35 seed Myrica pensylvanica 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 1173.02 N182/E525 NW 6 35 45 bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 1437.01 N181/E525 NW 6 10 20 germ Zea mays 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 1437.06 N181/E525 NW 6 10 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 1533.02 N198/E518 SE 4 0 10 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 1533.03 N198/E518 SE 4 0 10 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 1981.01 N181/E524 NW 3 10 20 bud unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 1981.02 N181/E524 NW 3 10 20 seed Quercus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 1981.03 N181/E524 NW 3 10 20 nutshell Corylus americana 9 0.18 frag Soil 72-58 1981.12 N181/E524 NW 3 10 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 1981.13 N181/E524 NW 3 10 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 1984.02 N181/E524 NW 3 30 40 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 1984.03 N181/E524 NW 3 30 40 nutshell Quercus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 1984.05 N181/E524 NW 3 30 40 plant unidentified unidentified 9 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 1985.03 N181/E524 NW 3 40 45 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil Mass Site Inventory # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-58 1985.04 N181/E524 NW 3 40 45 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 1985.05 N181/E524 NW 3 40 45 plant unidentified unidentified 6 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2412.01 N181/E523 NE/NW 3 35 54 seed Rhus sp. 5 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2412.02 N181/E523 NE/NW 3 35 54 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2412.03 N181/E523 NE/NW 3 35 54 nutshell Corylus americana 14 0.24 frag Soil 72-58 2412.04 N181/E523 NE/NW 3 35 54 nutshell Corylus americana 29 0.26 frag Soil 72-58 2412.04 N181/E523 NE/NW 3 35 54 nutshell Quercus sp. 8 0.04 frag Soil 72-58 2412.04 N181/E523 NE/NW 3 35 54 bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2412.04 N181/E523 NE/NW 3 35 54 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2412.04 N181/E523 NE/NW 3 35 54 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2412.07 N181/E523 NE/NW 3 35 54 plant unidentified unidentified 20 0.05 frag Soil 72-58 2412.08 N181/E523 NE/NW 3 35 54 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2412.09 N181/E523 NE/NW 3 35 54 seed Myrica pensylvanica 5 0.02 whole Soil 72-58 2412.11 N181/E523 NE/NW 3 35 54 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2412.12 N181/E523 NE/NW 3 35 54 seed Cornus sp. 6 0.03 frag Soil 72-58 2412.13 N181/E523 NE/NW 3 35 54 plant unidentified unidentified 99 0.1 frag Soil 72-58 2412.19 N181/E523 NE/NW 3 35 54 seed Latuca sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2412.2 N181/E523 NE/NW 3 35 54 seed Gaylussacia sp. 5 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2412.21 N181/E523 NE/NW 3 35 54 seed Vaccinium sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2412.22 N181/E523 NE/NW 3 35 54 seed Scirpus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2412.23 N181/E523 NE/NW 3 35 54 bud unidentified unidentified 7 0.04 whole Soil 72-58 2413.01 N181/E523 NE 3 44 65 seed Rhus sp. 7 0.02 whole Soil 72-58 2413.02 N181/E523 NE 3 44 65 nutshell Corylus americana 6 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2413.02 N181/E523 NE 3 44 65 bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2413.03 N181/E523 NE 3 44 65 seed Gaylussacia sp. 4 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2413.04 N181/E523 NE 3 44 65 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2413.05 N181/E523 NE 3 44 65 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2413.06 N181/E523 NE 3 44 65 nutshell Corylus americana 10 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2413.07 N181/E523 NE 3 44 65 seed Carex sp. 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2413.08 N181/E523 NE 3 44 65 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2413.09 N181/E523 NE 3 44 65 bud unidentified unidentified 5 0.01 frag Soil Mass Site Inventory # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-58 2413.1 N181/E523 NE 3 44 65 cap/stem unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2413.11 N181/E523 NE 3 44 65 seed Ranunculaceae 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2413.12 N181/E523 NE 3 44 65 plant unidentified unidentified 13 frag Soil 72-58 2413.19 N181/E523 NE 3 44 65 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2413.2 N181/E523 NE 3 44 65 seed Myrica pensylvanica 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2420.04 N181/E523 NE 3 13 82 seed Carpinus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2420.04 N181/E523 NE 3 13 82 plant unidentified unidentified 2 NTF whole Soil 72-58 2420.05 N181/E523 NE 3 13 82 nutshell Corylus americana 12 NTF frag Soil 72-58 2420.06 N181/E523 NE 3 13 82 seed Rhus sp. 2 NTF whole Soil 72-58 2421.04 N181/E523 NW 3 3 80 bark unidentified unidentified 12 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2421.04 N181/E523 NW 3 3 80 bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2421.04 N181/E523 NW 3 3 80 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2421.05 N181/E523 NW 3 3 80 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2421.07 N181/E523 NW 3 3 80 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2421.07 N181/E523 NW 3 3 80 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2421.08 N181/E523 NW 3 3 80 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2422.01 N181/E523 SE 3 13 82 seed Rhus sp. 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2422.02 N181/E523 SE 3 13 82 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2422.02 N181/E523 SE 3 13 82 bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2422.02 N181/E523 SE 3 13 82 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2422.02 N181/E523 SE 3 13 82 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2422.03 N181/E523 SE 3 13 82 seed Cyperaceae 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2422.04 N181/E523 SE 3 13 82 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2422.05 N181/E523 SE 3 13 82 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2422.06 N181/E523 SE 3 13 82 bud unidentified unidentified 5 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2422.07 N181/E523 SE 3 13 82 seed Cornus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2422.08 N181/E523 SE 3 13 82 seed Zea mays 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2422.09 N181/E523 SE 3 13 82 seed Myrica pensylvanica 6 0.05 frag Soil 72-58 2422.1 N181/E523 SE 3 13 82 seed Gaylussacia sp. 3 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2422.12 N181/E523 SE 3 13 82 plant unidentified unidentified 25 0.03 frag Soil 72-58 2422.2 N181/E523 SE 3 13 82 seed Chenopodium sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil Mass Site Inventory # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-58 2422.21 N181/E523 SE 3 13 82 seed Cyperus sp. 4 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2423.01 N181/E523 SW 3 13 82 seed Rhus sp. 4 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2423.02 N181/E523 SW 3 13 82 seed Myrica pensylvanica 7 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2423.03 N181/E523 SW 3 13 82 seed Gaylussacia sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2423.04 N181/E523 SW 3 13 82 seed Gramineae 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2423.05 N181/E523 SW 3 13 82 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2423.06 N181/E523 SW 3 13 82 bud unidentified unidentified 6 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2423.07 N181/E523 SW 3 13 82 seed unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2495.01 N191/E521 SW 9 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 8 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2495.02 N191/E521 SW 9 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2495.02 N191/E521 SW 9 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2495.04 N191/E521 SW 9 20 25 nutshell Carya sp. 7 0.05 frag Soil 72-58 2495.1 N191/E521 SW 9 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 5 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2496.02 N191/E521 SW 9 25 30 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2496.03 N191/E521 SW 9 25 30 bark unidentified unidentified 16 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2496.04 N191/E521 SW 9 25 30 rind Cucurbitaceae 6 0.03 frag Soil 72-58 2497.04 N191/E521 SE 9 20 25 bark unidentified unidentified 8 0.06 frag Soil 72-58 2497.07 N191/E521 SE 9 20 25 seed unidentified unidentified 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2497.14 N191/E521 SE 9 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2497.15 N191/E521 SE 9 20 25 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2498.03 N191/E521 SE 9 25 30 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2501.03 N191/E521 N 9 20 50 seed Myrica pensylvanica 5 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2501.04 N191/E521 N 9 20 50 seed unidentified unidentified 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2501.06 N191/E521 N 9 20 50 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2501.11 N191/E521 N 9 20 50 cupule Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2501.16 N191/E521 N 9 20 50 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2501.17 N191/E521 N 9 20 50 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2502.03 N191/E521 N 9 20 50 seed Carex sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2502.04 N191/E521 N 9 20 50 seed unidentified unidentified 14 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2502.05 N191/E521 N 9 20 50 seed Myrica pensylvanica 5 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2502.1 N191/E521 N 9 20 50 seed Comptonia sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil Mass Site Inventory # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-58 2502.12 N191/E521 N 9 20 50 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2502.14 N191/E521 N 9 20 50 bud unidentified unidentified 8 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2504.03 N191/E521 SE 9 30 35 bud unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2504.04 N191/E521 SE 9 30 35 bark unidentified unidentified 10 0.03 frag Soil 72-58 2504.05 N191/E521 SE 9 30 35 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2505.01 N191/E521 SE 9 35 40 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2505.02 N191/E521 SE 9 35 40 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2505.03 N191/E521 SE 9 35 40 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2505.2 N191/E521 SE 9 35 40 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2510.02 N191/E521 SW 9 40 50 bud unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2510.03 N191/E521 SW 9 40 50 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2510.04 N191/E521 SW 9 40 50 seed unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2511.02 N191/E521 SE 9 40 50 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2511.03 N191/E521 SE 9 40 50 seed unidentified unidentified 5 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2511.04 N191/E521 SE 9 40 50 plant unidentified unidentified 13 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2515.01 N188/E522 SW 13 20 30 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2515.03 N188/E522 SW 13 20 30 plant unidentified unidentified 91 NTF frag Soil 72-58 2515.06 N188/E522 SW 13 20 30 seed Phytolaca americana 3 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2515.08 N188/E522 SW 13 20 30 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2519.03 N188/E522 NE 13 40 50 plant unidentified unidentified 76 0.12 frag Soil 72-58 2519.1 N188/E522 NE 13 40 50 seed unidentified unidentified 13 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2519.11 N188/E522 NE 13 40 50 plant unidentified unidentified 10 0.03 frag Soil 72-58 2523.04 N188/E522 SW 13 50 60 seed Gallium sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2523.06 N188/E522 SW 13 50 60 plant unidentified unidentified 5 0.04 frag Soil 72-58 2523.07 N188/E522 SW 13 50 60 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2524.01 N188/E522 SE 13 60 70 plant unidentified unidentified 7 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2524.02 N188/E522 SE 13 60 70 nutmeat unidentified unidentified 11 0.05 frag Soil 72-58 2524.02 N188/E522 SE 13 60 70 nutmeat unidentified unidentified 447 2.26 frag Soil 72-58 2524.03 N188/E522 SE 13 60 70 nutmeat unidentified unidentified 161 2.64 frag Soil 72-58 2525.01 N188/E522 SE 13 60 70 nutmeat Juglandaceae 300 1.98 frag Soil 72-58 2555.01 N183/E529 NE 10 20 60 bud unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil Mass Site Inventory # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-58 2555.02 N182/E529 NE 10 20 60 nutshell Carya sp. 43 0.54 frag Soil 72-58 2555.02 N182/E529 NE 10 20 60 nutshell Carya sp. 6 0.32 frag Soil 72-58 2555.02 N182/E529 NE 10 20 60 bark unidentified unidentified 6 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2555.02 N182/E529 NE 10 20 60 bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2555.02 N182/E529 NE 10 20 60 nutshell unidentified unidentified 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2555.02 N182/E529 NE 10 20 60 seed unidentified unidentified 8 0.04 frag Soil 72-58 2555.02 N182/E529 NE 10 20 60 plant unidentified unidentified 48 0.04 frag Soil 72-58 2555.02 N182/E529 NE 10 20 60 plant unidentified unidentified 10 0.03 frag Soil 72-58 2555.03 N182/E529 NE 10 20 60 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2555.04 N182/E529 NE 10 20 60 nutshell Carya sp. 4 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2555.05 N182/E529 NE 10 20 60 nutshell Quercus sp. 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2555.06 N182/E529 NE 10 20 60 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2555.08 N182/E529 NE 10 20 60 plant unidentified unidentified 99 0.16 frag Soil 72-58 2555.13 N182/E529 NE 10 20 60 seed Gaylussacia sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2589.01 N187/E526 NE 11 20 50 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2589.03 N187/E526 NE 11 20 50 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2589.05 N187/E526 NE 11 20 50 seed Compositae 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2589.06 N187/E526 NE 11 20 50 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2589.07 N187/E526 NE 11 20 50 plant unidentified unidentified 12 0.09 frag Soil 72-58 2589.08 N187/E526 NE 11 20 50 plant unidentified unidentified 13 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2590.01 N187/E522 NE 13 20 42 plant unidentified unidentified 13 0.12 frag Soil 72-58 2590.02 N187/E522 NE 13 20 42 plant unidentified unidentified 73 NTF frag Soil 72-58 2590.05 N187/E522 NE 13 20 42 plant unidentified unidentified 14 0.12 frag Soil 72-58 2590.06 N187/E522 NE 13 20 42 plant unidentified unidentified 5 1.67 frag Soil 72-58 2591.01 N187/E522 NW 13 20 42 plant unidentified unidentified 33 0.27 frag Soil 72-58 2591.02 N187/E522 NW 13 20 42 plant unidentified unidentified 97 NTF frag Soil 72-58 2591.02 N187/E522 NW 13 20 42 plant unidentified unidentified 4 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2591.03 N187/E522 NW 13 20 42 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2591.04 N187/E522 NW 13 20 42 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2591.05 N187/E522 NW 13 20 42 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2591.11 N187/E522 NW 13 20 42 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil Mass Site Inventory # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-58 2591.12 N187/E522 NW 13 20 42 seed Cyperaceae 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2591.13 N187/E522 NW 13 20 42 plant unidentified unidentified 69 0.13 frag Soil 72-58 2593.01 N187/E523 NW 13 20 39 plant unidentified unidentified 12 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2593.02 N187/E523 NW 13 20 36 plant unidentified unidentified 13 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2593.07 N187/E523 NW 13 20 36 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2596.02 N187/E521 NW 13 20 36 plant unidentified unidentified NTF frag Soil 72-58 2597.01 N182/E523 NE 3 10 20 seed Chenopodium sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2597.02 N182/E523 NE 3 10 20 bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2597.02 N182/E523 NE 3 10 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2597.03 N182/E523 NE 3 10 20 nutshell Corylus americana 4 0.03 frag Soil 72-58 2597.03 N182/E523 NE 3 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2597.04 N182/E523 NE 3 10 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2597.05 N182/E523 NE 3 10 20 bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2597.05 N182/E523 NE 3 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2597.06 N182/E523 NE 3 10 20 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2597.07 N182/E523 NE 3 10 20 seed Viburnum sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2597.08 N182/E523 NE 3 10 20 bud unidentified unidentified 8 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2597.17 N182/E523 NE 3 10 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 8 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2597.18 N182/E523 NE 3 10 20 nutshell Quercus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2597.19 N182/E523 NE 3 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 7 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2597.2 N182/E523 NE 3 10 20 seed Cornus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2597.21 N182/E523 NE 3 10 20 seed Rhus sp. 9 0.02 whole Soil 72-58 2599.02 N182/E523 SW 3 10 20 bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2599.04 N182/E523 SW 3 10 20 nutshell Corylus americana 25 NTF frag Soil 72-58 2599.04 N182/E523 SW 3 10 20 cupule Zea mays 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2600.02 N182/E523 SE 3 10 20 seed Rubus sp. 3 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2600.03 N182/E523 SE 3 10 20 seed Gaylussacia sp. 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2600.04 N182/E523 SE 3 10 20 seed Compositae 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2600.05 N182/E523 SE 3 10 20 nutshell Corylus americana 114 2.19 frag Soil 72-58 2600.06 N182/E523 SE 3 10 20 seed Rhus sp. 15 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2600.07 N182/E523 SE 3 10 20 seed Rhus sp. 8 0.02 whole Soil Mass Site Inventory # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-58 2600.08 N182/E523 SE 3 10 20 seed Cyperaceae 22 0.02 whole Soil 72-58 2600.09 N182/E523 SE 3 10 20 bud unidentified unidentified 32 0.08 frag Soil 72-58 2600.1 N182/E523 SE 3 10 20 seed Polygonum sp. 6 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2600.11 N182/E523 SE 3 10 20 seed Viburnum sp. 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2600.12 N182/E523 SE 3 10 20 seed Viburnum sp. 15 0.06 frag Soil 72-58 2600.14 N182/E523 SE 3 10 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 6 0.02 whole Soil 72-58 2600.15 N182/E523 SE 3 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 74 0.11 frag Soil 72-58 2600.16 N182/E523 SE 3 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 22 0.04 frag Soil 72-58 2600.17 N182/E523 SE 3 10 20 bud unidentified unidentified 17 0.03 frag Soil 72-58 2600.18 N182/E523 SE 3 10 20 seed unidentified unidentified 7 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2601.02 N182/E523 SE 3 20 30 seed/fruitunidentified unidentified 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2601.03 N182/E523 SE 3 20 30 seed Rhus sp. 7 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2601.04 N182/E523 SE 3 20 30 bud unidentified unidentified 6 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2601.06 N182/E523 SE 3 20 30 seed Chenopodium sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2602.01 N182/E523 NE 3 20 30 seed Rhus sp. 20 0.02 whole Soil 72-58 2602.02 N182/E523 NE 3 20 30 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2602.03 N182/E523 NE 3 20 30 plant unidentified unidentified 36 0.09 frag Soil 72-58 2602.04 N182/E523 NE 3 20 30 seed unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2602.05 N182/E523 NE 3 20 30 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2603.01 N182/E523 SW 3 20 30 nutshell Corylus americana 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2603.02 N182/E523 SW 3 20 30 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2603.03 N182/E523 SW 3 20 30 seed Rhus sp. 12 0.02 whole Soil 72-58 2603.04 N182/E523 SW 3 20 30 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2604.01 N182/E523 NW 3 20 30 seed Scirpus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2604.02 N182/E523 NW 3 20 30 seed Myrica pensylvanica 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2604.03 N182/E523 NW 3 20 30 seed Gaylussacia sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2604.04 N182/E523 NW 3 20 30 seed Rhus sp. 19 0.02 whole Soil 72-58 2604.05 N182/E523 NW 3 20 30 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2604.06 N182/E523 NW 3 20 30 seed Cyperus sp. 4 0.01 whole Soil 0.01 2604.07 N182/E523 NW 3 20 30 bud unidentified unidentified 5 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2604.12 N182/E523 NW 3 20 30 seed Rhus sp. 5 0.01 frag Soil Mass Site Inventory # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-58 2605.03 N182/E523 NE 3 30 40 plant unidentified unidentified 7 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2605.04 N182/E523 NE 3 30 40 seed Gaylussacia sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2605.05 N182/E523 NE 3 30 40 seed/fruitunidentified unidentified 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2605.06 N182/E523 NE 3 30 40 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2605.07 N182/E523 NE 3 30 40 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2606.02 N182/E523 NW 3 30 40 nutshell unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2606.03 N182/E523 NW 3 30 40 seed/fruitunidentified unidentified 7 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2606.04 N182/E523 NW 3 30 40 plant unidentified unidentified 23 0.08 frag Soil 72-58 2607.01 N182/E523 SE 3 30 40 plant unidentified unidentified 8 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2607.02 N182/E523 SE 3 30 40 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2608.02 N182/E523 SW 3 30 40 seed Gaylussacia sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2608.03 N182/E523 SW 3 30 40 seed Cyperus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2608.04 N182/E523 SW 3 30 40 seed Juncus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2608.05 N182/E523 SW 3 30 40 seed Rhus sp. 37 0.06 whole Soil 72-58 2608.06 N182/E523 SW 3 30 40 seed unidentified unidentified 9 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2608.07 N182/E523 SW 3 30 40 plant unidentified unidentified 12 0.05 frag Soil 72-58 2609.01 N182/E523 SE 3 40 50 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2609.02 N182/E523 SE 3 40 50 seed unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2609.03 N182/E523 SE 3 40 50 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2611.01 N182/E523 SW 3 40 50 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2611.02 N182/E523 SW 3 40 50 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2611.03 N182/E523 SW 3 40 50 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2611.04 N182/E523 SW 3 40 50 bud unidentified unidentified 5 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2611.05 N182/E523 SW 3 40 50 seed Myrica pensylvanica 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2612.01 N182/E523 NW 3 40 50 seed Cyperaceae 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2612.02 N182/E523 NW 3 40 50 seed Myrica pensylvanica 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2612.03 N182/E523 NW 3 40 50 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2612.03 N182/E523 NW 3 40 50 plant unidentified unidentified 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2613.01 N182/E523 SW 3 50 60 bud unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2614.01 N182/E523 NW 3 50 60 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2614.02 N182/E523 NW 3 50 60 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil Mass Site Inventory # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-58 2614.03 N182/E523 NW 3 50 60 seed Myrica pensylvanica 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2615.01 N182/E523 SE 3 50 60 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2615.02 N182/E523 SE 3 50 60 bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2615.05 N182/E523 SE 3 50 60 plant unidentified unidentified 5 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2616.01 N182/E523 SW 3 60 70 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2616.02 N182/E523 SW 3 60 70 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2618.01 N182/E525 SW 6 20 30 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2618.03 N182/E525 SW 6 20 30 plant unidentified unidentified 12 NTF frag Soil 72-58 2620.01 N191/E521 SW 9 30 48 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2620.02 N191/E521 SW 9 30 48 bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2620.03 N191/E521 SW 9 30 48 plant unidentified unidentified 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2627.01 N197/E517 SW 4 10 20 seed Crataegus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2627.02 N197/E517 SW 4 10 20 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2627.03 N197/E517 SW 4 10 20 seed Cyperaceae 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2627.04 N197/E517 SW 4 10 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2627.05 N197/E517 SW 4 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 10 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2631.02 N197/E517 SW 4 20 30 seed Rubus sp. 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2631.03 N197/E517 SW 4 20 30 seed Carex sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2631.04 N197/E517 SW 4 20 30 seed Polygonum sp. 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2631.05 N197/E517 SW 4 20 30 seed Scirpus sp. 8 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2631.06 N197/E517 SW 4 20 30 seed Cyperaceae 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2631.07 N197/E517 SW 4 20 30 bud unidentified unidentified 6 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2631.08 N197/E517 SW 4 20 30 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2631.09 N197/E517 SW 4 20 30 nutshell Carya sp. 5 0.08 frag Soil 72-58 2644.02 N198/E517 NE 4 20 30 seed Viburnum sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2644.03 N198/E517 NE 4 20 30 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2644.04 N198/E517 NE 4 20 30 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2644.05 N198/E517 NE 4 20 30 plant unidentified unidentified 15 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2650.01 N192/E523 SE 12 20 30 seed Zea mays 11 NTF frag Soil 72-58 2650.02 N192/E523 SE 12 20 30 seed Zea mays 5 0.04 frag Soil 72-58 2650.03 N192/E523 SE 12 20 30 bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil Mass Site Inventory # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-58 2650.04 N192/E523 SE 12 20 30 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2650.05 N192/E523 SE 12 20 30 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2650.07 N192/E523 SE 12 20 30 seed Myrica pensylvanica 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2650.09 N192/E523 SE 12 20 30 seed Cyperus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2650.11 N192/E523 SE 12 20 30 seed unidentified unidentified 18 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2650.12 N192/E523 SE 12 20 30 bark unidentified unidentified 10 NTF frag Soil 72-58 2650.13 N192/E523 SE 12 20 30 seeds unidentified unidentified 8 NTF frag Soil 72-58 2650.14 N192/E523 SE 12 20 30 plant unidentified unidentified 21 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2651.01 N192/E523 SE 12 30 40 seed Gaylussacia sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2651.02 N192/E523 SE 12 30 40 seed Myrica pensylvanica 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2651.03 N192/E523 SE 12 30 40 seed Zea mays 3 0.02 whole Soil 72-58 2651.04 N192/E523 SE 12 30 40 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2651.05 N192/E523 SE 12 30 40 plant unidentified unidentified 12 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2652.01 N192/E523 SE 12 40 60 seed Myrica pensylvanica 6 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2652.02 N192/E523 SE 12 40 60 seed Zea mays 11 0.19 frag Soil 72-58 2652.03 N192/E523 SE 12 40 60 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2652.04 N192/E523 SE 12 40 60 seed Gaylussacia sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2652.05 N192/E523 SE 12 40 60 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2652.06 N192/E523 SE 12 40 60 seed unidentified unidentified 8 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2652.07 N192/E523 SE 12 40 60 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2653.02 N192/E523 SE 12 60 70 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2653.03 N192/E523 SE 12 60 70 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2653.04 N192/E523 SE 12 60 70 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2653.05 N192/E523 SE 12 60 70 plant unidentified unidentified 9 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2654.01 N192/E523 SW 12 20 30 seed Rubus sp. 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2654.02 N192/E523 SW 12 20 30 seed Myrica pensylvanica 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2654.03 N192/E523 SW 12 20 30 seed Chenopodium sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2654.04 N192/E523 SW 12 20 30 nutshell Juglandaceae 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2654.05 N192/E523 SW 12 20 30 seed Zea mays 5 0.04 frag Soil 72-58 2654.06 N192/E523 SW 12 20 30 nutmeat unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2654.07 N192/E523 SW 12 20 30 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil Mass Site Inventory # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-58 2654.08 N192/E523 SW 12 20 30 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2654.1 N192/E523 SW 12 20 30 bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2654.11 N192/E523 SW 12 20 30 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2654.18 N192/E523 SW 12 20 30 cupule Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2654.19 N192/E523 SW 12 20 30 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2657.01 N192/E523 SE 12 20 40 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2657.02 N192/E523 SE 12 20 40 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2658.01 N192/E523 SE 12 30 50 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2658.02 N192/E523 SE 12 30 50 bark unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2659.01 N192/E523 SE 12 36 61 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2659.02 N192/E523 SE 12 36 61 seed Rhus sp. 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2659.03 N192/E523 SE 12 36 61 seed Zea mays 5 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2659.05 N192/E523 SE 12 36 61 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2659.07 N192/E523 SE 12 36 61 bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2659.08 N192/E523 SE 12 36 61 seed unidentified unidentified 5 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2659.09 N192/E523 SE 12 36 61 plant unidentified unidentified 14 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2660.01 N192/E523 SE 12 20 35 seed Gaylussacia sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2660.02 N192/E523 SE 12 20 35 seed Zea mays 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2660.03 N192/E523 SE 12 20 35 seed Myrica pensylvanica 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2660.04 N192/E523 SE 12 20 35 seed Boraginaceae 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2660.05 N192/E523 SE 12 20 35 plant unidentified unidentified 10 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2662.01 N192/E523 SE 12 55 65 seed Myrica pensylvanica 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2662.02 N192/E523 SE 12 55 65 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2662.04 N192/E523 SE 12 55 65 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2662.05 N192/E523 SE 12 55 65 bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2662.06 N192/E523 SE 12 55 65 plant unidentified unidentified 14 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2663.01 N192/E523 SE 12 60 65 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2663.02 N192/E523 SE 12 60 65 plant unidentified unidentified 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2664.01 N197/E518 SE 4 10 20 seed Rubus sp. 3 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2664.02 N197/E518 NW 4 10 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2664.03 N197/E518 NW 4 10 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil Mass Site Inventory # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-58 2664.04 N197/E518 NW 4 10 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2664.05 N197/E518 NW 4 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2664.06 N197/E518 NW 4 10 20 seed unidentified unidentified 8 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2665.01 N197/E518 NE 4 10 20 seed Vitis sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2665.02 N197/E518 NE 4 10 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2666.02 N192/E518 SE 4 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 13 0.03 frag Soil 72-58 2668.01 N181/E522 NE 3 20 30 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2668.03 N181/E522 NE 3 20 30 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2668.08 N181/E522 NE 3 20 30 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2669.01 N186/E521 SE 8 20 30 bark unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2669.02 N186/E521 SE 8 20 30 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2671.01 N191/E523 N 12 20 40 seed Gaylussacia sp. 3 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2671.02 N191/E523 N 12 20 40 cupule Zea mays 11 0.03 whole Soil 72-58 2671.03 N191/E523 N 12 20 40 seed Zea mays 9 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2671.04 N191/E523 N 12 20 40 seed Myrica pensylvanica 5 0.03 frag Soil 72-58 2671.05 N191/E523 N 12 20 40 seed Cyperus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2671.06 N191/E523 N 12 20 40 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2671.09 N191/E523 N 12 20 40 nutshell Quercus sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2671.1 N191/E523 N 12 20 40 nutmeat Quercus sp. 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-58 2671.12 N191/E523 N 12 20 40 bark unidentified unidentified 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2671.13 N191/E523 N 12 20 40 seed unidentified unidentified 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2671.14 N191/E523 N 12 20 40 nutshell unidentified unidentified 6 0.03 frag Soil 72-58 2671.15 N191/E523 N 12 20 40 seed unidentified unidentified 5 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2671.18 N191/E523 N 12 20 40 plant unidentified unidentified 6 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2671.19 N191/E523 N 12 20 40 seed unidentified unidentified 90 0.49 frag Soil 72-58 2672.01 N181/E522 NE 3 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2672.02 N181/E522 NE 3 10 20 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2672.03 N181/E522 NE 3 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 8 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2672.04 N181/E522 NE 3 10 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2672.05 N181/E522 NE 3 10 20 bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2674.01 N181/E522 NE 3 10 20 seed Galium sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil Mass Site Inventory # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-58 2674.02 N181/E522 NE 3 10 20 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2674.03 N181/E522 NE 3 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 5 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2677.01 N191/E523 N 12 30 50 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2677.02 N191/E523 N 12 30 50 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2677.03 N191/E523 N 12 30 50 seed Gaylussacia sp. 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2677.04 N191/E523 N 12 30 50 seed Zea mays 7 0.04 frag Soil 72-58 2677.05 N191/E523 N 12 30 50 seed/fruitunidentified unidentified 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2677.13 N191/E523 N 12 30 50 seed Phaseolus vulgaris 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2677.14 N191/E523 N 12 30 50 bark unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2677.15 N191/E523 N 12 30 50 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2677.16 N191/E523 N 12 30 50 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2677.17 N191/E523 N 12 30 50 nutshell Juglandaceae 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2677.18 N191/E523 N 12 30 50 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2677.19 N191/E523 N 12 30 50 nutmeat unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2678.01 N191/E523 N 12 35 61 seed Myrica pensylvanica 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2678.02 N191/E523 N 12 35 61 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2678.03 N191/E523 N 12 35 61 seed Zea mays 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2678.04 N191/E523 N 12 35 61 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2678.05 N191/E523 N 12 35 61 seed unidentified unidentified 5 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2678.06 N191/E523 N 12 35 61 seed Cyperaceae 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2678.07 N191/E523 N 12 35 61 seed unidentified unidentified 24 0.09 frag Soil 72-58 2678.08 N191/E523 N 12 35 61 plant unidentified unidentified 5 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2678.09 N191/E523 N 12 35 61 seed Gramineae 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2678.11 N191/E523 N 12 35 61 plant unidentified unidentified 7 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2678.12 N191/E523 N 12 35 61 plant unidentified unidentified 8 0.03 frag Soil 72-58 2679.01 N191/E523 N 12 55 68 seed Zea mays 6 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2679.02 N191/E523 N 12 55 68 seed Myrica pensylvanica 6 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2679.03 N191/E523 N 12 55 68 seed Myrica pensylvanica 3 0.02 whole Soil 72-58 2679.04 N191/E523 N 12 55 68 seed Gaylussacia sp. 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2679.05 N191/E523 N 12 55 68 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2679.06 N191/E523 N 12 55 68 seed Polygonaceae 1 0.01 whole Soil Mass Site Inventory # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-58 2679.07 N191/E523 N 12 55 68 bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2679.09 N191/E523 N 12 55 68 nutshell unidentified unidentified 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2679.16 N191/E523 N 12 55 68 seed unidentified unidentified 9 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2679.17 N191/E523 N 12 55 68 seed unidentified unidentified 9 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2679.18 N191/E523 N 12 55 68 plant unidentified unidentified 60 0.09 frag Soil 72-58 2680.01 N191/E523 N 12 70 85 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-58 2680.02 N191/E523 N 12 70 85 plant unidentified unidentified 8 0.02 frag Soil 72-58 2682.01 N196/E518 NE 4 10 22 seed Myrica pensylvanica 11 0.06 frag Soil 72-58 2682.02 N196/E518 NE 4 10 22 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2682.03 N196/E518 NE 4 10 22 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2682.04 N196/E518 NE 4 10 22 seed Vaccinium sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-58 2682.05 N196/E518 NE 4 10 22 plant unidentified unidentified 13 0.06 frag Soil 72-58 2683.01 N188/E522 SW 13 30 40 plant unidentified unidentified 17 0.02 frag soil Mass Site Inventory # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Con. Sample 72-171 41.00 N10E5 SW NF 0 10 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.19 whole Soil 72-171 517.00 S10E1 SW NF 0 10 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.06 frag Soil 72-171 582.00 S10E1 NW NF 10 20 nutshell Carya sp. 2 1.22 frag Soil 72-171 615.00 S10E1 SE NF 20 25 nutshell Julglans nigra 1 0.2 frag Soil 72-171 707.00 S7E4 SW NF 10 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.09 frag Soil 72-171 707.01 S7E4 SW NF 10 20 nutmeat unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.17 frag Soil 72-171 881.03 S5E6 NE 2 nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 976.00 S15E1 NE NF 0 10 nutshell Corylus americana 4 0.09 frag Soil 72-171 1146.00 S30W1 SE 3 10 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 1288.00 S2E1 NE NF 10 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.11 frag Soil 72-171 1568.00 S6E3 NE NF 10 20 coprolite? unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 1712.00 S9E2 NW NF 10 20 seed Phaselous vulgaris 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 1713.00 S9E2 NW NF 10 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 1715.00 S9E2 NW NF 10 20 nutshell Julglans nigra 1 0.18 frag Soil 72-171 1746.00 S9E2 SE NF 10 20 nutshell Julglans nigra 2 0.23 frag Soil 72-171 2392.00 S1E1 SW NF 10 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.16 frag Soil 72-171 2425.00 S6E0 NE NF 0 10 coprolite? unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 3248.00 S9E0 NW NF 0 10 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 3273.00 S9E0 NE NF 0 10 nutshell Quercus sp. 2 0.07 frag Soil 72-171 3294.00 S9E0 NW NF 10 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.06 frag Soil 72-171 3463.00 S10E2 NE NF 0 10 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 3782.00 S4E4 SW NF 0 10 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.05 frag Soil 72-171 3823.00 S4E4 SE NF 10 20 nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.09 frag Soil 72-171 4036.00 S5E3 SW FA4 0 10 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.11 frag Soil 72-171 4510.00 S11E1 SW NF 0 10 seed Prunus sp. 2 0.19 whole Soil 72-171 4647.00 S14E1 SE NF 0 10 seed Prunus persica 1 0.29 frag Soil 72-171 4877.00 S13E1 NE NF 10 20 nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.23 frag Soil 72-171 4973.00 S13E1 SW NF 20 30 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 5031.00 S13E8 SE NF 0 10 nutshell Corylus americana 2 0.078 frag Soil 72-171 5560.00 S11E6 NE NF 0 10 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.21 frag Soil 72-171 5684.00 S10E4 SW NF 0 10 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil Mass Site Inventory # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Con. Sample 72-171 5702.00 S10E4 NW NF 0 10 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.4 frag Soil 72-171 5739.00 S10E4 NW NF 10 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 6007.00 S13E7 SE NF 0 10 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.21 whole Soil 72-171 6013.00 S13E7 SE NF 10 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.95 frag Soil 72-171 6062.00 S12E5 SW 6 20 30 seed Prunus persica 1 0.4 frag Soil 72-171 6375.00 S15E3 SW NF 0 10 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.17 frag Soil 72-171 6419.00 S17E2 SE NF 0 10 nutshell Corylus americana 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 6599.00 S19E1 SE FA9 10 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.1 frag Soil 72-171 6727.00 S20E4 NW NF 20 30 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 4 0.09 frag Soil 72-171 6756.00 S18E0 NE NF 0 10 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.16 frag Soil 72-171 6789.00 S19E4 SE NF 20 30 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 6800.00 S15E8 SE NF 0 10 nutshell Corylus americana 2 0.12 frag Soil 72-171 7002.00 S20E3 NE NF 0 10 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 7210.00 S16E1 SW NF 0 10 nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.12 frag Soil 72-171 7371.00 S15E9 NE NF 0 10 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 7410.00 S17E0 SE NF 10 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.06 frag Soil 72-171 7464.00 S16E5 SE NF 0 10 nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 7545.00 S12E4 SE NF 0 10 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.05 frag Soil 72-171 7668.05 S14E0 SE 5 30 40 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 7669.03 S14E1 ALL 5 40 60 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 7671.19 S14E1 North 1/2 5 70 80 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-171 7674.13 S14E0 East 1/2 5 40 50 seed Rhus sp. 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-171 7679.03 S14E0 NE 5 seed Chenopodium sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-171 7679.03 S14E0 NE 5 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-171 7681.04 S13E1 ALL 5 50 60 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 7738.03 S18E1 South 1/2 7 30 82 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 7738.04 S18E1 South 1/2 7 30 82 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 7738.05 S18E1 South 1/2 7 30 82 seed Myrica cerifera 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 7740.04 S18E1 South 1/2 7 30 82 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 107 0.12 frag Soil 72-171 7740.05 S18E1 South 1/2 7 30 82 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 7749.03 S18E7 South 1/2 8 30 40 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil Mass Site Inventory # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Con. Sample 72-171 7750.05 S19E1 NW 9 30 37 seed Legumosia 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 7809.00 S18W1 NE 14 20 30 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.48 frag Soil 72-171 7816.03 S18W1 North 1/2 14 30 43 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 7816.04 S18W1 North 1/2 14 30 43 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 7816.05 S18W1 North 1/2 14 30 43 seed Cornus sp. 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-171 8073.03 S15W1 SE 13 30 103 nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 8073.03 S15W1 SE 13 30 103 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 14 0.09 frag Soil 72-171 8073.04 S15W1 SE 13 30 103 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 8073.04 S15W1 SE 13 30 103 nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.17 frag Soil 72-171 8073.06 S15W1 SE 13 30 103 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 8073.08 S15W1 SE 13 30 103 seed Phaselous vulgaris 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 8074.03 S15W1 NW 13 30 100 cupule Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 8074.03 S15W1 NW 13 30 100 nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 13 0.15 frag Soil 72-171 8074.03 S15W1 NW 13 30 100 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 15 0.11 frag Soil 72-171 8074.03 S15W1 NW 13 30 100 seed Phaselous vulgaris 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 8074.04 S15W1 NW 13 30 100 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 8074.06 S15W1 NW 13 30 100 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 8074.09 S15W1 NW 13 30 100 nutshell Julglans nigra 3 0.44 frag Soil 72-171 8074.11 S15W1 NW 13 30 100 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 24 0.06 frag Soil 72-171 8076.02 S15W1 NW 13 50 72 nutshell Carya sp. 7 0.09 frag Soil 72-171 8076.02 S15W1 NW 13 50 72 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 8076.02 S15W1 NW 13 50 72 rachis (?) unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 8076.02 S15W1 NW 13 50 72 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 8076.04 S15W1 NW 13 50 72 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-171 8076.05 S15W1 NW 13 50 72 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 8076.06 S15W1 NW 13 50 72 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 13 0.05 frag Soil 72-171 8077.04 S15W1 SW 13 30 100 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 8077.04 S15W1 SW 13 30 100 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 8077.04 S15W1 SW 13 30 100 seed Rhus sp. 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 8077.07 S15W1 SW 13 30 100 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-171 8078.03 S15W1 NW 13 34 47 nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil Mass Site Inventory # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Con. Sample 72-171 8079.06 S15W1 SW 13 30 50 nutshell Carya sp. 8 0.26 frag Soil Site Inventory # Unit Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count Mass (g) Com. Sample 72-88 150639 S15E07-SW 7 35 40 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-88 150661 S14/15E08-NE 7 50 55 nuthshell Quercus sp. 1 0.01 farg Soil 72-88 150668 S15E07-SW 7 60 65 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whoe Soil 72-88 150746 SE 10 10 15 seed Prunus serotina 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-88 150748 SE 10 30 35 seed Zea mays 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-88 150802 SE 10 45 50 nuthshell Corylus americana 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-88 150803 NW 19 95 100 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-88 150825 SE 20 35 40 seed Cornus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-88 150830 SE 20 60 65 seed Zea mays 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-88 150856 NE 23 25 30 seed Zea mays 2 0.02 frg Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feature U.P. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-97C 40.02 N10E58 SE 1 40 50 nut Corylus americana 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-97C 40.03 N10E58 SE 1 40 50 plant unidentified unidentified 6 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 49.01 N12E57 SE FA1 0 10 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 55.01 N12E57 SE FA1 10 20 seed Acalypha sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 82.02 N15E56 SE FA1 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-97C 83 N16E57 NE FA1 0 10 nut Juglans sp. 1 1.34 frag Exc 72-97C 87.04 N16E57 NW FA1 0 10 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 110.03 N17E55 SW FA1 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 124.04 N17E56 SE FA1 0 10 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 125.03 N17E56 SE FA1 0 10 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-97C 139.02 N17E56 SE FA1 10 20 bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 139.03 N17E56 SE FA1 10 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 139.04 N17E56 SE FA1 10 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 140.02 N17E56 SE 1 20 30 bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 141.01 N17E56 SE 1 30 40 seed Chenopodium sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 141.03 N17E56 SE 1 30 40 seed Viola sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 159.03 N17E57 NW FA1 10 20 nutshell Corylus americana 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 159.05 N28E49 NE 4 25 30 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 176.01 N17E58 SW FA1 0 10 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.06 frag Soil 72-97C 204.03 N18E56 NE FA1 10 20 nutshell Juglans sp. 1 0.08 frag Soil 72-97C 204.05 N18E56 NE FA1 10 20 cupule Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 217.03 N18E56 NW 1 25 30 cone/bud unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 222.02 N18E57 NW FA1 0 10 plant unidentified unidentified 5 0.06 frag Soil 72-97C 222.03 N18E57 NW FA1 0 10 cupule Zea mays 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 236.02 N18E57 NW FA1 10 20 seed Portulaca sp, 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 236.03 N18E57 NW FA1 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-97C 240.04 N18E56 NE FA1 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.04 frag Soil 72-97C 320 N19E53 NE NF 0 10 nutshell Juglans sp. 1 0.36 frag Exc 72-97C 321.01 N19E53 NE NF 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 351.02 N19E55 NF 0 10 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 381 N19E56 SW FA1 0 10 seed Prunus sp. 1 0.458 frag Exc Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feature U.P. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-97C 524.03 N20E55 NF 10 20 nut unidentified unidentified 1 0.03 frag Soil 72-97C 567.04 N20E56 SE 1 20 30 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-97C 567.05 N20E56 SE 1 20 30 cupule Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 605.01 N20E58 SE NF 0 10 nutshell Juglans sp. 2 0.18 frag Soil 72-97C 658.02 N21E56 NE FA1 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 6 0.04 frag Soil 72-97C 658.03 N21E56 NE FA1 10 20 cupule Zea mays 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 674.02 N21E57 SE NF 0 10 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 700.04 N21E58 NE NF 0 10 seed Phytolacca americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 708.03 N22E54 SW NF 0 10 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 744.03 N22E55 NW NF 10 20 nut unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 744.04 N22E55 NW NF 10 20 cupule Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 771.02 N22E56 SW NF 15 20 cupule Zea mays 2 0.03 frag Soil 72-97C 779.03 N22E57 SE NF 0 10 nut unidentified unidentified 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-97C 779.04 N22E57 SE NF 0 10 plant unidentified unidentified 4 0.02 frag Soil 72-97C 782.08 N22E57 SW NF 10 20 nut unidentified unidentified 3 0.03 frag Soil 72-97C 782.09 N22E57 SW NF 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 8 0.03 frag Soil 72-97C 782.11 N22E57 SW NF 10 20 cupule Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 886.04 N23E55 SW NF 0 15 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 938.02 N23E57 NW NF 10 20 nut unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 938.03 N23E57 NW NF 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 938.04 N23E57 NW NF 10 20 seed Chenopodium sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 994.03 N24E56 SW NF 0 10 nut unidentified unidentified 1 0.04 frag Soil 72-97C 1019.04 N24E56 SW NF 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1044.03 N24E57 NE NF 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1114.03 N25E56 NE NF 0 10 plant unidentified unidentified 5 0.04 frag Soil 72-97C 1161.02 N25E58 NW NF 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1288.03 N27E55 NE NF 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1302.03 N27E56 NE FA2 10 20 nutshell Corylus americana 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-97C 1355.01 N28E49 NE 4 20 25 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1355.06 N28E49 NE 4 20 25 seed Vicia sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1355.19 N28E49 NE 4 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 27 0.06 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feature U.P. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-97C 1355.2 N28E49 NE 4 20 25 nutshell unidentified unidentified 4 0.02 frag Soil 72-97C 1356.03 N28E49 NW 4 20 25 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1356.15 N28E49 NW 4 20 25 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1356.16 N28E49 NW 4 20 25 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1356.17 N28E49 NW 4 20 25 bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1356.18 N28E49 NW 4 20 25 nutshell Corylus americana 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-97C 1356.19 N28E49 NW 4 20 25 nutshell unidentified unidentified 6 0.03 frag Soil 72-97C 1356.2 N28E49 NW 4 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 25 0.08 frag Soil 72-97C 1359.01 N28E49 NE 4 0 30 seed unidentified unidentified 5 0 frag Soil 72-97C 1359.06 N28E49 NE 4 0 30 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1359.07 N28E49 NE 4 0 30 nutshell unidentified unidentified 10 0.03 frag Soil 72-97C 1359.08 N28E49 NE 4 0 30 plant unidentified unidentified 26 0.11 frag Soil 72-97C 1403.02 N28E54 NW NF 0 10 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-97C 1476.03 N29E50 SE 4 20 25 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1476.04 N29E50 SE 4 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1486.15 N29E50 SW 4 0 30 cupule Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1486.16 N29E50 SW 4 0 30 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1524.01 N29E55 NW NF 20 30 seed Cornaceae unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1533.01 N30E49 NE NF 0 10 seed Crataegus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1602.03 N24E58 SW NF 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1655.02 N16E56 SE FA1 0 10 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-97C 1655.03 N16E56 SE FA1 0 10 cupule Zea mays 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1664.02 N16E56 SE FA1 10 20 nut unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1681.23 2 20 30 plant unidentified unidentified 70 0.4 frag Soil 72-97C 1681.24 2 20 30 nutshell unidentified unidentified 10 0.13 frag Soil 72-97C 1682.11 2 30 40 seed Triticum sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1682.18 2 30 40 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1682.19 2 30 40 plant unidentified unidentified 28 0.28 frag Soil 72-97C 1682.21 2 30 40 nutshell unidentified unidentified 5 0.06 frag Soil 72-97C 1682.24 2 30 40 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1683.08 2 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 4 0.03 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feature U.P. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-97C 1683.09 2 0 0 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1683.11 2 0 0 bud unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1687.02 N29E49 SW FA4 20 25 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1687.08 N29E49 SW FA4 20 25 nutshell unidentified unidentified 7 0.04 frag Soil 72-97C 1687.09 N29E49 SW FA4 20 25 nutshell Corylus americana 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1687.11 N29E49 SW FA4 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 9 0.03 frag Soil 72-97C 1688.08 N29E49 SE 4 20 25 nutshell unidentified unidentified 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1688.09 N29E49 SE 4 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1688.1 N29E49 SE 4 20 25 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1688.11 N29E49 SE 4 20 25 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1689.02 N29E49 SE 4 0 30 nutshell Corylus americana 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1689.03 N29E49 SE 4 0 30 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1689.14 N29E49 SE 4 0 30 seed unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-97C 1689.15 N29E49 SE 4 0 30 nutshell unidentified unidentified 8 0.02 frag Soil 72-97C 1689.16 N29E49 SE 4 0 30 plant unidentified unidentified 15 0.04 frag Soil 72-97C 1690.02 N23E58 SW NF 10 20 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-161 4058 N62/W224 SE NF 20 10 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Exc 72-161 4823 N058/W230 SW 1 30 20 nutshell Carya sp. 4 NTF frag Exc 72-161 4964 N059/W229 NE 1 20 10 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5005 N059/W230 NE 1 20 10 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.01 frag Exc 72-161 5301 N059/W226 N 137 45 40 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5461 N059/W225 N 137 30 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5527 N057/W245 NW 11 26 20 nutshell Corylus americana 2 NTF frag Soil 72-161 5527 N057/W245 NW 11 26 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 4 NTF frag Soil 72-161 5527 N057/W245 NW 11 26 20 plant unidentified unidentified 30 NTF frag Soil 72-161 5549 N057/W229 NW 35 23 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5567 N062/W240&241 53 25 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5567 N062/W240&241 53 25 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-161 5570 N62/W240 SW 53 25 20 plant unidentified unidentified 5 NTF frag Soil 72-161 5576 UNK 55 26 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5578 N060/W241 SE 55 26 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5581 UNK 56 27 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5581 UNK 56 27 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5582 N060/W240 NE 56 27 20 nutshell Corylus americana 4 NTF frag Soil 72-161 5583 N060/W240 NE 56 27 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5591 N050/W237 NW 63 33 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 5 NTF frag Soil 72-161 5591 N050/W237 NW 63 33 20 plant unidentified unidentified 23 NTF frag Soil 72-161 5592 N050/W236 NW 64 40 30 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5598 N050/W236 SE 65 23 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5603 N50/W236 SE 65 23 20 plant unidentified unidentified 5 NTF frag Soil 72-161 5607 N050/W236 SE 65 23 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5632 N056/W230 N 78 25 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5632 N056/W230 N 78 25 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5655 N057/W232 NW 1 20 15 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5673 N057/W233 NE 1 20 10 seed Gramineae 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5695 N057/W233 NE 1 40 30 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5800 N058/W231 NE 1 40 30 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-161 5831 N058/W232 SW 1 25 20 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-161 5838 N058/W232 SW 1 30 20 nutshell Corylus americana 3 NTF frag Soil 72-161 5838 N058/W232 SW 1 30 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5858 N059/W230 SE 1 20 10 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-161 5858 N059/W230 SE 1 20 10 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5859 N059/W230 SE 1 20 10 nutshell Carya sp. 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5861 N059/W230 NE 1 30 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5875 N057/W230 NE 1 30 20 nutshell Carya sp. 4 NTF frag Exc 72-161 5875 N057/W230 NE 1 30 20 plant unidentified unidentified 3 NTF frag Exc 72-161 5875 N057/W230 NE 1 30 20 seed unidentified unidentified 5 0.01 frag Exc 72-161 5911 N061/W230 SE 1 20 10 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 whole Exc 72-161 5915 UNK 1 0 0 nutshell Carya sp. 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5915 UNK 1 0 0 nutshell Juglans cinerea 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5929 N053/W245 E+W 18 25 15 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5931 N055/W245 SW 19 25 15 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5934 N054/W244 SW 23 15 15 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-161 5942 N055/W244 NW 48 30 20 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-161 5951 UNK 48 40 30 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-161 5962 UNK 48 30 20 seed Prunus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5963 N055/W244 SW 48 40 30 nutshell Corylus americana 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5965 UNK 48 40 30 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5967 UNK 64 30 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5968 N051/W236 S 64 30 20 nutshell Corylus americana 20 NTF frag Soil 72-161 5968 N051/W236 S 64 30 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 4 NTF frag Soil 72-161 5968 N051/W236 S 64 30 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5978 N059/W232 85 35 25 seed Comptonia peregrina 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5978 N059/W232 85 35 25 seed Gaylussacia sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5978 N059/W232 85 35 25 plant unidentified unidentified 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5992 UNK 86 0 0 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-161 5992 UNK 86 0 0 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 5994 N055/W228 ALL 86 20 20 nutshell Corylus americana 3 NTF frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-161 5994 N055/W228 ALL 86 20 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 4 NTF frag Soil 72-161 6011 UNK 87 30 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6018 UNK 87 30 20 seed Triticum sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6018 UNK 87 30 20 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6034 N057/W227 N 87A 40 30 nutshell unidentified unidentified 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6044 UNK 87A 40 30 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6085 N057/W227 SE 87A 40 30 nutshell Carya sp. 4 NTF frag Soil 72-161 6085 N057/W227 SE 87A 40 30 nutshell Corylus americana 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6085 N057/W227 SE 87A 40 30 plant unidentified unidentified 4 NTF frag Soil 72-161 6085 N057/W227 SE 87A 40 30 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6087 UNK 87A 40 30 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6104 N057/W227 SE 87A 50 40 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6137 UNK 87A 60 50 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6143 N057/W227 SE 87A 60 50 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6143 N057/W227 SE 87A 60 50 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6174 UNK 87C 40 30 seed Triticum sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6183 N057/W227 N 87C 50 40 nutshell Carya sp. 6 NTF frag Soil 72-161 6183 N057/W227 N 87C 50 40 nutshell Corylus americana 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6216 N057/W227 SW 87C 40 30 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6216 N057/W227 SW 87C 40 30 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6232 N057/W227 SW 87C 40 30 nutshell Corylus americana 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6232 N057/W227 SW 87C 40 30 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6235 N057&/W227&229 87C 40 30 seed Comptonia peregrina 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6235 N057&/W227&229 87C 40 30 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-161 6236 N 87c 40 30 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6236 N 87c 40 30 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6236 N 87c 40 30 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6236 N 87c 40 30 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6243 N057/W227 SW 87C 40 30 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-161 6243 N057/W227 SW 87C 40 30 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6248 N057&/W227&229 87C 40 30 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-161 6251 N057&/W227&229 87C 50 40 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6261 UNK 87c 50 40 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6261 UNK 87c 50 40 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-161 6261 UNK 87c 50 40 plant unidentified unidentified 8 NTF frag Soil 72-161 6280 N060&061/W237 S 92 30 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6297 N057/W228 E 96 30 20 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6305 N058/W228 E 96 40 30 seed Nyssa . sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-161 6321 N060/W246 S 97 30 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6323 N060/W246 S 97 30 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6347 N054&055/W239 W 102 30 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6359 N062&063/W245 W 109 30 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6359 N062&063/W245 W 109 30 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6360 N63/62/W245 SW 109a 30 20 nutshell unidentified unidentified 20 NTF frag Soil 72-161 6378 N54/W226 N 114 30 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6378 N54/W226 N 114 30 20 plant unidentified unidentified 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6403 N054/W226 S 114 40 30 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6410 N061&062/W248 117 25 20 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-161 6442 N063/W231 NE 122 30 20 plant unidentified unidentified 9 NTF frag Soil 72-161 6447 N062-63/W231-23 122 30 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6447 N062-63/W231-23 122 30 20 plant unidentified unidentified 8 NTF frag Soil 72-161 6456 N056&057/W231 S 124 35 25 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6472 N056&057/W231 N 124 35 25 seed unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6478 N063/W229 SW 126 30 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-161 6487 N061/W249 NW+SW 130 34 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6550 N058/W226 ALL 137 60 55 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6581 N057/W226 NE/NW 137 30 25 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6581 N057/W226 NE/NW 137 30 25 plant unidentified unidentified 4 NTF frag Soil 72-161 6584 N057/W226 NE/NW 137 35 30 nutshell Corylus americana 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6587 N057/W226 NE+NW 137 35 30 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6606 N057/W226 NE+NW 137 35 30 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6608 N057/W226 NE+NW 137 35 30 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-161 6608 N057/W226 NE+NW 137 35 30 nutshell unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6631 N057/W226 NE+NW 137 40 35 nutshell Corylus americana 4 NTF frag Soil 72-161 6632 N057/W226 NE+NW 137 40 35 plant unidentified unidentified 4 NTF frag Soil 72-161 6664 N058/W226 NE+NW 137 40 35 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6695 N059/W225 SE+SW 137 30 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6704 N059/W225 SE/SW 137 35 30 nutshell Corylus americana 3 NTF frag Soil 72-161 6707 N059/W225 SE/SW 137 35 30 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6722 N057/W226 NE+NW 137 25 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6727 N059/W225 NE+NW 137 50 45 nutshell Corylus americana 3 NTF frag Soil 72-161 6735 N059/W225 SE+SW 137 55 50 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6749 N063/W250 NE 139 30 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6759 N051/W231 SW 142 35 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6762 N051/W231 SW 142 35 20 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6785 N058/W231 S 133 25 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6785 N058/W231 S 133 25 20 nutshell Corylus americana 12 NTF frag Soil 72-161 6785 N058/W231 S 133 25 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6789 N058/W231 S 133 25 20 seed Rubus sp. 4 0.01 whole Soil 72-161 6789 N058/W231 S 133 25 20 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6789 N058/W231 S 133 25 20 seed Vaccinium sp, 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-161 6790 N058/W231 S 133 25 20 nutshell Corylus americana 4 NTF frag Soil 72-161 6800 N053/W225 N 134 40 30 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6821 N057/W225 NE/NW 137 25 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6821 N057/W225 NE/NW 137 25 20 plant unidentified unidentified 8 NTF frag Soil 72-161 6887 N057/W225 NE/NW 137 50 45 nutshell Carya sp. 4 NTF frag Soil 72-161 6896 N057/W225 NE/NW 137 55 50 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6897 N058/W226 137 55 50 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6930 N059/W225 NE/NW 137 25 20 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6957 UNK-E 132 25 20 nutshell Corylus americana 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6957 UNK-E 132 25 20 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6970 N058/W231 NE 001 60 50 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-161 6973 N058/W231 NE 001 60 50 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-161 6973 N058/W231 NE 001 60 50 plant unidentified unidentified 3 NTF frag Soil Mass Site Inventory # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-70B 220.02 N4E1 NW NF 0 5 nutshell Corylus americana 8 0.35 frag Exc. 72-70B 233.02 N4E4 SE NF 0 5 nutshell unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Exc. 72-70B 233.03 N4E1 SE NF 0 5 nutshell Corylus americana 1 0.01 frag Exc. 72-70B 241.02 N4E1 SW NF 0 5 nutshell Corylus americana 3 0.01 frag Exc. 72-70B 300.02 N4E1 SW NF 10 15 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.01 frag Exc. 72-70B 4219.02 N8/9W7 SW 6 25 30 seed Prunus persica 1 0.01 frag Exc. 72-70B 4356.04 N2W1 South 1/2 1 30 35 plant unidentified unidentified 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-70B 4356.04 N2W1 South 1/2 1 30 35 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-70B 4360.02 N9W7 6 30 30 seed Crataegus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-70B 4366.04 N10W3 SE 2 15 20 seed Myrica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-70B 4367.02 N10W3 SE 2 20 25 plant unidentified unidentified 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-70B 4370.07 N10W3 SW 2 20 25 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-70B 4377.02 N10W3 SW 2 25 30 seed Prunus sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-70B 4377.02 N10W3 SW 2 25 30 seed unidentified unidentified 10 NR frag Soil 72-70B 4377.04 N10W3 SW 2 25 30 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-70B 4387.05 N10W4 SW 7 40 45 seed Vitis sp. 1 0.01 whole Soil 72-70B 4387.08 N10W4 SW 7 40 45 seed Prunus persica 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-70B 4356c N02W01 S 1 30 35 seed Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.01 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-66 1200.03 S31E4 NE NF 20 30 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 1200.16 S31E4 NE NF 20 30 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 2838.07 S31E5 NW NF 20 30 nutshell Corylus sp.. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 2838.08 S31E5 NW NF 20 30 seed Ericaceae 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 2838.15 S31E5 NW NF 20 30 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 2838.17 S31E5 NW NF 20 30 seed Ericaceae 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3065.02 S16W8 SE NF 30 40 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3243.1 S17W12 SW 1 35 40 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3247.03 S17W12 NW 1 40 45 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 3 0.03 frag Soil 72-66 3247.05 S17W12 NW 1 40 45 seed Gaylussacia sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3319.07 S17W13 SW 1 20 20 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3332 S17W13 NW 1 20 20 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.02 frag Exc. 72-66 3347.07 S17W13 SW 1 20 30 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3348.06 S17W13 SE 1 20 30 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 4 0.02 frag Soil 72-66 3349.14 S17W13 NE 1 20 30 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 4 0.02 frag Soil 72-66 3350.09 S17W13 NW 1 20 30 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 13 0.42 frag Soil 72-66 3350.1 S17W13 NW 1 20 30 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 6 0.04 frag Soil 72-66 3350.11 S17W13 NW 1 20 30 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3350.22 S17W13 NW 1 20 30 seed Rhus sp. 34 0.2 frag Soil 72-66 3362.01 S17W13 SW 1 30 35 seed Prunus persica 2 0.04 frag Soil 72-66 3362.06 S17W13 SW 1 30 35 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 26 0.13 frag Soil 72-66 3362.09 S17W13 SW 1 30 35 seed Rhus sp. 18 0.01 whole Soil 72-66 3362.12 S17W13 SW 1 30 35 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3362.14 S17W13 SW 1 30 35 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 4 0.02 whole Soil 72-66 3363.09 S17W13 NE 1 30 35 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3364.06 S17W13 NW 1 30 35 seed Ericaceae 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3364.07 S17W13 NW 1 30 35 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3368.06 S17W13 NW 1 35 40 seed Rhus sp. 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-66 3371.05 S17W13 north half 1 35 40 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3371.1 S17W13 north half 1 35 40 seed Ericaceae 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3371.11 S17W13 north half 1 35 40 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-66 3374.04 S17W13 NW 1 35 40 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 4 0.02 frag Soil 72-66 3374.05 S17W13 NW 1 35 40 seed Gaylussacia sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3375.05 S17W13 SE 1 40 45 seed Zea sp. 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-66 3375.08 S17W13 SE 1 40 45 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 6 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3375.09 S17W13 SE 1 40 45 seed Zea sp. 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-66 3376.02 S17W13 NE 1 40 45 seed Gramineae 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3376.06 S17W13 NE 1 40 45 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3380.01 S17W13 NE 1 40 45 seed Gaylussacia sp. 2 0.01 whole Soil 72-66 3380.06 S17W13 NE 1 40 45 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.02 whole Soil 72-66 3380.11 S17W13 NE 1 40 45 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 13 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3381.05 S17W13 NW 1 40 45 seed Rhus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3382.01 S17W13 SE 1 45 50 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 10 0.04 frag Soil 72-66 3382.07 S17W13 SE 1 45 50 seed Rubus sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3382.1 S17W13 SE 1 45 50 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 65 0.02 frag Soil 72-66 3384.01 S17W13 SW 1 45 50 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3384.09 S17W13 SW 1 45 50 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3389.01 S17W13 NE 1 45 50 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 3 0.03 frag Soil 72-66 3390.03 S17W13 NE 1 50 55 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 3 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3392.07 S17W13 SW 1 50 55 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 11 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3393.03 S17W13 NW 1 50 55 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3398 S17W14 SW 2 20 30 nutshell Quercus sp. 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-66 3448.1 S18W13 NE 1 20 30 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3448.12 S18W13 NE 1 20 30 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 4 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3449.08 S18W13 NE 1 20 30 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 11 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3472.06 S18W13 NW 1 20 30 seed Leguminosae 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-66 3472.15 S18W13 NW 1 20 30 seed Rhus sp. 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-66 3472.16 S18W13 NW 1 20 30 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.02 frag Soil 72-66 3473.08 S18W13 NE 1 20 30 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 5 .04.02 frag Soil 72-66 3474.02 S18W13 NE 1 30 35 seed Phaseolus sp. 1 0.1 frag Soil 72-66 3474.04 S18W13 NE 1 30 35 seed Gaylussacia sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3474.11 S18W13 NE 1 30 35 seed Rhus sp. 33 0.25 frag Soil Inventory Mass Site # Unit Quad Feature U.D. L.D. Type Genus Species Count (g) Com. Sample 72-66 3474.16 S18W13 NE 1 30 35 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 25 0.22 frag Soil 72-66 3475.09 S18W13 NW 1 30 35 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 4 0.02 frag Soil 72-66 3475.1 S18W13 NW 1 30 35 nutshell Carya sp. 1 0.05 frag Soil 72-66 3475.11 S18W13 NW 1 30 35 seed Leguminosae 3 0.02 frag Soil 72-66 3475.14 S18W13 NW 1 30 35 seed Rhus sp. 58 0.17 frag Soil 72-66 3475.16 S18W13 NW 1 30 35 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 7 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3475.19 S18W13 NW 1 30 35 seed Zea sp. 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3475.26 S18W13 NW 1 30 35 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 33 0.23 frag Soil 72-66 3480.05 S18W13 NW 1 35 40 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 30 0.2 frag Soil 72-66 3480.09 S18W13 NW 1 35 40 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 5 0.049 frag Soil 72-66 3482.06 S18W13 NE 1 40 45 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 12 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3483.03 S18W13 NW 1 40 45 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3485.06 S18W13 NW 1 45 50 nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 9 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3485.07 S18W13 NW 1 45 50 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 3486.05 S18W13 NW 1 50 55 seed unidentifiable unidentifiable 10 0.006 frag Soil 72-66 5673 S27W9 NE NF 0 10 seed Prunus persica 1 0.33 frag Soil 72-66 5883.01 S28W10 SE NF 10 20 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-66 5904.01 S28W12 NE NF 0 10 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 2 0.01 frag Soil 72-66 6086 S29W10 SW NF 10 20 plant unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.01 frag Exc. 72-66 6655.08 unknown 1 nutshell unidentifiable unidentifiable 1 0.02 frag Soil 72-66 6655.09 unknown 1 seed Rhus sp. 2 0.02 frag Soil REFERENCES CITED
Adams, Karen R. 2004 Archaeobotanical Analysis: Principles and Methods [HTML Title]. Available: http://www.crowcanyon.org/plantmethods. Date of use: 01/15/2012.
Adams, Karen R., and Shawn S. Murray 2004 Identification Criteria for Plant Remains Recovered from Archaeological Sites in the Central Mesa Verde Region [HTML Title]. Available: http://www.crowcanyon.org/plantID. Date of use: 01/15/2012.
Allison, Penelope M. 1999 Introduction. In The Archaeology of Household Activities , edited by Penelope M. Allison, pp. 1-18. Routledge Press, London.
Anderson, M. Kat 2005 Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural Resources . University of California Press, Berkeley.
Asouti, Eleni 2003 Wood Charcoal from Santorini (Thera): New Evidence for climate, vegetation and timber imports in the Aegean Bronze Age. Antiquity 77:471-484.
Asouti, Eleni and Phil Austin 2005 Reconstructing Woodland Vegetation and its Exploitation by Past Societies based on Analysis and Interpretation of Archaeological Wood Charcoal Macro-Remains. Environmental Archaeology 10:1-18.
Atalay, Sonya 2006 Decolonizing Archaeology: Efforts to Transform a Discipline, a special issue of American Indian Quarterly 30(3):280-310.
2012 Community Based Archaeology: Research with, by, and for Indigenous and Local Communities. University of California, Press, Berkeley.
Balée, William 1998 Introduction. In Advances in Historical Ecology , edited by William Balée, pp. 1- 10. Columbia University Press, New York.
Balée, William and Erikson, Clark (editors.) 2006 Time and Complexity in Historical Ecology: Case Studies in the Neotropical Lowlands . Columbia University Press, New York.
Barron, Hal S. 1987 Those Who Stayed Behind: Rural Society in Nineteenth-Century New England . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
465
Bharucha, Zareen and Jules Pretty 2010 The roles and values of wild foods in agricultural systems. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 365:2913-2926.
Bender, Barbara 2002 Landscape: Politics and Perspectives . Berg, Oxford.
Bendremer, Jeffery C. 1993 Late Woodland Settlement and Subsistence in Eastern Connecticut. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
1999 Changing Strategies in the Pre-and Post-Contact Subsistence Systems of Southern New England: Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Evidence. In Current Northeast Palaeoethnobotany , edited by John P. Hart, pp. 133-155. New York State Museum Bulletin No. 494, The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department, Albany.
Bennett, M.K. 1955 The Food Economy of New England Indians, 1605-75. The Journal of Political Economy 63(5):369-397.
Berkes, Fikret. 2008 Sacred Ecology , 2nd edition. Routledge, New York.
Bernstein, David J. 1993 Prehistoric Subsistence on the Southern New England Coast . Academic Press, San Diego.
1999 Prehistoric Use of Plant Foods on Long Island and Block Island Sounds. In Current Northeast Paleoethnobotany , ed. by John P. Hart, pp. 101–119. New York State Museum Bulletin No. 494. New York.
Binford, Lewis 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2); 217-225.
1965 Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process. American Antiquity 31(2):203-210.
Binford, Sally and Lewis Binford 1968 New Perspectives in Archaeology . Aldine Press, Chicago.
Bird, Douglas W. and James F. O'Connell 2006 Behavioral Ecology and Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 14(2):143-188.
466 Black, Meredith Jean 1980 Algonquin Ethnobotany: An Interpretation of Aboriginal Adaptation in South Western Quebec . Ottawa. National Museums of Canada. Mercury Series Number 65.
Bohrer, Vorsila L., and Karen R. Adams 1977 Ethnobotanical Techniques and Approaches at Salmon Ruin, New Mexico . Contributions in Anthropology, vol. 8, no. 1. Eastern New Mexico University, Portales.
Bourdieu, Pierre 1984 Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste . Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
1990 The Logic of Practice . Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Bragdon, Kathleen J. 1996a Native People of Southern New England, 1500-1650. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
1996b Gender as a Social Category in Native Southern New England. Ethnohistory 43(4):573-592.
2009 Native People of Southern New England 1650-1775. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Brooks, Joanna 2006 The Collected Writings of Samson Occum, Mohegan: Leadership and Literature in Eighteenth Century Native America. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bruchac, Margaret M. 2005 Earthshapers and Placemakers: Algonkian Indian Stories and the Landscape. In Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice , edited by Claire Smith and H. Martin Wobst, pp. 56-80. Routledge, London.
Bruchac, Margaret M., Hart, Siobhan and Wobst, H. Martin (editors) 2010 Indigenous Archaeologies: A Reader in Decolonization . Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California.
Brumfiel, Elizabeth M. 1990 The realm of cultural-human ecology, adaptation and change in historical perspective. In The earth as transformed by human action: Global and regional changes in the biosphere over the last 300 years , edited by B.L. Turner, William Clark, Robert W. Kates, John F. Richards, Jessica T. Mathews and William B Meyer, pp. 658-701. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2000 On the Archaeology of Choice: Agency Studies as the Research Stratagem. In Agency in Archaeology , edited by Marcia-Anne Dobres and John Robb, pp. 249- 255.Routledge, London.
467
Campisi, Jack 1990 The Emergence of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, 1637-1975. In The Pequots in Southern New England: The Rise and Fall of an American Indian Nation , edited by Laurence M. Hauptman and James D. Wherry, pp. 117-140. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman
Chilton, Elizabeth 1999 Mobile Farmers of Pre-Contact Southern New England: The Archaeological and Ethnohistoric Evidence. In Current Northeast Palaeoethnobotany , edited by John Hart, pp.157-176. New York State Museum Bulletin No. 494, The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department, Albany.
2001 The Archaeology and Ethnohistory of the Contact Period in the Northeastern United States. Reviews in Anthropology 29:337-360.
2002 “Towns They Have None”: Diverse Subsistence and Settlement Strategies in Native New England. In Northeast Subsistence-Settlement Change: A.D. 700-1300, edited by John P. Hart and Christine B. Reith, pp. 289—300, New York State Museum Bulletin No. 496, The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department, Albany.
2005 Farming and Social Complexity in the Northeast. In North American Archaeology , edited by Timothy R. Pauketat and Diana Dipaolo Loren, pp. 138-160. Blackwell Publishing, New York.
2006 The Origin and Spread of Maize ( Zea Mays ) in New England. In Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize , edited by John Staller, Robert Tykot, and Bruce Benz, Elsevier, pp. 539-547. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
2008 So Little Maize, So Much Time: Understanding Maize Adoption in New England. In Current Northeast Paeleoethnobotany II , edited by John P. Hart, pp. 53-58, New York State Museum Bulletin No. 512, The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department, Albany.
2010 Mobile Farmers and Sedentary Models: Horticulture and Cultural Transitions in Late Woodland and Contact Period New England , edited by Susan M. Alt, pp. 96-103. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Chilton, Elizabeth, Tanya B. Largy and Kathryn Curran 2000 Evidence for Prehistoric Maize Horticulture at the Pine Hill Site, Deerfield Massachusetts. Northeast Anthropology 59:23-46.
468 Claassen, Cheryl and Rosemary A. Joyce (editors) 1997 Women in Prehistory: North America and Mesoamerica . University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Clarke, David 1968 Analytical Archaeology . Meuthen and Company, London.
Cobb, Charles R. (editor) 2003. Stone Tool Traditions in the Contact Era. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Conkey, Margaret 2005 Dwelling at the margins, action at the intersection? Feminist and indigenous archaeologies, 2005. Archaeologies 1(1): 9-59.
Connecticut Indian Papers n.d. Series I and II, RGOO1. Connecticut State Library and Archives, Hartford, Connecticut.
Cronon, William 1983 Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England . Hill and Wang, New York.
Crumley, Carole 1979 Three locational models: an epistemological assessment of anthropology and archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory , Vol. 2, edited by Michael Schiffer, pp. 141-173. Academic Press, New York.
1994 Historical Ecology: A Multidimensional Ecological Orientation. In Historical Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscapes , edited by Carol Crumley, pp. 1-16. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.
2005 Remember How to Organize: Heterarchy Across Disciplines. In Nonlinear Models for Archaeology and Anthropology , edited by Christopher S. Beekman and William S. Baden, eds., pp. 35-50. Ashgate Press, Aldershot UK.
Curran, Kathryn 2010 Increasing the Scale of Inquiry: A GIS Approach to Archaeology, Environment and Landscape During the Early Holocene in Central Massachusetts. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation in Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Davies, Matthew 2009 Wittfogel’s dilemma: heterarchy and ethnographic approaches to irrigation management in Eastern Africa and Mesopotamia. World Archaeology 41(1): 16-35.
469 Davis, Linda W. 1992 Weed Seeds of the Great Plains: A Handbook for Identification. University of Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
Deegan, Kathleen 1996 Colonial Transformations: Euro-American Cultural Genesis in the Early Spanish- American Colonies. Journal of Anthropological Research 52(2):135-160.
Delcourt, Paul A., Hazel R. Delcourt, Cecil R. Ison, William E. Sharp, Kristen J. Gremillion 1998 Prehistoric Human Use of Fire, the Eastern Agricultural Complex, and Appalachian Oak-Chestnut Forests: Paleoecology of Cliff Palace Pond, Kentucky. American Antiquity 63(2):263-278.
Delcourt, Paul A., and Hazel R. Delcourt 2004 Prehistoric Native Americans and Ecological Change: Human Ecosystems in Eastern North America since the Pleistocene . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Delorit, R. J. 1970 An Illustrated Taxonomy Manual of Weed Seeds . Agronomy Publications, River Falls, WI.
Dennell, Robert W. 1972 The interpretation of plant remains: Bulgaria. In Papers in Economic Prehistory , edited by E.S. Higgs, pp. 149-159. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
1974 The purity of prehistoric crops. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 40: 132-135.
1976 Plant resources on archaeological sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 3:229- 247.
Den Ouden, Amy E. 2005 Beyond Conquest: Native Peoples and the Struggle for History in New England. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Donahue, Brian 2004 The Great Meadow: Farmers and the Land in Colonial Concord . Yale University Press, New Haven.
Dobres, Marcia-Anne 1999 Of Paradigms and Ways of Seeing: Archaeological Variability As If People Mattered. In Chilton, Elizabeth (ed.), Material Meanings: Critical Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culture , University of Utah Press: Salt Lake City, pp. 7-23 .
2000. Technology and Social Agency. Oxford: Blackwell publishers.
470 Doran, Jennifer 2002 Agency and Archaeology: Past, Present, and Future Directions. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9:303-328.
Duer, Douglas and Nancy Turner (editors) 2005 Keeping It Living: Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America . University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Efremov, Ivan A. 1940 Taphonomy: a new branch of paleontology. Pan American Geologist 74: 81-93.
Ellen, Roy and Holly Harris 2000 Introduction. In Indigenous Environmental Knowledge and its Transformations: Critical Anthropological Perspectives , edited by Roy Ellen, Peter Parkes, and Allan Bicker, pp. 1-33. Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam.
Ellingson, Ter 2001 Myth of the Noble Savage . University of California Press, Berkeley.
Farnsworth, Paul 1992 Missions, Indians, and Cultural Continuity. Historical Archaeology 26(1):22–36.
Fickes, Michael L. 2000 “They Could Not Endure that Yoke”: The Captivity of Pequot Women and Children after the War of 1637. The New England Quarterly 73 (1): 58-81.
Fischer, Julian, Laura H. McArthur and James B. Petersen 1997 Continuity and Change in the Food Habits of the Seventeenth Century English Colonists in Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 36:65-93.
Flannery, Kent 1994 The Early Mesoamerican Village . Left Coast Press.
Foster, David and John D. Aber (editors) 2004 Forests in Time: The Environmental Consequences of 1,000 Years of Change in New England. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Foster, David R., Brian Donahue, David Kittredge, Glenn Motzkin, Brian Hall, Billie Turner, Billie, and Elizabeth Chilton 2008 New England's Forest Landscape. Ecological Legacies and Conservation Patterns Shaped by Agrarian History. In Agrarian Landscapes in Transition , edited by Charles Redman and David Foster, pp. 44-88. Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, N. Y.
471 Ford, Richard I. 1979 Paleoethnobotany in American Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory , Vol. 2, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 285–336. Academic Press,New York.
Foucault, Michel 1978 The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, Volume I . Vintage Book, New York.
Fried, Morton 1967 The Evolution of Political Society: And Essay in Political Anthropology . Random House, New York.
Frink, Douglas 1992 The Chemical Variability of Carbonized Organic Matter Through Time. Archaeology of Eastern North America 20:67-79.
Fritz, Gayle J. 2005 Paleoethnobotanical Methods and Applications. In Handbook of Archaeological Methods, Vol. II , edited by Herbert D. G. Maschner and Christopher Chippindale, pp. 773–834. Alta Mira Press, New York.
2009 Laboratory Guide to Archaeological Plant Remains From Eastern North America. [HTML Title]. Available:. http://artsci.wustl.edu/~gjfritz/ Date of use: 01/15/2012.
Fuller, Janice. L., David. R. Foster, Jason S. McLachlan, and Natalie Drake 1998 Impact of human activity on regional forest composition and dynamics in central New England. Ecosystems 1: 76-95.
Fuller, Dorian Q and Steven A. Weber 2005 Formation Processes and Paleoethnobotanical Interpretation in South Asia. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in History and Archaeology 2(1): 91-114.
Gardner, Paul S. 1997 The Ecological Structure and Behavioral Implications of Mast Exploitation Strategies. In Peoples, Plants, and Landscapes: Studies in Paleoethnobotany , edited by Kristen J. Gremillion, pp. 161-178, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Garman, James 2005 Detention Castles of Stone and Steel: Landscape, Labor, and the Urban Penitentiary . University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
George, David R. 1997 A Long Row to Hoe: The Cultivation of Archaeobotany in Southern New England. Archaeology of Eastern North America 25:175-190.
472 George, David R. and Robert E. Dewar 1999 Chenopodium in Connecticut Prehistory: Wild, Weedy, Cultivated, or Domesticated?. In Current Northeast Palaeoethnobotany , edited by John P. Hart, pp. 121-132. New York State Museum Bulletin No. 494, The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department, Albany.
Gero, Joan M., and Margaret W. Conkey (editors) 1991 Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Giddens, Anthony 1984 The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration . University of California Press, Berkeley.
1990 The Consequences of Modernity . Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gillespie, Susan, Rosemary A. Joyce, and Deborah L. Nichols 2003 Archaeology Is Anthropology. In Archaeology Is Anthropology, edited by Susan D. Gillespie and Deborah L. Nichols, pp. 155-169. Archeological Papers of the American Association of Anthropology, Washington D.C.
Gilchrist, Roberta 1999 Gender and Archaeology: Contesting the Past. Routledge, London and New York.
Glaza, Tobias 2003 A Historical Ethnobotany of the Pequot Indians of southeastern Connecticut 1800-1950: New insights using a multi-disciplinary approach. Master’s thesis, Department of Botany, Connecticut College.
Godsen, Chris 2004 Archaeology and Colonialism: Culture Contact from 5000 BC to the Present. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gremillion, Kristen 1993 Adoption of Old World Crops and Processes of Cultural Change in the Historic Southeast. Southeastern Archaeology 12(1):15-20.
1995 Comparative Paleoethnobotany of three Native Southeastern Communities of the Historic Period. Southeastern Archaeology 14(1):1-16.
1989 Late Prehistoric and Historic Period Paleoethnobotany of the North Carolina Piedmont. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
473 Gremillion, Kristen and Delores Piperno 2009 Human Behavioral Ecology, Phenotypic (Developmental) Plasticity, and Agricultural Origins: Insights from the Emerging Evolutionary Synthesis. Current Anthropology 50:615-619.
Grivetti, L. E. & Ogle, B. M. 2000 Value of traditional foods in meeting macro- and micronutrient needs: the wild plant connection. Nutr. Res. Rev. 13, 31–46.
Hamel, Paul B. and Chiltoskey Mary U. 1975 Cherokee Plants and their Uses – A 400 Year History . Herald Publishing Co., Sylva, North Carolina.
Handsman, Russell 2008 “Homelands, Histories, and Landscape Ecologies: Towards an Archaeology of Mashantucket Pequot Gardens”. Paper Presented at the Conference to Honor the Work of William M. Gardner. National Conservation Training Center, Shepardstown, West Virginia.
Handsman, Russell. G. and Trudie Lamb Richmond 1995 Confronting Colonialism: The Machian and Schaghticoke Peoples and Us. In Making Alternative Histories: The Practice of Archaeology and History in Non-Western Settings , edited by Peter R. Schmidt and Thomas C. Pattterson, pp. 87-117. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Harkin, Michael E. and David Rich Lewis (editors) 2007 Native Americans and the Environment: Perspectives on the Ecological Indian . University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Hart, John P. (editor) 1999 Current Northeast Palaeoethnobotany . New York State Museum Bulletin No. 494, The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department, Albany.
2008 Current Northeast Palaeoethnobotany II . New York State Museum Bulletin No. 512, The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department, Albany.
Hart, John P and Christina B Reith (editors) 2002 Northeast Subsistence-Settlement Change A.D.700-1300 A.D. New York State Museum Bulletin No. 496, The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department, Albany.
Hart, Siobhan 2004 Mixed Assemblages and Indigenous Agents: Decolonizing Pine Hill. Northeast Anthropology 68:57-71.
474 Hastorf, Christine A. 1998 The Cultural Life of Early Domestic Plant Use. Antiquity 72: 773-78.
1999 Recent Research in Paleoethnobotany. Journal of Archaeological Research 7:55– 103.
Hauptman, Laurence M. and James D. Wherry (editors) 1990 The Pequot in Southern New England: The Fall and Rise of an American Indian Nation . University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Fairclough, pp. 251-274. Left Coast Press, Inc., Walnut Creek, CA.
Heckenberger, Michael. J., James B. Petersen, and Nancy Asch Sidell 1992. Early Evidence for Maize Agriculture in the Connecticut River Valley of Vermont. Archaeology of Eastern North America 20:125-150.
Herrick, James William 1977 Iroquois Medical Botany. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. The State University of New, Albany.
Hodder, Ian 1990 The Domestication of Europe . Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Holmes, Sarah L. 2007 “In Behalf of Myself and My People”: Mashantucket Pequot Strategies in Defense of Their Land Rights. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation in Anthropology, University of Connecticut.
Hubbard, R. N. L. B. 1976 On the strength of the evidence for prehistoric crop processing activities Journal of Archaeological Science 3: 257-265.
1980 Development of Agriculture in Europe and the Near East: Evidence from Quantitative Studies. Economic Botany 34:51-67.
Huss-Ashmore, Rebecca and Susan L. Johnston 1994 Famine foods: Wild plants as cultural adaptations to food stress. In Eating on the Wild Side: The Pharmacologic, Ecologic, and Social Implications of Using Noncultigens, edited by N. Etkin, pp. 62-82. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Ingerson, Alice 1994 Tracking and Testing the Nature-Culture Dichotomy. In Historical Ecology: Cultural, Knowledge and Changing Landscapes , edited by Carole L. Crumley, pp. 43-66. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.
475 Ireland, Alex, W. Wyatt Oswald, and David Foster 2011 An integrated reconstruction of recent forest dynamics in a New England cultural landscape. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 20: 245-252.
Ives, Timothy 2011 Reconstructing the Wangunk Reservation System: A Case Study of Native and Colonial Likeness in Central Connecticut. Ethnohistory 58(1):65-89.
Jacobucci, Susan A. 2006 Constant Changes: A Study of Anthropogenic Vegetation Using Pollen and Charcoal on the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation Reservation, North Stonington, Connecticut. Master’s thesis, Historical Archaeology, University of Massachusetts-Boston, Boston.
Jarman, M. R., C. Vita-Finzi, and E. S. Higgs 1972 Site catchment analysis in archaeology. In Man, settlement, and urbanism , edited by Peter J. Ucko, Ruth R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby, pp.61-66. Cambridge Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Johnson, Eric S. 1999 Community and Confederation: A Political Geography of Contact Period Southern New England. In The Archaeological Northeast , edited by Mary Ann Levine, Kenneth E. Sassaman, and Michael S. Nassaney, pp. 155-168. Bergin and Garvey, Westport, Connecticut.
Johnson, Richard R. 1977 The Search for a Usable Indian: An Aspect of the Defense of Colonial New England. The Journal for American History 64 (3):623-51. Jones, Brian D. 1998 Human Adaptation to the Changing Northeastern Environment at the End o f the Pleistocene: Implications for the Archaeological Record. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
2002 Continuity versus Change during the Last Three Millennia at Mashantucket. Northeast Anthropology (64): 17-29.
Jones, Brian and Daniel Forrest 2003 Life in a Postglacial Landscape: Settlement-Subsistence Change During the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition in Southern New England. In Geoarchaeology of Landscapes in the Glaciated Northeast , edited by David L. Cremeens and John P. Hart, New York State Museum Bulletin 497, pp. 75-89. The State Education Department, New York, Albany.
Jones, Glynis, Amy Bogaard, Paul Halstead, Mike Charles, and H. Smith, 1999 Identifying the intensity of crop husbandry practices on the basis of weed floras. Annual of the British School at Athens 94: 167-89.
476
Jordan, Kurt A. 2009 Colonies, Colonialism, and Cultural Entanglement: The Archaeology of Postcolumbian Intercultural Relations. In International Handbook of Historical Archaeology . edited by T. Majewski and D. Gaimster, pp. 31-49. Springer Science Media.
2010 Not Just “One Site Against the World”: Seneca Iroquois Intercommunity Connections and Autonomy, 1550-1779. In Across a Great Divide: Continuity and Change in Native North America Societies, 1400-1900, edited by L.L. Scheiber and M.D. Mitchell, pp. 79-106. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Joyce, Rosemary A. and Jeanne Lopiparo 2005 Doing Agency in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12:365-374.
Judkins, Gabriel, Marissa Smith and Eric Keyes 2008 Determinism within Human-Environmental Research and the Rediscovery of Environmental Causation. The Geographical Journal 174:17-29.
Kasper, Kimberly 2008 Archaeobotanical Report of the 2006 University of Massachusetts, Amherst Archaeological Field School 2006: Eaglebrook Area D. Manuscript on file at the Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kasper, Kimberly and Kevin McBride 2009 “Dimensions of Native American Homesteads: Evaluating Mashantucket Pequot Settlement Patterns on a Changing Landscape.” Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Anthropological Association in Providence, RI.
Keepax, Carole 1977 Contamination of archaeological deposits by seeds of modern origin with particular reference to the use of flotation machines. Journal of Archaeological Science 4:221-229.
Kelley, Robert 1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways . Percheron Press, Clinton Corners, NY.
Kennett, Douglas J. and Bruce Winterhalder (editors) 2006 Behavioral Ecology and the Transition to Agriculture . University of California Press, Berkeley.
Krech III, Shepard 1999 The Ecological Indian: Myth and History . W.W. Norton and Company, New York.
477 Kroeber, Alfred L. 1948 Anthropology: race, language, culture, psychology, pre-history . Harcourt, Brace, New York.
Lamb Richmond, Trudie 1989 Put Your Ear to the Ground and Listen: The Wigwam Festival is the Green Corn Ceremony. Artifacts 17(4):24-34.
Lamb Richmond, T. and Amy E. Den Ouden 2003 Recovering Gendered Political Histories: Local Struggles and Native Women’s Resistance in Colonial Southern New England. In Reinterpreting New England Indians and the Colonial Experience , edited by Colin G. Calloway and Neal Salisbury, pp. 174- 213. The Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Boston.
Lammi, Kristina 2005 Variability in the Built Environment at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation, 1675- 1856. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Largy, Tonya and E. Pierre Morenon 2008 Maize Agriculture in Coastal Rhode Island: Imaginative, Illusive, or Intensive? In Current Northeast Paleoethnobotany II , edited by John P. Hart. and Christine B. Reith,., pp. 73-85, New York State Museum Bulletin No. 496, The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department, Albany.
Largy, Tonya and Mary Lynne Rainey 2006 Poverty or Natural Wisdom: Native Home Solutions in 18th Century Nantucket. Archaeology of Eastern North America 34:61-69.
Layton, Robert (editor) 1989 Conflict in the archaeology of living traditions. Unwin, London.
Lee, Richard and Irven Devore 1968 Man the Hunter . Aldine Publishing, Chicago.
Lewis, Henry T. 1993 Patterns of Indian Burning in California: Ecology and Ethnohistory. In Before the Wilderness: Environmental Management by Native Californians , edited by Thomas C. Blackburn and Kat Anderson, pp. 55-116. Ballena Press, Menlo Park. Lightfoot, Kent G. Culture Contact Studies: Redefining the Relationship between Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology. American Antiquity 60:199-217.
Lightfoot, Kent G. 1995 Culture Contact Studies: Redefining the Relationship between Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology. American Antiquity 60:199-217.
478 Lillie, Malcolm, Stephen Ellis, and Helen Fenwick 2007 Wetland Archaeology and Environments: Regional Issues, Global Perspectives . Oxbow Books, Indiana University.
Little, Elizabeth A. 2002 Kautantouwit’s Legacy: Calibrated Dates on Prehistoric Maize in New England. American Antiquity 67(1):109-118.
Little, Elizabeth A. and Margaret J. Schoeninger 1995 The Late Woodland Diet on Nantucket Island and the Problem of Maize in Coastal New England. American Antiquity 60(2):351-368.
Loren, Diana DiPaolo 2008 In Contact: Bodies and Spaces in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century Eastern Woodlands. Altamira Press, New York.
Love, W. Deloss 2007 Samson Occom and the Christian Indians of New England . Syracuse University Press, Syracuse.
Lyman, R. Lee 2010 What Taphonomy Is, What it Isn’t, and Why Taphonomists Should Care about the Difference. Journal of Taphonomy 8(1): 1-16.
Lyons, Natasha., and Trevor J. Orchard 2007 Sourcing Archaeobotanical Remains: Taphonomic Insights from a Midden Analysis on Haida Gwaii, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 31(1): 28-54.
Magee, Dennis and Harry Ahles 2007 Flora of the Northeast . University of Massachusetts, Press, Amherst.
Mancini, Jason 2002 Whose Medicine?: Observations on the Transformation of Native American Medicinal Practices in the Context of European-American Medical Theory, Religion and Law. Paper presented at the 3 rd Mashantucket Pequot History Conference.
2009 Beyond Reservation: Indians, Maritime Labor, and Communities of Color from Eastern Long Island Sound, 1713-1861. On file at the Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center.
Mandell, Dan 2010 King Philips War: Colonial Expansion, Native Resistance, and the End of Indian Sovereignty. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
479 Marguerie, Dominique and Jean-Yves Hunot 2007 Charcoal Analysis and Dendrology: Data from Archaeological Sites in North- Western France. Journal of Archaeological Science 34:1417-1433.
Martin, Alexander C. and William D. Barkley 2000 Seed Identification Manual . The Blackburn Press, Cadwell, New Jersey.
McBride, Kevin n.d “Where our Fathers and Grandfathers Dwelled: The Early Reservation Period (1666- 1760).” Unpublished manuscript. On file at the Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center Library.
1990 The Historical Archaeology of the Mashantucket Pequots, 1637-1900, A Preliminary Analysis. In The Pequots in Southern New England: The Rise and Fall of an American Indian Nation , edited by Laurence M. Hauptman and James D. Wherry, pp. 96- 116. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
1992 Prehistoric and Historic Patterns of Wetland Use in Eastern Connecticut. Man in the Northeast 43:10-24.
1996 “Desirous To Improve After the European Manner”: The Mashantucket Pequot and the Brotherton Indian Movement. Unpublished Manuscript. On file at the Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center Library.
2007 Transformation by Degree: Eighteenth Century Native American Land Use. In Eighteenth Century Native Communities of Southern New England in the Colonial Contex t, edited by Jack Campisi, pp. 35-54. The Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center, Occasional Paper No. 1, Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center, Ledyard, CT.
McBride, Kevin and Nicholas Bellantoni 1983 The Utility of Ethnohistoric Models for Understanding Late Woodland-Contact Change in Southern New England. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 45:51-64.
McBride, Kevin A. and Robert E. Dewar 1987 Agriculture and Cultural Evolution: Causes and Effects in the Lower Connecticut River Valley. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodland , edited by William F. Keegan, pp. 305-328. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Papers No. 7. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
McDonald, Miller, Mark Bennet, Andrew Evan, and Alicia Sites 2012 Seed Id Workshop [HTML Title]. Available: http://www.oardc.ohio- state.edu/seedid/credits.htm. Date of use: 01/18/2012.
480 McNiven, Ian and Lynette Russell 2005 Appropriated Pasts: Indigenous Peoples and the Colonial Culture of Archaeology . AltaMira, New York.
McWeeney, Lucinda 1994 Archaeological Settlement Patterns and Vegetation Dynamics in Southern New England in the Late Quaternary. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Yale University. University Microfilms.
1998 Reconstruction of the Mashantucket Pequot Cedar Swamp Paleoenvironment Using Plant Microfossils, New England, USA. In Coastally Restricted Forests , edited by Aimlee D. Laderman, pp. 124-141. Oxford University Press, New York.
Meher, Mark W. 1995 Cahokia’s Countryside: Household Archaeology, Settlement Patterns, and Social Power. Northern Illinois University Press, Dekalb.
Merchant, Carolyn 2010 Ecological Revolutions: Nature Gender and Science in New England . 2nd edition. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Miksicek, Charles H. 1987 Formation processes of the archaeobotanical record. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 9:211–247.
Miller, Naomi F. 1988 Ratios in Paleoethnobotanical Analysis. In Current Paleoethnobotany , edited by Christine A. Hastorf and Virginia S. Popper, pp. 72-85. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Minnis, Paul E. 1981 Seeds in Archaeological Sites: Sources and Some Interpretive Problems. American Antiquity 46:143–152.
Mitchell, Mark D. and Laura L. Scheiber 2010 Crossing Divides: Archaeology as Long Term History. In Across a Great Divide: Continuity and Change in Native North America Societies, 1400-1900, edited by L.L. Scheiber and M.D. Mitchell, pp. 1-22. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Moerman, Daniel 1996 An analysis of the food plants and drug plants of native North America. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 52(1):1·22.
1998 Native American Ethnobotany . Timber Press
481 Montgomery, Federick.H. 1977 Seeds and Fruits of Plants of Eastern Canada and Northeastern United States . University of Toronto Press.
Mrozowski, Stephen A. 2006 Environments of History: Biological Dimensions of Historical Archaeology. In Historical Archaeology , edited by Martin Hall and Stephen W. Silliman, pp. 23-41. Blackwell Publishing, Boston.
Mrozowski, Stephen A., Maria Franklin and Leslie Hunt 2008 Archaeobotanical Analysis and Interpretations of Enslaved Virginian Plant Use at Rich Neck Plantation American Antiquity 74(4):699-728.
Munson, Patrick 1984 Experiments and Observations on Aboriginal Wild Plant Food Utilization in Eastern North America . Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.
Nassaney, Michael and Michael Volmar 2003 Lithic Artifacts in Seventeenth Century Native New England. In Stone Tool Traditions in the Contact Era, edited by Charles R. Cobb, pp. 78-93. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Nelson, Sarah (editor) 2007 Identity and Subsistence. AltaMira Press, Lanham.
Newsom, Lee A. and Deborah Ann Trieu 2006 Introduction and Adoption of Crops from Europe. In The Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 3 , edited by D.H. Ubelaker and Bruce Smith, pp.471-484. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
2011 Fusion gardens: Native North America and the Columbian Exchange. In Subsistence Economies of Indigenous North American Societies: A Handbook , edited by B.D. Smith, pp. 557-576 Rowman and Littlefield Publishing Group, Lanham, MD.
Nicholas, George P. 1992 Directions in Wetlands Research. Man in the Northeast 43:1-9.
1997 Education and Empowerment: Archaeology with, for and by the Shuswap Nation, British Columbia. In Nicholas, George P. and Andrews, T.D. (eds.), At a Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada, Archeology Press, Burnady, B.C., pp. 85-104.
Nicholas, George (editor) 2010 Being and Becoming Indigenous Archaeologists. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.
482 O’Brien, Jean M. 1997 Dispossession by Degrees: Indian Land and Identity in Natick, Massachusetts, 1650-1790. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Oliver, Jeffry 2010 Landscapes and Social Transformations on the Northwest Coast: Colonial Encounters in the Fraser Valley . The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Palmer, Carol and Marijke Van der Veen 2002 Archaeobotany and the Social Context. Acta Palaeobotanica 42(2): 195-202.
Pearsall, Deborah 2000 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures . Academic Press, San Diego.
Perdue, Theda 1998 Cherokee Women.: Gender and Culture Change, 1700-1835. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Popper, Virginia S. 1988 Selecting Quantitative Measurements in Paleoethnobotany. In Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains , edited by Christine A. Hastorf and Virginia S. Popper, pp. 53–71. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Redfield, Robert, Ralph Linton, Melville Herskovits 1936 Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation. American Anthropologist 38(1):149- 152.
Renfew, Colin 1973 Before Civilization, the Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe . Pimlico, London.
Rogers, J. Daniel 1990 Objects of Change: The Archaeology and History of Arikara Contact with Europeans . Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.
Rubertone, Patricia 2000 The Historical Archaeology of Native Americans. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 425-446.
Rubin, Julius 2005 Samson Occom and Christian Indian Community and Identity in Southern New England. In Eighteenth Century Native Communities of Southern New England in the Colonial Context . edited by Jack Campisi. Occasional Paper No. 1.Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center.
483 Salisbury, Roderick 2012 Engaging with soil, past and present. Journal of Material Culture 17(1):23-41.
Scarry, C. Margaret and John F. Scarry 2005 Native American ‘garden agriculture’ in southeastern North America. World Archaeology 37(2):259-274.
Scarry, John 2010 Native Agency and Practice in Colonial Apalachee Province. In Across the Great Divide: Continuity and Change in Native North American Societies , A.D. 1400-1850, edited by Laura Scheiber and Mark Mitchell. Amerind Seminar Series. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Scheiber, Laura and Mark Mitchell (editors) 2010 Across a Great Divide: Continuity and Change in Native North America Societies, 1400-1900. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Schiffer, Michael B. 1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record . University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Scholtz, A. 1986 Palynological and Palaeobotanical Studies in the Southern Cape. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Service, Elman 1962 Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective . Random House, New York.
Service, Elman and Marshal Sahlins 1960 Evolution and Culture . The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Shackleton, C.M. and F. Prins 1992 Charcoal Analysis and the “Principle of Least Effort” – A Conceptual Model. Journal of Archaeological Science 19:631-637.
Shoemaker, Nancy 2004 A Strange Likeness: Becoming Red and White in Eighteenth Century North America . Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sidell, Nancy Asch 2002 Palaeoethnobotanical Indicators of Subsistence and Settlement Change in the Northeast. In Northeast Subsistence-Settlement Change A.D. 700-1300, edited by John P. Hart and Christine B. Rieth, pp. 241-263. New York State Museum Bulletin No. 496, The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department, Albany.
484 Silliman, Steven 2005 Culture Contact or Colonialism? Challenges in the Archaeology of Native North America. American Antiquity 70(1):55-74.
2009 Change and Continuity, Practice and Memory: Native American Persistence in Colonial New England. American Antiquity 74(2):211-230
Silliman, Steven (editor) 2008 Collaborating at the Trowel’s Edge: Teaching and Learning in Indigenous Archaeology . The University of Arizona Press, Tucson
Silverman, David J. 2003“We chuse to be bounded”: Native American Animal Husbandry in Colonial New England. William and Mary Quarterly 3rd series LX (3): 511-48.
Simmons, William S. 1990 The Mystic Voice: Pequot Folklore from the Seventeenth Century to the Present. In The Pequots in Southern New England: The Rise and Fall of an American Indian Nation , edited by Laurence M. Hauptman and James D. Wherry, pp. 141-175. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Smith, Bruce 2007 Niche construction and the behavioral context of plant and animal domestication. Evolutionary Anthropology 16:188-199.
Smith, Eric A. and Bruce Winterhalder 1992 Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior . Aldine Press, Hawthorne, NY.
Smith, Claire and H. Martin Wobst (editors) 2005 Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice . Routledge, New York.
Smith. Laurajane 2005 Comment on “Dwelling at the Margins, Action at the Intersection? Feminist and Indigenous Archaeologies, 2005”. Archaeologies 1(1):60-62.
Sorensen, Marie Louise Stig 2000 Gender Archaeology . Polity Press, Cambridge, England.
Spiess, Arthur E. and Bruce D. Spiess 1984 New England Pandemic of 1616-1622: Cause and Archaeological Implication. Man in the Northeast 34: 71-83.
485 Spriggs, Matthew 1993 The current relevance of ethnohistorical and archaeological systems. In Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Wisdom for Sustainable Development , edited by Nancy M. Williams and Graham Baines, pp. 109-114. Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.
Starna, William 1990 The Pequots in the Early Seventeenth Century. In The Pequots in Southern New England: The Rise and Fall of an American Indian Nation , edited by Laurence M. Hauptman and James D. Wherry, pp. 33-47. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Stein, Gil J. 2005 Introduction: The Comparative Archaeology of Colonial Encounters. In The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters: Comparative Perspectives , edited by G.J. Stein, pp. 3-31. School for American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Stein, Ninian R. 2008 Dichotomies and the “Maize Debate” in Late Woodland and Contact Period Southern New England. In Current Northeast Palaeoethnobotany II , edited by John P. Hart, pp. 61-72. New York State Museum Bulletin No. 512, The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department, Albany.
Stepp, J.R., and Moerman, Daniel E., 2001 The importance of weeds in ethnopharmacology. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 75: 25–31.
Swanton, John R. 1928 Religious Beliefs and Medical Practices of the Creek Indians. SI-BAE Annual Report 42.
Swidler, Nina, Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger Anyon, Alan S. Downer (Eds.) 1997 Native Americans and archaeologists: Stepping Stones tot common ground . AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek.
Tantaquidgeon, Gladys 1946 A Study of Delaware Indian Medicine Practice and Folk Beliefs . Pennsylvania Historical Commission, Harrisburg, PA.
1972 Folk Medicine of the Delaware and Related Algonquian Indians . The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Thomas, David H. 1971 Prehistoric subsistence-settlement patters of the Reese River Valley, central Nevada. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
486 Thomas, Peter 1976 Contrastive Subsistence Strategies and Land Use as Factors for Understanding Indian-White Relations in New England. Ethnohistory 23(1): 1-18.
Thorson, Robert M. 1993 Pieces of the Pequot Past. Manuscript on file, Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center, Ledyard, CT.
Thorson, Robert M. and Robert S. Webb 1991 Postglacial history of a Cedar Swamp in southeastern Connecticut. Journal of Paleolimnology 6:17-35.
Trent, Katrina 1981 A 9 meter record of vegetation in Southeastern Connecticut: A comparison to Rogers Lake. An Unpublished Senior Thesis at Brown University, Providence, RI.
Trigg, Heather and Jessica Bowes 2008 An Examination of Botanical Materials from Mashantucket Pequot Site 72-58. Manuscript on file, Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center, Ledyard, CT and at the Fiske Center for Archaeological Research, University of Massachusetts, Boston.
Trigg, Heather, Kevin McBride, Melissa Smith 2007 Botanical Indication of the Impacts of the Reservation System on the Mashantucket Pequot. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Ethnobiology in Berkeley, California.
Trigger, Bruce 1980 Archaeology and the Image of the American Indian. American Antiquity 45(4):662- 676.
Tusenius, Madelon Louise 1986 The Study of Charcoal from Some South African Archaeological Context. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Twiss, Kathryn 2012 The Archaeology of Food and Social Diversity. Journal of Archaeological Research 10:1-39.
USDA Plant Database 2012 Plant Database [HTML Title]. Available:http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ main/national/technical/alphabetical/plants/pub. Date of use: 01/01/2012.
487 Van der Leeuw, Sander der and Charles L Redman 2002 Placing Archaeology at the Center of Socio-Natural Studies. American Antiquity 67(4):597-605.
Van der Veen, M. 1992 Crop husbandry regimes: an archaeobotanical study of farming in northern England, 1000 B.C.- A.D. 500 . Sheffield: J.R. Collis Publications.
2007. Formation processes of desiccated and carbonized plant remains – the identification of routine practice. Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (6): 968–990.
Vasta, Meredith 2007 What Ails Them?: The Changing Faunal Utilization at the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation from the Late Woodland to the Early 19th Century. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Vitelli, Giovanna 2009 Equilibrium, Well-Being and Exchange: The Basis of Algonquian Mortuary Practice in Seventeenth Century Southern New England. Unpublished Ph.D., University of Reading.
Watkins, Joe 2000 Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice . Alta Mira Press, Walnut Creek.
Wells, E.Christian 2004 Investigating Activity Patterns in Prehispanic Plazas: Weak Acid-Extraction ICP AES Analysis of Anthrosols at Classic Period El Coyote, Northwestern Honduras. Archaeometry 46:67-84.
Whitehead, Neil. L. 1998 Ecological History and Historical Ecology: Diachronic Modeling Versus Historical Explanation. In Advances in Historical Ecology , edited by William Balée, pp. 30-41. Columbia University Press, New York.
Wright, Patti 2010 Methodological Issues in Paleoethnobotany: A Consideration of Issues, Methods, and Cases. In Integrating Zooarchaeology and Paleoethnobotany , edited by A.M. VanDerwarker and T.M. Peres, pp. 37-64. Springer.
Wilk, R. and Wendy Ashmore (editors) 1988 Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past . University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
488 Wilk, Richard and William Rathje 1982 Archaeology of the Household: Building a Prehistory of Domestic Life. American Behavioral Scientist 25:611-725.
Winterhalder, Bruce 1986 Optimal Foraging: Simulation Studies of Diet Choice in a Stochastic Environment. Journal of Ethnobiology 6:205-23.
1993 Work, Resources and Population in Foraging Societies. Man 28:321-40.
1994 Concepts in Historical Ecology: The View from Evolutionary Ecology. In Historical Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscapes , edited by Carol Crumley, pp. 17-41. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.
Wobst, H. Martin 1974 Boundary Conditions for Paleolithic Social Systems: A Simulation Approach. American Antiquity 39:147-78.
1978 The Archaeo-Ethnology of Hunter-Gatherers, or the Tyranny of the Ethnographic Record in Archaeology. American Antiquity 43:303-309.
2000 Agency in (spite of) Material Culture. In Agency in Archaeology , edited by Marcia- Anne Dobres and John Robb, pp. 40-50.Routledge, London.
2006 Artifacts as Social Interference: The Politics of Spatial Scale. In Confronting Scale in Archaeology: Issue of Theory and Practice , edited by Gary Lock and Brian Leigh Molyneaux, pp. 55-64. Springer Press, New York.
Wright, Rita P. (editor) 1996 Gender and Archaeology . University of Pennsylvania Press.
489