Viewing Early Drafts of This Dissertation and Serving As a Constant Sounding Board

People, Places and Plants: An Appraisal of Subsistence, Technology, and Sedentism in the Eastern Woodlands

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Paul Edward Patton

Graduate Program in Anthropology

The Ohio State University

2013

Dissertation Committee:

Professor Kristen Gremillion, Advisor

Professor Julie Field

Professor Robert Cook

Professor Elliot Abrams

Copyrighted by

Paul Edward Patton

2013

Abstract

The transition from foraging to farming has cross-culturally been associated with major changes in human technology, settlement patterns and social organization. This research project tests these relationships among prehistoric human populations inhabiting the Eastern Woodlands by considering how increasing reliance on cultivated foods during the Holocene led to economic circumstances in which investment in the specialization of plant-food processing tools was beneficial. It further identifies that tool investment benefits were only adaptive when seasonally strategic mobility had decreased to such a degree that tool carrying costs were offset by expanded tool use-life. Using the Model of

Technological Investment, grounded in neo-Darwinian theory and Human Behavioral

Ecology, this study uses quantitative and qualitative archaeological data to 1. Provide a general survey of the changes in human botanical diet from the Hocking Valley, Ohio, for the Late Archaic through Middle Woodland Periods, 2. Determine the relative correlation between investments in food processing technology and the incorporation of cultivated foods into the prehistoric Woodlands diet, and 3. Establish the seasonal occupation at each of the sampled sites in order to determine different degrees of sedentariness and residential stability throughout the temporal periods surveyed. A variety of archaeological methods were utilized in this study, including macro-archaeobotanical analysis, pottery and ground stone macrocharacteristic analysis, and analyses of settlement and feature data from habitation sites The results of these analyses indicate

ii that 1. Relatively high levels of investment in the construction of food-processing technology only occurred after population mobility decreased to such a degree that allowed for an extended use-life of an individual tool, 2. Middle Woodland populations in the Hocking Valley were essentially residentially stable farmers, and 3. The relationship between plant domestication, technological innovation, and sedentariness was co-evolutionary.

iii

To my Grandfather, David L. Patton,

Who taught me that our accomplishments

Are built on the shoulders of those who came before us

And helped to pave our way.

This dissertation is as much yours

As it is mine.

Acknowledgments

Many people contributed to this dissertation, and their contributions cannot go without acknowledgement. Firstly, my advisor Kristen Gremillion, and my committee,

Julie Field, Robert Cook, and Elliot Abrams, provided exceptional support in my research and writing; without their assistance, I could not have completed this project or my degree. I am incredibly grateful for the guidance and training provided by my Masters advisors, AnnCorinne Freter and Elliot Abrams, whose research and encouragement are the cornerstone for all that follows. The data used in this research were the result of the toil and dedication of dozens of undergraduate students enrolled in the Ohio University

Archaeological Field School between the years of 2000 and 2012; they are the unspoken

“heroes” who gave their summers to preserve the archaeological record of the Hocking

Valley so that future generations could appreciate the lives and ingenuity of those humans who came before them. Of these students, Delaney Panyter, Kate Olterstorf,

Meggie Krause, Sarah Karpinski, and Taylor Weddle went above and beyond the call of duty by spending extra hours in the field to make sure that all the “digging” was done.

Allen Patton deserves thanks for giving up his days off work to make sure that the Patton

3 site was fully excavated. Special thanks to Josh McConaughy for serving as a sounding board for many of the ideas in this manuscript.

I give special thanks to many of my colleagues who have contributed their time and expertise to unveiling the lifeways of prehistoric humans in the Hocking Valley, particularly Sarah Weaver, Tracy Formica, and Kristina Keeling; your research has proved invaluable to understanding one of the great transitions in human subsistence and domestic economy. Much gratitude goes to Kristie Martin and Lise Byars-George for reviewing early drafts of this dissertation and serving as a constant sounding board. I am grateful for Nancy Tatarek, Thomas Carpenter, Lynn Lancaster, William Owens, Ruth

Palmer, and Steve Hayes for their mentorship and friendship throughout the many phases and incarnations of my education and research. I am greatly appreciative of the Hudnell

Fund of Ohio University and the Larsen Research Fund of The Ohio State University for providing the financial support necessary to obtain radiocarbon and AMS dates for the sites included in this study.

Too often overlooked are the folks responsible for the “behind the scenes” work; I refuse to make such a mistake, and so I offer my thanks to Jean Whipple, Elizabeth

Freeman, Wayne Miller, and Dave Sweasey for all the hard work that they do every day to make sure that the Department of Anthropology at The Ohio State University stays afloat. I am indebted to the Graduate Studies Committee and the Department of

Anthropology, as well as the Undergraduate Research Office of The Ohio State

University, particularly Helene Cwerene and Allison Snow, for providing me graduate assistantships that largely paid for my doctoral education.

My family has provided unwaivering support throughout the course of my education and research. My mother and father worked long days to provide more

vi opportunities for their children than they had had, just as their parents had done before them. As the first of my family to receive my doctorate, I know that my success is largely endebted to the struggles and commitment of my family to provide more opportunities for each subsequent generation. I am grateful to my parents and grandparents for these and many other reasons, but particularly for allowing field excavations of their properties which produced the astonishing assemblages of the Patton 1 and Patton 3 sites.

Finally, this dissertation could never have been completed without the heartfelt love and devotion of my husband, Michael Pistrui, who happily floated hundreds of liters of sediment and counted thousands of hickory nutshell fragments when my eyes had given out on me for the night.

vii

Vita

1999...... Wadsworth High

2004...... B.A. Anthropology and Classical

Civilizations, Ohio University

2007...... M.S. Environmental Studies, Ohio

University

2009 to 2010…………………………………Graduate Administrative Associate,

Undergraduate Research Office, The Ohio

State University

2008 to 2009…………………………………Graduate Research Associate, Department

of Anthropology, The Ohio State University

2010 to present ...... Graduate Teaching Associate, Department

of Anthropology, The Ohio State University

2011 to present………………………………Instructor, Department of Sociology and

Anthropology, Ohio University

viii

Publications

Patton, P. E., E. M. Abrams, A. Freter 2009 A Geochemical Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics in the Hocking Valley, Ohio. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 79: 54-74.

People, N. E. Abrams, A. Freter, B. Jokisch and P. Patton 2008 Lithic Surplus Production and Tribal Formation: Evidence from the Taber Well Site (33Ho611), Southeastern Ohio. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 33: 107-127.

Fields of Study

Major Field: Anthropology

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Acknowledgments...... v

Vita ...... viii

Publications ...... ix

Fields of Study ...... ix

Table of Contents ...... x

List of Tables ...... xvii

List of Figures ...... xxi

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Introduction and Problem ...... 4

Chapter Contents ...... 8

Chapter 2: Theoretical Perspective ...... 11

2.1 Evolutionary Concepts in Anthropology ...... 15

2.2 What is Domestication? ...... 25

2.3 Research Objectives ...... 29

2.4 Research Hypotheses, Assumptions, and Predictions ...... 34

Chapter 3: Culture History and Environmental Setting ...... 38

3.1 Late Archaic Period (5950 to 2650 BP) ...... 39

3.2 The Early Woodland (2650 to 2300 BP) and Middle Woodland (2300 to 1600 BP)

Periods ...... 43

3.3 Temporal Summation ...... 48

3.4 The Hocking Valley and Its Environmental Setting ...... 48

3.6 Early Investigations ...... 52

3.7 Sites Sampled ...... 56

3.8 Patton 1 ...... 56

3.9 Taber Well ...... 65

3.10 County Home ...... 69

3.11 Patton 3 ...... 74

3.12 Boudinot 4 ...... 82

3.13 Summation of Samples...... 84

Chapter 4: Evaluation of Macrobotanical Samples ...... 85

4.2 Methods Used ...... 90

Patton 1 Seed Assemblage ...... 102

Patton 1 Nutshell Assemblage ...... 106

Patton 1 domesticates ...... 109

4.5 Taber Well Archaeobotanical Analyses ...... 111

Taber Well Seed Assemblage ...... 111

Taber Well Nutshell Assemblage ...... 114

Taber Well Domesticates ...... 116

Taber Well “Other” Archaeobotanicals ...... 118

5.6 County Home Archaeobotanical Analysis Results ...... 118

County Home Seed Assemblage ...... 119

County Home Nutshell Assemblage...... 124

County Home Domesticates ...... 126

County Home “Other” Archaeobotanicals ...... 128

4.7 Patton 3 Archaeobotanical Analysis Results ...... 130

Patton 3 Seed Assemblage ...... 130

Patton 3 Nutshell ...... 132

Patton 3 Domesticates ...... 134

Patton 3 “Other” Archaeobotanicals ...... 135

4.8 Discussion and Summary of Archaeobotanical Assemblages ...... 136

Nutshell by Temporal Period ...... 137

Seeds by Temporal Period ...... 144

xii

Archaeobotanicals as Seasonal Indicators ...... 150

The Incipient-Middle Woodland Period ...... 154

The Medial-Middle Woodland Period ...... 156

The Terminal Middle Woodland Period ...... 159

Summation of Middle Woodland Sub-temporal Periods ...... 160

Chapter 5: Evaluation of Domestic Structures and Sedentism ...... 162

5.1 Understanding and Moving Beyond Sedentism ...... 162

5.2 Applying Optimization Models to Sedentism ...... 165

4.3 Model of Residential Stability...... 169

5.4 The Effects of Environment on Mobility and Defense ...... 172

Decision-Making, Defense and the Environment ...... 173

5.6 Assumptions, Predictions and Hypotheses related to Residential Stability ...... 177

5.7 Territoriality and Residential Stability in the Hocking Valley ...... 179

5.8 Investment in Architecture ...... 180

Architectural Postmold Diameter ...... 181

Daub Artifacts...... 186

Architectural Investment: Summary ...... 188

5.8 Thermal Features ...... 190

5.9 Chapter Discussion and Summation ...... 194

xiii

Chapter 6: Evaluation of Food Processing Tools ...... 196

6.1 Performance of Ceramic Vessels ...... 196

6.2 Strength ...... 198

6.3 Permeability ...... 199

6.4 Carrying Weight ...... 201

6.5 Thermal Shock Resistance ...... 201

6.6 Summation of Performance of Ceramic Vessels...... 203

6.9 Thickness Measurements ...... 207

6.10 Temper and Temper Particle Size ...... 210

Organic materials ...... 212

Rock or mineral ...... 213

Grog ...... 215

Inclusion Comparison Results ...... 215

6.11 Surface Treatment ...... 219

6.12 Rim Classification and Vessel Form ...... 220

6.13 Production Method ...... 220

6.14 Pottery Time/Energy Investment ...... 225

6.15 Literature Survey of Prehistoric Ceramics ...... 227

Late Archaic Pottery ...... 230

xiv

Early Woodland Pottery ...... 230

Middle Woodland Pottery ...... 235

6.16 Pottery Description and Summation ...... 237

6.17 Ground stone technology and the Eastern Woodlands Neolithic Transition ...... 243

6. 18 Handstones ...... 245

Pecking Stones ...... 247

Manos ...... 247

Pestles ...... 248

6.19 Netherstones ...... 249

Metates...... 250

Mortars...... 250

6.21 Abraders ...... 251

6.22 Ground Stone Discussion and Summary ...... 252

Chapter 7: Discussion and Summary ...... 259

Primary Hypothesis: The question of when to invest ...... 278

Determining the Rate of Mobility ...... 279

Estimating Investment Payoffs ...... 281

The Effect of Tool Use Life ...... 285

Chapter 11: Conclusions and Future Research ...... 286

References ...... 289

Appendix A: Feature Descriptions...... 324

Appendix B: Macrobotanical Raw Numbers ...... 362

Appendix C: Postmold Raw Data ...... 371

Appendix D: Pottery Macrocharacteristic Raw Data...... 379

Patton 1 Pottery Artifacts ...... 379

Taber Well Pottery Artifacts ...... 380

County Home Pottery Artifacts ...... 381

Patton 3 Pottery Artifacts ...... 382

Boudinot 4 Pottery Artifacts ...... 382

Appendix E: Thermal Feature Raw Data ...... 388

xvi

List of Tables

Table 1: Radiometric dates for the sampled sites ...... 30

Table 2: Temporal Periods for the Eastern Woodlands region...... 39

Table 3: Archaeological Research Projects conducted in the Hocking Valley since 2005

...... 55

Table 4: Patton 1 site feature data...... 65

Table 5: Features sampled from the Taber Well site...... 69

Table 6: County Home feature data...... 73

Table 7: Features sampled for archaeobotanicals from the Patton 3 site...... 82

Table 8: Macrobotanical sample data from the four primary sites...... 93

Table 9: Seeds identified by sub-class and type...... 94

Table 10: Results of seed analysis for all sites by temporal association...... 98

Table 11: Results of nutshell analysis by temporal association ...... 99

Table 12: Results of nutshell analysis by temporal associations ...... 101

Table 13: Patton 1 macrobotanicals recovered by temporal period...... 102

Table 14: Summary of Patton 1 Middle Woodland Seed Analysis Results ...... 104

Table 15: Summary of Patton 1 Late Archaic Nutshell Analysis Results ...... 106

Table 16: Summary of Patton 1 Middle Woodland Nutshell Analysis Results ...... 107

Table 17: Patton 1 domesticates ...... 110

Table 18: Taber Well macrobotanicals recovered by temporal period...... 111 xvii

Table 19: Taber Well Middle Woodland Seed Analysis Results...... 113

Table 20: Summary of Taber Well Nutshell Analysis Results ...... 115

Table 21: Summary of Taber Well Late Archaic Nutshell Analysis Results ...... 115

Table 22: Summary of Taber Well Early Woodland Nutshell Analysis Results...... 116

Table 23: Taber Well domesticates...... 117

Table 24: County Home macrobotanicals recovered by temporal period...... 119

Table 25: County Home Late Archaic Seed Analysis Results ...... 120

Table 26: County Home Early Woodland Seed Analysis Results...... 121

Table 27: County Home Middle Woodland Seed Analysis Results...... 122

Table 28: Summary of County Home Late Archaic Nutshell Analysis Results ...... 125

Table 29: Summary of County Home Early Woodland Nutshell Analysis Results ...... 125

Table 30: Summary of County Home Middle Woodland Nutshell Analysis Results .... 126

Table 31: County Home domesticates ...... 129

Table 32: Patton 3 macrobotanicals recovered by temporal period...... 130

Table 33: Patton 3 Terminal Early Woodland/Incipient Middle Woodland Seed Analysis

Results...... 132

Table 34: Summary of Patton 3 Terminal Early Woodland/Incipient Middle Woodland

Nutshell Analysis Results...... 133

Table 35: Patton 3 domesticates ...... 135

Table 36: Summary statistics for hickory nutshell density by count for each temporal period...... 140

xviii

Table 37: Summary statistics for walnut nutshell density by count for each temporal period...... 140

Table 38: Summary statistics for acorn nutshell density by count for each temporal period...... 141

Table 39: Summary Statistics of Seed Proportion Index (Proportion = seeds/seeds + nutshell) per Feature by Temporal Period...... 149

Table 40: Seasonal availability of the plants identified from seed in this study ...... 151

Table 41: Descriptive statistic for post mold diameters...... 183

Table 42: Wood Types identified from post molds included in the research sample. .... 185

Table 43: Descriptive statistics for thermal feature diameters aggregated by temporal period...... 193

Table 44: Step Index counts and average time for each step in the production of different pottery types as identified from the study assemblages ...... 227

Table 45. Early Woodland Samples...... 235

Table 46. Middle Woodland Samples ...... 237

Table 47: Quantitative analysis results for ground stone artifacts ...... 255

Table 48: Patton 1 Seed Assemblage ...... 363

Table 49: Patton 1 Nutshell Assemblage ...... 365

Table 50: Taber Well Seed Assemblage ...... 366

Table 51: Taber Well Nutshell Assemblage ...... 367

Table 52: County Home Seed Assemblage ...... 368

Table 53: County Home Nutshell Assemblage ...... 369

xix

Table 54: Patton 3 Seed Assemblage ...... 369

Table 55: Patton 3 Nutshell Assemblage ...... 370

Table 56: Post Mold Raw Data ...... 371

Table 57: Pottery Raw Data ...... 383

Table 58: Thermal Feature Measurements ...... 388

List of Figures

Figure 1: Map of Hocking Valley with sites sampled indicated...... 34

Figure 2: A close up of the Patton 1 site landscape ...... 58

Figure 3: Magnetic Gradient Survey results as interpreted by Burks ...... 59

Figure 4: The first and second episodes of construction at the Patton 1 site ...... 61

Figure 5: The third episode of construction at the Patton 1 site ...... 64

Figure 6: Map of Taber Well units and features ...... 66

Figure 7: Map of County Home test units and features ...... 71

Figure 8: Results of magnetic gradient survey conducted by Jarrod Burks ...... 76

Figure 9: Map of Terminal Early Woodland/Incipient Middle Woodland features and structures at the Patton 3 site...... 78

Figure 10: Lower Level of Patton 3 with Structures 5 and 6 depicted ...... 79

Figure 11: Dave's Field Locus ...... 80

Figure 12: Densities of Nutshell by Count ...... 138

Figure 13: Densities of nutshell by weight in grams...... 138

Figure 14: Hickory, walnut, and acorn nutshell density box plots...... 142

Figure 15: Box plots of Seed Index (Proportion = Seeds /Seeds +Nutshell for the Late

Archaic through Middle Woodland samples...... 150

Figure 16: Box plot of post mold maximum diameter spanning from the Late Archaic to the Terminal Middle Woodland Period...... 184 xxi

Figure 17: Boxplot of thermal feature changes over time...... 194

Figure 18: Regression of Thickness (mm) of all sherds by RCYBP...... 209

Figure 19: Average thickness of all sherds...... 210

Figure 20: Percentage of Inclusion Type by Temporal Period ...... 217

Figure 21: A. Regression of Inclusion size by RCYBP and inclusion type and B. mean of inclusion sizes from sherd sample compared to time in years before present ...... 218

Figure 22: Benefit of BIV versus Type 3 pottery by unit of use-life and caloric benefit.

...... 283

xxii

Chapter 1: Introduction

“Our grammar might teach us to divide the world into active subjects and passive objects, but in a coevolutionary relationship every subject is also an object, every object

a subject. That’s why it makes just as much sense to think of agriculture as something grasses did to people as a way to conquer trees.” –Michael Pollan, The Botany of Desire,

2001

The transition from foraging to farming is undeniably one of the most important processes in human history. Few technological innovations have had a greater effect on the human cultural and biological trajectory than the domestication of plants (and animals) and the eventual adoption of farming as a primary mode of subsistence. As

Watson and Watson (1969:4) argue, “Domestication has revolutionary importance because it results in a kind of food specialization that makes possible a vast increase in the quantity and degree of stabilization of the food supply.” This economic shift further provided the dietary resources that allowed for substantial growth in the earth’s human population, encouraged the reshaping of natural ecosystems into high-yielding patches of anthropogenic foods, and allowed humans to occupy new ecological niches with greater success and intensity. Furthermore, the transition to food production allowed for the

1 creation of new technologies, the transformation of social and cultural institutions, and a reorganization of economic systems associated with use-rights and property.

The domestication of plant and animal species occurred independently on almost every continent of the world, omitting only Australia and Antarctica (Diamond 2002;

Smith 1995:12). However, even indigenous Australian populations developed sophisticated land and vegetation management systems despite not planting and harvesting crops. This transition from hunting and gathering to a subsistence strategy based on food production marks a major turning point in human history. It was not, however, a singular event but a process that has been documented through the archaeological record as occurring in seven independent locations throughout the world, including the Near East or Fertile Crescent (11,000 BP), The Yangtze and Yellow Basins of East Asia (9000 BP), the New Guinea Highlands (5000-4000 BP), Mesoamerica

(5000-4000 BP), sub-Saharan Africa (5000-4000 BP) and Eastern North America (4000-

3000 BP) (Diamond and Bellwood 2003). The emergence of plant domestication in these regions of the world was not homogenous, although the inception of food production has cross-culturally been associated with comparable changes in human technology, settlement patterns and social organization (Smith 2001). Specifically, farming populations tended to adopt a greater degree of sedentism, invest in new technologies used in processing food, and develop better means of storing food to offset seasonal scarcity of resources.

V. Gordon Childe (1936) referred to this suite of cultural changes as the Neolithic

Revolution, suggesting a punctuated (Gould 2007) rather than a gradual shift in

2 humanity’s technological and material evolution. Childe (1951) framed this important transition in the context of environmental “crisis,” a causative agent that is not universally observed in the seven independent centers of plant domestication (Zeder and

Smith 2009). More recent archaeological inquiry has suggested that those technological innovations associated with this subsistence transition were both gradual and geographically heterogeneous. These differences are partially due to the historical and environmental influences that differentially affected populations who turned to food production. Recent studies on the origin of food production have emphasized variable and dynamic processes in which many changing environmental, social, and political factors contributed to the adoption of plant and animal domestication versus former approaches that viewed the transition as an event (Smith 2001; Cauvin 2001). Diverse behavioral and historical variables may have contributed to the human innovation of domestication including population pressure (Rosenberg 1998; Boserup 1965), climate change (Richerson, Boyd and Bettinger 2001), increasing degrees of human and plant interaction (Rindos 1984; Harris 1989) and social competition (Hayden 1992).

Most existing understandings of these changes have been described using culture historic models which provide no clear mechanism of how these subsistence changes occurred or the evolutionary relationships between the changes in other cultural traits, such as settlement patterns and human technology. For example, cross-cultural similarities exist between the adoption of food production and innovations in prehistoric toolkits, for example ground stones. This dissertation focuses on changes in food processing technology in the broader context of the subsistence shift to farming in eastern

North America. These changes required labor and time investment in both pottery and ground stone artifacts. Furthermore, prehistoric human populations that adopted farming subsistence typically show archaeological signs of reduced mobility, such as the appearance of semi-permanent to permanent hamlets and villages. Changes in mobility are considered here under the question of residential stability, incorporating both aspects of mobility and subsistence in the broader context of landscape investment and seasonal strategizing. In order to avoid models without a mechanism to describe cultural change, this dissertation used concepts from neo-Darwinian archaeology and Human Behavioral

Ecology to understand the coevolution of subsistence, technology, and human settlement behaviors.

1.1 Introduction and Problem

This research project considers how the energetic efficiency of tools and perceived environmental risks impact human behavior and decision-making with respect to technological investment and subsistence strategy. Specifically, the project focuses on the relationship between settlement strategy, food production and land management, and tool investment during the Late Archaic through Middle Woodland periods in the

Hocking Valley of Southeast Ohio. Technological invention and innovation has been described as “one of the core issues in the evolution of material culture” (Fitzhugh 2001) and its correlation with changes in subsistence has long been recognized among archaeologists (Binford 1968; Flannery 1969; Hole, Flannery and Neely 1969; Bar-Yosef et al. 1991). Many aspects of technological evolution relate to the transition from

4 foraging to food production. However, the relationship between farming and the evolution of food-related technology and tools, specifically materials used for the chemical and material processing of food products, has not been a major focus of research in Eastern North America.

This study seeks to fill this gap by using macrobotancial analysis, tool macrocharacteristic analyses, and architectural and domestic feature data to examine the evolutionary relationship between technological investment, emerging food production, and mobility. This study considers how differences in natural resource distribution within the environment will influence humans deciding among focusing attention on unpredictable high-ranked resources, predictable high-ranked resources, unpredictable low-ranked resources, or predictable lower-ranked resources that can be made more efficient through investment in technological development and refinement. It specifically examines the fitness-related payoffs that resulted in the selection of different pottery and ground stone attributes throughout the Late Archaic to Middle Woodland Periods as influenced by the needs of changing subsistence strategies, particularly seasonal changes in resource availability. Furthermore, it applies tool investment models to natural landscapes as an approach to understanding the human behavioral transition to greater sedentariness through the creation of anthropogenic or cultural landscapes.

Using models and assumptions developed within optimal foraging theory (OFT) and widely used within the field of human behavioral ecology (HBE), this project examines the relationship between technological investment, subsistence and mobility strategies (Winterhalder and Smith 2000; Winterhalder 1986; Kelly 1997; Smith

1983:631; Charnov 1976; Stephens and Krebs 1986) using data from the Hocking Valley,

Southeastern Ohio. Specifically, I use the Tech Investment Model (Bright et al. 2002;

Ugan et al. 2003; Bettinger et al. 2005) to better understand the costs and benefits of technology in the context of the economic transition from foraging to food production.

Costs and benefits can move human decision-making in the direction of risk avoidance. Risk, a motivating issue in human decision-making, refers to “unpredictable variation in an outcome with consequences that matter” (Winterhalder 2007:433). In deciding between various behaviors, organisms presumably will evolve to avoid outcomes that will produce harmful results to their economic and reproductive success.

The amount of literature relative to subsistence risk, and by default, risk avoidance, is immense, particularly with respect to archaeological populations (Halstead and O’Shea

1989; Tainter and Tainter 1996). However, the majority of these studies are “generally qualitative and intuitive” (Winterhalder 2007: 438) thus limiting the results of these studies to be more broadly applied to other datasets. Winterhalder (2007) critiques the rare use of formal models in understanding the role risk avoidance played in the transition to food production. A similar critique can be made for explanations concerning prehistoric and ethnographic populations’ investment in technological innovations that might be at least partially motivated by perceived risk, and described as risk-sensitive adaptations.

Formal models of human decision-making can be directly applied to technological investment during the subsistence transition from foraging to farming. Because pottery macrocharacteristics directly relate to functional qualities that are adaptive in the

6 chemical processing (i.e., heating, leaching, soaking, fermentation) of seed foods, the application of these models can assist in understanding when and under what evolutionary conditions prehistoric populations invested in the development of this technology. Extrapolating from the tech investment model, the production costs of task- specific tools, such as cooking vessels or storage vessels versus a general all-purpose vessel, are relatively high. The costs of task-specific vessels are offset when the vessel is used for a longer period of time (i.e., extending use-life). Thus as population mobility decreases, the likelihood for a longer use-life increases making the production of task specific tools more advantageous. Reduction in the degree of mobility requires the local availability of a stable food resource; high reliance on cultivated seeds as a dietary staple serves as evidence of such a stable resource. As a result, characteristics of pottery that provide greater resistance to thermal shock, thus increasing the unit’s (vessel’s) lifespan, is hypothesized to correlate with higher concentrations of ground stone artifacts indicative of increased mechanical processing of seed foods (e.g., crushing, grinding, winnowing). In turn, decreasing degrees of mobility allowing for increased pottery lifespan, and increased density and ubiquity of seed foods, particularly domesticated varieties, thus presenting a need for more efficient tools. To test these hypotheses and connections, pottery artifacts, macrobotanical remains, and indicators of mobility (e.g., architecture, domestic features, etc.) were analyzed.

This research project further considered the function and investment in ground stone artifacts as “site furniture”, or items that are left at a location rather than transported in anticipation of the future use of the tool, (Nelson and Lippmeier 1993) thus indicating

7 planning of food processing in “central places” on the landscape. Evidence of noneconomic botanicals among other indicators was used to define the seasons of occupation at a particular site and track the locations for seasonal behaviors on the landscape as related to subsistence.

Chapter Contents

As Chapter One explains the larger context of this dissertation project, Chapter

Two provides the objectives, hypotheses, and assumptions that directed the research.

Secondary hypotheses and assumptions were considered as they related to the specific lines of data used to answer the primary questions; these hypotheses can be found in the chapters directly associated with the subsequent datasets. The second chapter further contains an explanation of the theoretical perspective used to consider the questions proposed in this research project and gives specific attention to the Model of

Technological Investment and its place within the larger context of Human Behavioral

Ecology and neo-Darwinian Theory. Formal models are proposed as well as formulae used for quantitative assessment of the data.

Chapter Three elucidates the geographic and historic context of the study.

Particular attention is given to existing knowledge of the prehistory of Eastern Woodland populations as it relates to subsistence and settlement patterns and the role of previous archaeological inquiry in the Hocking Valley and surrounding watersheds. Chapter Three further contains a summary of the sites that provided data to this study.

In Chapter Four, the methods used in macrobotanical analysis are discussed.

Samples analyzed as part of this study are described with respect to qualitative and quantitative analyses. These analyses include the identification of seeds, nutshell, charred wood, and additional botanical materials to the familial, generic, and species levels, whenever possible; furthermore, seeds indicative of domestication are identified. The concept of domestication in anthropological and archaeological terms is also examined.

Additionally, changes in the proportion of seeds to nutshell for the sampled temporal periods are described and quantified. These data are considered in the context of prehistoric subsistence strategies and the transition from foraging to farming.

Chapter Five considers the issues of site settlement, human mobility and residential stability in the context of changing subsistence. Particularly, data on domestic structures and thermal features are considered under the broader question of sedentism, territoriality, and architectural and landscape investment. This chapter provides analyses indicative of a transition from high rates of human mobility during the Late Archaic

Period to largely sedentary hamlets during the Terminal Early Woodland/Incipient

Middle Woodland Period. These results are further expanded upon in Chapter Seven, where they are considered in the broader context of the study.

Chapter Six describes the evaluation of food processing tools with the greatest emphasis placed on pottery, followed by ground stone technology. The macrocharacteristic analysis of pottery artifacts from the sampled sites is described.

Trends in thickness, temper material, and surface treatment are discussed as they relate to tool investment. Furthermore, a survey of pottery described in academic literature from

9 the temporal periods of inquiry is provided. Results from experimental data and a step index model are presented as measures of investment in pottery. I consider the relationships between pottery investment, mobility and subsistence. Secondly, ground stone artifacts from the sampled sites are described and classified according to functional characteristics; this represents one of the first formal classifications for the valley and provides a standard for future ground stone comparisons. Densities of ground stone artifacts are considered by temporal association and with consideration of subsistence and mobility.

Chapter Seven also discusses the implications of this study to regional prehistoric sequences and models. This discussion begins with an overview of the mobile forager model as described by Yerkes (2006; 1990) and others (Lepper and Yerkes 1997; Cowan

2006). Following this, the study objectives in light of the data analysis results are discussed in specific detail. Finally, the primary hypothesis of the research is considered in the context of the broader implications of the datasets and study results. The primary hypothesis is as follows: Increasing human reliance on cultivated foods during the

Holocene led to economic circumstances in which investment in the specialization of plant-food processing tools was beneficial. However, investment benefits were only adaptive when seasonally strategic mobility had decreased to such a degree that tool carrying costs were offset by expanded tool use-life.

Chapter 2: Theoretical Perspective

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives.

It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” –Charles Darwin

The publication of On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin in 1859 changed the world’s understanding of the evolution of biological species. Although Darwin’s initial arguments on trait inheritance failed to capture the reality of genetics and their influence on phenotypic traits and intra-species variation, the later incorporation of

Mendelian principles created a succinct theory of natural selection explaining biological change and diversity over geological time. Darwin’s (1859) theory of natural selection proposes that there is variation within all biological species and this variation is heritable and so passed from parent to offspring. With the inclusion of Mendel’s (1866) discovery of the mechanism of trait inheritance, it is clear that the phenotypic expressions of traits,

(i.e., the variations that are observable when individuals within a species are compared), are controlled by genotypic markers (i.e., genes) present in an individual’s DNA.

Darwin’s theory further states that there are not enough resources available to sustain all individuals in an environment, thus creating a struggle for existence. As a result, in particular environments some trait variations will prove beneficial in the struggle for existence, and such benefits (or adaptations) can be measured through the differential

11 reproduction or mortality of individuals. Reproduction or mortality, with or without the particular trait in question, is determined at the individual level, as nature will select for those traits which increase the individual’s likelihood of survival in the particular environment thus providing greater chance for reproductive success. Traits that increase the survival and reproductive value of the individuals who possess them are described as increasing the individual’s adaptive fitness.

Early anthropological scholars, particularly in Britain, attempted to apply evolutionary concepts to explain cultural change over time. Unfortunately, these preliminary Spencerian applications were embedded with goal-oriented concepts of change that placed Victorian society at the pinnacle of human cultural evolution (see

Spencer 1910). The resulting unilineal theoretical body was plagued with misunderstandings concerning cultural variation and lacked a mechanism to explain change that was comparable to Darwin’s concept of selection. The Boasian revolution in

American anthropology targeted unilineal evolutionary theory as inherently racist and contrary to the goals of an anthropological discipline that tried to understand cultural variation and diversity (Boas 1932; Silverman 2005). Boas instituted an anthropology that focused on human cultural expression, neglecting environmental variables—thus omitting a key component to Darwinian selection.

Evolutionary theory was abandoned by Boasian anthropologists for approximately

60 years until its reemergence through the research of Leslie White (1949) and Julian

Steward (1955). White adopted a materialist approach to understanding cultural change; drawing primarily from Marxist theory. White (1949) argued that culture was composed

12 of three components: technology, sociology, and ideology. For White, the primary goal of culture was to “harness and control” energy for human use, thus technological aspects of culture were those that had the greatest effect on the direction of human cultural evolution. White defined five stages of human development centered on technological evolution, beginning with individual manpower and ending in nuclear energy. As with earlier unilineal approaches, White’s model lacked a mechanism for change and was embedded with the concept of progress; in many ways, White’s neoevolution was little more than unilinealism refocused on energetics and technological innovation (O’Brien

1996).

Cultural ecology, as advocated by Steward (1955) countered White’s neoevolution. Steward focused on the relationships between culture and the environment in which it existed. He furthered the materialist approach in anthropology by arguing that culture would evolve around the environmental resources and limitations of a particular region (Silverman 2005). Although both White and Steward worked to reintroduce the concept of evolution into anthropology, neither theoretical approach was successful in identifying the mechanism of evolutionary change. This concept would come later in the twentieth century and primarily through the efforts of anthropological archaeologists.

Recent contributions to anthropological theory by Winterhalder (2007; 2002; 2001),

Boyd and Richerson (1985; 1988; 1995; Richerson and Boyd 1989; 1992; 2000; 2005),

Dunnell (1978, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1988), Neff (1992), O’Brien (1996, 2002), and others have inserted the mechanism of selection and omitted equating evolution with progress, turning instead to adaptation under particular environmental conditions—an

13 approach that is compatible with both Darwinian principles of selection and Boasian historical particularism.

Most notably, human behavioral ecology (HBE) captured the Darwinian concept of natural selection and applied it to anthropological and archaeological questions of resource acquisition and ecological adaption of human culture (Winterhalder and Smith

2000). By adapting evolutionary ecology theory and methodologies to the study of human beings and culture through the application of optimal foraging models, HBE expanded on the incipient objectives of Steward’s cultural ecology while merging it with

Darwinian principles. HBE, as described by Winterhalder and Smith (2000:52), “derives testable hypotheses from mathematical or graphical models anchored in basic principles of evolution by natural selection.” Despite a plethora of variables that may impact human behavior in a given circumstance or environment, HBE models strive to be reductive and emphasize “the essential features of an adaptive problem, and neglect to some degree the myriad ancillary variables of concern in the more particularist tradition of anthropology”

(Winterhalder and Smith 2000: 52). Emphasis in HBE models is given to issues of cost and benefit within a framework of circumstance and selective mechanism resulting in a framework of “adaptive design in terms of decision rules or conditional strategies” that identify the adaptive behavior in a particular context (Winterhalder and Smith 2000: 54) .

Most often such adaptive behaviors are those that maximize resource acquisition or minimize energetic costs and are described as having higher fitness. These concepts are applied to investment in material culture, particularly technology, in more detail below and in subsequent chapters.

2.1 Evolutionary Concepts in Anthropology

An evolutionary approach to material culture recognizes that “human behavior and the products of human behavior are aspects of the human phenotype” and that patterns of change and variation through time and thus “observed in the archaeological record themselves can be viewed as shaped by Darwinian processes” (Neff 1992:141-

142). In biological evolution, variations exist among biological units of which some are better adapted for survival and reproductive success in particular environments. Those units which are better adapted to their particular environment have differential reproductive success and are said to have greater fitness. Similarly in Darwinian cultural evolution1, variable cultural behaviors and the materials produced by them are modified overtime and over generations; some of these variations are better adapted for use in particular tasks in particular environments (Richerson and Boyd 2005). This variation is

“important because it underlies the phenotypic variation upon which selection acts in the evolution of cultural phenomena” (Neff 1992:146-147).

Non-Darwinian models of technological invention and innovation have articulated a correlation between technological investment and changes in subsistence; however, the mechanisms for these changes and the suggested relationships between these variables are poorly defined by many of the existing models; furthermore, many of these models use “prime mover” arguments as an explanation for change. The term “prime mover” refers to overly general phenomena such as population pressures, environmental stresses,

1 The term Darwinian cultural evolution is used here to distinguish it from culture history explanations of change over time which do not rely on the mechanism of selection to account for the changes. 15 or circumscription (Carneiro 1970; Johnson 1982; Keeley 1988) which are described as

“kick-starting” the process of cultural change. These approaches tend to generalize existing data and lack a mechanism, such as selection, that indicates how and why change occurred. These ideas were epitomized by Rosenberg (1990) who applied Lamarckian principles of evolution to reiterate that “necessity is the mother of invention.” Under

Rosenberg’s model of cultural change, needing something is offered as explanation enough for transitions in human culture and behavior. Ultimately, such models are overly simplistic and often do not match the particular data of a region. For example, Zeder and

Smith (2009) point out that there is little evidence of prime movers or necessity influencing the adoption of food production throughout Eastern North America; more specifically, existing data from the region do not indicate large increases in population or major environmental stress correlating with the adoption of food production or innovation of food processing technology.

Rindos (1996:161) particularly challenged the suggestion of necessity head-on with the following statement: “Consider a given method for solving problems (e.g., a specific mode of divination, the calculus, or a specific method of surveying land) and call it ‘X.’ Although X serves as a desired end, it could not spring into existence simply because a need for X existed. Some other process (be it individual and mental, or social and organizational) had to precede the development of X.” Human decisions to invest in technology, be it adaptive tools or resources that were more predictable, resulted not from the result of necessity but a variety of behaviors that led to the selection of particular tools and subsistence strategies. In order to avoid the trap of necessity as a driver of

16 change under the stimulus of a prime mover, data from this research project was analyzed using HBE’s model of technological investment.

Evolution of material culture, particularly tools, can be understood using the model of technological investment. More casually referred to as the “tech investment” model (Bettinger et al. 2006; Ugan et al. 2003), the model explains that tools will evolve as the demand for foraging efficiency increases. If tools, like all material culture, are understood as phenotypic extensions of their creators, they are subject to the same selective mechanisms that drive species toward greater fitness within their environment.

The tech investment model proposes that under circumstances of increasing temporal requirements for food acquisition, the decision for greater investment in procurement technology will be adaptive. Furthermore, it standardizes what conditions must be met to favor investment in technologies with higher manufacturing costs over those technologies with less initial investment cost (Bettinger et al. 2006). Unlike other foraging models such as the front-back loading model which considers the decision between easily obtained but high processing cost resources and resources high in obtainment cost but easy to process (Bettinger 2009), the tech investment model does not reference a predetermined goal but rather is applicable to a broad range of decisions; similar to the diet breadth model, the tech investment model is a contingency model in which the goal is resource maximization (Bettinger 2009).

When comparing two different tools or technologies, two conditions must first be met for application of the model: 1. The more costly technology must produce a higher rate of return, and 2. The technology with the lower return must produce a rate of return

17 per unit of manufacturing time at least equal to that of the technology with the higher return (Bettinger 2009: 61-62). This first condition is self-explanatory, but restated if a tool costs more to make than another it must also produce a higher resource procurement rate. If this condition is not met, the cheaper technology will be produced since it costs less to make and results in greater resource acquisition. The latter condition states that a tool that produces less of a resource overall must produce an amount of the resource at least equal to the costlier tool per unit of time/energy invested in it. In cases where the cheaper tool to produce does not result in a return rate equal to that of the costlier tool per unit of investment, manufacturing the costlier tool becomes more beneficial assuming

Condition 1 is met. These conditions can be formally scripted following Bettinger

(2009:60-64) between technologies 1 and 2, where the latter is the more costly to manufacture and where mi equals the manufacturing time (m) or the time spent making a particular kind of procurement technology ( i), ri equals the procurement rate or the rate at which a resource is obtained using a particular technology ( i), as follows:

Condition 1: if m2 > m1, then r2 > r1

Condition 2: if r1 < r2, then r1 / m1 ≥ r2 / m2

As these conditions are met and foragers face a decision between the cheaper and higher investment tools, the determining factor in maximization is procurement time duration where s equals the procurement time or the total amount of time expended in procurement of a resource; here the procurement rate ri becomes relative to procurement time s and manufacturing time mi. This results in the procurement time switching point

18 between tools 1 and 2, depicted as s1↔2, where the more costly technology 2 is favored when (s > s1↔2) and the less costly technology 1 when (s < s1↔2), producing the formula:

s1↔2 = (r1m2 – r2m1) / (r2 – r1)

Typically evolutionary ecology models are created in such a generalized way that subsidiary variables are of little consequence to the more prominent issues of cost and benefit resulting from particular behavioral decision-making in a given circumstance.

However, other variables do play a role in tool efficiency and cost that may directly impact the decision to invest in tools of tool investment. Most notably is the carrying cost of a particular tool, especially when mobility rates are relatively high as they tend to be among foraging populations. Existing models of technological investment do not readily consider such costs when calculating the switching point between two tools of varying production costs. This variable is difficult to calculate since the discount rate of carrying a tool differs according to tool weight, time spent in transit between different food patches, and the use-life of a particular tool. Generally, these different variables can be calculated by multiplying the unit of caloric benefit from a particular tool bi by the tool use-life ui as measured in number of uses before discard minus the discount for its manufacturing costs di minus the product of the rate of mobility Tr by the carrying cost per unit of travel of the particular tool in question Ci. When the resulting difference is greater than zero and all other above variables are equal, investment provides a net gain despite the associated carrying costs so that when:

((b1u1) – d1) – (TrC1) > 0, and

((b2u2) – d2) – (TrC2) < 0, Technology 1 will be favored.

Under reverse circumstances, switching from Technology 1 to Technology 2 would not be cost effective until the rate of mobility or the carrying cost per unit of travel for a particular tool decreases below the product of caloric benefit over the course of the tool use-life. Simply stated, if the benefit of Technology 2 only exceeds Technology 1 over an increased use-life, the carrying costs for the technology will be the determining factor in the switching point. Based on these premises, costly technological investment should only occur after populations become more sedentary. This formula is founded on formulae proposed by Bettinger and colleagues (2006), but altered to include the costs of carrying tools over the long-term.

Early archaeological studies noted a correlation between decreased rates of mobility and the subsistence transition from foraging to farming (Childe 1936; 1952).

Similarly, these changes are described along with changes in technology. However, few studies have considered these broad trends within a Darwinian framework for the geographic region of inquiry. Using the technological investment model and the additional sensitivity to mobility, this study considers how these behavioral attributes coevolved under a selectionist mechanism through consideration of efficiency. This research does not propose that sedentism resulted from the carrying costs of tools but rather that investment in higher-cost tools was only beneficial after populations had become essentially sedentary, allowing these investments to payoff over the course of increased tool use-life.

Plant Diet in Eastern North America Prehistory

As mentioned above, not only did this research project considered the relationship between tools and mobility, but also subsistence. Attention was given to defining human diet during the temporal periods of inquiry. Changes in dietary composition can make particular technologies obsolete or produce circumstances that warrant human technological innovation. The tools considered here, pottery and ground stones, are particularly sensitive to transitions in dietary composition because they are typically used in the chemical and mechanical processing of foods, respectively. In order to understand the economic context of changes in technology and mobility in the Eastern Woodlands during the Late Archaic through Middle Woodland periods, an assessment of archaeobotanical remains from the sample sites was paramount.

Traditionally, botanical foods have been categorized as occurring in natural environments and thus wild and obtained through foraging or altered for economic purposes from their wild relatives and grown in human controlled environments. These plants are most often afforded the title of domesticated and bear phenotypic markers or measurements that are indicative of the changes they have undergone due to human selective breeding. A discussion of domestication is provided below in Section 2 of this chapter. However between these binary points along the continuum of food production, humans intervened in the reproductive and life cycles of numerous plant species, in some cases, intentionally encouraging their growth and propagation for economic benefit. This human-plant symbiosis likely took on numerous forms in prehistoric times including the planting of seeds, removing competitive species, and altering environmental variables

(e.g., sediment composition, hydraulics, etc.) for the expressed benefit of a particular plant species. These behaviors are generally described as cultivation and in some instances, led to species domestication. However, variations on this term have been offered by Yarnell (1983) and Smith (1992) and include distinctions such as “quasi- cultigen” versus “cultigen.” The boundary used to distinguish these two categorizes rests on the distinction between encouraging or tending to the plant’s growth and intentionally sowing seeds that had been previously harvested. Due to the nature of the archaeological record, the distinction between these behaviors and the associated plants can be challenging to identify. Regardless, such behaviors are intimately linked with investment models, not only because of changes in technological innovation as considered here, but because the decision to input time/energy into environmental manipulation to the benefit of particular plants is costly.

Smith (1992:106) argues for a more specific classification of human-plant relationships along a continuum that begins with wild noneconomic plants, moving to wild economic plants; weedy plants that are subcategorized as those which are eradicated when encountered, those which are tolerated, and those which are encouraged (quasi- cultivation); and finally, cultivated plants which are those considered cultigens and those which are domesticates. When dealing with archaeobotanical remains and determining where a particular species falls along this continuum, a number of assumptions must be made in order to infer the prehistoric behaviors that resulted in a particular macrobotanical assemblage formation. The first of these assumptions are what Smith

(1992:106-107) refers to as boundary conditions; these conditions define the primary

22 distinctions between the classifications along the continuum. Weedy and cultivated plants are distinguished from wild species because they have a dependence upon human beings for disturbance of natural soils; outside of anthropogenic disturbances of the soil, these plants are relegated to small areas of the natural environment along waterways where flooding tends to provide the disturbance otherwise assumed by humans. Cultivated plants are further bound as a category by the intentional sowing of their seeds by humans.

Cultigens are further distinguished from domesticates because the latter is dependent on humans for propagation and bear genetic and morphological characteristics that are distinct from their natural “sister” species. These morphological markers are used as unequivocal indication that a species has undergone domestication.

Archaeological indicators of these different behaviors and boundary conditions are not always easy to detect and requires the integration of both theoretical models and analytical methods. Firstly, knowledge of the modern plant populations that are represented by an archaeobotanical assemblage is necessary; specifically, do the modern counterparts of a given species inhabit disturbed environments or are they more commonly identified in environments of later forest succession. Building from this assumption, modern species of plants that occur in disturbed environments (i.e., weedy and/or cultigens) are assumed to have lived in similar environments during prehistoric times. Weedy species that were encouraged versus those that were simply tolerated can be further distinguished prehistoric range extensions; this assumption refers to archaebotanical remains identified outside of the natural range of the given plant’s closest living analog suggesting prehistoric humans were sowing the seeds of the species (Smith

1992:107; Cowan 1978; Yarnell 1983; Rindos 1984). In addition, abundance of a species in an archaeobotanical assemblage when compared to relatively rare or dispersed modern analogs of the species provides “evidence for a level of utilization that could not be sustained by gathering from natural stands alone” (Asch and Asch 1982:2); this assumption has been used to justify the classification of erect knotweed (Polygonum erectum) and chenopods (Chenopodium spp.) (Smith 1992:107). Plants that meet these criteria are usually classified as quasi-cultigens, cultigens, or in some cases, domesticates; regardless in all three of these classifications, the species were minimally under the encouragement or management of humans if not cultivated.

Asch and Asch (1982:2) have further contributed to the above archaeological indicators of human-plant interaction by identifying seven additional arguments as supportive of prehistoric cultivation. These include 1) if the plant in question is of economic importance; 2) a similar species was cultivated or domesticated elsewhere; 3) the plant species had a lack of barriers to artificial propagation; 4) if the plant was prehistorically associated with known cultigens; 5)if the ethnohistoric record contains evidence of the plant’s cultivation; 6) if the prehistoric abundance of the plant can be demonstrated to increase over time; and 7) if the human socio-political complexity or population levels implicate dependence on agriculture. These indicators are arguably weaker than those mentioned above, however when considered in combination with previous arguments they can lend support to the suggestion of a plant’s prehistoric cultivation.

Why humans began investing in plant cultivation is ultimately beyond the scope of this research project. As discussed below in Chapter Four, the earliest data samples included in this dissertation date to the Late Archaic period and indicate that some plants had already undergone domestication, as signified by morphological characteristics.

Numerous other seed species did not contain morphological characteristics indicative of domestication but were considered as possible cultigens. Statistical analysis of archaeobotanical remains, although primarily methodological, are grounded in the the theoretical assumptions and models described above and understandings of site formation processes relevant to preservation. Most commonly used of these statistical methods, are the calculation of density (i.e., count or weight/sample volume L) which standardize the raw data to allow for different samples of various sizes to be compared for changes in species abundance, ubiquity (i.e., percentage of the total number of samples from which the specific type of botanical was recovered) which measures distribution across a site, and percentages of assemblage composition (i.e., percent of total sample) which can be used to understand changes in dietary composition over time (if the remains compared were used as dietary resources) (Miller 1988; Pearsall 2000).These methods combined with the theoretical assumptions concerning cultivation and plant management as described above provide a basis for interpreting changes in human diet and subsistence from archaeobotanical remains that do not possess morphological characteristics accepted as indicators of domestication.

2.2 What is Domestication?

Central to this study is the concept of domestication, which refers to the artificial selection of biological traits naturally present in animal and plant species. Darwin (1859) used the selective breeding of pigeons, dogs, and other livestock to form the basic premises of his theory of natural selection in On the Origin of Species. The Darwinian definition of domestication is described as “accumulative selection: nature gives successive variations; man adds them up in certain directions useful to him. In this sense, he may be said to make for himself useful breeds” (Darwin 1859: 32).

Archaeologically, Darwinian domestication has persisted not in the processual sense but as an essentialist construct measured in the presence of morphological markers, termed domestication thresholds (Smith 1992). For example, King’s Rule (Smith 1992;

King 1985) sets a domestication baseline of greater than 2 mm for the rind thickness of domesticated Cucurbita pepo; rind fragments measuring thinner than this threshold are assumed to be the remains of wild varieties. Similar thresholds exist for other Eastern

Woodlands cultigens: Chenopodium berlandieri testa thicknesses less than 20 microns,

Iva annua achene lengths greater than 4 mm, and Helianthus annuus achene lengths greater than 7 mm (Smith 1992: 40-50). These phenotypic differences resulted from artificial selective pressures in anthropogenic environments as humans acted opportunistically upon natural variations of floodplain weed species. Particularly, increased seed size and reduced dormancy before germination result from competition in prepared seed beds (Harlan et al. 1973:314), where individual seeds that germinate and grow quickly will likely crowd out individuals without these traits and thus contribute more genes to the next year’s planting (Smith 1992:25). Changes in seed size and testa

26 thicknesses are morphological evidences of human behaviors that can be observed in the archaeological record, thus providing “direct evidence of the initial domestication of seed plants” (Smith 1992:26). But domestication thresholds discernible through morphological comparisons represent the end of a long trajectory in the coevolution of humans, plants and their landscapes.

Domestication is directly linked to both agriculture and cultivation, and archaeological discussion of these terms has resulted in critical debate and a lack of consensus as to what is meant by each word. With respect to classification of subsistence practices, these issues are further complicated by categories such as horticulturalists, farmers, and foragers. In an attempt to escape classificatory debates, Smith (2001) proposed the use of the term “food producers” to describe any population that managed and utilized plants so as to increase their natural yields, range, or morphology. This category emphasized any non-foraging subsistence behaviors, ranging from large scale agricultural production intended for feeding an entire community, to simple hand sowing of seeds to encourage small food patches in years of possible famine. Behaviors within this category can further be sorted by yield of food produced versus amount gathered from the natural landscape into levels of low, medium, and high. Although this conception helps to escape binary essentialist terms like either forager or farmer, it is extremely difficult if not altogether impossible to conclusively weigh the yields of production when analyzing archaeological populations.

The initial steps in the domestication process began with what Smith (1992) refers to as the “Formation of domestilocalities.” These “open habitats” (Anderson 1952: 145)

27 located in floodplain environments served as the laboratories for human and plant coevolution, as plants predisposed to these areas were adapted to disturbed sediments produced by annual “plowing” and “fertilization” of the sediments by river flooding.

Anderson (1952:149) described the behavioral similarities between humans and rivers and their tendency to alter landscapes in a way that was beneficial to weedy species:

“Man’s only natural partner was the big rivers. They too make dump heaps of a sort; they too plow up the mantle of vegetation and leave raw scars in it. Rivers are weed breeders; so is man…”

The dump heap model referenced by Anderson (1952) refers to the accumulation of middens or refuse in human frequented areas; these trash heaps would be high in nutrients from discarded organic materials, readily disturbed by the internment of additional waste and vermin rummaging for food scraps, and likely contain viable seeds of weedy plants that were not consumed. Dump heaps become unintentional “seed beds” that would have provided the circumstances necessary to encourage the selective pressures of germination and competition due to overcrowding. The formation of these dump heaps and the ability of humans to seize upon the larger seeded individuals developing from them means that humans were spending the growing season in areas where the weedy plants are likely to naturally grow and were returning annually over long periods of time to continue encouraging sediment disturbance and the propagation of these seeds. Smith (1992:27-28) summarizes the key elements of this process as

“sunlight, inadvertent human fertilization and disturbance of the sediment, and the continual introduction of seeds from harvested wild species, these settlements represented

28 experimental plots for plant manipulation that were established several thousand years prior to the first indications of deliberate planting and plant domestication in the region.”

Smith’s characterization of domestication presents the point that the human behaviors associated with the domestication process must have begun long before the material remains can confirm them, if we accept “thresholds” as the primary indicator of this behavior.

Thus, to understand the origins of the domestication process as Smith (1992) implies, archaeologists must turn their attention to other material indicators of those behaviors that occurred before and ultimately led to the defined thresholds. In this research project, domestication is perceived of as a process rather than an event; the coevolutionary framework used herein for understanding changes in subsistence, technology, and settlement patterns offers a break from the dichotomy of forager versus farmer, wild versus domesticated. Use of this framework was central to formulating the objectives and hypotheses of this research project.

2.3 Research Objectives

This research project uses a multi-site approach with temporal associations spanning from the Late Archaic Period to the Middle Woodland, heuristically termed

“Hopewell”, of the Ohio valley. This temporal span has generally been accepted as marking the transition in subsistence from foraging to food production (Smith 1993).

Primary data from four sites in Southeastern Ohio’s Hocking Valley were analyzed (See

Figure 1). Radiometric dates from the sites analyzed by this project (i.e., County Home,

Patton 1, Patton 3 and Taber Well), when combined with data from a previously analyzed

Hocking Valley site, Boudinot 4 (Wymer and Abrams 2003; Abrams 1989), provide a consecutive chronology spanning from 4000 BP to 1800 BP with only one spread of approximately 500 years from 3900 to 3400 BP unrepresented by existing dated material

(Crowell et al. 2005; Abrams and Freter 2005; Peoples et al. 2008; Patton et al 2009;

Weaver 2009; also see Table 1).

Table 1: Radiometric dates for the sampled sites. Calibrated dates represent 2-sigma ranges. All calibrations were calculated using OxCal 4.2 and are based on Bronk (2009). Site Name Feature Lab Number RCYBP Calibrated Date County Home 9 Beta 143697 2960 ± 40 1368-1019 B.C.E. 30 Beta 169747 3340 ± 70 1870-1453 B.C.E. 40 Beta 178823 3250 ± 40 1617-1437 B.C.E. 45 Beta 141234 3080 ± 80 1518-1116 B.C.E. 47 Beta 141234 3070 ± 60 1489-1130 B.C.E. 48 Beta 139636 2820 ± 70 1207-823 B.C.E. 54 Beta 169749 1810 ± 80 30-405 C.E. 62 Beta 141235 3220 ± 70 1682-1323 B.C.E. 68 Beta 169751 3970 ± 90 2859-2204 B.C.E. Boudinot 4 5B Beta 26752 2070 ± 60 350 B.C.E.-64 C.E. 11 Beta 27479 2370 ± 90 771-209 B.C.E. 14 Beta 26743 2610 ± 80 969-418 B.C.E. 16 Beta 27478 2900 ± 60 1289-920 B.C.E. 1371-114052 Patton 1 1 Beta 218736 2970 ± 40 B.C.E. 4 Beta 218883 1940 ± 40 45-136 C.E. 32 Beta 249733 1870 ± 40 75-313 C. E.

Patton 3 8 Beta 282997 2270 ± 40 401-206 B.C.E. Taber Well 5 Beta 178277 2130 ± 40 355-46 B.C.E. 12 Beta 178278 1960 ± 80 166 B.C.E.-230 C.E. 21 Beta 169752 2000 ± 80 203 B.C.E.-214 C.E.

The sequence created by these sites produces one of the most complete chronologies for the transition from foraging to farming in the Ohio Valley, if not Eastern

North America. In order to take advantage of this well-dated sequence, this research explores how investment in and innovation of technology contributed to human efficiency of resource acquisition in the context of changing subsistence and mobility, as well as annual and seasonal strategizing.

This study had three primary objectives related to both food production and technological innovation and their coevolutionary relationship:

1. To provide a general survey of the changes in human botanical diet from the

Hocking Valley for the Late Archaic through the Middle Woodland Periods.

The goal of this research objective was to document subsistence changes

from a primarily foraging diet to a subsistence strategy at least partly based

on agriculture. Particular consideration of changes in subsistence practices

for these temporal periods was achieved by comparing ratios of cultivated or

managed botanicals to foraged foods. Furthermore, this research project

targeted changes in residential stability and food processing technology to

understand how the adoption of farming altered these human behaviors. No

regional studies of archaeobotanical remains have been conducted previously for

the Hocking Valley. Of the published site-level analyses, only one (Wymer and

Abrams 2003) used systematic testing of multiple feature contexts to consider

questions of dietary composition and subsistence change for the focal temporal

periods (see Wymer 2005 for a study focusing on Late Woodland and Late

Prehistoric samples; Smith 1985 reports analysis on a single cache of chenopods

from the Middle Woodland Period; Demuria 2007 represents an unpublished

study of archaeobotanical samples some of which were reanalyzed as part of this

project). This study provides the first multi-site analysis during the transition to

food production in the Hocking Valley and surrounding region.

2. To examine the relationship between investments in food processing

technology and the incorporation of cultivated foods into the prehistoric

Woodlands diet. Archaeologists have long acknowledged that a suite of

technological changes occurred with the Neolithic transition; few studies (i.e.,

Braun and Plog 1982; Braun 1983) have considered these correlations as

coevolutionary processes in Eastern North America. This study expands on this

work by looking at investment in pottery and ground stones as food processing

technologies to discern quantifiable changes in these tools as diet changed.

Processing features, including storage and thermal features were analyzed in order

to estimate investment time using size as a proxy measure.

3. To establish the seasonal occupation at each sampled site in order to

determine different degrees of sedentariness and residential stability

throughout the temporal periods surveyed. The transition to food production

has been associated with increasing degrees of sedentariness (Rafferty 1995). The

32 question of whether Ohio Middle Woodland populations established year-round hamlets or villages remains largely debated among archaeologists (Pacheco and

Dancey 2006; Yerkes 2006; Dancey and Pacheco 1997), although recent architectural data from the Patton 1 site may bring resolution to this issue

(Weaver et al. 2012). Botanical remains and architectural data provide evidence of both the seasonality of site-use and the investment in domestic structures, respectively. Incorporation of technological investment into this research effort will establish the relationship between food processing technology and seasonal mobility in an emerging system of food production.

Figure 1: Map of Hocking Valley with sites sampled indicated. Map was produced using data from USGS and Ohio EPA.

2.4 Research Hypotheses, Assumptions, and Predictions

In order to meet these objectives as well as create a framework for the research project, a primary and a number of secondary hypotheses were tested using data from the

Hocking Valley. The secondary hypotheses are described in each chapter below as they relate to the analyzed data and the relative results; each of these subsequent hypotheses was built as a subsidiary to the primary hypothesis:

Primary hypothesis: Increasing human reliance on cultivated foods during the

Holocene led to economic circumstances in which investment in the specialization

of plant-food processing tools was beneficial. However, investment benefits were

only adaptive when seasonally strategic mobility had decreased to such a degree

that tool carrying costs were offset by expanded tool use-life.

To test this hypothesis, a number of assumptions based in optimal foraging theory, and more specifically the model of technological investment, were made.

Assumption 1: Human decision-making is bound by the processes of natural

selection, thus behaviors and decision outcomes should trend towards fitness-

increasing solutions and behaviors that achieve maximization within the

environmental and cultural context—or at least the perceived context since human

knowledge of these variables may be incomplete (Smith and Winterhalder 1992;

O’Connell 1995; Broughton and O’Connell 1999; Fitzhugh 2001) .

Assumption 2: The goal of foraging and even food production is to acquire dietary

resources (most notably, calories) in the most efficient way possible. This can be

achieved in almost all cases through maximization of the net energetic return rate;

maximization of this rate occurs “by maximizing the energy gained in some fixed

time” or by “minimizing the time required to meet a fixed energy requirement” (Ugan

et al. 2003).

Assumption 3: Technology that is more specialized to a particular task will increase

the amount of resource acquired during food handling (whether through foraging or

food production); however, producing better technology requires greater initial time

and energy investment in these technologies.

Assumption 4: Tool carrying weight, particularly among mobile foraging

populations, plays a significant role in determining when to invest in technology as it

increases the associated costs of a tool over its use-life.

Following this hypothesis and the associated assumptions, the following predictions were made with respect to prehistoric technological investment, origins of agriculture and mobility:

Prediction 1: High mobility will discourage the manufacture of tools with high

carrying costs except in circumstances where the caloric benefits obtained by

investment and use of the technology will exceed such costs over the course of the

tool’s use-life. Thus technological innovation and rates of investment will only

increase after mobility has decreased to a level where tool use-life can offset initial

investment costs.

Prediction 2: The chronological sequencing of changes associated with the Neolithic

Revolution (this term is used broadly to refer to the shift from foraging to farming,

rather than with regional specificity to the Near East) will indicate the emergence of

cultivated plant foods followed by a decrease in mobility as foragers move from

reliance on natural food patches to managed niches within bounded catchment zones.

Prediction 3: Because carrying weight must be factored into technological

investment costs, mobility becomes an increasingly significant variable in

determining when humans invest in better technology, particularly heavy tools such

as pottery and ground stones. Thus, investment in these technologies did not occur

until mobility had dramatically decreased.

Existing technological investment models do not consider the constraints of tool carrying costs. Part of this oversight is due to the types of tools that have been assessed under existing models; the primary focus of technological investment has centered on hunting technology (e.g., Bettinger et al. 2006; Ugan et al. 2003) rather than those items used in the procurement and processing of plant foods (see Bright et al. 2002 for an exception). By the nature of the raw materials used to produce them, plant processing tools, particularly pottery and ground stones, are intrinsically heavier than most hunting tools. In this study, the technological investment model was applied with consideration of carrying costs to pottery and ground stone artifacts.

Chapter 3: Culture History and Environmental Setting

“The American Indian is of the soil, whether it be the region of forests, plains, pueblos, or mesas. He fits into the landscape, for the hand that fashioned the continent also fashioned the man for his surroundings. He once grew as naturally as the wild sunflowers, he belongs just as the buffalo belonged....” –Luther Standing Bear, Oglala Sioux

The origins of plant husbandry date as far back as the Middle Archaic period in eastern North America, and it is this period that roughly corresponds with the hypsithermal interval (9,000 to 5,000 BP) that interrupted climate in such a way as to make earlier reliable foods unstable (King 1981). Smith (1987; 1992) argues that during this temporal period humans were disturbing sediments in Midwestern floodplains, creating prime habitat for weedy species. Most of the research relevant to this process comes from the Mississippi valley and its major tributaries (Anderson 1952; Fowler

1957; Fowler 1971; Asch and Asch 1978). However, the Middle Archaic Period in the

Ohio Valley is largely unknown, as few assemblages have been recovered and dated to this temporal period (Purtill 2009:572). Purtill (2009: 580) describes a “dramatic decrease” in Middle Archaic components when compared to other Archaic temporal subperiods. Despite this decrease, the Unglaciated Plateau region of the state appears to 38 have had higher population densities compared to others based upon percentages of sites identified (see Figure 1). Purtill (2009:582-583) hypothesized that populations were moving from the Lake and Till Plain regions into the Unglaciated Plateau or that the

Plateau region was not effected in the same way as was the rest of the state. Four sites with Middle Archaic (See Table 2 for temporal period spans in years before present) components have been recovered from southwestern Ohio and tended to be positioned above floodplains at the base of bluffs or more uplands terrace regions rather than the valley floor itself (Vickery 2009). Lacking the identification of more Middle Archaic sites throughout the Ohio region, the human cultural development of this period is largely obscure.

Table 2: Temporal Periods for the Eastern Woodlands region. Temporal Period Years Before Present Paleo Indian Pre 10,950 Early Archaic 10,950 to 8450 Middle Archaic 8450 to 5950 Late Archaic 5950 to 2650 Early Woodland 2650 to 2300 Middle Woodland 2300 to 1600 Late Woodland 1600 to 1000 Late Prehistoric 1000 to 450

3.1 Late Archaic Period (5950 to 2650 BP)

The Late Archaic Period might best be described as a time of cultural invention and innovation. Transitions in subsistence, technology, and domestic settlement patterns distinguish this period from those of the nomadic hunter-gatherers of the earlier temporal

39 periods and the small scale farmers of the succeeding periods. The Late Archaic Period marks a time in which the number of human occupied sites throughout the Eastern

Woodlands increases when compared to Early and Middle Archaic sites (Jefferies 1996:

77; Abrams and Freter 2005). This increase in number and density of sites is indicative of an increasing population and changes in settlement patterns. Abrams and Freter (2005) argue that during this period, populations were becoming more sedentary on the landscape than they were in earlier temporal periods. The increase in the number and types of sites during this period may also indicate that humans were widening their subsistence strategies to incorporate catchment zones and resources that had not previously been utilized.

The timing for adoption of seed bearing species into the native diet in Eastern

North America correlates with the end of the hypsithermal interval, a period of warm, dry conditions favored by hickory and oak species (Gardner 1997; Fowells 1965). Not all areas of Eastern North America were impacted in the same way by this climate event, thus local variation in temperature and precipitation should be considered. The end of this interval would have potentially led to “an increase in the frequency of mast failures caused by spring frosts” (Gardner 1997: 176). Initially forager populations may have attempted to influence nut production by clearing forest canopies of competitive species, indirectly creating suitable habitats for weedy domesticates, often referred to as the

Eastern Agricultural Complex (i.e., EAC) (Smith 1992). Most of these species are weedy plants available in floodplain and terrace environments and adapted for growth in disturbed sediments (Smith 1992:19-33; Smith 1995). Intensified cultivation and human

40 selection of these starchy and oily seed-bearing species (See Scarry 2003:68-71 for a more detailed description of these plants) during the Late Archaic Period and continuing through the Early Woodland (3000-2300 BP) and Middle Woodland (2300-1600 BP) periods led to morphological changes in the reproductive features of the plants and in some cases, expansions of the plant’s natural range (Rindos 1984; Smith 1992:45-46).

Differences in these features have been used by archaeologists to distinguish between wild and domesticated populations (Smith 1995).

Existing archaeobotanical evidence suggests that humans were becoming more reliant on weedy seed-bearing species during the Late Archaic and Early Woodland

(Wymer and Abrams 2003). During this period, particularly between ca. 3,500 BP and

3,000 BP, at least three botanical species including Chenopodium sp. (chenopods), Iva annua (sumpweed or marshelder), and Helianthus annus (sunflower) bear the morphological markers of domestication (Smith 1992). These markers include the decrease of testa thickness to between 10 and 20 microns (Smith 1995:187) for chenopods, average achene lengths of 4.2 mm for sumpweed (Smith 1992: 49), and achene assemblages measuring above 7 mm for sunflowers (Smith 1992:48). Similarly, it appears that Cucurbita pepo species underwent domestication during this period as well, with rind measurements crossing over the baseline threshold of 2 mm thickness before

3000 BP, despite the widespread presence of wild specimens at archaeological sites, such as Napoleon Hollow (Illinois), Hayes (Tennessee), Philips Springs (Missouri), and

Cloudsplitter (Kentucky) during the Middle Archaic Period (Smith 1992:40-42; Cowan and Watson 1992; Yarnell 1974; 1993). Although evidence of domestication during this

41 period is clear and tends to correspond with changes in climatic factors that made nut harvests unreliable, “remains of domesticates are generally not abundant [at] Late

Archaic sites compared with other types of plant food remains” (Gremillion 2003:33).

Furthermore, Late Archaic contexts in which domesticates have been recovered also tend to “indicate harvesting of their wild relatives or precursors in quantity” (Gremillion

2003:33). Smith (1992:106) notes that morphological changes likely occurred due to

“extremely intense competition between young plants” in seed beds with “strong selective pressure within seed beds [favoring] those seeds that would sprout quickly because of reduced germination dormancy, and grow quickly because of greater endosperm food reserves, as reflected by an increase in seed size” and, in some cases, decreased thickness of the seed coat (Smith 1992:106).

Corresponding with these changes in subsistence as described above, technology also underwent a number of changes. The initial widening of the diet breadth to include seed foods may have constituted a major shift in subsistence, as evidenced by early Late

Archaic botanical samples from the County Home site (Demuria 2007). However, this appears to have been a gradual adoption of alternative foods to possibly offset the risks associated with less predictable high-ranked nut species in the post-hypsithermal interval

(Gardner 1997). Further pollen data for the region in question is necessary before this hypothesis can be accepted as a causative agent for these changes. However, using seeds as a dietary alternative meant a reduction in food packet size (from nuts to seeds).

Whereas Gardner (1997:174) argues that “parching nuts” before winter storage “could be readily accomplished by stirring the nuts over heated stones in shallow pits,” this

42 technique would not have been as effective with seeds given their miniscule size.

Ceramic vessels, borrowing their shape from existing basketry, would have provided a container to easily parch seeds and prevent loss. A similar relationship between pottery

“invention” and reduction in food packet size has been identified by Goodyear

(1988:321) for coastal areas of the Southeast where the emergence of fiber-tempered and

Thom’s Creek pottery correlate with the intensification of smaller shellfish species in the diet. Pottery tools from this period tend to be thick and demonstrate low investment levels.

3.2 The Early Woodland (2650 to 2300 BP) and Middle Woodland (2300 to 1600 BP)

Periods

The Woodland Period, like the Archaic, is divided into three subperiods of Early,

Middle, and Late. This period is defined by an elaboration and, in some areas, intensification of trends and cultural attributes that had first begun in the previous period.

The use of domesticated plants and a greater reliance on food production appears to increase during this period; this change in subsistence is coupled with further changes in settlement patterns. Throughout regions within Eastern North America and particularly the Midwestern United States, subsistence changes have been roughly correlated with the emergence of the first “tribal” social organizations, termed the “Adena” by culture historians (Abrams and Freter 2005a; Waldron and Abrams 1999; Bender 1985). These populations have been described as largely mobile although living within more restricted areas along floodplain terraces where soils were most productive for small gardening

(Abrams and Freter 2005b; Yerkes 2006). These changes in subsistence and settlement patterns are teamed with the construction of small mortuary mounds throughout the

Midwest region that vary in placement based upon the local topography (e.g., in the unglaciated Hocking Valley, mounds were often constructed on ridgetops during the

Early Woodland Period but were placed at lower elevations in the glaciated Scioto

Valley; Hicks et al. 2008; Abrams and Freter 2005b: 180-181).

During the Early Woodland Period (ca. 2650 to 2300 BP), populations continued to increase, although seemingly at a lower rate than during the Late Archaic Period

(Abrams and Freter 2005b); these populations became more sedentary along floodplain terraces where soils were most productive for small gardening plots. This use of the term sedentary primarily refers to the “repeated occupation of choice locales rather than in the establishment of permanent or year-round villages” (Gremillion 2003: 34). Smaller communities appeared to have seasonally aggregated at these sites to share resources and cement social bonds throughout local areas of the greater region (Abrams and Freter

2005b).

Crowell and colleagues (2005) describe the Homestead Model which attempts to explain the transition from seasonal to permanent site occupation during this period. This model argues that populations began building “habitation sites that were moved periodically but within a recognized and restricted space” (Hicks et al. 2008; Crowell et al. 2005). Hicks and colleagues (2008:60) define homesteads in the material record as being “represented by clusters [of sites] including several habitation sites, at least one burial mound, and an array of other non-mound sites that served other purposes including

44 resource acquisition sites, hunting camps, and winter shelters.” Homesteads represent a spatial domain of a single social group and in turn are defended by many factions of a larger lineage. In instances where land becomes a limiting resource or economic resources are limited across the landscape, these homesteads will become more and more restricted in space.

Over time, restricted space could have led to competition for catchment zones by neighboring homesteads. However, in the Hocking Valley restricted mobility appears to have produced greater dependency on larger scales of human interaction rather than conflict. This increase in external homestead interaction is suggested in the Hocking

Valley by the change from the construction of individual ridgetop mounds throughout the valley to the construction of mounds and sacred circles at a concentrated location in The

Plains and another at a similar center, called the Rock Mill Earthworks during the Middle

Woodland Period (Abrams and Freter 2005a). Along with the emergence of small scale food production, pottery, and new mortuary customs, the Early Woodland Period gave rise to larger tribal affiliations (Abrams and Freter 2005b: 180-181).

These larger mound centers, and especially geometric earthworks associated with the Middle Woodland Period (2300 to 1600 BP), and heuristically the “Hopewell” culture, have been the major focus of archaeological inquiry over the past century, although more recent research has turned to habitation sites (Weaver et al. 2011; Abrams

2009; Yerkes 2006; Smith 2006). Reconstruction of Middle Woodland diet has revealed that populations continued to rely heavily on wild plants and animals, although it is clear from archaeobotanical analysis that food production had come to play a significant role in

45 subsistence (Smith 1985; 1992). Based on paleofecal analysis from Salt Cave, these domesticates contributed to approximately two thirds of the diet, with 25% composed of chenopods, 25% sunflowers, 14% marshelder, and 3% cucurbits (Yarnell 1974).

Furthermore, analysis of human bone chemistry from the Middle Woodland has indicated that maize did not significantly contribute to the Hopewell diet despite its presence in gardens during this temporal period (Gremillion 2003:35). These trends are greatly generalized and these statements are made with the acceptance that variation existed throughout the region of inquiry, as even some populations throughout the Eastern

Woodlands region sustained a foraging subsistence until the Late Prehistoric period

(Gremillion 2003:35). This pattern may be largely due to the presence of marine resources that were more predictable than the terrestrial and seasonal resources available throughout the Appalachian area of Eastern North America. Similarly, an increased reliance on agricultural subsistence was a late addition in the Great Lakes and Northeast region, where marine or aquatic resources would have played a greater role than other areas. Railey (1996:124) summarizes these trends for the Middle Woodland in Kentucky, noting that there were numerous changes in both settlement patterns and “ritual expression.” Such changes, however, were not homogenous across the region and demonstrate cultural diversity:

“For example, in western Kentucky, nucleated base camps and villages of the Crab Orchard complex apparently fragmented into small, dispersed habitations, whereas in the Bluegrass and northeastern Kentucky scattered Adena communities coalesced into the large, planned villages found in Newtown and related complexes.”

Throughout the Early and Middle Woodland Periods in the Ohio Valley, these populations intensified and concentrated the placement of mound constructions and established semi-sedentary to sedentary hamlets presumably subsisting on a farming economy (Pacheco and Dancey 2006; Abrams 2009; Dancey and Pacheco 1997; Prufer

1997, 1965). Recent excavation and analysis of the Patton 1 site (Weaver 2009), a Middle

Woodland habitation in the Hocking Valley, yielded a wattle and daub structure, large storage and refuse pits, and evidence for the consecutive rebuilding of structures. These data contribute to the argument that Middle Woodland populations were sedentary

(Weaver 2009) despite contrary arguments that so-called “Hopewellian” populations remained mobile foragers (Yerkes 2006). Emerging data from the Patton 3 site suggests these cultural and domestic behaviors may extend back into the Early Woodland Period

(Patton et al. 2011).

Throughout much of the Eastern Woodlands region, tool assemblages track increasing reliance on food production; pottery appears to become more specialized to cooking seed species (Braun 1987), and an increase in groundstone technology used in the mechanical processing of seeds has been suggested from Middle Woodland habitations (Weaver 2009; Gremillion 2004; Abrams 2009). New technologies also emerge during this period, for example, chert hoes used in tilling soil and preparing gardening plots develop (Smith 1992).

3.3 Temporal Summation

The trends in subsistence beginning in the Late Archaic Period throughout the

Eastern Woodlands demonstrate large variability but generally point towards the initial incorporation of food producing strategies based on native plant species. Technology and settlement patterns changed along with this reliance on farming and intensified over time, producing complex tribal cultures. What began as basic disturbance of floodplain environments produced habitats in which humans and plants could coevolve (Rindos

1984; Scarry 2003). The development of human and weedy plant interaction eventually led to farming economies. These trends made humans and their anthropogenic environments and cultures, preadapted for the introduction of the foreign maize crop.

Once this species had been introduced into the region and manipulated to survive in more northern reaches of the region, social complexity took hold and ushered in the beginnings of various cultural traditions, many of which persisting until European contact.

3.4 The Hocking Valley and Its Environmental Setting

The Hocking Valley has played a significant role in our understanding of early native plant domestication in Eastern North America. Upon excavating Ash Cave in the mid-Hocking Valley, E.B. Andrews recovered over 25,000 Chenopodium berilanderi ssp. jonesianum fruits that were later analyzed by Smith (1992; 1985) to establish testa thickness thresholds indicative of domestication. The Ash Cave chenopod cache dates to the Middle Woodland Period (ca. 1720 BP; Fritz and Smith 1988), although the process of plant cultivation began much earlier in Hocking Valley prehistory (Smith 1985). By

48 the Late Archaic Period (ca. 5950-2650 BP), human populations within eastern North

America had begun collecting native seed-bearing botanical species for consumption

(Smith 1992). An increasing dietary reliance on these species, often termed the Eastern

Agricultural Complex (EAC) and including goosefoot (Chenopodium berlandieri), sumpweed or marshelder (Iva annua), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), maygrass

(Phalaris caroliniana), knotweeds (Polygonum spp.) and little barley (Hordeum pusillum), eventually led to their cultivation, and in some instances, domestication (See

Yarnell 1983 and Smith 1992:60 for problems with the use of EAC as an identifying term).

The Hocking River, a meandering third-order stream located in southeastern

Ohio, is a tributary to the fourth- order Ohio River. Beginning at Lancaster, Ohio, it flows southeast for approximately 153 km ending at its confluence with the Ohio River at

Hockingport, Ohio. No other river system in the state of Ohio possesses such a diverse geological setting as the Hocking (Wakeman 2005). The Hocking and its 37 tributary streams flow through three major geological landforms: 1) the Glaciated Till Plain deposited by the Illinoian and Wisconsinian glaciations, 2) the Glaciated Allegheny

Plateau, and 3) the Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau. Although this latter landform was not directly impacted by glacial episodes, outwash deposits and channel widening resulting from glacial melting during the Pleistocene have influenced landscape formation in the unglaciated Allegheny Plateau. The largest Hocking tributaries located within the area of this study are the Monday, Sunday, Federal, and Margaret Creeks

(Murphy 1989; Formica 2006; Abrams and Freter 2005a). The first three of these four tributaries are the catchments for sites in this study.

The Hocking Valley landscape includes four micro-zones or environments: floodplains, upper floodplains, terraces, and ridgetops. The floodplain zones located along the river have been heavily impacted by the river’s lateral accretion. Due to annual changes in drainage and flooding, the mesic species that inhabit this zone change in frequency. Arboreal species closest to the river include willow (Salix spp.), silver maple

(Acer saccherinum), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and cottonwood (Populus deltoides); in areas where floodplain soils are better drained, elm (Ulmus spp.) dominates with sycamore, silver maple, white ash (Fraxinus americana), and boxelder (Acer negundo). Numerous hickory (Carya spp.) and oak (Quercus spp.) species occur in this zone but are less common than the aforementioned. The exception is the shellbark hickory (Carya laciniosa) which prefers wet floodplain soils and is abundant throughout

Hocking Valley floodplains. Several understory and grass species grow in the floodplain zone, but most notable are seed-bearing species that were cultivated by indigenous populations throughout the region, including marshelder or sumpweed (Iva spp.), sunflower (Helianthus spp.), erect knotweed (Polygonum erectum), and chenopod species

(Chenopodium spp.) (Abrams and Freter 2005a).

The upper floodplain zone is the area located between the floodplain and the terrace zone. This area is characterized by a number of arboreal species but is dominated by beech and sugar maples; this mesic pair represents about 40 to 60% of the arboreal species located in this zone (Abrams and Freter 2005). The remaining canopy species are

50 primarily nut-bearing such as hickory, walnut, and oak. At the time of indigenous occupation of the valley, understory trees and shrubs would presumably have been present in this micro-zone and would have included redbud (Cercis canadensis), pawpaw (Asimina triloba), dogwood (Cornus spp.), sumac (Rhus spp.), witch-hazel

(Hamamelis virginiana), and hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana). A number of these species would have been used for food by human forager populations.

Many of the arboreal and floral species of the terrace zone are the same as those species of the upper floodplain, but unlike the beech-maple forest of the latter zone,

Hocking Valley terraces are dominated by an oak-hickory canopy. Relatively level and beyond the impacts of annual flooding, these terraces would have provided ideal habitation areas for native populations. Unlike the Scioto Valley where floodplain terraces make up a large percentage of the landscape, these formations comprise only 2-

6% of the total land area, making them a limited resource (Abrams and Freter 2005b;

Wakeman 2005). “Domestication of the terraces,” a phrase used by Abrams and Freter

(2005) refers to terrace niche construction and management by indigenous populations, likely encouraged the growth of a number of starchy and oily weeds, understory fruits and berries, and even nut trees.

Lastly, the ridgetops surrounding the Hocking River were covered with chestnut and oak species. These trees, in conjunction with the nut-bearing species of lower elevations, would have provided native populations with storable food resources (Abrams and Freter 2005a; Wymer 1984,1990; Rypma 1961). Additionally, many fruit-bearing

51 plants are available in these environments, including grapes (Vitris spp.), raspberries, blackberries (Rubus spp.), and blueberries (Vaccinium spp.).

Numerous mammalian species inhabited the Hocking Valley; these included white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), bear (Ursus americanus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), fox

(Vulpes vulpes), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and raccoons (Procyon lotor). Various bird species would have been consumed by humans; most notably the wild turkey

(Meleagris gallopavo) and ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus). Aside from these species, numerous fish, reptiles, amphibians, and shellfish were available for use and consumption.

3.6 Early Investigations

Early archaeological investigations in the Hocking Valley focused primarily on burial mounds and mound centers (Abrams and Freter 2005a; Murphy 1989). These early investigations generally lacked academic merit and often strived to present evidence that denied native populations of their culture and heritage. The many mound centers throughout the Ohio Valley were documented and attributed to a lost race of

“Moundbuilders” who were believed to have been driven off the land by the contemporary native people (Formica 2006; Abrams and Freter 2005a; Patterson 1995;

Meltzer 1998). This idea, which “made it easier to rationalize [the] inevitable demise [of native populations] as a form of historic justice” (Meltzer 1998:2), was popularized by the writings of Squier and Davis (1848).

Despite the racist and ethnocentric allusions of these early research projects, antiquarians like Squier and Davis (1848) and S. P. Hildreth (Murphy 1989) have provided modern scholars with detailed maps and descriptions of earthworks that have not survived due to private and public development and building. The popularization of these earthworks and the dissemination of mound locations to the general public did result in extensive trenching expeditions by museums and private collectors (Andrews

1877). Because many of these early antiquarians had little concern for archaeological artifacts outside of serving as trophy pieces, more data were probably lost than gained through these early excavations.

During the early part of the twentieth century, archaeological endeavors did become more scientific in nature with a strong emphasis on cultural histories and artifact description. Emerson Greenman’s (1932) excavation of the Coon Mound in The Plains serves as one of the best early examples of a scientific archaeological investigation.

Greenman’s research helped to define the cultural traits associated with the “Adena” and increased public and scholarly interest in prehistoric earthworks. Greenman’s work was furthered by additional publications concerning mound locations by Peters (1947).

Archaeology as a discipline encountered numerous changes during the 1960’s and

70’s, most notably the adoption of processual theory in the formation of research designs.

This “new” archaeology brought science and anthropology to the forefront of excavation and demanded standardized techniques and methodologies (Binford 1962). The move to processual archaeology allowed for the first professional surveys of the Hocking Valley by Shane and Murphy (1967). During this period the first habitation site in the Hocking

Valley, Graham Village, was excavated (McKenzie 1967). Murphy furthered existing research in the valley with the excavation of two Late Prehistoric sites, Gabriel and

McCune, and the publication of An Archaeological History of the Hocking Valley (1989) which was the first volume dedicated entirely to the valley’s prehistoric past.

Cultural Resource Management (CRM) projects have further made numerous contributions to the archaeological record in the Hocking Valley (Skinner and Norris

1981; H. Murphy 1986; Striker et al. 2001). Although these data may greatly increase our understanding of the cultures and populations that persisted in the Valley for thousands of years prior to European conquest, much of these data remain unpublished due to the nature of CRM (Abrams and Freter 2005a:6). Perhaps the largest contribution to the archaeology of the Hocking Valley since Murphy’s 1989 publication has been obtained through Ohio University’s Archaeological Field School led by Elliot Abrams,

Professor of Sociology and Anthropology. Since 1986, almost a dozen sites have been excavated throughout the valley, ultimately filling in many of the data gaps that existed from previous research; all but two of these sites were habitation sites and have provided extensive data as to the lifeways of prehistoric populations in the Hocking Valley

(Abrams and Freter 2005a). These data were summarized in The Emergence of the

Moundbuilders: the Archaeology of Tribal Societies in Southeastern Ohio (Abrams and

Freter 2005b). Research has continued in the Hocking Valley since this publication primarily through the thesis projects of graduate students in the Environmental Studies

Program of Ohio University. A description of these projects is available in Table 3.

Table 3: Archaeological Research Projects conducted in the Hocking Valley since 2005. Year Year Journal of Author Thesis Title Completed Published Publication The Taber Well Site (33HO611): A Middle Woodland Habitation Midcontinental Nicole and Surplus Lithic Production 2004 2008 Journal of Peoples Site in the Hocking Valley, Archaeology Southeastern Ohio Facing Monday Creek Staci Rockshelter (33HO414): A Late Pennsylvania 2005 2007 Spertzel Woodland Hunting Location in Archaeologist Southeastern Ohio The Formation of Indigenous Sedentary Communities in the Monday Creek Tributary of the Pennsylvania John Hicks 2007 2008 Hocking River Valley, Ohio: A Archaeologist GIS Archaeological Landscape Approach The Domestic Economy at the Allen Site 2 (33AT653), A Late Tracy West Virginia Woodland - Late Prehistoric 2006 2009 Formica Archaeologist Community in the Hocking Valley, Southeastern Ohio A GIS Analysis of the Archaic to Woodland Period Settlement Rachel West Virginia Trends in the Margaret Creek 2005 2009 Crews Archaeologist Watershed, Athens County, Ohio A Geochemical Analysis of Paul Archaeological Ceramics in the Pennsylvania 2007 2009 Patton Hocking Valley, Southeastern Archaeologist Table 3 continued Ohio Middle Woodland Domestic Journal of Ohio Architecture and the Issue of Archaeology Sarah Sedentism: Evidence from the 2009 2011 Weaver Patton Site (33AT990), the Hocking Valley, SE Ohio continued

Table 3 continued A Comparative Analysis of the Archaic through Woodland Period Landscape Usage and Natasha Occupation History of the 2009 -- -- Nelson Nazarene Rockshelter (33HO701), Hocking County, Ohio A Spatial Distribution of Lithic Artifacts from a Late Archaic- Kristina Middle Woodland Site, the 2011 -- -- Keeling County Home Site (33AT40), Athens County, Ohio

3.7 Sites Sampled

All data included in this study were collected by the Ohio University

Archaeological Field School. All are open air sites where domestic activities took place

as evidenced by non-ceremonial structures and food processing tools (e.g., ground stones,

pottery, and expedient chert artifacts). All dates from the four sites fall within the Late

Archaic to Middle Woodland Periods (ca. 2000 BCE to 500 CE). Radiometric dates for

the sample sites are displayed below in Table 3. Detailed descriptions of all sampled

features are available in Appendix A.

3.8 Patton 1

The Patton 1 site (33AT990) is located within the Monday Creek watershed in the

unglaciated plateau of the Hocking Valley, atop a floodplain terrace near the confluence

of the Snow Fork and Monday Creek. Approximately 100 m northeast of the site a

wetlands area feeds a seasonal stream and would have provided a number of resources

including clay for pottery production and aquatic flora and fauna. The topography of the 56 site can be divided into high and low terraces surrounded by floodplain. A second high terrace is located just over 100 m to the north of High Terrace 1 and the core of the

Patton 1 site (See Figure 2).

The Patton 1 site was first identified by the former property owners, David and

Marlene Patton, who submitted surface collections to the Ohio University Department of

Sociology and Anthropology for analysis. Results of this analysis conducted by Tracy

Formica and Paul E. Patton, then graduate students in the Environmental Studies Program and under the supervision of Elliot Abrams, confirmed substantial cultural material that warranted further archaeological investigation of the site (Weaver 2009). Surface collection artifacts were primarily used to identify temporal periods of occupation based on existing seriation sequencing for projectile points and to denote differential densities of artifacts on the site landscape. The surface collection analysis consisted of 674 artifacts. Over 80% (N=542) of this assemblage was recovered from an upper floodplain terrace at the site, labeled High Stream Terrace 1; additionally, almost 9% (N=71) of the artifacts were recovered from High Stream Terrace 2, an adjacent floodplain terrace, while the remaining surface artifacts were dispersed across the site. Fifty-seven percent of the surface collection by count was chipped stone of which 92% was of Upper Mercer variety. The remaining artifact assemblage was composed of fire-cracked rock (FCR), ground stones, and a few historic artifacts. Fourteen diagnostic projectile points indicated site use spanning from the Early Archaic through the Late Prehistoric with an absence of

Middle Archaic projectiles (using Justice 1995 and Railey 1992). Based upon the surface collection assemblage, Patton 1 was presumed to be a habitation site.

Figure 2: A close up of the Patton 1 site landscape (Weaver 2009; adapted from www.athenscountygis.com). The image is oriented vertically on a north (top)/south axis.

During the spring of 2006, Jarrod Burks of Ohio Valley Archaeological

Consultants, Inc. conducted a magnetic gradient survey of High Terrace 1 and sections of the surrounding slope revealing five subsurface anomalies. Two locations were confirmed to contain cultural materials based on probing (See Figure 3).

Figure 3: Magnetic Gradient Survey results as interpreted by Burks; blue circles indicate sediment anomalies, while red circles indicate anomalies with evidence of cultural material after probing (Burks 2003).

Based on the results of both analyses of the surface collection and the magnetic gradient survey, subsurface excavations at the Patton 1 site began in the summer of 2006 by Abrams and the Ohio University Archaeological Field School and were resumed and completed during the summer of 2008. Subsurface testing included the excavation and screening of 58.15 m3 of sediment, 88% of which came from High Terrace 1. The

59 majority of sediment excavated (i.e., 34.03 m3) was associated with a Middle Woodland occupation and the remainder with a Late Archaic component (i.e., 11.89 m3). Analysis of the sediment samples, pottery, and ground stones from the Patton 1 excavations were included in this research project. Furthermore, excavation revealed a prehistoric domestic structure that had been rebuilt twice immediately overtop its older predecessor; each of these three house levels was labeled an episode of construction (i.e., first, second, third with first being the oldest) to help delineate the associated archaeological assemblage.

Figure 4: The first and second episodes of construction at the Patton 1 site (adapted from Weaver et al. 2011)

Excavations at Patton 1 yielded 54 prehistoric cultural features; Late Archaic,

Middle Woodland, and Late Prehistoric features were identified. Radiocarbon dating of

Feature 1 placed the Late Archaic Patton samples at 2970 + 40 BP (Beta-218736; charred material; cal BC 1371 to BC 1052; calibration based on Bronk 2009). A Middle

Woodland Period sample of charred material from Feature 4 (feature level 1) was radiocarbon dated to 1940 + 40 BP (Beta-218883; cal 45 BCE to CE136; calibration based on Bronk 2009) and charred material from Feature 32 (feature level 3) was dated to

1870 ± 40 BP (Beta-249733; cal 75 to 313 CE; calibration based on Bronk 2009). The charred materials used in radiometric dating were not identified to analyzed as to wood type. The majority of cultural features were associated with the Middle Woodland component based on stratigraphy and associated diagnostic artifacts (Weaver et al. 2011).

Both Late Archaic and Middle Woodland pottery and ground stone assemblages were recovered from intact features with only minor bioturbation disturbances.

The Patton 1 Middle Woodland component yielded the highest density of features and associated artifacts. Almost all posts, two thermal features, and all pit features were associated with the Middle Woodland cultural component, which represent 91% of all cultural features from the site. Collectively, the Middle Woodland features were associated with a wattle and daub domestic structure that appears to have been rebuilt twice over the original structure. Weaver and colleagues (2011) have termed this domestic area a houselot, indicating the association of the structure and the surrounding exterior domestic activity zones. Given the exceptional preservation of the houselot, the

Patton 1 site provides some of the most complete domestic and architectural data concerning Ohio Valley Middle Woodland populations. The combined remains of a midden pit (feature 60), large storage features (Features 54, 40, and 49), and a rectilinear structure provided evidence of sedentary domestic life during the Middle Woodland

Period (Weaver et al. 2011). Features analyzed for archaeobotanicals are described quantitatively and qualitatively below in Table 4; additional descriptions of features are available in Appendix A.

Figure 5: The third episode of construction at the Patton 1 site (Weaver et al. 2011)

Table 4: Patton 1 site feature data. Max. Max. Max. Approx. Temporal Feature Feature Length Width Depth Total Association Type (cm) (cm) (cm) Volume Late 1 Archaic 240 180 40 1357.17 Thermal Middle 4 Woodland 71 62 48 165.95 Thermal Middle 20 Woodland 25 25 15 7.36 Post Middle 32 Woodland 60 60 44 124.41 Thermal Middle 40 Woodland 45 125 30 132.54 Pit Middle 42 Woodland ------Pit Middle 49 Woodland 84 72 6 28.5 Pit Middle Midden 60 Woodland 146 104 30 357.76 Pit Middle 66 Woodland 19 19 11 3.12 Post Middle 68 Woodland 18 18 73 18.58 Post

3.9 Taber Well

Taber Well (33HO616) is a Middle Woodland habitation site that appears to have specialized in the production of projectile points (Peoples et al. 2008). Located on a small terrace near the confluence of the Monday Creek and Little Monday Creek, the site is approximately 220 meters above sea level and six meters above the Monday Creek.

Situated on a small terrace of land that measures nearly 1000 meters2, the site is located in an ideal environment for exploitation of both uplands and floodplain resources. A marshland is located to the northeast of the Taber Well site and would have provided access to a number of wetland resources. Additionally, wetlands likely served as a source

65 of clay used in the production of pottery. An outcrop of Upper Mercer chert is located three kilometers to the southwest of the site, providing a natural resource used for tool production; access to this high-quality stone appears to have influenced the economy of the Taber Well inhabitants and encouraged specialization of projectile points as a trade good (Peoples et al. 2008). Figure 7 illustrates the excavation units and associated features recovered.

Figure 6: Map of Taber Well units and features; all numbers are in reference to feature (Based on Peoples et al. 2008).

The site was initially identified in 1985 by Wayne National Forest archaeologist

Ann Cramer. Based upon diagnostic projectile point fragments the site is registered in the

Ohio Archaeological Inventory as dating to the Late Archaic Period. Because few sites had been investigated in this northern region of the Hocking Valley, Abrams and the

Ohio University Field School excavated the site during the summers of 2000 and 2002. In the first summer of field investigations, a total of seven 2 meter2 units were irregularly placed across the terrace due to tree coverage of 10 % of the site. Excavation of these units revealed a plowzone approximately 20 centimeters deep in which 85 % of the recovered artifacts were contained. An additional level excavated to a depth of approximately 10 centimeters below the plowzone yielded eleven features and more artifacts, warranting a second season of archaeological investigation. Furthermore, the disproportionate location of features allowed for the designation of a “site core” which became the focus of the 2002 field season. Twelve 2 meter2 units and seventeen 1 meter2 units were excavated in 2002 and yielded an additional 9 features. Thirty-seven 50 cm2 units at 10 meter intervals were placed across the terrace slope and floodplain in order to confirm the extent of the designated “site core”. Over the course of the two field seasons, a total of 30.68 meters3 were excavated within 73 units, yielding 20 features including twelve posts, six hearths, and two pits.

Radiometric dates for the Taber Well site include two radiocarbon dates from

Features 21 and 12 and one accelerator mass spectrometry date from Feature 5 (see Table

3). All three dates indicate an age within in the Middle Woodland Period. Relative dating

67 based on diagnostic projectile points and pottery artifacts suggests occupation spanning from the Late Archaic through Middle Woodland Periods (Peoples et al. 2008).

Twenty-one features were encountered during the excavation of the Taber Well site, and sediment samples from all features were analyzed for seeds, charcoal, and other macrobotanical remains. According to the analyses of Peoples and colleagues (2008), the site served as a habitation similar to the Patton 1 site, especially during the Middle

Woodland Period. Based on the abundance of lithic debitage, Peoples and colleagues

(2008) further postulated that the inhabitants specialized in the production of projectile points and other chert tools. The archaeobotanical analysis conducted as part of this dissertation research suggests that the site was a long-term residence.

Table 5: Features sampled from the Taber Well site. Max. Max. Max. Temporal Total Feature Feature† Length Width Depth Association Volume Type (cm) (cm) (cm) 1 Middle Woodland 17 17 11 3 Post 2 Early Woodland 30 23 18 9.75 Post 3 Middle Woodland 13 15 17 2.6 Post 4 Middle Woodland 50 50 20 39.27 Thermal 5 Middle Woodland 70 30 18 29.69 Thermal 6 Middle Woodland — — — — GSF 7 Middle Woodland 50 40 6 9.43 Thermal 8 Middle Woodland 38 45 12 16.12 Thermal 9 Middle Woodland 78 60 12 44.11 Thermal 10 Middle Woodland 30 20 11 5.18 Post 11 Middle Woodland 24 24 7 3.17 Post 12 Middle Woodland 37 27 30 23.54 Pit 13 Middle Woodland 14 14 9 1.36 Post 14 Middle Woodland 13 13 9 1.19 Post 15 Middle Woodland 7 11 4 .24 Post 16 Middle Woodland 35 27 15 11.13 Pit 17 Late Archaic 60 40 14 26.39 Thermal 18 Middle Woodland 10 16 11 1.38 Post 19 Middle Woodland 12 14 8 1.05 Post 20 Middle Woodland 11 11 12 .36 Post 21 Middle Woodland 10 15 8 1 Post †Note features 13 and 14 were combined during excavation. No measurements of diameter or depth were available for Feature 6.

3.10 County Home

The County Home site (33AT40) is located on a small floodplain terrace at the confluence of the Hocking River and Sunday Creek within the unglaciated plateau of the valley. Positioned at approximately 195 meters above sea level, the site was outside of the range of annual seasonal floods although likely susceptible to 50 to 100 year flood

69 cycles (Heyman et al. 2005). The site is located nearly 0.5 km southwest of two Early

Woodland burial mounds and 1.7 km east-northeast of The Plains Mound Center

(Heyman et al. 2005:68). Additionally, the County Home site is located in close proximity to a number of natural resources, including a salt lick, clays, and floodplain and riverine flora and fauna.

The site was initially identified during the late 1970’s by a University of

Michigan archaeological survey team. Subsurface testing yielded Woodland period artifacts and a thermal feature (Crowell et al. 2005). During the summer of 1998, the site was excavated by Elliot Abrams and the Ohio University Archaeological Field School in order to salvage any in situ archaeological remains before the construction of the Athens

County Dog Shelter at the site. Both pedestrian and subsurface surveys were utilized to delineate the site’s boundaries and determine areas with potential for the greatest data yields. The pedestrian survey indicated disproportionate artifact densities across the study area; as a result, a 25 meter2 area was defined as the site core. Eight 2 meter2 units were excavated within the site core revealing 23 cultural features at the base of the plowzone in seven of these units. Given the density of features revealed within these units, the remainder of the plowzone within the 25 meter2 block was removed by mechanical stripping. An additional sixteen 1 meter2 units were excavated beyond the core area, yielding a single cultural feature and minimal artifacts. Subsurface survey using the aforementioned field methods recovered a total of 78 cultural features.

Figure 7: Map of County Home test units and features. Numbers on the map indicate the feature number (Adapted from Keeling 2012).

A total of nine samples were radiocarbon dated, indicating that site use spanned from the Late Archaic to Middle Woodland Periods (see Table 1). In addition to these dates, the County Home artifact assemblage confirmed Middle Woodland occupation with the recovery of two obsidian flakes; this raw material does not naturally occur in the

Hocking Valley and would have been brought to the site from afar as part of the

“Hopewell Interaction Sphere.” These particular lithics may have traveled from as far as the Rocky Mountains (Crowell et al. 2005; Seeman 1979). The dates provide evidence for recurrent use and occupation by Late Archaic and Early Woodland Period populations. However, the date (i.e., Feature 54) from the domestic structure suggests a

Middle Woodland occupation (See Figure 8).

Table 6: County Home feature data. Note measurements from Features 8 and 33 were not available. Approx. Temporal Max. Max. Max. Feature Feature Total Association Length Width Depth Type Volume

1 Middle Woodland 35 35 18.28 Post 19

2 Middle Woodland 18.5 18.5 5.09 Post 20

4 Late Archaic 43 43 18.88 Pit 13

7 Middle Woodland 80 85 26.70 Pit 5

8 Early Woodland ------Pit 6

9 Late Archaic 84 40 653.84 Thermal 35

29 Middle Woodland 70 70 30.79 Pit 8

30 Late Archaic 75 80 174.36 Pit 37

33 Middle Woodland ------Pit --

36 Middle Woodland 100 76 137.29 Pit 23 37 Middle Woodland 13 13 15 1.99 Post

39 Late Archaic 12 12 1.92 Post 17

40 Late Archaic 21 21 8.66 Post 25

47 Late Archaic 96 86 473.87 Thermal 75

48 Late Archaic 85 83 581.35 Thermal 97

49 Middle Woodland 19 22 2.63 Post 8

54 Middle Woodland 20 20 2.4 Post 9

60 Middle Woodland 21 21 9.33 Post 27

61 Middle Woodland 25 25 3.68 Pit 8

62 Late Archaic 100 95 466.92 Thermal 47

69 Middle Woodland 49 38 13.42 Pit 9 73

3.11 Patton 3

The Patton 3 site (33AT1026) is located on a floodplain terrace, approximately

200 meters above sea level, in the Margaret Creek watershed of the unglaciated

Alleghany Plateau of the Hocking River Valley. The site is located on the first floodplain terrace north of the Luhrig Creek, a Margaret Creek tributary, and west of a seasonal unnamed stream. The site is located out of the reach of annual and one-hundred year flooding and surrounded by fertile soils that would have proved advantageous for gardening and agricultural use. To the north, the site abuts Appalachian foothills, affording access to the ranges of white-tail deer, cottontail rabbit, wild turkey, and botanical resources, such as timber and nut species. The landscape and associated environmental resources would have provided opportunity for both foraging and farming subsistence strategies given its proximity to both forest and rich soils.

The surface of the Patton 3 site has been disturbed by modern and historic agricultural use, producing a plow zone approximately 10 to 20 cm deep. A modern barn was constructed on the site following initial subsurface testing and magnetic gradient survey, due to the landowners’ concern that the structure only minimally impact potential archaeological data. Additionally, parts of the property were earlier impacted by both coal and timber industries which appear to have only minimally affected the site. Two loci were identified at the site through subsurface excavation. The first of these, Greg’s

Field, is located in the eastern field of the site area. The second locus, Dave’s Field, is located in the western field of the site area, and was identified during the excavation of the foundation for a modern residence.

During the autumn of 2009, the author and Allen Patton of Hocking College excavated ten 50 cm2 test units at the Patton 3 site. These test units yielded chert artifacts indicating the need for further investigation of the site. In the spring of 2010, Jarrod

Burks conducted a magnetic gradient survey in which eight anomalies or subsurface areas with high magnetic signatures were identified, indicating possible prehistoric or historic cultural features (See Figure 9). The site was named Patton 3 by Abrams, who reported it to the Ohio Historic Preservation Office where it was appointed the inventory number of

33AT1026.

During the summer of 2010, a total of 24 test units were excavated at the Patton 3 site, Greg’s Field by the Ohio University Archaeological Field School under the co- direction of Abrams and the author. Of these test units, seventeen measured 1 meter2 and seven were 2 meters2. Low artifact yields from the plow zone during initial subsurface testing suggested that either heavy looting of the site had occurred or that sediment accumulation had occurred at such a substantial rate that the site had only minimally been disturbed by previous agricultural plowing. Additionally, the plow-zone was removed from an area (Block A) using a bulldozer in the eastern field of the property, and an extension of approximately 55 m2 was excavated using a backhoe (See Figure 10). All eight anomalies identified by Burks were excavated by the field school, four of which were determined to be prehistoric features (Features 1-4). An additional three features

(Features 5-7) were identified by subsurface testing and excavated. Subsurface testing was resumed by the author and Michael J. Pistrui of Ohio University with a small group

75 of volunteers in 2010. During this subsequent testing, 37 features (Features 8-45), including Structure 1, were identified and excavated.

Figure 8: Results of magnetic gradient survey conducted by Jarrod Burks. Identified anomalies are listed as numbers 1 through 8.

Excavations in Greg’s Field resumed during the early summer of 2012 by the

Ohio University Archaeological Field School under the co-direction of Abrams, Patton and Pistrui. During this field season, a bulldozer was used to excavate five large blocks to 76 a level immediately beneath the plowzone. Subsequently, the underburden was shovel shaved until cultural features were visible. These methods revealed 93 prehistoric features (i.e., Features 500-593), including post outlines indicative of three additional structures associated stratigraphically with Structure 1.

Unidentified charred material from Feature 8a, a corner postmold of Structure 1, was collected and sent to Beta Analytic for AMS analysis. Results provided a conventional radiocarbon age of 2270 ± 40 BP with a 2 sigma calibrated date 401 to 206

BCE (Bronk 2009). This dates the site’s occupation and Structure 1 to the terminal Early

Woodland/Incipient Middle Woodland Period. Seriation of the few points and ceramics recovered from the Patton 3 site correspond with radiometric results (Patton et al., in progress). Feature 8a was positioned immediately atop of postmold 8b. Additionally, at least four other postmolds that formed the walls of Structure 1 were superimposed over older posts, suggesting at least two episodes of house rebuilding after burning. A circular addition to the structure was present along the western half of the northern wall which

Bruce Smith (1992) notes as being fairly common on Hopewellian residential structures throughout the central Midwest.

Although the archaeological materials collected during the 2012 field season are presently under analysis, three additional structures in Greg’s Field were identified and determined to be stratigraphically associated with Structure 1. All of these structures were rectilinear in shape and surrounded a central courtyard area. Additionally, two earlier structures were located beneath these Terminal Early Woodland/Incipient Middle

Woodland domiciles, one beneath Structure 1 and another beneath Structure 2. These

structures were circular in form and measured approximately 2.5 meters in diameter. If

the transition from circular structures to rectilinear structures is an indication of decreased

mobility (Crowell et al. 2005; Yerkes 1994, 2002; Dancey 1991; Pacheco 1996, 1997),

the Patton 3 site may provide domestic data from this important transition in prehistoric

times.

Figure 9: Map of Terminal Early Woodland/Incipient Middle Woodland features and structures at the Patton 3 site. Red circles indicate thermal features, black circles indicate posts, dark blue polygons indicate pits, and light blue polygons indicate gravel lenses.

Figure 10: Lower Level of Patton 3 with Structures 5 and 6 depicted. Black dots indicate post locations, red dote is thermal feature 589.

Initially, only four 2 meter2 units were excavated in Dave’s Field, Unit 22 yielded a single postmold and daub scatters suggestive of a structure in the southern part of the field. The foundation of a modern residential structure was excavated in the northwestern corner of Dave’s field revealing additional cultural features. This construction led to the salvage excavation of a 20 by 9 meter foundation block that extended to a depth of approximately 30 cm below the ground surface. Additionally, footers were dug along the edges and across the center length of the block to a width of 60 cm and a depth of

79 approximately 50 cm below the ground surface. The western edge of the foundation block bordered on a square unit measuring 9 by 9 meters; this area was excavated to a depth of 10 cm below the ground surface for the placement of a garage, with an edge footer dug to a depth of 25 cm below the ground surface along the north, south and west sides of the garage block (See Figure 11).

Figure 11: Dave's Field Locus. Black symbols indicate post molds, green circles indicate storage pits, red circles indicate thermal features, and green fill rectangles indicates the presence of prehistoric daub walls.

The excavation and construction of the modern house foundation revealed 80 cultural features, the majority of which were postmolds; additionally, two storage pits, a possible hearth, and the wall outlines of two separate structures were recovered. The majority of the house foundation features are associated with two domestic structures

(i.e., Structure A and B). In the adjacent garage block, one postmold was recovered along the south footer profile. Given the size of this feature, its presence may indicate a third domestic structure. Due to the scheduled construction of modern house, only one week

80 was allotted for data recovery resulting in limited excavations and archaeological sampling. Most artifacts from Dave’s Field were collected from the backfill removed from the foundation of the modern house. At the same time, the house construction provides evidence of another architectural form at the site; the C-shaped shelter

(Structure A), which has been identified at Park’s Ford in Tennessee and the Massey and

Archie sites in the Lower Illinois Valley (Smith 2003). Smith argues that these shelters were likely used in the warmer months of the year for processing of botanical foods.

Upper Mercer and Brush Creek cherts were the dominant chipped stone materials present at Greg’s Field and Dave’s Field. Both materials are readily available throughout the valley and support the argument that Patton 3 was a habitation site, since the finer quality Vanport cherts which might be expected in greater numbers at a ceremonial site were not as abundant. Lithic artifact analysis indicates higher yields of late reduction sequence chipped stone from Greg’s Field locus. This is consistent with lithic assemblages from other habitation sites (Weaver et al. 2011). Although a small sample size, Dave’s Field contains greater counts of decortications and secondary flakes than the

Greg’s Field assemblage. This distinction from Greg’s Field is likely due to the bias towards larger flakes in surface collection of Dave’s Field. Features analyzed as part of this study are described in Table 7 and in additional detail in Appendix A.

Table 7: Features sampled for archaeobotanicals from the Patton 3 site. Max. Max. Max. Total Temporal Feature Feature Length Width Depth Volume Association* Type (cm) (cm) (cm) (L) 1 TEW/IMW 120 70 39 257.29 Thermal 4 TEW/IMW 62 78 41 155.73 Thermal 5 TEW/IMW Thermal

8 TEW/IMW 34 33 37 29.64 Post 10 TEW/IMW 8 8 14 .7 Post 11 TEW/IMW 11 13 25 2.81 Post 12A TEW/IMW 19 19 14 3.97 Post 32 TEW/IMW 57 58 20 51.93 Thermal 505 TEW/IMW 65 46 33 77.5 Thermal 509 TEW/IMW 58 68 10 30.98 Thermal 510 TEW/IMW 37 44 21 26.85 Post 512 TEW/IMW 54 56 37 87.88 Pit 518 TEW/IMW 434 394 -- -- Midden 519 TEW/IMW 96 74 20 111.59 Thermal 534 TEW/IMW 79 50 8 24.82 Pit 563 TEW/IMW 31 27 20 13.15 Post 573 TEW/IMW 16 16 11 2.21 Post 574 TEW/IMW 40 40 12 15.08 Post 575 TEW/IMW 20 20 11 3.46 Post D4 TEW/IMW 30 29 30 20.5 Pit * TEW indicates Terminal Early Woodland; IMW is Incipient Middle Woodland

3.12 Boudinot 4

The Boudinot 4 site (33AT521) is located on a small knoll (ca. 775 m2) in the

Sunday Creek drainage of the Unglaciated Alleghany Plateau portion of the Hocking

River Valley, approximately 217 meters above sea level (Abrams 1989). The site is positioned about 180 meters east of the Sunday Creek and 70 meters south of a seasonal spring which would have provided fresh water, clays, and riverine flora and fauna resources to the site’s prehistoric inhabitants. 82

The site was excavated by Abrams and the Ohio University Archaeological Field

School during the summer of 1986. Twenty 2 meters2 units were dug and the sediment screened through ¼”mesh. Excavation yielded 19 subsurface cultural features, including three postmolds, seven thermal features, six generic pits, and “ash” deposits (Crowell et al. 2005:83-86). Despite the presence of postmolds, no structure outlines could be discerned.

Wymer and Abrams (2003) analyzed 32 sediment samples for macrobotanical remains, of which 27 samples totaling 194 liters of sediment originated from ten features.

The remaining four samples were recovered from non-feature contexts and total an additional 4.5 liters of processed sediment. Additionally, Feature 17 yielded no macrobotanical contents and was excluded from further statistical analysis. Results of these analyses suggested a mixed subsistence strategy for the prehistoric populations at the Boudinot 4 site. High frequencies of nutshells, such as Carya and Juglans sp.

(hickory and walnut), suggest site inhabitants were foraging in local forest environments for these high-oil and protein foods, while the presence of Phalaris caroliniana

(maygrass) outside its natural range suggests that at least low-level farming was being conducted (Wymer and Abrams 2003; Cowan 1978). Similarly, the site yielded

Chenopodium sp., Polygonum sp., and Iva annua (i.e., goosefoot, knotweed, and sumpweed) seeds, all known cultigens in the Eastern Woodlands region; no morphological analyses were conducted on these samples to ascertain whether the producing plants had undergone domestication.

3.13 Summation of Samples

Archaeobotanical materials from seventy-two features from four sites were analyzed in this study; the nature of these analyses is described below in Chapter 4.

Existing data from the Boudinot 4 sites were combined with the results of these features.

Together they produce a temporal sequence spanning from the Late Archaic Period to the

Middle Woodland Period. Five types of features were sampled and analyzed from the four primary sites. These include twenty thermal features, thirty-two postmolds, two middens, seventeen pits, and one ground stone formation. Chapter 5 reports the results from the archaeobotanical analyses of these features with respect to site and feature temporal component. Additionally, architecture and quantitative analysis of features from the sites are considered in Chapter 5 with respect to sedentariness and residential stability. Finally, Chapter 6 considers technological investment in pottery and ground stone tools that were recovered from the sample sites.

Chapter 4: Evaluation of Macrobotanical Samples

A major component of this research project was the recovery and analysis of macrobotanicals from the excavated sites. These remains serve as indirect evidence of human diet and are essential data for understanding prehistoric human subsistence strategies. The primary objectives of this research project included identifying general trends in the prehistoric botanical diet, the role that cultivated plants played in investments in food processing technologies, and the establishment of seasonal occupation at the excavated sites. Macrobotanical samples were analyzed in order to answer the research questions proposed by this study.

Macrobotanical analysis attempts to recover wood, seeds, nutshells, and other botanical remains that are detectable using only a low magnification microscope (<45x).

These remains are typically recovered from prehistoric refuse deposits and occasionally coprolites. Preservation for these remains is variable and largely dependent on site context; for example, rockshelters protect botanicals from natural and environmental elements such as rainwater, decay, and microorganisms, and provide a much greater possibility for preservation than do open-air sites. Exposure typically results in decay of any remains but those which have been carbonized. Sediment composition, pH, and bioturbation further impact preservation of botanical assemblages.

Collection and sampling of macrobotanicals differs depending upon the archaeological context. Three methods are utilized: 1) collection of remains in situ during excavation, 2) dry screening of sediment samples from known archaeological contexts, and 3) flotation of sediment samples with water in a Float-tech or similar device. Of these three methods, only the latter two are successful in recovering remains of all size grades

(Pearsall 2000:77). Sediment samples from open-air sites, particularly those composed of silt and clay sediments such as found in the Ohio Valley, require the use of flotation techniques to recover macrobotanical remains.

In situ collection relies on remarkable preservation at the site which allows for concentrations of charred botanical remains to be identified and sampled during excavation. Although this method provides the advantage of spatially provenienced botanical remains, recovery is biased towards larger remains and spatial unevenness of recovery is typical. Furthermore, recovery by use of this method is typically restricted to large macrobotanicals which are easily seen in the sediment (Pearsall 2000:12), and particular characteristics of the context such as dark sediment can inhibit visibility.

Charred wood and large pieces of nutshell are more likely to be recovered using these methods, whereas seeds and smaller botanical fragments are rarely recovered.

Dry screening methods are less biased than in situ collection techniques and allow for the recovery of macrobotanicals from bulk amounts of excavated sediment in a “more systematic” way than does visual in situ collection (Pearsall 2000:13). This method allows for macrobotanical recovery when fine sieving using flotation methods cannot be carried out because samples are either too waterlogged or heavily desiccated. The

86 primary goal of this method is to separate botanicals from the bulk sediment while minimizing loss or damage (Pearsall 2000:14). The most common mesh sizes used in dry screening are ¼ inch and occasionally ½ inch, but size gradients are dependent on sediment type, moisture content, and density of artifacts in the samples (Wagner

1988:18). After initial dry screening, further fine screening is conducted to recover botanical remains of all sizes by use of US geological fine sieves; this method is often used in combination with flotation in order to aid in sorting of remains.

Water recovery or flotation relies upon differences in the specific gravities of organic (i.e., botanical remains) and inorganic materials (i.e., artifacts and sediment matrices) to separate samples and allow for “recovery of all size classes of botanical material preserved in a sediment sample, making quantitative analysis possible” (Pearsall

2000:15). Multiple water screening techniques can be utilized with each having particular advantages and disadvantages. Manual water flotation employs any number of buckets, cans, or containers in which sediment is exposed to a body of water so that lighter materials are captured in a fine mesh or are skimmed from the water surface, while heavier materials sink to be captured in a coarser sieve that removes the sediment matrix from the sample. This method is not adequate for collecting the smallest seeds and botanicals. It differs from water screening in that the sample is placed on a screen and washed with water; this latter method is typically conducted using nested screens with decreasing mesh sizes down to 1.6 mm (Wagner 1988:19), and generally is too abrasive for the collection of botanical remains.

During the 1960’s and 1970’s, numerous developments were made in both

England and the United States to produce machine flotation devices. These devices primarily function in the same manner in order to submerge a sediment sample (with a measured and documented volume) in water and separate light fraction (i.e., botanicals) from heavy fraction (i.e., artifacts and occasionally heavy botanicals like nutshell and charcoal) and discard sediment particles. These devices are derived from those used in mining industries to remove coal from shale and other mineral materials (Pearsall

2000:27). The device sprays water at the base of a mesh tray were the sample rests; this constant agitation of the water helps to lift charcoal and other botanical materials to the surface where they are led through an overflow spout and captured in a fine mesh sieve.

Heavier materials sink and are captured in a coarser sieve. Despite their similarities,

Wagner (1988:20) notes two critical differences between mechanical and manual flotation systems: 1) the presence of a constant spray of liquid up against the bottom of the screen-bottomed container in the machine system, thus lessening the loss of small but dense artifacts through that screen; and 2) the capture of the light fraction as a result of the overflow of liquid from the surface of the machine, as opposed to capture by scooping.

After flotation all samples are air dried and sieved through graded screens, typically at the 2mm, 1mm, and .5mm levels; this segregation of sediments aids in the sorting and identification of archaeobotanical materials (Hunter and Gassner 1998:149).

Experimental flotation using these methods, particularly the Flote-Tech machine, demonstrated varying rates of recovery for large to medium sized seeds (greater than .5

88 mm) with poor recovery rates of small seeds (less than or equal to .5 mm); furthermore, no cross-contamination of samples was documented with the Flote-Tech although extremely low levels of contamination were recorded with other manual and machine assisted methods and techniques (Hunter and Gassner 1998: 149). Other experimental tests of the Flote-Tech have revealed similar results but with less consistency in recovery, with poppy seed counts varying from 65-95 out of 100 (Rossen 1999:371).

4.1 Macrobotanical Analysis

Macrobotanical remains provide indirect evidence of what plant foods were being consumed as well as noneconomic plants that were present at the site or transported to it.

Once macroremains are extracted from sediment using the methods described above, they can be taxonomically identified utilizing manuals and comparative collections. Wood charcoal and nutshell collected from sieve mesh >2mm, along with squash rind and other unusual items are typically counted and weighed. Seeds, seed fragments, and botanicals underrepresented from the >2mm level (e.g., shattered acorn, chestnut, and hazelnut shells) are identified and counted from all size grades. Seed and nutshell specimens are generally identified to the genus or species level when possible, although specific level identifications can typically only be made when one species of a particular specimen genus is native to the region or all other species are able to be ruled out based on morphological features (Pearsall 2000). When applicable, species are examined for morphological markers of domestication (see Smith 1992 for a list of such markers and associated domestication “thresholds” for Eastern North America).

Interpretation of macroremains requires a number of variables including context of the samples (e.g., feature types such as thermal, domestic structure, midden, etc.) and site types (e.g., habitations, resource acquisition sites, mortuary sites, etc.). Results of analysis can be presented both qualitatively and quantitatively. Qualitative analysis is usually conducted with respect to the presence of particular taxa in comparison to other botanicals at the site to determine the season of site occupation, ecological habitat, and nutritional data of plants considered to be foods (Pearsall 2000: 192). Quantitative results usually include tabulation of presence and abundance, ubiquity of species, density ratios per volume of sediment, and changes in frequency over time. Domesticated seed remains are noted when identified.

4.2 Methods Used

A Flote-tech Model A machine housed at the Department of Anthropology at The

Ohio State University was used to process over 700 liters of sediment from four open-air prehistoric sites (i.e., County Home, Taber Well and Patton 1) in the Hocking Valley. All samples were water floated using standard techniques (Pearsall 2000; Yarnell 1974).

The light fraction mesh used in flotation collection is approximately 250 microns, which is small enough to collect even the smallest seeds and most seed fragments. The heavy fraction samples were screened through .5 mm mesh to recover small artifacts such as lithic debris, faunal bone fragments, and pottery fragments. Wood charcoal and nutshell are not uncommon in heavy fraction collections, and when encountered these ecofacts were counted, weighed and summed with the light fraction botanicals. Lastly, a

90 set of USGS geological sieves ranging from 4.00 to <.05mm, were used to separate samples by particle size, which allowed for more efficient sorting and identification of macrobotanicals.

All botanical materials were identified using a Leica stereo zoom dissecting microscope with magnification ranges of 7 to 35X. Wood charcoal and nutshell >2mm, squash rind, and other unusual items were counted and weighed using an OHAUS digital scale, accurate to 0.001g. Seeds, seed fragments, and botanicals underrepresented from the >2mm level (e.g., shattered acorn, chestnut, and hazelnut shells) were identified and counted from all size grades. Taxa were identified using the aid of various manuals

(Martin and Berkley 2000; Hoadley 1990) and the comparative collection housed at The

Ohio State University Paleoethnobotany Laboratory.

Every attempt was made to identify seed and nutshell specimens to the genus or species level, although specific level identifications could only be made when one species of a particular genus is native to the region, or all other species could be ruled out based on morphological features (Pearsall 2000). When applicable, species were examined for morphological markers of domestication (see Smith 1992:42 for a list of such markers and associated domestication “thresholds”). All data collected were recorded on standardized forms and entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet database. Subsequent analyses were used to infer what plants were being harvested, determine which plants were being cultivated and domesticated versus those gathered from wild stands, and surmise the degree of occupation at a particular site (e.g., spring only, ephemeral use,

91 sedentary long-term occupation, etc.). Statistical analysis on the archaeobotanical assemblages were conducted using XLSTATS.

4.4Archaeobotanical Analysis

A total of 703 liters of sediment from four sites dating to the Late Archaic through

Middle Woodland Periods were analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. The sampling strategy was to analyze 200 liters of sediment from each of the four sites considered by this research project; however, only 103 liters were available for analysis from the Taber

Well site. These samples include sediment from 21 features excavated at the County

Home site, 21 features from Taber Well2, 10 from Patton 1 (due to over 100 liters sampled from a large Middle Woodland midden, Feature 60), and 20 features from Patton

3. Analyzed remains recovered from these samples included wood charcoal, nutshell, seeds, squash rinds, fruit stems, and other botanical fragments. Sample analysis results were aggregated by feature and by associated temporal period. Sample size amount was not standardized (e.g., 10 L of sediment from each sample context) because a number of samples had previously been floated before the project guidelines were determined; as a result, quantitative analysis as detailed below was conducted on the basis of feature with variable quantities of sediment sampled from each context. To overcome some of the limitations of sampling, numerous statistical analyses were conducted to provide greater dimension to the analysis results. Archaeobotanical materials were aggregated at the site

2 Features 13 and 14 were bagged together during field sampling, producing only twenty distinct feature contexts for testing. 92 level as well as by temporal period in order to document different sites uses, seasons of occupation and changes over time.

The 703 liters of sediment yielded a total of 563.6 grams of charred wood, 3786 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 46.068 grams, 1331 seeds, and 312 seed fragments.

Totals of each botanical class are reported in Table 9; this figure also reports the number of samples analyzed from each site. Additionally, cucurbit rind, fruit stems, and other botanical “ecofacts” were recovered from the analyzed sediment samples and are reported as a total summation in Table 9 under “Total Other Botanicals Recovered.”

Table 8: Macrobotanical sample data from the four primary sites. Total Number Number Total Total Total Total Other of of Sediment Charcoal Nutshell Seeds Site Botanicals Features Samples Analyzed recovered recovered recovered* recovered Analyzed Analyzed (L) (g) (N/g) (N) (N) Patton 1 10 32 200 340.428 687/11.609 181 134 Taber Well 21 33 103 107.745 314/3.654 142 4 County Home 21 27 200 43.786 2574/29.127 615 35 Patton 3 20 35 200 71.641 211/1.678 393 17 Total 72 127 703 563.6 3786/46.068 1331 190 *Total seeds recovered does not include seed fragments.

Results and statistical analysis are described below by site. Seeds were aggregated into sub-classes to aid in comparison and to demonstrate changes in food production versus foraging. Table 10 indicates seed sub-classes used in analysis; the common and scientific names are provided for each species or genus. The categories “Known cultigens” or “cultigens” in Table 10 refer to those genus/species which have been documented as having been cultivated or domesticated by prehistoric humans throughout 93 the Eastern Woodlands region. “Possible Managed Plants” includes plants of a genus or species that have been described in the literature as having been managed or possibly managed as part of a broader human-environmental interaction; the evidence for the domestication or cultivation of these plants is not as clear as it is for the former sub-class of seed plants, but does deserve consideration and thus delineation. Among the plants included in this sub-class are fruits such as sumac, raspberry, and hackberry. Grasses and legumes are included here under the guidance of Scarry (2003: 70-72) and Yarnell (1993:

13), who point out the probable management and consumption of these botanical families and associated species.

Table 9: Seeds identified by sub-class and type. Class Subclass Type Scientific Name Type Common Name Seeds Known Cultigens Chenopodium berliandieri Chenopod Polygonum erectum Erect Knotweed Phalaris caroliniana Maygrass Iva annua Sumpweed/Marshelder Hordeum pusillum Little Barley Helianthus annuus Sunflower Nicotiana rustica Tobacco Ambrosia spp. Ragweed Zea mays Maize Possible Managed Galium spp. Bedstraw Rubus spp. Raspberry Rhus spp. Sumac Celtis spp. Hackberry Eleocharis spp. Spikerush Fabacae† Legume Family Poaceae‡ Grass Family Disturbance Dwellers* Scripus spp. Bulrush Euphorbia spp. Spurge Vicia spp. Vetch Brassica spp. Mustard Barbarea spp. Wintercress 94 continued

Table 9 continued Oxalis spp. Wood Sorrel Phytolacca americana Pokeweed Viola spp. Violet Hypericaceae Hypericum Family Asteraceae Aster Family Wild/Foraged Scripus spp. Bulrush Euphorbia spp. Spurge Vicia spp. Vetch Brassica spp. Mustard Barbarea spp. Wintercress Oxalis spp. Wood Sorrel Phytolacca americana Pokeweed Viola spp. Violet Vitris spp. Grape Celastrus scandens American Bittersweet Asiminia triloba Paw paw Viburnum spp. Viburnum Fragaria spp. Strawberry Hypericaceae Hypericum Family Asteraceae Aster Family * Indicates the inclusion of known cultigens and possible managed subclasses. † Fabacae includes lespedeza (Lespedeza spp.). ‡ Poaceae includes fescue (Festuca spp.), stink grass (Eragrostis spp.), and panic grass (Panicum spp.).

Both of the above classes are included in the Disturbance Dwellers sub-class; this class is described as those genera or species that are prone to growing in disturbed soils.

This group is delineated because their presence may indicate regular tending or disturbance of a landscape as might occur under a farming subsistence system. As the results below indicate, the vast majority of species recovered and identified from the study’s sample belong in this sub-class of plants. The reasons for this are probably two- fold: 1) These species were being used in a way that increased their probability of being charred and thus preserved (i.e., dietary use); and 2) there was regular disturbance of terrace habitats to encourage the growth and proliferation of these plant species.

Disturbance of terrace environments and the plants associated with them are dealt with in more detail in the chapter discussion below.

Finally, the categories “Foraged or Wild Plants” in Table 10 refer to those plants which were most likely never managed or cultivated. Their presence at a site might indicate that they were gathered from wild stands of plants for consumption or other purposes (e.g., the production of dyes, medicinal use, construction or craft use, etc.); however, their preservation and recovery may be incidental and not a result of prehistoric human use of the plant. Additional description of these botanical sub-classes is provided below in the discussion.

Using the abovementioned sub-classes, Table 11 provides analysis results of seeds from all sites sampled, aggregated by temporal period. As mentioned before, temporal associations were delineated using available radiometric dates in combination with site stratigraphic data and relative dating of diagnostic artifacts. These quantitative results include counts, percentages of each class by the total identifiable seeds, ubiquity, and density. All results were calculated by the total identifiable seeds or in the case of density measures, by the total sediment sampled for the associated temporal period.

Counts represent the raw number of total seeds recovered for the particular period as aggregated by the aforementioned classes. Percentage totals for each sub-class were calculated by dividing the raw count by the total number of identifiable seeds for the associated temporal period. Ubiquity refers to the widespread presence of a particular type of seed across the site and was calculated by dividing the number of features in which the seed type occurs by the total number of features sampled; for example, if a

96 particular type of seed was recovered from every feature sampled, it would be said to have a ubiquity of 100%. Finally, density was calculated by dividing the number of seeds recovered for a particular sub-class by the amount of sediment (i.e., in liters) analyzed; the quotient was then multiplied by 100 to produce a measure of density per 100 L of sediment.

Nutshell fragments were quantified using similar methods for calculation as used for seeds. See Table 12 below for results of nutshell analysis by count and Table 13 for results by weight. Weights of nutshell were also used to produce descriptive statistics of percentage by weight of total identifiable nutshell and density per 100L of sediment analyzed. Typically, nutshell fragment weights are more readily used in archaeobotanical interpretation than are counts (Pearsall 2000), largely because breaking of a single nut in order to access the nutmeat during processing would have produced tens, if not hundreds, of nutshell fragments.

Most of the comparisons of nutshell below were conducted using nutshell count; the reason for this break from convention was due to the particularly large quantities of acorn recovered from the Patton 3 site as compared to the heavier weights of hickory fragments. In order to prevent bias towards nutshell fragments from the hickory/walnut family and effectively demonstrate the importance of acorn during particular temporal periods included in the study sample, counts of nutshells were emphasized over weights in the subsequent statistical comparisons.

Table 10: Results of seed analysis for all sites by temporal association. Terminal Early Medial Terminal Late Early Woodland/ Incipient Middle Middle Archaic Woodland

Seed Class Middle Woodland Woodland Woodland

Total Identifiable 218 12 348 317 375 Seeds Known 143 7 312 159 159

Cultigens

Possible 45 4 22 28 210

Managed Counts Disturbance 190 11 347 239 375 Dwellers Foraged/Wild 8 0 13 60 7 Unknown 18 1 45 62 16 Fragments 79 3 60 137 34 Known 65.6% 58.3% 89.7% 50.2% 42.4% Cultigens Possible 20.6% 33.3% 6.3% 8.8% 56% Managed Disturbance 87.2% 91.7% 99.7% 75.4% 100% Dwellers

% Identifiable % Seeds Foraged/Wild 3.7% 0 % 3.7% 18.9% 1.9% Total Identifiable 88.9% 100% 95% 70.4% 100% Seeds Known 88.9% 100% 80% 70.4% 92.3%

Cultigens Possible 55.6% 50% 35% 40.7% 53.8% Managed

Ubiquity Disturbance 88.9% 100% 85% 66.7% 100% Dwellers Foraged/Wild 55.6% 0% 20% 33.3% 46.2% Unknown 88.9% 50% 80% 44.4% 38.5% Fragments 66.7% 50% 55% 51.6% 46.5% Total Identifiable 196.40 100.00 174.00 118.10 336.30 Seeds Known 128.80 58.30 156.00 59.20 142.60

Cultigens

Possible 40.50 33.30 11.00 10.40 188.30

Managed Density Disturbance 171.20 91.70 173.50 89.00 334.50 Dwellers Foraged/Wild 7.20 0.00 6.50 22.30 6.30 Unknown 16.20 8.30 22.50 23.10 14.30 Fragments 71.20 25.00 30.00 51.00 30.50

Table 11: Results of nutshell analysis by temporal association. All quantities were calculated using count of nutshell fragments. Terminal Early Medial Terminal Late Early Woodland/ Middle Middle Archaic Woodland Incipient Woodland Woodland Middle Nutshell Class Woodland Total Nutshell 2540 15 211 925 95 Hickory 1633 12 59 441 51

Walnut 131 3 1 143 34

Acorn 32 0 141 28 0 25 0 0 1 0 Count Chestnut Hazelnut 0 0 0 5 0 Walnut/Hickory 719 0 10 307 10 Family Total Nutshell 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Hickory 64.3% 80% 27.9% 47.7% 53.7% Walnut 5.2% 20% 0.5% 15.5% 35.8% Acorn 1.3% 0% 66.8% 3.0% 0% Chestnut 0.9% 0% 0% 0.3% 0% Hazelnut 0% 0% 0% 0.5% 0% Walnut/Hickory 28.3% 0% 4.7% 33.2% 10.5% Percentage of identified Family Total Nutshell 100% 100% 65% 81.5% 69.2% Hickory 88.9% 50% 40% 59.3% 38.5%

Walnut 77.8% 50% 5% 37% 38.5% Acorn 22.2% 0% 50% 33.3% 0% Chestnut 11.1% 0% 0% 3.7% 0% Ubiquity Hazelnut 0% 0% 0% 3.7% 0% Walnut/Hickory 22.2% 0% 15% 25.9% 7.7% Family Total Nutshell 2288.3 125 105.5 344.5 85.2 Hickory 1471.1 100 29.5 164.2 45.7 Walnut 118 25 0.5 53.3 30.5 Acorn 28.8 0 70.5 10.4 0 Chestnut 22.5 0 0 0.4 0 Hazelnut 0 0 0 1.9 0 Density by Count Walnut/Hickory 647.7 0 5 114.3 9 Family

Aside from general statistics as described in Tables 10 through 13, macrobotanicals were compared across classes to demonstrate possible changes in dietary 99 composition. In most cases, these comparisons were conducted as proportion ratios rather than standard ratios, particularly when two distinct botanical classes or subclasses were compared. Standard ratios are calculated by directly comparing the raw count of one class by the raw count of another class; for example, the total count of seeds for a particular temporal context would be divided by the total count of nutshell fragments for the same temporal period. Proportion ratios are calculated by including the numerator of the compared values in the denominator quantity; for example, cultigens seeds were compared by the total count of all seeds or the total count of all seeds plus the count for nutshell fragments. This method of statistical comparison prevented instances where a null value might occur in the denominator place such as if seeds were compared directly to nutshell fragments.

100

Table 12: Results of nutshell analysis by temporal associations. All quantities were calculated using nutshell fragment weights as measured in grams. Terminal Early Medial Terminal Late Early Woodland/ Middle Middle Archaic Woodland Incipient Woodland Woodland Middle Nutshell Class Woodland Total Nutshell 28.612 0.138 1.678 14.662 0.974 Hickory 18.544 0.061 0.795 6.957 0.358 Walnut 5.553 0.077 0.016 1.304 0.515 Acorn 0.125 0 0.804 0.092 0 Chestnut 0.201 0 0 0.007 0

Weight(g) Hazelnut 0 0 0 0.076 0 Walnut/Hickory 4.189 0 0.063 3.96 0.101

Family

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Total Nutshell Hickory 65% 44% 47% 47% 37% Walnut 19% 56% 1% 9% 53% Acorn <1% 0% 48% 1% 0% Chestnut 1% 0% 0% <1% 0% Hazelnut 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Walnut/Hickory

Percentage by(g) Weight 15% 0% 4% 27% 10% Family 100% 100% 65% 82% 69% Total Nutshell

Hickory 89% 50% 40% 59% 39%

Walnut 78% 50% 5% 37% 39% Acorn 22% 0% 50% 33% 0%

Ubiquity Chestnut 11% 0% 0% 4% 0% Hazelnut 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% Walnut/Hickory 22% 0% 15% 26% 8%

Family

) 25.78 1.15 0.839 5.461 0.874 Total Nutshell Hickory 16.71 0.508 0.398 2.591 0.321 Walnut 5 0.642 0.008 0.486 0.462 Acorn 0.113 0 0.402 0.034 0 Chestnut 0.181 0 0 0.003 0 Hazelnut 0 0 0 0.028 0

Density by Weight(g Walnut/Hickory 3.774 0 0 1.475 0.091 Family

101

4.4 Patton 1 Site

A total of 200 liters from ten prehistoric features were analyzed for archaeobotanical materials from the Patton 1 site. The majority of archaeobotanicals were recovered from Feature 60, a large Middle Woodland refuse pit. Since few features of this type and temporal association have been recovered from Ohio, and no others have yet been excavated in the Hocking Valley, attention was given to sampling this feature.

Additionally, all but one of the features sampled was temporally associated with the

Middle Woodland Period. As a result, few cross-temporal comparisons could be made at the site level. Table 14 provides the quantitative data of the botanicals recovered at the

Patton 1 site with delineation by temporal association.

Table 13: Patton 1 macrobotanicals recovered by temporal period.

Total Number Number Total Total Total Total Other Temporal of of Sediment Charcoal Nutshell Seeds Botanicals Association Features Samples Analyzed recovered recovered recovered* recovered Analyzed Analyzed (L) (g) (N/g) (N) (N)

Late Archaic 1 4 23 205.738 60/.518 1 13 Middle 9 28 177 134.69 627/11.087 180 121 Woodland *Total seeds recovered does not include seed fragments.

Patton 1 Seed Assemblage

A total of 181 seeds and 81 seed fragments were recovered from 200 liters of sediment excavated from 10 features at the Patton 1 site. Of these, 138 could be identified to the genus level representing twenty different genera, 43 could not be identified, and 81 were only fragments of seeds; a complete listing of seeds recovered by feature can be

102 found in Appendix B. Of those seeds which could be identified, 137 were associated with the site’s Middle Woodland component, and 1 with the Late Archaic Period. The density of seeds was calculated by dividing the total identifiable seed count for a particular temporal component by the amount of sediment analyzed for that temporal period; the density of seeds for the Middle Woodland Period measured .774 seeds per liter of sediment, while Late Archaic densities measured .043 seeds per liter of sediment.

Pokeweed represented 28% of the total seeds identified to genus level. These seeds were most likely brought into features by rodents, although it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the berries of these plants were being utilized to dye textiles or create paints and stains. The ubiquity of pokeweed seeds at the site level was low to moderate, measuring 30% with the majority of these seeds (i.e., 85%) recovered from

Feature 42, a thermal feature.

Approximately 24% of the seeds that could be identified to at least the genus level were chenopods (i.e., berlandieri based on the presence of reticulated seed coats). The ubiquity for these seeds was somewhat higher than the former species, measuring 50% for all features analyzed from the site. Almost 46% of these seeds were recovered from the midden pit, Feature 60. Although no testa measures of these seeds were taken to confirm domestication, the density of these seeds as well as the seed morphology indicate the plants were, in all likelihood, being cultivated as a dietary stable.

103

Table 14: Summary of Patton 1 Middle Woodland Seed Analysis Results. Note that all quantitative measures are based on the nine features associated with the Middle Woodland Period. % of Total Total Density/100 Seed Classes Ubiquity Count Identified L Sediment Seeds Cultigens 64 47% 67% 36.2 Chenopods 33 24% 56% 18.6 Maygrass 14 10% 11% 7.9 Knotweed 7 5% 11% 4 Sumpweed 1 1% 11% 0.6 Little Barley 1 1% 11% 0.6 Ragweed 1 1% 11% 0.6 Tobacco 7 5% 22% 4 Possible Managed 18 13% 44% 10 Bedstraw 12 9% 22% 6.8 Raspberry 1 1% 11% 0.6 Sumac 3 2% 22% 1.7 Panic Grass 2 1% 11% 1.1 Disturbance Dwellers* 131 96% 67% 74 Wood Sorrel 3 2% 11% 1.7 Wintercress 1 1% 11% 0.6 Spurge 1 1% 11% 0.6 Vetch 2 1% 11% 1.1 Pokeweed 39 28% 33% 22 Bulrush 1 1% 11% 0.6 Lespedeza 2 1% 11% 1.1 Foraged/Wild 55 40% 67% 31 Pawpaw 2 1% 11% 1.1 Violet 4 3% 22% 2.3 Total Identified Seeds 137 100% 67% 77.4

Following chenopods, maygrass made up 10% of the identifiable seed assemblage, followed by bedstraw (Galium spp.) which made up 9% of the assemblage.

The natural modern range of the former species does not include southeastern Ohio

(Cowan 1978), thus its presence at the site indicates it was being cultivated. Although 104 archaeological evidence for cultivation of bedstraw is sparse, Fritz (1989:79) argues that these seeds were being processed to produce either a food or drink. This hypothesis is supported by the Patton 1 assemblage where its quantity is comparable to maygrass, a known cultigen.

Of the identifiable macrobotanical remains from Patton 1, over 60% of the seeds represent either known cultigens or managed plants. Approximately 47% belong to genera that were known to have been cultivated. The remaining species or genera have been readily documented in anthropogenic environments, with 96% of the Middle

Woodland seed assemblage belonging to the “disturbance dwellers” class. Together these data suggest that the inhabitants of the Patton 1 site were at the least regularly disturbing and maintaining the landscape, and likely farming. The eastern slope of High Terrace 1 provided evidence of thin layers of ash and charcoal indicative of episodic burning, perhaps over many years; together these data contribute to a growing body of archaeobotanical data indicative of farming at the site (Weaver 2009). These data and inferences are further discussed below.

In contrast, wild or foraged seeds made up 40% of the Middle Woodland identifiable seed assemblage at the Patton 1 site. This percentage was substantially higher than any other Middle Woodland context analyzed as part of this study. Given that the site consisted of three consecutive episodes of house construction with evidence of structure burning between each (see Weaver et al. 2011), the preservation of these seeds via charring was likely accidental rather than intentional . Thus, changes in the percentage of seed sub-classes for this particular site, and subsequently the Medial

105

Middle Woodland assemblage, should not be accepted as a change in diet or subsistence strategy, but more likely represent differences resulting from site formation processes; this point is considered in more detail below under the temporal aggregation of archaeobotanicals for the Medial Middle Woodland assemblage.

Patton 1 Nutshell Assemblage

The Patton 1 nutshell assemblage consisted of 687 fragments weighing 11.609 grams. This equates to 3.435 pieces of nutshell per liter of sediment analyzed or .0580 grams of nutshell per sediment liter. See Table 16 for nutshell descriptive statistics from the Late Archaic component from the Patton 1 site and Table 17 for those from the

Middle Woodland component.

Table 15: Summary of Patton 1 Late Archaic Nutshell Analysis Results. Note that all quantitative measures are based on the single feature associated with the Late Archaic Period. Percent of Percent of Total Total Density by Density by Identified Identified Ubiquity Count Weight Count/100L Weight/100L by Count by Weight Hickory 28 0.401 47% 77% 100% 121.7 1.74 Acorn 29 0.114 48% 22% 100% 126.1 0.49 Walnut/Hickory 3 0.003 5% 1% 100% 13 0.01 Family Total 60 0.518 100% 100% 100% 260.8 2.25

106

Table 16: Summary of Patton 1 Middle Woodland Nutshell Analysis Results. Note that all quantitative measures are based on the nine features associated with the Middle Woodland Period. Percent of Percent of Total Total Density by Density by Identified Identified Ubiquity Count Weight Count/100L Weight/100L by Count by Weight Hickory 325 5.693 52% 51% 33% 183.6 3.22 Walnut 120 3.227 19% 29% 22% 67.8 1.82 Acorn 14 0.066 2.00% 0.60% 33% 7.9 0.04 Hazelnut 5 0.076 0.80% 0.70% 11% 2.8 0.04 Chestnut 1 0.007 0.20% 0.10% 11% 0.6 0.004 Walnut/Hickory 162 2.022 26% 18% 33% 91.5 1.14 Family Total 627 11.089 100% 100% 55% 354.2 6.26

Hickory was the predominant nutshell genus recovered from the site making up over 51% of the total site assemblage by count and approximately 53% by weight. The ubiquity of hickory at the site measured 40% for the total site, 100% for the Late Archaic

Period, and 33% for the Middle Woodland component. The density of hickory by count measured 1.765 per liter of sediment analyzed and .03 grams per sediment liter for the entire site.

Specimens which could only be identified to the hickory/walnut family due to their poor state of preservation were the next most recovered nutshell at the site, although only by count; these specimens totaled 24% of the assemblage by count and over 18% by weight at the site level. The ubiquity of these specimens at the site was comparable to that of the hickory genus, measuring 40% for the total site, 1% for the Late Archaic

Period and 33% for the Middle Woodland component. The density of specimens identified to the hickory/walnut family equaled .825 by count and .01 by weight per liter of sediment excavated at the site.

107

Walnut was the third most recovered nutshell from the Patton 1 sediment samples, though second by weight. Although the majority of these specimens (N=62) could not be identified beyond the genus level, 23 nutshell fragments were able to be identified as white walnut (Juglans cinera) and 35 as black walnut (Juglans nigra). Altogether, 120 fragments weighing 3.227 grams were identified as belonging to the Juglans genus. By count, the walnut genus only makes up 17.5% of the total nutshell assemblage; by weight however, the assemblage makes up approximately 27.8%. The ubiquity of these specimens was rather low, measuring near 20% for both the site and the Middle

Woodland Period.

Forty-three fragments of acorn were recovered from the site, weighing 0.18 grams. The majority of these samples were recovered from the Late Archaic component, from which they made up the majority of the nutshell by count from this context.

Similarly, the ubiquity of this genus was 100% for the Late Archaic period and 33% for the Middle Woodland period. Ubiquity for the site was 40%. The density of these fragments measured .215 fragments by count and .0009 grams per liter of total sediment analyzed. For the Late Archaic Period, acorn densities were much higher measuring 1.26 by count and .005 grams by weight per liter of sediment analyzed.

Finally both chestnut and hazelnut fragments were recovered from the site but were restricted to the Middle Woodland context. Chestnut represented less than .5% of the assemblage by count and by weight. Hazelnut made up .7% of the assemblage by count and .65% by weight. Despite their minute presence at the site, the fragile nature of

108 these nut species suggests they may be underrepresented with respect to their importance in Middle Woodland diet.

Patton 1 domesticates

Seeds from the Middle Woodland component of the Patton 1 site provided clear evidence of cultivation (See Table 18). Feature 60 contained maygrass seeds (Phalaris caroliniana); the occurrence of this species outside its natural range suggests human intervention in its lifecycle (Cowan 1978; Rindos 1985; Wymer and Abrams 2003).

Seven seeds of tobacco (Nicotiana spp.) were recovered from Features 4 and 60; following Wagner (1991), these specimens were not identified to a species level but most likely represent Nicotiana rustica. The presence of this species during the Middle

Woodland Period at Patton 1 is consistent with other Middle Woodland tobacco specimens recovered from Smiling Dan (Asch and Asch 1985), Burkemper 2, Meridian

Hills, and Naples-Abbott (Wagner 1991). Due to the addictive properties of nicotine, this plant was probably regularly cultivated once it was established in the region. Recent chemical analyses have indicated its use as far north as New England as early as the Early

Woodland (Rafferty 2006). One sumpweed (Iva annua) achene was recovered from

Feature 60, but the specimen was too fragmented for measurements.

Additionally, seven specimens of erect knotweed (Polygonum erectum) were recovered from Feature 60 and likely represent cultivated plants. This assessment was based on the density of these seeds as compared to other cultigens from the Patton 1 site.

The domestication status of erect knotweed is still unconfirmed; however, a shift from

109 striate-papillose to smooth pericarp morphs has been noted in assemblages from throughout the Eastern Woodlands region (Asch and Asch 1985). Similarly, a single seed of little barley (Hordeum pusillum) is included as evidence of cultivation at the Patton 1 site; although this species does not possess clear evidence of morphological characteristics that are directly indicative of domestication, some archaeobotanists have argued for this status (See Fritz 1989 for further discussion). Finally, chenopods were ubiquitous at the Patton 1 site; although no measurements of chenopod testa thicknesses were taken as part of this project, the presence of reticulated seed coats consistent with the archaeologically domesticated species Chenopodium berliandieri spp. jonesianum

(Smith 1985, 1984) indicates these remains represent domesticates.

Table 17: Patton 1 domesticates Feature Species Count Associated Date * 4 Nicotiana spp. 2 45 BCE to 136 CE 20 Chenopodium berliandieri† 5 Middle Woodland 32 Chenopodium berliandieri† 6 75 to 313 CE 42 Chenopodium berliandieri† 2 Middle Woodland 49 Chenopodium berliandieri† 5 Middle Woodland 60 Chenopodium berliandieri† 15 Middle Woodland 60 Phalaris caroliniana 14 Middle Woodland 60 Polygonum erectum 7 Middle Woodland 60 Iva annua 1 Middle Woodland 60 Hordeum pusilleum 1 Middle Woodland 60 Nicotiana spp.(likely) 5 Middle Woodland *Features without a direct radiometric association were aggregated according to associated temporal period based on stratigraphy and relative chronology, unless a date from another feature at the site could be reasonably assumed to be relevant. †Although no measures were taken on Chenopodium berliandieri testa, these specimens were included in the "domesticates" table due to their likely status as cultigens.

110

4.5 Taber Well Archaeobotanical Analyses

A total of 103 liters from 21 prehistoric features were analyzed for archaeobotanical materials from the Taber Well site. Samples from Features 13 and 14 had been combined during excavation of the site due to their proximity, resulting in only twenty distinct sample contexts. The assemblage was predominantly associated with the

Middle Woodland, with only two features and few archaeobotanicals associated with earlier periods. See Table 19 for a complete listing of archaeobotanical classes recovered.

Table 18: Taber Well macrobotanicals recovered by temporal period.

Late 1 1 4 2.069 5/.037 3 0 Archaic Early 1 1 7.5 15.765 11/.042 2 0 Woodland

Medial Middle 18 32 91.5 89.911 298/3.575 137 2 Woodland *Total seeds recovered does not include seed fragments.

Taber Well Seed Assemblage

A total of 142 seeds and 67 seed fragments were recovered sediment from the 21 features at the Taber Well site. Of these, 114 seeds could be identified to the genus level representing 11 different genera, 2 could only be identified to their botanical family, and

26 seeds were unidentifiable (Table 20). Of the seeds that could be identified to at least

111 the familial level, 113 were associated with the site’s Middle Woodland component, 1 with the Early Woodland, and 2 with the Late Archaic. The Middle Woodland Period similarly yielded the most diverse assemblage with eleven genera represented; only one genus was represented by the Early Woodland assemblage, and two by the Late Archaic assemblage. Density of seeds per temporal period was considered (omitting fragments); these measures were based on total sediment sampled and analyzed as part of this study.

See Table 20 for seed densities for the Middle Woodland Period using only sediment from this temporal context; similar comparisons were not made for the Late Archaic and

Early Woodland contexts at the Taber Well considering these components were restricted to a single feature for each temporal period. Middle Woodland features yielded 1.55 seeds per liter of sediment, while Early Woodland densities measured 0.267, and Late

Archaic densities measured 0.75.

Approximately 78% of seeds that could be identified to at least the familial level were chenopods; these seeds had a 65% ubiquity measure. Approximately 98% of the chenopods from the site were recovered from features associated with a Middle

Woodland context; 76% of the Middle Woodland seed assemblage identified to the familial level was composed of chenopods. Chenopods made up 50% and 100% of the

Early Woodland and Late Archaic assemblages, respectively; however, these percentages are heavily biased due to the small number of identifiable seeds recovered from these contexts. Although no testa measures of these seeds were taken to confirm domestication, the density of these seeds indicates the plants were, in all likelihood, being cultivated as a

112 dietary stable. Furthermore, the seeds exhibited characteristics typical of the berlandieri, sub-species jonesianum, such as a reticulated seed coat (Smith 2001).

Table 19: Taber Well Middle Woodland Seed Analysis Results. % of Total Total Density/100 Seed Classes Ubiquity Count Identified L Sediment Seeds Cultigens 95 82% 61% 103.8 Chenopods 88 76% 61% 96.2 Maygrass 3 3% 11% 3.3 Knotweed 1 1% 1% 1.1 Ragweed 2 2% 11% 2.2 Tobacco 1 1% 1% 1.1 Possible Managed 10 9% 39% 10.9 Bedstraw 4 3% 22% 4.4 Raspberry 3 3% 11% 3.3 Hackberry 1 1% 1% 1.1 Legumes 2 2% 11% 2.2 Disturbance Dwellers* 108 93% 67% 118 Pokeweed 3 3% 11% 3.3 Foraged/Wild 8 7% 22% 8.7 Strawberry 1 1% 1% 1.1 Violet 4 3% 17% 4.4 Total Identified Seeds 116 100% 67% 126.7 *Includes cultigens and managed plants as well as some foraged/wild plants.

Second to the chenopods recovered from the site, maygrass, bedstraw and violets

(Viola spp.), each comprise approximately 4% of the total seed assemblage. Raspberry and pokeweed each make up approximately 3%, followed by equal quantities of knotweed, tobacco, strawberry, and hackberry. When all seeds that could be identified to at least a familial taxonomic level are considered, over 92% represent species that were 113 most likely either cultivated or at least managed. If the small Late Archaic and Early

Woodland assemblages are excluded, this percentage remains approximately the same; additionally 82% of the Middle Woodland seed assemblage represents genera that were in all likelihood being cultivated. Compared to the number of foraged or wild specimens, which made up only 7% of the Middle Woodland assemblage, the archaeobotanical data from the Taber Well site indicates a heavy reliance on cultivated foods by Medial Middle

Woodland populations.

Taber Well Nutshell Assemblage

The Taber Well nut assemblage contained 314 nutshell fragments including specimens from the hickory, walnut and acorn genera. The total density of nutshell equaled approximately 3 fragments per liter of sediment analyzed. The Taber Well nutshell assemblage was heavily fragmented and most specimens lacked morphological characteristics to distinguish their genus. As a result, approximately 46% of the assemblage by count or 145 nutshell fragments could only be identified as belonging to the hickory/walnut family.

Of those specimens that could be identified to a genus level, hickory was the most dominant material, numbering 127 pieces or approximately 40% of the assemblage by count. Specimens identified to the walnut genus totaled 28 fragments or 9% of the total assemblage by count. Acorns were the least represented by the assemblage; only 14 acorn fragments were recovered, equaling only 5% of the assemblage. The nutshell assemblage from the Middle Woodland component was the largest and most diverse at the site. All

114 four nutshell subclasses were recovered from features associated with this temporal period. These data are summarized in Table 21, below.

Table 20: Summary of Taber Well Nutshell Analysis Results. Note that all quantitative measures are based on eighteen features associated with the Middle Woodland Period. Percent of Percent of Total Total Density by Density by Identified Identified Ubiquity Count Weight Count/100L Weight/100L by Count by Weight Hickory 116 1.204 39% 34% 72% 126.8 1.32 Walnut 23 0.347 8% 10% 39% 25.1 0.38 Acorn 14 0.026 5% 0.7% 33% 15.3 0.03 Walnut/Hickory 145 1.938 49% 54% 22% 158.5 2.12 Family Total 298 3.575 100% 100% 89% 325.7 3.91

Since only two features were associated either by radiometric dating or stratigraphy with a period other than the Middle Woodland, no comparison of nutshell density by temporal association was conducted within the site. However, nutshell statistics for the Late Archaic Period are provided in Table 22, while statistics for the

Early Woodland Period are available in Table 23. Altogether, these two temporal periods contributed only 16 pieces of nutshell fragment, belonging to the hickory and walnut genera.

Table 21: Summary of Taber Well Late Archaic Nutshell Analysis Results. Note that all quantitative measures are based on the single feature associated with the Late Archaic Period. Percent of Percent of Total Total Density by Density by Identified by Identified by Ubiquity Count Weight Count/100L Weight/100L Count Weight Walnut 5 0.037 100% 100% 100% 125 0.925 Total 5 0.037 100% 100% 100% 125 0.925

115

Table 22: Summary of Taber Well Early Woodland Nutshell Analysis Results. Note that all quantitative measures are based on the single feature associated with the Early Woodland Period. Percent of Percent of Total Total Density by Density by Identified by Identified by Ubiquity Count Weight Count/100L Weight/100L Count Weight Hickory 11 0.042 100% 100% 100% 146.67 0.56 Total 11 0.042 100% 100% 100% 146.67 0.56

Taber Well Domesticates

Seeds from the Taber Well site provided clear evidence of cultivation. Features 4,

17, and 21 all contained maygrass seeds (Phalaris caroliniana); the occurrence of this species outside of its natural range suggests genotypic changes resulting from human intervention in its lifecycle (Cowan 1978; Rindos 1985; Wymer and Abrams 2003).

Although its recovery from Features 4 and 21 is not unprecedented given the Middle

Woodland association of these features, a single seed from Feature 17 which is temporally associated with the Late Archaic Period indicates that cultivation was occurring at an earlier period than presently documented in the state of Ohio (Purtill

2009). Its occurrence during this earlier temporal period, however, is not unexpected for the Eastern Woodlands region (Chapman and Shea 1981; Asch and Asch 1985).

A single seed of tobacco (Nicotiana spp.) was recovered from Feature 16; following Wagner (1991), this specimen was not identified to species level but most likely represents Nicotiana rustica. The presence of this species during the Middle

Woodland Period at Taber Well is consistent with other Middle Woodland tobacco specimens recovered from Smiling Dan (Asch and Asch 1985), Burkemper 2, Meridian

116

Hills, Naples-Abbott (Wagner 1991), and the Patton 1 site (see above). Once it was established in the region, tobacco was probably regularly cultivated due to the addictive properties of nicotine. Finally, chenopods were ubiquitous at the Taber Well site; although no measurements of chenopod testa thicknesses were taken as part of this project, the presence of reticulated seed coats consistent with the archaeologically domesticated species Chenopodium berliandieri spp. jonesianum (Smith 1985, 1984) indicates these remains likely represent domesticates.

Table 23: Taber Well domesticates

Feature Species Count Associated Date (RCYBP) *

1 Chenopodium berliandieri† 1 Middle Woodland 2 Chenopodium berliandieri† 1 Middle Woodland 3 Chenopodium berliandieri† 3 Middle Woodland 4 Chenopodium berliandieri† 7 Middle Woodland 4 Phalaris caroliniana 2 Middle Woodland 5 Chenopodium berliandieri† 31 355 to 46 BCE 6 Chenopodium berliandieri† 1 Middle Woodland 7 Chenopodium berliandieri† 20 Middle Woodland 8 Chenopodium berliandieri† 6 Middle Woodland 9 Chenopodium berliandieri† 10 Middle Woodland 11 Chenopodium berliandieri† 1 Middle Woodland 16 Chenopodium berliandieri† 5 Middle Woodland 16 Nicotiana spp. 1 Middle Woodland 17 Phalaris caroliniana 1 Late Archaic 21 Phalaris caroliniana 1 203 BCE to CE 214 21 Polygonum erectum 1 203 BCE to CE 214 *Features without a direct radiometric association were aggregated according to associated temporal period based on stratigraphy and relative chronology, unless a date from another feature at the site could be reasonably assumed to be relevant. †Although no measures were taken on Chenopodium berliandieri testa, these specimens were included in the "domesticates" table due to their likely status as cultigens. 117

Taber Well “Other” Archaeobotanicals

In addition to the archaeobotanicals described above, four fragments of squash rind were recovered from two features at the Taber Well. Features 1 and 20 each yielded

2 fragments of cucurbit rind; the total weight from each feature was less than .001 grams.

A single fish scale was recovered from Feature 16. Although this latter ecofact was not botanical, it does indicate that riverine resources were being exploited by Taber Well inhabitants and made up some component of the prehistoric diet.

5.6 County Home Archaeobotanical Analysis Results

A total of 200 liters from 21 prehistoric features were analyzed for archaeobotanical materials from the County Home site. As the site contained multiple temporal components, analysis results were aggregated based on feature temporal associations as identified by radiometric and seriation sequencing as well as chronological reconstruction based on stratigraphy. Table 25 provides a summary of the botanical classes recovered from the County Home features.

118

Table 24: County Home macrobotanicals recovered by temporal period.

Late 7 12 84 9.341 2475/28.057 214 32 Archaic Early 1 1 4.5 0 4/.096 10 0 Woodland

Terminal Middle 13 14 111.5 34.445 95/.974 391 3 Woodland * Note that total seed count does not include fragments.

County Home Seed Assemblage

A total of 615 seeds and 104 seed fragments were recovered sediment. Of these,

555 seeds could be identified to the genus level representing 18 different genera, 24 could only be identified to one of three botanical families, and 32 seeds were unidentifiable

(Tables 26, 27, and 28). Of the seeds that could be identified to at least the familial level,

374 were associated with the site’s Middle Woodland component, 30 with the Early

Woodland, and 175 with the Late Archaic. The Middle Woodland Period similarly yielded the most diverse assemblage with 14 genera represented; only five genera were represented by the Early Woodland assemblage, and eight by the Late Archaic assemblage. Density of seeds per temporal period was considered (omitting fragments);

Middle Woodland features yielded 3.524 seeds per liter of sediment, while Early

Woodland densities measured 1.22, and Late Archaic densities measured 3.105.

119

Table 25: County Home Late Archaic Seed Analysis Results. Categories are not exclusive as possible managed plants, cultigens, and wild/foraged may also be included in disturbance dwellers. Note total measures were based only on identifiable seeds. % of Total Total Density/100 Seed Classes Ubiquity Count Identified L Sediment Seeds Cultigens 140 71% 86% 166.7 Chenopods 134 68% 86% 159.5 Maygrass 3 1% 29% 3.6 Knotweed 1 2% 14% 1.1 Sumpweed 2 1% 29% 2.4 Possible Managed 50 25% 57% 59.5 Bedstraw 5 3% 29% 5.9 Stinkgrass 3 2% 14% 3.6 Sumac 29 15% 29% 34.5 Festcue 2 1% 14% 2.4 Legume Family 5 3% 14% 5.9 Grass Family 6 3% 29% 7.1 Disturbance Dwellers 191 97% 86% 227.3 Bulrush 1 1% 14% 1.1 Hypericum 1 1% 14% 1.1 Foraged/Wild 7 4% 71% 8.3 Grape 2 1% 14% 2.4 Viburnum 1 1% 14% 1.1 Bittersweet 1 1% 14% 1.1 Violet 1 1% 14% 1.1 Total Identified Seeds 197 100% 86% 234.5

Approximately 48% of seeds that could be identified to at least the familial level were chenopods; these seeds had a 90% ubiquity measure. Approximately 50% of the chenopods from the site were recovered from features associated with a Middle

Woodland context; however, only 37% of the Middle Woodland seed assemblage identified to the familial level was composed of chenopods. Chenopods made up 57% and 70% of the Early Woodland and Late Archaic assemblages, respectively. Although 120 no testa measures of these seeds were taken to confirm domestication, the density of these seeds indicates the plants were being cultivated as a dietary stable.

Table 26: County Home Early Woodland Seed Analysis Results. % of Total Total Density/100 Seed Classes Ubiquity Count Identified L Sediment Seeds Cultigens 6 60% 100% 60 Chenopods 6 60% 100% 60 Possible Managed 4 40% 100% 40 Stinkgrass 3 30% 100% 30 Grass Family 1 10% 100% 10 Disturbance Dwellers* 10 100% 100% 100 Foraged/Wild 0 0% 0% 0 Total Identified Seeds 10 100% 100% 100 * Disturbance Dwellers includes cultigens and Possible Managed Plants.

The second most recovered seed from the County Home site was sumac (Rhus spp.). A total of 217 seeds of this genus were identified from the site, although its ubiquity of 0.19 is- quite low. Approximately 87% of all sumac seeds were recovered from two Middle Woodland Period features (i.e., Features 29 and 37), with 84% of the seeds coming from Feature 37. The remaining 13% of sumac seeds recovered from the

County Home site were associated with the Late Archaic Period.

Maygrass was the third most recovered seed from the County Home site, although it represents only 3% of those seeds identified to the familial level. Despite the low densities, maygrass was moderately ubiquitous in the Middle Woodland features with a

121 measure of 0.31. At the site level, maygrass had a ubiquity of 0.29 indicating a greater ubiquity during the Middle Woodland Period than in earlier temporal periods.

Table 27: County Home Middle Woodland Seed Analysis Results. % of Total Total Density/100 Seed Classes Ubiquity Count Identified L Sediment Seeds Cultigens 159 42% 92% 142.6 Chenopods 139 37% 92% 124.7 Maygrass 16 4% 31% 14.3 Sumpweed 2 1% 15% 1.8 Maize 2 1% 8% 1.8 Possible Managed 210 56% 54% 188.3 Bedstraw 2 1% 15% 1.8 Sumac 188 50% 15% 168.6 Stinkgrass 1 1% 8% 0.9 Spikerushes 4 1% 8% 3.6 Panic Grass 4 1% 15% 3.6 Legumes 2 1% 15% 1.8 Grass 9 Family 2% 39% 8.1 Disturbance Dwellers* 373 99% 100% 334.5 Wood 1 Sorrel 1% 8% 0.9 Pokeweed 1 1% 8% 0.9 Lespedeza 1 1% 8% 0.9 Bulrush 1 1% 8% 0.9 Foraged/Wild 7 2% 46% 6.3 Grape 1 1% 8% 0.9 Violet 2 1% 8% 1.8 Total Identified Seeds 375 100% 100% 336.3 * Disturbance Dwellers include cultigens, possible managed and some foraged/wild plants.

Other than those mentioned above, two other seeds from the County Home site require special attention; two kernels of maize were recovered from Feature 54. This 122 feature was a post associated with a Middle Woodland domestic structure dated to approximately 1810 BP. Although maize is not commonly recovered from Middle

Woodland contexts and played a very limited role in the Middle Woodland diet, its presence at the site does indicate that this Mesoamerican crop had made its way into the

Hocking Valley by the end of the “Hopewellian Period.” The continued reliance on chenopods during the Middle Woodland, as confirmed by data from the County Home site, suggest that farming populations in the region had not yet produced a genetic variation of maize that was tolerant of the local environmental conditions and prolific enough to be a dietary staple. However, its presence does suggest that populations had begun to experiment with this foreign plant, which made its way into the valley via long distance interactions; the scope of these interactions have been described as the

“Hopwellian Interaction Sphere” (Seeman 1979; Abrams 2012).

When sub-classes of seeds from the County Home site were compared by temporal period, all periods yielded high levels of known cultigens and possible managed plants. Seventy-one percent of the seeds recovered from Late Archaic samples were cultigens with an 86% ubiquity measure for this seed sub-class. Ninety-six percent of the identifiable seeds for the Late Archaic Period are accounted for when known cultigens were combined with possible managed plant seeds. Although the Early Woodland sample was composed of only a single feature, all identifiable seeds could be classified as either known cultigens or managed plants. The measure for Middle Woodland known cultigens was somewhat less than the previous two periods described, as only 42% of this temporal assemblage was sub-classified as known cultigens; however the ubiquity of known

123 cultigens was extremely high at 92%. This bias may be the result of site formation processes. Given the substantially higher measure for charcoal from the Middle

Woodland (see Table 25) context at the site, many of the non-cultigen seeds probably represent instances of incidental preservation resulting from the use of fire in site management. In this instance, ubiquity probably provides a more accurate measure of the amount of cultivation at the site. Regardless of which measures of analysis are used, the

County Home site indicates cultivated seeds were an important part of the human diet for all three temporal components. In addition, comparison of these seeds with nutshell fragments indicates possible changes in the dietary composition over time.

County Home Nutshell Assemblage

The County Home nutshell assemblage includes specimens of hickory, pecan, black walnut, white walnut, chestnut, and oak. The values and descriptive statistics of percentage of total, ubiquity, and density are provided by temporal period below in

Tables 29, 30, and 31. This table quantifies the nutshell values by the broader genus classifications. Appendix B provides the breakdown of these genera into species.

By count, hickory was the most dominant nut genus recovered, representing approximately 60% of the assemblage. Black walnut made up 5% of the total assemblage count, outnumbered by fragmented specimens that could not be identified beyond the hickory/walnut family level and totaling approximately 28% of the assemblage by count.

Weight measures for nutshell yield similar results, with hickory making up the majority of specimens recovered followed by the hickory/walnut family and walnut.

124

Table 28: Summary of County Home Late Archaic Nutshell Analysis Results. Note that all quantitative measures were based on seven features that were associated with the Late Archaic Period. Percent of Percent of Total Total Density by Density by Identified Identified Ubiquity Count Weight Count/100L Weight/100L by Count by Weight Hickory 1605 18.143 65% 65% 100% 1910.71 21.60 Walnut 126 5.516 5% 20% 86% 150.00 6.57 Acorn 3 0.011 0% 0% 14% 3.57 0.01 Chestnut 25 0.201 1% 1% 14% 29.76 0.24 Walnut/Hickory 716 4.186 29% 15% 14% 852.38 4.98 Family Total 2475 28.057 100% 100% 100% 2946.43 33.40

Table 29: Summary of County Home Early Woodland Nutshell Analysis Results. Note that all quantitative measures were based on only the one feature that was associated with the Early Woodland Period. Percent of Percent of Total Total Density by Density by Identified by Identified by Ubiquity Count Weight Count/100L Weight/100L Count Weight Hickory 1 0.019 25% 20% 100% 22.22 0.42 Walnut 3 0.077 75% 80% 100% 66.67 1.71 Total 4 0.096 100% 100% 100% 88.89 2.13

When nutshell is considered by temporal period, the Late Archaic assemblage produced the greatest density of nutshell with 2946.43 pieces recovered per 100 liters of sediment; Early Woodland samples produced 88.89 fragments per 100 liters of sediment analyzed. Finally, the Middle Woodland samples yielded the least amount of nutshell with 85.2 pieces per 100 liters of sediment; these trends are summarized below in Table

31. These data indicate that as seed counts increased from the Late Archaic to the Middle

Woodland Periods. The difference in nutshell densities decreased by 33.47 times from the former period to the latter. Although the seed assemblage data indicates that cultivated foods were an important component of the Late Archaic diet, there was still a heavy reliance upon foraged foods, especially arboreal nuts. However, the results of the 125

Terminal Middle Woodland macrobotanical analysis indicate that the importance of nuts in the human diet had waned over 1500 years. Together these macrobotanical classes demonstrate a shift in the composition of human diet from a largely mixed subsistence strategy dependent on both foraged and produced food during the Late Archaic Period to one predominantly based in farming by the Terminal Middle Woodland.

Table 30: Summary of County Home Middle Woodland Nutshell Analysis Results. Note that all quantitative measures are based on thirteen features associated with the Middle Woodland Period. Percent of Percent of Total Total Density by Density by Identified Identified Ubiquity Count Weight Count/100L Weight/100L by Count by Weight Hickory 51 0.358 54% 37% 39% 45.7 0.321 Walnut 34 0.515 36% 53% 39% 30.5 0.462 Walnut/Hickory 10 0.101 11% 10% 8% 8.97 0.092 Family Total 95 0.974 100% 100% 39% 85.2 0.874

County Home Domesticates

Botanical remains from the County Home site provided clear evidence of morphological thresholds indicative of domestication. Feature 30, with a 2-sigma calibration of 1870 to 1453 BCE, contained a single sumpweed or marshelder (Iva annua) seed measuring 3.2 mm long and 1.8 mm wide. Using Asch and Asch’s (1985) correction for carbonized seed measurements, this seed would have measured 4.52 mm by 2.55 mm when fresh. This measurement is larger than the 4 mm achene length threshold for domestication. Feature 30 also contained two seeds of maygrass (Phalaris caroliniana). Although no morphological changes have been noted with respect to the

126 domestication of this species, the occurrence of this species outside of its natural range suggests genotypic changes to the plant had occurred indicative of human intervention in its lifecycle (Rindos 1985; Wymer and Abrams 2003). Maygrass seeds were also recovered from Late Archaic County Home Feature 9.

Similarly, a single sumpweed seed from Feature 48 measuring 4.685 mm in length and associated with a radiometric date with a two sigma span of 1207 to 823 BCE indicates Late Archaic plant domestication. Although no measurements of chenopod testa thicknesses were taken as part of this project, the presence of reticulated seed coats consistent with the archaeologically domesticated species Chenopodium berliandieri spp. jonesianum (Smith 1985; 1984) indicate these remains likely represent domesticates.

The presence of domesticated botanical remains at the County Home site is the earliest recorded evidence of seeds measuring beyond the domestication threshold in the state of Ohio, omitting Cucurbita pepo rind (Purtill 2009). Domesticated sumpweed and maygrass at County Home during the Late Archaic is consistent with domesticated botanical remains throughout other regions of the Eastern Woodlands (Asch and Asch

1985:159-160; Yarnell 1983; Ford 1985:347; Smith 1992:49). A detailed tabulation of domesticated seed remains is available below in Table 32.

These data indicate that gardening was being practiced by at least the Late

Archaic Period, however, the high quantity of nutshell from this temporal period indicate there was still a strong reliance on foraged foods. The decrease in the density of nutshell coupled with a concurrent increase in seeds during the Middle Woodland further

127 indicates that the composition of diet had changed from one based on a mixed subsistence strategy to one derived from farming.

County Home “Other” Archaeobotanicals

In addition to the carbonized wood, nutshell, seeds and seed fragments described above, 34 fragments of squash rind (Cucurbita pepo) were recovered from seven different features. Features 1, 36 and 37 each yielded a single fragment of squash rind weighing less than .001 grams. Each of these features was associated with the Middle

Woodland Period and are the smallest specimens recovered from the site. Feature 30, 39,

48 and 62, all associated with the Late Archaic Period, yielded more substantial cucurbit rind fragments. Feature 30 yielded 3 fragments weighing .011 grams, Feature 39 yielded

11 fragments weighing .034 grams, Feature 48 yielded 15 fragments weighing .038 grams, and Feature 62 yielded 2 fragments weighing .023 grams. The presence of cucurbit rind in relatively large quantities from the Late Archaic Period is consistent with its presence at other sites throughout the Eastern Woodlands by this period (Smith 1992).

Its presence in the archaeobotanical assemblage is further evidence of cultivation at the

County Home site. Finally, a single fragment of a cane stem (likely blue stem,

Andropogon sp.) was recovered from Feature 48.

128

Table 31: County Home domesticates Feature Species Count Associated Date* 1 Chenopodium berliandieri† 38 Middle Woodland 1 Phalaris caroliniana 11 Middle Woodland 2 Chenopodium berliandieri† 11 Middle Woodland 2 Phalaris caroliniana 1 Middle Woodland 4 Chenopodium berliandieri† 14 Late Archaic 7 Chenopodium berliandieri† 5 Middle Woodland 8 Chenopodium berliandieri† 6 Early Woodland 9 Chenopodium berliandieri† 11 1368 to 1019 BCE 9 Phalaris caroliniana 1 1368 to 1019 BCE 9 Polygonum erectum 1 1368 to 1019 BCE 29 Chenopodium berliandieri† 7 Middle Woodland 30 Chenopodium berliandieri† 15 1870 to 1453 BCE 30 Phalaris caroliniana 2 1870 to 1453 BCE 30 Iva annua 1 1870 to 1453 BCE 33 Chenopodium berliandieri† 4 Middle Woodland 36 Chenopodium berliandieri† 26 Middle Woodland 36 Phalaris caroliniana 3 Middle Woodland 36 Iva annua 1 Middle Woodland 37 Chenopodium berliandieri† 2 Middle Woodland 37 Phalaris caroliniana 1 Middle Woodland 40 Chenopodium berliandieri† 3 1617 to 1437 BCE 47 Chenopodium berliandieri† 8 1489 to 1130 BCE 48 Chenopodium berliandieri† 80 1207 to 823 BCE 48 Iva annua 1 1207 to 823 BCE 49 Chenopodium berliandieri† 1 Middle Woodland 54 Chenopodium berliandieri† 27 30 to 405 CE 54 Zea mays 2 30 to 405 CE 61 Chenopodium berliandieri† 11 Middle Woodland 61 Iva annua 1 Middle Woodland 62 Chenopodium berliandieri† 6 1682 to 1323 BCE 69 Chenopodium berliandieri† 4 Middle Woodland *Features without a direct radiometric association were aggregated according to associated temporal period based on stratigraphy and relative chronology, unless a date from another feature at the site could be reasonably assumed to be relevant. †Although no measures were taken on Chenopodium berliandieri testa, these specimens were included in the "domesticates" table due to their likely status as cultigens.

129

4.7 Patton 3 Archaeobotanical Analysis Results

A total of 200 liters of sediment from 20 prehistoric features were analyzed for archaeobotanical materials from the Patton 3 site. Analysis yielded 71.641 grams of charred wood, 211 pieces of nutshell totaling 1.678 grams, 393 seeds and 60 seed fragments. These data are listed in Table 33. Analysis of carbonized nutshell indicated the presence of hickory (Carya spp.), walnut (Juglans spp.), and oak (Quercus spp.). Of the 393 seeds, a total of 348 seeds could be identified to the genus or species level (See

Table 34). All archaeobotanical remains were associated with the Terminal Early

Woodland/Incipient Middle Woodland based on radiometric dating, chipped stone tool seriation sequencing, and stratigraphy.

Table 32: Patton 3 macrobotanicals recovered by temporal period.

Terminal Early Woodland/ 20 35 200 71.641 211/1.678 393 26 Incipient Middle Woodland *Total seeds recovered does not include seed fragments.

Patton 3 Seed Assemblage

A total of 393 seeds and 60 seed fragments were recovered from 200 liters of sediment excavated from 20 features at the Patton 3 site. Of these, 323 seeds could be

130 identified to the genus level representing eight different genera, 25 could only be identified to one of three botanical families, and 45 seeds were unidentifiable.

Approximately 80% of seeds that could be identified to at least the familial level were chenopods, which also had a 60% ubiquity measure. Almost 82% of these seeds were recovered from Feature 219, a large thermal feature just outside of Structure 4 in Greg’s

Field locus. Despite the disproportionate count from this single feature, the relatively high ubiquity of chenopods indicates high abundance during prehistoric occupation at the site. Although no testa measures of these seeds were taken to confirm domestication, the density, ubiquity and chenopod percentage of total identified seeds indicates the plants were, in all likelihood, being cultivated as a dietary staple.

Ragweed (Ambrosia sp.) was the second most abundant seed species recovered from the Patton 3 site, yielding 29 specimens with a ubiquity of 40%. Research from the

Ozarks, Kentucky, and other areas of the Eastern Woodlands (Yarnell 1993;Scarry 1993;

Fritz 1997; Gremillion 1997) , has indicated that seeds from this genus were part of the prehistoric diet, and their presence at the Patton 3 site suggests dietary comparability between this region and those populations living in the Hocking Valley. Furthermore, ragweed seeds would have been most abundant during the late summer months, providing a reliable food resource prior to the early autumn season when other resources, such as chenopods, sunflower, and numerous wild legumes, would have been harvested.

131

Table 33: Patton 3 Terminal Early Woodland/Incipient Middle Woodland Seed Analysis Results. % of Total Total Density/100 Seed Classes Ubiquity Count Identified L Sediment Seeds Cultigens 313 90% 80% 156.5 Chenopods 277 80% 60% 138.5 Knotweed 1 1% 5% 0.5 Little Barley 2 1% 5% 1 Ragweed 29 8% 40% 14.5 Tobacco 3 1% 15% 1.5 Sunflower 1 1% 5% 0.5 Possible Managed 22 6% 35% 11 Bedstraw 1 1% 5% 0.5 Legumes 20 6% 30% 10 Grass 1 Family 1% 5% 0.5 Disturbance Dwellers* 348 100% 85% 174 Mustard 9 3% 5% 4.5 Aster 4 Family 1% 15% 2 Foraged/Wild 13 4% 20% 6.5 Total Identified Seeds 348 100% 85% 174 * Disturbance Dwellers include cultigens, managed and some foraged/wild plants.

Patton 3 Nutshell

The Patton 3 nutshell assemblage included specimens of hickory, walnut and acorn. By count, acorns were the most dominant nut genus recovered from the site, representing approximately 67% of the assemblage. Hickory made up 28% of the total assemblage count, followed by fragmented specimens that could not be identified beyond the hickory/walnut family level and totaling approximately 5% of the assemblage by count. A single specimen of walnut shell was recovered from the site and represents less

132 than 0.5% of the total site assemblage by count. Weight measures for nutshell yield similar results, with acorns and hickory making up the majority of specimens recovered, with similar weight ratios (Table 35). However, hickory nutshell is a denser and heavier material, and tends to fracture less than acorn. Thus despite their comparable weight values, the amount of acorns was significantly greater than that of hickory.

Table 34: Summary of Patton 3 Terminal Early Woodland/Incipient Middle Woodland Nutshell Analysis Results. Percent of Percent of Total Total Density by Density by Identified Identified Ubiquity Count Weight Count/100L Weight/100L by Count by Weight Hickory 59 0.795 28% 47% 40% 29.5 0.398 Walnut 1 0.016 1% 1% 5% 0.5 0.008 Acorn 141 0.804 67% 48% 50% 70.5 0.402 Walnut/Hickory 10 0.063 5% 4% 15% 5 0.032 Family Total 211 1.678 100% 100% 65% 105.5 0.839

Sixty-five percent of the twenty features analyzed contained nutshell fragments.

Acorn ubiquity was greater than hickory and walnut samples with 50% of the features sampled containing fragments of acorn. Of those features containing nutshell, approximately 77% yielded remains of acorn. Forty percent of all features contained hickory nutshell; of the thirteen features containing nutshell, 62% yielded hickory fragments. These data indicate a greater reliance on acorn meat as a probable food source.

Nutshells from the hickory/walnut family may have also been used as fire kindling, due to their higher oil content and their ease in burning. The greater count, weight, ubiquity, and fragility in archaeological contexts indicates a that their relatively high presence at the site is a result of substantial economic dependence on this botanical class.

133

Patton 3 Domesticates

Seeds recovered from the Patton 3 site provide evidence of cultivation.

Chenopods were largely ubiquitous across the site, occurring in twelve of the twenty features sampled. A particularly high count of 226 seeds was recovered from Feature

519, a thermal feature. Although no measurements of chenopod testa thickness were taken, the presence of reticulated seed coats is consistent with the archaeologically domesticated species Chenopodium berliandieri spp. jonesianum (Smith 1985; 1984), and indicates that these remains represent domesticates. Additionally, a single seed of erect knotweed was recovered from Feature 8, and Feature D4 yielded two seeds of little barley. As mentioned above, the domestication status of these two species is not universally accepted among archaeobotanical scholars (Asch and Asch 1985; Hunter

1992). Feature 518 contained a single sunflower achene, and this likely represents a domesticated specimen given the temporal association and its general size; however the achene was too fragmented to permit quantification that would confirm this assumption.

Three reticulated seeds were identified as belonging to the tobacco genus; given the temporal association of the features and site, these specimens would be among the earliest examples of tobacco seeds in the Eastern Woodlands region. Despite this, chemical data have confirmed the use of tobacco during the Early Woodland Period as far north as New England (Rafferty 2006). Further details concerning the domesticates recovered from the Patton 3 site are provided in Table 36, below.

134

Table 35: Patton 3 domesticates Feature Species Count Associated Date (RCYBP) * 4 Chenopodium berliandieri† 1 Terminal Early Woodland 8 Chenopodium berliandieri† 1 401 to 206 BCE 8 Polygonum erectum 1 401 to 206 BCE 10 Chenopodium berliandieri† 2 Terminal Early Woodland D4 Hordeum pusilleum 1 Terminal Early Woodland D4 Nicotiana spp. 1 Terminal Early Woodland 505 Chenopodium berliandieri† 4 Terminal Early Woodland 509 Chenopodium berliandieri† 7 Terminal Early Woodland 510 Chenopodium berliandieri† 7 Terminal Early Woodland 512 Chenopodium berliandieri† 18 Terminal Early Woodland 512 Nicotiana spp. 1 Terminal Early Woodland 518 Chenopodium berliandieri† 2 Terminal Early Woodland 518 Helianthus annuus 1 Terminal Early Woodland 519 Chenopodium berliandieri† 226 Terminal Early Woodland 534 Chenopodium berliandieri† 6 Terminal Early Woodland 574 Chenopodium berliandieri† 1 Terminal Early Woodland 575 Chenopodium berliandieri† 2 Terminal Early Woodland 575 Nicotiana spp. 1 Terminal Early Woodland *Features without a direct radiometric association were aggregated according to associated temporal period based on stratigraphy and relative chronology, unless a date from another feature at the site could be reasonably assumed to be relevant. †Although no measures were taken on Chenopodium berliandieri testa, these specimens were included in the "domesticates" table due to their likely status as cultigens.

Patton 3 “Other” Archaeobotanicals

Additional to the charred wood, nutshell and seeds described above, nine fragments of squash rind weighing .017 grams were recovered from Feature 4. The rind from one of these samples measured 1.1 mm in thickness. Feature 8 yielded 9 carbonized fruit stems and 2 fish scales; although the fish scales are not botanical, they do indicate that riverine resources were being exploited by Patton 3 inhabitants. A carbonized fruit

135 stem was also recovered from Feature 32 and another from Feature 574. Finally, six honeycomb shaped carbonized botanical fragments were recovered from Feature 11; these specimens were superficially identified as fragments of the fruit core of an

American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) based on similarity to specimens in the comparative collection. It is unclear why these remains were present in the archaeobotanical assemblage as they do not appear to have been of economic value.

4.8 Discussion and Summary of Archaeobotanical Assemblages

The comparison of archaeobotanicals across temporal periods has the potential to reveal trends in plant use and consumption. In order to obtain greater comparability between sites, densities of archaeobotanicals were calculated and compared rather than raw numbers. In instances were sample sizes are unequal, only charred remains are preserved (e.g., open-air sites), or different types of features with variable degrees of burning provided the sample materials (e.g., storage pits versus thermal features), densities by count or weight are commonly used to standardize the data (Pearsall

2000:196, 194-204). Although both measures are used here, greater emphasis is given to density counts due to the disparity between the weights of acorn, hickory, and walnut nutshell. Acorn nutshell is thinner, and thus produces lower weights than the more robust hickory and walnut shells.

136

Nutshell by Temporal Period

Bar charts were generated to illustrate broad differences in nutshell for the temporal periods analyzed. Rather than breaking the Middle Woodland down into smaller temporal classes (i.e., Incipient, Medial, and Terminal) the larger periods were used in order to produce more comparable units of time. Figure 12 compares the densities of hickory, walnut, acorn, hazelnut and chestnut by count, whereas Figure 13 compares these genera by weight. The weight of hickory and walnut exocarps is heavier than those of acorn, hazelnut and chestnut thus biasing the density by weight towards these former genera. Furthermore, the exocarp of the latter genera tend to fragment and shatter into pieces smaller than 2mm; thus a few fragments of acorn, hazelnut, and chestnut likely represent much larger assemblages than indicated by the calculated densities. Specimens of Juglandaceae are included in the Figures 12 and 13, however it is unclear whether this familial class represents the hickory or walnut genera. Higher densities of these specimens are indicative of poor preservation conditions that impacted more specific identification of the nutshell genera for the particular temporal sequence. Rather than comparing analysis results by feature since feature type (e.g., thermal, post molds, pits, etc.) may have impacted preservation rates, densities were aggregated by temporal periods.

137

12 Hickory (Carya spp.) 10 Walnut (Juglans spp.)

8 Acorn (Quercus spp.)

Chestnut (Castanea spp.) 6 Hazelnut (Corylus americana)

4 Walnut Family (Juglandaceae)

0 Late Archaic Early Woodland Middle Woodland

Figure 12: Densities of Nutshell by Count

0.14 Hickory (Carya spp.)

0.12 Walnut (Juglans spp.)

0.1 Acorn (Quercus spp.)

0.08 Chestnut (Castanea spp.)

0.06 Hazelnut (Corylus americana)

Walnut Family (Juglandaceae) 0.04

0.02

0 Late Archaic Early Woodland Middle Woodland

Figure 13: Densities of nutshell by weight in grams.

138

The summary statistics for hickory nutshell densities were calculated. These statistics are listed in Table 36 by temporal period, followed by the box plot produced by this comparison in Figure 14. Walnut and acorn densities were also analyzed in this manner; the box plot for each are stacked below that for hickory in Figure 14 to aid in comparison of the analysis results. Summary statistics for walnut are available in Table

37, and Table 38 for acorn. Note that all maximum box plot measures for nutshell densities were set at a total count of ten to aid in their readability; as a result, the mean value for hickory nutshell count density (i.e., 21.881) for the Late Archaic Period could not be displayed.

The descriptive statistics by period indicated differences in hickory nutshell densities by temporal period, warranting further statistical analysis. An ANOVA statistical analysis was conducted for the hickory nutshell fragments by count for each temporal; statistics were calculated using each feature as a distinct sample for comparison. Middle Woodland samples were further classified into Incipient, Medial, and Terminal given the bulk of data from this temporal period. The ANOVA analysis determined that the sequence of values did fit a linear trend that was statistically significant (ANOVA, df=4, F=2.426, p=0.057), thus indicating that the decrease in hickory nutshell over the five temporal designations was not random (i.e., to a 95% confidence interval) but represents an actual change in hickory presence over time. When an ANOVA analysis was conducted on the change in hickory counts by density for the temporal periods designated, the statistical significance was even greater (ANOVA, df=4,

F=3.469, p=0.010).

139

Table 36: Summary statistics for hickory nutshell density by count for each temporal period. Incipient Medial Terminal Late Early Middle Middle Middle Statistic Archaic Woodland Woodland Woodland Woodland No. of observations 9 2 20 27 13 Minimum 0.000 0.222 0.000 0.000 0.000 Maximum 128.667 1.467 3.200 8.000 12.000 1st Quartile 1.100 0.533 0.000 0.000 0.000 Median 2.000 0.845 0.000 0.667 0.000 3rd Quartile 6.462 1.156 0.238 2.210 0.267 Mean 21.881 0.845 0.331 1.636 1.033 Variance (n-1) 1902.604 0.775 0.590 4.955 10.890 Standard deviation (n-1) 43.619 0.880 0.768 2.226 3.300

Table 37: Summary statistics for walnut nutshell density by count for each temporal period. Incipient Medial Terminal Late Early Middle Middle Middle Archaic Woodland Statistic Woodland Woodland Woodland No. of observations 9 2 20 27 13 Minimum 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Maximum 7.238 0.667 0.444 3.556 5.000 1st Quartile 0.400 0.167 0.000 0.000 0.000 Median 0.750 0.334 0.000 0.000 0.000 3rd Quartile 1.100 0.500 0.000 0.341 0.533 Mean 1.358 0.334 0.022 0.415 0.736 Variance (n-1) 5.049 0.222 0.010 0.809 2.176 Standard deviation (n-1) 2.247 0.472 0.099 0.900 1.475

140

Table 38: Summary statistics for acorn nutshell density by count for each temporal period. Incipient Medial Terminal Late Early Middle Middle Middle Statistic Archaic Woodland Woodland Woodland Woodland No. of observations 9 2 20 27 13 Minimum 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Maximum 1.260 0.000 7.330 10.000 0.000 1st Quartile 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Median 0.000 0.000 0.043 0.000 0.000 3rd Quartile 0.000 0.000 0.503 0.119 0.000 Mean 0.155 0.000 1.352 0.739 0.000 Variance (n-1) 0.174 0.000 6.552 4.368 0.000 Standard deviation (n-1) 0.417 0.000 2.560 2.090 0.000

141

Hickory Nutshell Density (by count) Box plot by Temporal Period

4 Hickory 2

0 LA EW IMW MMW TMW

Walnut Nutshell Density (by count) Box plots by Temporal Period

4 Walnut 2

0 LA EW IMW MMW TMW

Acorn Nutshell Density (by count) Box plots by Temporal Period

4 Acorn 2 0 LA EW IMW MMW TMW C

Figure 14: Hickory, walnut, and acorn nutshell density box plots. All plots represent counts per L of sediment. Blue asterisks and circles mark the maximum and minimum values, respectively. Black asterisks mark outliers. Red crosses mark the means.

142

ANOVA analyses of raw counts for walnut, acorn, hazelnut, chestnut, and total nutshells did not indicate statistical significance. However, the summary statistics and boxplots suggested changes in the counts of these nut genera throughout the temporal periods. Summary statistics indicate that the highest densities of hickory and walnut were associated with the Late Archaic Period. Following this temporal period, densities of these genera were relatively low with exception of the Medial Middle Woodland Period.

The bulk of the data for this temporal component were recovered from the Patton 1 site which had an unusual amount of evidence for burning compared to other sites and temporal components; thus this measure may be biased when compared to other temporal assemblages. Regardless, the temporal comparisons demonstrate particular trends in nutshell presence and consumption. These food resources were heavily utilized during the

Late Archaic Period. However, they declined by the Terminal Early Woodland/Incipient

Middle Woodland. Even if their presence in the Patton 1 archaeobotanical assemblage represents actual nut consumption, these measures are lower than those of the Late

Archaic, indicating a dietary difference between temporal periods.

Densities of nutshells were analyzed by ANOVA for each of the genera, including the total nutshells, in order to standardize the statistical comparisons. As mentioned above, hickory proved to be of statistical significance. Similarly, walnut densities fell within the 90% confidence interval (df=4, F=2.277, p=.070); although not significantly significant to the 95% confidence interval, these analyses results indicate that walnut densities did shift over time. No other nut genera fell within the 95% or 90% confidence interval, likely due to the inconsistency of their presences across the temporal span;

143 however, the total nutshell density did decrease at a statistically significant level for 95% confidence interval (df=4, F=2.676, p=0.039). Similarly, the raw count for total nutshells had a p-value within the 90% confidence interval (df=4, F=2.142, p=0.085).

The ANOVA analyses indicate statistically significant changes in values of hickory count densities as well as raw counts. Similarly, the decrease in total nutshell density by count was statistically significant to the 95% confidence interval and by raw count to the 90% confidence interval. These statistics further corroborate the claims made based on observations of the summary statistics that there was a shift away from nut species, particularly hickory, from the Late Archaic through the Middle Woodland periods.

Seeds by Temporal Period

Just as nutshell was compared by temporal period, seeds were considered in a similar manner. As described above, the identifiable seed assemblage was divided into three sub-classes in order to aid in analysis. These categories included Known Cultigens,

Possible Managed Plants, and Wild or Foraged Plants; the plants included in each of these sub-classes are listed above in Table 9. The categories were intended to better measure human intervention in the reproduction of economic plant species by separating them from species which were most likely foraged from wild stands. Densities of each of these seed categories were calculated based on all seeds that could be identified to at least the familial level.

144

The Known Cultigens category included nine genera of plants that have commonly been documented as possessing morphological attributes that are indicative of domestication or have occurred in such quantities as to indicate cultivation by prehistoric humans. Omitting tobacco, all of these plants were food crops. Chenopods were the most ubiquitous of these cultigens across the sites sampled. Asch and Asch (1985) have hypothesized that wild stands of C. berliandieri were cultivated at approximately 4000

BP, with morphologically domesticated specimens, C. berliandieri jonesianum, occurring after 3500-3000 BP (Smith and Cowan 1987). Taxonomically, these two varieties are distinguished by testa thickness; as mentioned above, no testa measures were taken as part of this project, however all specimens appeared to possess thin testae indicative of domesticated plants. This determination was made on the basis of morphological comparison to both wild and domesticated specimens from archaeobotanical literature

(Smith 1992:103-161) and the comparative collection housed in the archaeobotanical laboratory at The Ohio State University.

Similar to the chenopods, maygrass was relatively ubiquitous at the sample sites.

This species is represented by carbonized ovoid-elongate caryopses. The interpretation of this plant as a cultivated crop is based upon large quantities recovered throughout the

Lower Tennessee River Valley (Chapman and Shea 1981), Illinois (Asch and Asch

1985), and the American Bottom (Johannessen 1993). Maygrass flowers in the early weeks of April, and mature caryopses can be harvested as early as May (Cowan 1978;

Radford et al. 1968). As mentioned above, no morphological changes indicative of domestication have been identified with archaeological populations; however the modern

145 distribution of the species is restricted to the Southeast United States. Given its archaeological ubiquity in the northern Midwest, including Ohio, the plant was most likely propagated by Woodland populations (Cowan 1978; Wymer and Abrams 2003).

Aside from these two species, specimens of erect knotweed, sumpweed, ragweed, little barley, and tobacco were recovered from the sample sites. These specimens indicate a strong propensity towards cultivation of food crops throughout the archaeobotanical samples of the Hocking Valley.

Possible Managed Plants included six genera or families of plants that were likely managed and consumed as food. Although none of these plants have morphological attributes indicating domestication, most are early succession plants. Prolonged reliance on a patch or stand of these plants would have required maintenance to prevent later succession species from out competing them. For example, Wagner (1987) argued that sumac plants were grown within the Late Prehistoric Incinerator site based upon large quantities of seeds recovered from the site. Despite arguments that these plants were primarily used as non-dietary products (Jakes and Ericksen 2001), evidence from paleofeces throughout Eastern North America points to the use of the seeds of the sumac genus as food (Yarnell 1969; Kindscher 1987; Angier 1993). More details as to this category are described in Chapter 7.

Finally, the wild or foraged plant category includes those species, genera, and families that have one or more of the following characteristics: They are devoid of morphological characteristics attributed to domestication, occur in quantities too small to justify arguments for cultivation, have limited economic or dietary use, or have biological

146 or environmental dispositions that limit or restrict the likelihood that they were cultivated or domesticated. Less than 4% of identified seeds were affiliated with this sub-class for all temporal periods, except for the Medial Middle Woodland (i.e., where it made up approximately 19% of the total assemblage). This disparity relates directly to the Patton 1 seed assemblage described above in the site level analysis.

The comparison of total nutshell densities by count indicates their decline from the Late Archaic Period to the Early Woodland, at a level that is statistically significant based on the aforementioned ANOVA analysis. Similar statistical analysis was conducted on seed densities; again, density measures were used over raw counts in order to standardize the data. ANOVA analysis results indicated that any changes in seed densities were not statistically significant (df=4, F=1.58, p=0.190); this consistency in seed density indicates a continued reliance on seed cultigens and managed plants across the temporal periods, while reliance on nuts decreased.

Societies of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods have been described as having a “mixed foraging and farming” economy due to the continued presence of nutshell at sites of this temporal period; however these data indicate, despite the continued presence of nutshell, a decrease in densities from the Late Archaic. By comparing nutshell and seeds directly, the proportion of the diet that was composed of each could be discerned. To conduct this comparison an index of seeds to nutshell was created. This index was calculated by the formula: proportion = seed / seed + nutshell per feature by temporal period (See Figure 15 and Table 39 for the descriptive statistics of the Index). A denominator that summed seeds and nutshells was selected since a number

147 of features were devoid of nutshell, prohibiting direct comparison of seeds divided by nutshell. In this index, values closer to zero indicate a higher proportion of nutshells, and values closer to one indicate a higher proportion of seeds. This calculation indicates that assemblage seed proportion clearly increases over time, while nutshells decrease. This comparison was further subjected to ANOVA analysis, which indicated statistical significance to a 99% confidence interval (df=4, F=3.645, p=0.010).

Seed cultigens were an important component of the human diet by at least the

Late Archaic Period; and significantly, the importance of arboreal nuts decreased.

Although, the seed densities did not increase as nutshell densities decreased, taphonomic processes may have biased the data; just as many seed remains would likely have been destroyed in prehistoric times, the rates of seed destruction at Early and Middle

Woodland sites may have been higher than in previous periods if populations during these periods were utilizing the sites with greater consistency and investing greater maintenance in these sites. Furthermore, the presence of known cultigens at the County

Home Late Archaic assemblage suggests that the origins of plant domestication occurred earlier than this temporal period.

148

Table 39: Summary Statistics of Seed Proportion Index (Proportion = seeds/seeds + nutshell) per Feature by Temporal Period. Proportion Proportion Proportion Proportion Proportion of Seeds of Seeds of Seeds of Seeds of Seeds Statistic LA EW TEW/IMW CMW TMW No. of observations 9 2 20 24 13 Minimum 0.018 0.313 0.000 0.000 0.120 Maximum 0.781 0.714 1.000 1.000 1.000 1st Quartile 0.130 0.413 0.430 0.083 0.357 Median 0.257 0.513 0.900 0.505 0.857 3rd Quartile 0.375 0.614 1.000 0.771 1.000 Mean 0.286 0.513 0.695 0.474 0.697 Variance (n-1) 0.053 0.081 0.116 0.129 0.130 Standard deviation (n-1) 0.230 0.284 0.341 0.359 0.360

In broad terms, the archaeobotanical assemblage from the four sites indicates a moderate to high level of reliance on cultivated and managed seed foods during all temporal periods analyzed. The ubiquity of cultivated seeds was above 70% for all temporal periods, while that of foraged or wild plants never exceeded 50% except for the

Late Archaic Period. Also, consumption of arboreal nuts was quite robust during the Late

Archaic Period but substantially decreased over the remaining temporal period. Together these data indicate that dependence on seed foods occurred during all temporal periods analyzed, however the use of arboreal nuts and foraged foods was of relative or equal importance during the Late Archaic Period. Beginning by at least the Terminal Early

Woodland, arboreal nuts and foraged foods contributed substantially less to the prehistoric diet. Also beginning with this temporal period, seasonal associations of botanicals suggest changes in the duration of site occupation.

149

Proportion of Seeds/Seeds plus Nutshells by Temporal Period

0.8

0.6

0.4

Proportion of Seeds/Seeds + Nutshells + of Seeds/Seeds Proportion 0.2

0 LA EW TEW/IMW CMW TMW

Figure 15: Box plots of Seed Index (Proportion = Seeds /Seeds +Nutshell for the Late Archaic through Middle Woodland samples.

Archaeobotanicals as Seasonal Indicators

Analysis of archaeobotanical remains for indicators of season of harvest offer some insight into the consistency of site occupation. This determination required the grouping of identifiable seed remains according to the season in which they produce seed or fruit. Table 40 lists recovered seeds by common name, scientific name, and the season of seed or fruit production. Furthermore, these plants were organized into groups of starchy and oily seeds, fleshy fruits, legumes, greens and leaf plants, and other plants.

Many of these seeds could have been stored for use during other seasons than those indicated in the table; such plants are indicated by an asterisk. Note that tobacco is listed among these plants due to the curing process necessary for leaf smoking. Admittedly,

150 there are certain limitations to the use of seeds as indicators of seasonality due to their ability to be stored. Fleshy fruits such as raspberry, grape and sumac could be dried for storage allowing for delayed consumption. However, storage would have added additional processing, carrying, and defense costs to food.

Table 40: Seasonal availability of the plants identified from seed in this study. (Adapted from Scarry 1993; Medsger 1966; Peterson 1977; Phillips 1986) Common Name Scientific Name Season of Availability STARCHY AND OILY SEEDS Chenopod* Chenopodium berlandieri late summer to fall Maygrass* Phalaris caroliniana spring to early summer Knotweed* Polygonum spp. late summer to fall Bedstraw Galium spp. spring to summer Sumpweed* Iva annua late summer to fall Little Barley* Hordeum pusillum spring to early summer Ragweed* Ambrosia spp. late summer to fall Maize* Zea mays late summer to fall Sunflower* Helianthus annuus summer to fall

FRUITS AND BERRIES Raspberry Rubus spp. Summer Pawpaw Asiminia late summer to fall Strawberry Fragaria spp. early to mid-summer Hackberry Celtis spp. fall to winter Grape Vitis spp. mid-summer to fall Mulberry Morus spp. Summer Sumac Rhus spp. summer to fall Haw Viburnum spp. summer to fall

LEGUMES Vetch Vicia spp. Summer Lespedeza Lespedeza spp. fall to winter Legume family Leguminosae summer to fall

GREENS AND LEAF PLANTS Tobacco* Nicotiana spp. summer to fall Pokeweed Phytolacca americana spring to summer 151 continued

Table 40 continued Mustard Brasicca spp. spring to fall

WEEDS AND OTHER PLANTS Violet Viola spp. spring to summer Panicgrass Panicumspp. summer to fall Wood Sorrel Oxalis stricta spring to fall Spurge Euphorbia spp. summer to fall Bulrush Scirpus spp. late summer to fall American Bittersweet Celastrus scandens summer to fall Plaintain Plantago spp. Summer Winter cress Barbarea spp. spring to summer Plaintain Plantago spp. summer to fall Aster Family Asteraceae spring to fall Grass Family Poacae spring to fall * Indicates fruit or seed that can be stored.

A total of 98.5% of the Late Archaic identifiable seed assemblage was recovered from the lowland County Home site. This Late Archaic seed assemblage was dominated by seeds harvested in the summer and fall seasons. Those species which seed in the spring to summer (or early summer) only represented 8% of the total identifiable seed assemblage from the five sites for this temporal period (if the Boudinot 4 botanical samples are included). The archaeobotanical assemblage from the Late Archaic Period at the County Home site was predominately composed of late summer/early fall seeds suggesting occupation of the site was limited to this time of the year; since many of the species available at the site are storable and were likely used as a winter food source, the

County Home site occupation would have likely spanned into the cold months of the year. More specifically, site occupation probably spanned from the late weeks of July or early weeks of August and continued into the last weeks of winter to the beginning of spring.

152

Just as the Late Archaic assemblage was dominated by archaeobotanicals from the County Home site, 96% of the Early Woodland assemblage was represented by the

Patton 3 site. This particular site is chronologically associated with the terminal Early

Woodland and incipient Middle Woodland Periods. Over 95% of the assemblage was havested in the summer or fall; however unlike the Late Archaic assemblage, the Patton 3 nutshell assemblage contained relatively high amounts of acorn. Ethnographic data from other regions of North America suggests that this particular species of nut was largely consumed during the spring months of the year (Moerman 2002:459; Mathews 2009).

Although this seasonal association for acorn cannot be stated with a large degree of certainty, it does merit further consideration. Together the cultivated seed species and acorn would have provided year-round botanical resources for consumption at the Patton

3 site.

The Middle Woodland seed assemblage suggests greater seasonal diversity.

Components from all sites contributed to the seasonal comparison. Although seeds harvested from summer to fall make up the majority of the assemblage, approximately

20.5% are species that seed or produce fruit during other seasons. This is an increase from the Early Woodland and Late Archaic assemblages which yielded 4.5% and 8%.

These data suggest year-round site occupation.

As in previous comparisons, the Middle Woodland Period archaeobotanical data could further be divided into three sub-temporal categories based on radiometric dates of features at each of the sample sites. These sub-temporal categories were defined as the

Incipient-Middle Woodland (2300 to 2050 BP), the Medial-Middle Woodland (2050 to

153

1850 BP) and the Terminal-Middle Woodland (1850-1600 BP) Periods. Boudinot 4 features 5A and 5B were associated with the Incipient-Middle Woodland Period, Patton 1 and Taber Well with the Central-Middle Woodland Period, and County Home with the

Terminal-Middle Woodland Period. Additionally, the Patton 3 assemblage was aggregated with the Incipient-Middle Woodland Period due to the AMS date from

Feature 8 yielding a 2-sigma span that crossed the 2300 BP temporal period barrier.

The Incipient-Middle Woodland Period

The Incipient-Middle Woodland archaeobotanical assemblage includes analyzed feature samples from both the Boudinot 4 and Patton 3 sites. The Boudinot 4 assemblage came from only two features, 5A and 5B, and was analyzed by Wymer and Abrams

(2003). The quantification of densities for wood charcoal, nutshell and seeds from these two features were calculated and compared to earlier occupation components. Wood charcoal for these two features revealed a large decrease from earlier features at the site

(from 1.09 to .56 grams per liter of sediment). Similarly, nutshell decreased from .12 to

.04 grams per liter of sediment, while seed densities increased from .11 to .54 seeds per liter of sediment.

Of the 25 identifiable seeds from features 5a and 5b, 84% were maygrass caryopses representing spring to early summer cultigens. An additional 12% represented summer species (two red mulberry (Morus rubra) and one Rugelli’s plantain seed

(Plantago rugelli). Altogether, 96% of the assemblage represents species that were not available in the late summer to fall seasons, suggesting occupation of the site was largely

154 restricted to the months of May through August. This seasonal timing would also account for the small presence of hickory, butternut and hazelnut at the site, which begin to become available during the last weeks of August. However, the dates for these features are chronologically later than those at Patton 3, despite the overwhelming evidence that occupants at this latter site were residentially stable. When compared, the two sites indicate that cultural changes, and particularly those related to subsistence, were not simultaneous throughout the valley.

The Patton 3 assemblage was recovered from 20 features of various functions, however the majority of seeds were recovered from thermal and pit features. Like the

Late Archaic site assemblages, summer through fall fruits and seeds make up approximately 95% of the total seed assemblage. These data would suggest occupation at the Patton 3 site was restricted to the latter half of the year with populations wintering over at the site and subsisting on stored seed foods. This assemblage would thus be contrary to the Boudinot 4 assemblage where spring and summer resources were dominant, suggesting a seasonal strategy of moving across the landscape during different times of the year based upon patch availability. Since spring and early summer are seasons with fewer available foods, populations would diffuse across the landscape; the late summer through autumn seasons produce an abundance of food resources which could be processed in mass by aggregating populations in order to better provision for the coming winter season. This seasonal strategy was certainly utilized during the Late

Archaic Period and matches well with the available data from the Hocking Valley.

155

However, the Patton 3 site nutshell assemblage offers evidence of spring and early summer occupation. As noted above, the site yielded large amounts of acorn shell.

Although acorns are harvested in the autumn months, they require extensive processing

(i.e., leaching of tannins) before they can be consumed (Gardner 1997). Ethnographic data suggests that the processing of these resources was completed over the winter months so that the nutmeats could be utilized in the spring months (Moerman 2002:459;

Mathews 2009).

The Medial-Middle Woodland Period

The Medial-Middle Woodland Period, as defined by this study, spanned from

2050 to 1850 BP, and included assemblages from the Taber Well and Patton 1 sites.

Radiometric dates from these two sites all fit within this chronological span, omitting

Feature 5 from Taber Well which yielded a two sigma date range of 355 to 46 BCE.

Furthermore, if the storable seeds recovered from this feature were omitted, the feature assemblage evenly represents harvests across a seasonal range from spring to autumn.

The Taber Well Medial-Middle Woodland assemblage included samples from 18 different feature contexts (see Appendix A for feature details). A total of 80.5% of the seeds from these features were associated with the late summer through fall seasons; however 100% of these seeds were species that were storable. Furthermore, all of these seeds were known cultigens indicating a strong economic dependency on farming.

Nutshell densities for this site were slightly higher than those for Patton 3; however acorn counts made up 5% of the total assemblage indicating a continued reliance on these

156 resources. Approximately 50% of the nutshell assemblage could not be identified beyond the walnut/hickory family, indicating poor preservation of these botanicals. Given this condition, acorn is likely underrepresented at the site due to taphonomic processes.

The Medial-Middle Woodland assemblage from Taber Well additionally provides the earliest evidence of pokeweed (Phytolacca americana) at the sample sites. This species has traditionally been documented as a weed plant as it often aggressively colonizes open landscapes, particularly those that have been disturbed by flooding (Sauer

1952) and human intervention (Anderson 1956; Smith 1992:23). Its appearance at the

Taber Well site and all later Middle Woodland sites included in this sample suggests a change in the environments at these sites, likely due to human burning and clearing of the surrounding forests. Although pokeweed is best known as an environmental indicator,

Yarnell (1969:70) has identified pokeweed seeds in prehistoric feces from Salts Cave

(Kentucky), indicating its use as a food. However, pokeweed berries like all parts of the plant contain phytolaccatoxin, a known mitogen toxin, and would have required processing through cooking before they could be safely consumed. The plant also has other economic uses as a medicine and a dye (Williams 2008). Regardless of how it was used, its ubiquity at the Taber Well, Patton 1 and County Home sites during the Medial and Terminal Middle Woodland Period suggests the landscape had been altered through human disturbance. Similarly, seeds belonging to the violet genus (Viola), which commonly grow in open disturbed environments, were recovered from the County Home,

Patton 1, and Taber Well Middle Woodland assemblages; however, a single seed was associated with the Late Archaic County Home component.

157

The Patton 1 site Central-Middle Woodland Period assemblage included samples from nine features (see Appendix for feature details). Approximately 41% the seeds from this site were associated with the spring to summer seasons, whereas 33% were associated with the late summer to fall and 9% with the summer to fall seasons.

Radiometric dates place the Middle Woodland occupation of the Patton 1 site approximately 100 years after that at the Taber Well site. Forty-seven percent of the seeds were known cultigens; approximately 96% of the late summer and fall seeds were storable known cultigens, and 100% of the spring to early summer seeds were known cultigens. These data suggest control over food availability was heavily biased toward the winter season when food resources are most scarce. These data further indicate that occupation of the site was not seasonal but year-round; this is further corroborated by architectural and tool analysis from the site (Patton et al., in progress). As at the Patton 3 and Taber Well sites, nutshell was recovered from the site but in substantially smaller quantities than in the Late Archaic assemblages. The nutshell assemblage, however, was more diverse than any recovered in the earlier site samples; it included hickory, pecan- hickory, black and white walnut, acorns, chestnuts, and hazelnuts. The widening of the diet breadth with respect to nutshell indicates that less attention was being focused on one nut type (i.e., hickory and walnut at the Late Archaic County Home site, acorn at the terminal Early Woodland/Incipient Middle Woodland Patton 3 site). Largely equal reliance on late summer to fall and early spring to summer cultigens at the Patton 3 site indicates that seasonal subsistence strategies in the Hocking Valley had become focused on farming and food production.

158

The Terminal Middle Woodland Period

The County Home Terminal-Middle Woodland assemblage included samples from thirteen features (see Appendix A for feature details). Thirty-eight percent of the assemblage was seasonally available during the late summer to fall, while 56% were available during the summer to fall months. Forty-two percent of the seeds were known cultigens that were likely stored to offset risks during seasons of scarcity. Similarly, 51% of the assemblage was composed of possible managed plants. Together approximately

93% of the seed assemblage was the result of human intervention and management of plants available in the catchment zone.

Aside from the cultigens species identified in earlier archaeobotanical samples, the Terminal Middle Woodland samples at County Home included two kernels of maize.

The feature from which these kernels were recovered, post Feature 54, was directly dated with a two sigma span of 30 to 405 CE. These kernels represent the earliest maize in the

Hocking Valley, as well as the state of Ohio. However, the presence of maize at the end of the Middle Woodland Period is not altogether surprising, given the far-reaching trade typical of the “Hopewellian Interaction Sphere”. It is unclear whether the maize crop was being grown on site or represents an imported good. Given the continued focus on native cultigens at the site, and the limited number of maize kernels in the feature, it is unlikely that maize contributed substantially to the Terminal-Middle Woodland diet. The establishment of farming during the late Early Woodland and continuing through the

Middle Woodland Period established a suite of cultural behaviors related to food

159 production into which maize was introduced. The behavioral requirements for a transition to maize farming would have been minimal, since most behaviors such as forest clearing, planting, weeding, and harvesting had already been established for centuries.

Summation of Middle Woodland Sub-temporal Periods

The terminal Early Woodland/Incipient Middle Woodland Period samples document a change in subsistence and seasonal economic behaviors. Prehistoric populations during this time began to settle down on the landscape into villages, although based on the Boudinot 4 and Patton 3 radiometric dates, this change did not occur simultaneously throughout the valley. Instead, some populations, such as those that inhabited the Boudinot 4 site in the spring months and the County Home site in the late summer through winter months, continued to move seasonally to available resource patches. However, these seasonal movements were within an ever- increasingly restricted space based on settlement data as described in Chapter 5 and likely had been since the later part of the Late Archaic Period. The County Home Late Archaic assemblage, composed of multiple large thermal features spanning from approximately 3970 BP to

2820 BP, attests to semi-annual utilization of the same location.

At Patton 3, populations appear to have adopted a more long-term sedentary strategy utilizing cultivated storable seeds harvested and processed in the late summer through fall months to survive the winter season of scarcity. Acorns were likely consumed in the spring, perhaps after being stored in leaching pits through the winter, along with cultigens like little barley. Thus by the Central-Middle Woodland Period,

160 populations had shifted from moving around a restricted landscape where they harvested cultivated patches of resources to managing patches at central locations. The transitions captured in the Incipient Middle Woodland Period assemblages to the Central-Middle

Woodland assemblages demonstrate two important behavior changes had occurred: 1)

Seasonal management of cultigens intensified, including the addition of spring and summer species like maygrass and little barley to already existing investment in late summer to full domesticates; 2) A more intensive system of land management evidenced by a greater diversity of possible managed plants like sumac, raspberry, and hazelnut, and plants predisposed to disturbed environments such as pokeweed, vetch, and sorrel. These trends continued into the Terminal-Middle Woodland, where managed plants like sumac and bedstraw and known cultigens made up 93% of the seed assemblage. In all cases, these data indicate that Middle Woodland populations were residentially stable farmers.

161

Chapter 5: Evaluation of Domestic Structures and Sedentism

“The time when we could tolerate accounts presenting us the native as a distorted, childish caricature of a human being are gone. This picture is false, and like many other falsehoods, it has been killed by Science.”

--Bronislaw Malinowski, Argonauts of the Western Pacific

The transition from foraging to food production has been cross-culturally associated with changes in technology, settlement pattern, and social organization. The relationship between this subsistence transition and reduced residential mobility has been variably documented in all seven areas of the world where independent plant and/or animal domestication occurred. Changes in these cultural traits are impacted by an individual population’s residential stability, often described archaeologically under the question of sedentism (Kelly 1992). Because these terms have colloquial definitions which can produce confusion in the context of this research project, the specific use of these terms is considered below.

5.1 Understanding and Moving Beyond Sedentism

162

Sedentism can be defined in degrees of variance. Whereas nomadism represents the absence of sedentism in which individuals or groups of individuals have no established base or sufficient area in which they settle, this extreme is opposed by full- time sedentism under which populations live year round, for multiple years at an established and permanent location. Between these two extremes are varying degrees of semi-nomadism and semi-sedentism. For example, Crowell et al. (2005) and Hicks et al.

(2009) argue that homesteads exist between these two dichotomous categories.

Homesteads “indicate that communities built and resided in habitation sites that were moved periodically but within a recognized and restricted space” (Hicks et al. 2009: 60).

Just as sedentism can occur along a continuum, it can be interpreted in multiple ways. McCorriston and Hole (1991: 50) define four examples of possible interpretations of sedentism: 1. A response to increasing seasonality, improved storage, and a reduction in herbivores within hunting range; 2. A way to secure territories over which ownership was exercised, 3. An indication that people were modifying the land around sites to enhance the growth of the cereals and pulses, and 4. The manifestation of one cultural precondition to agriculture—increasingly complex social obligations and institutions.

Sedentariness, as defined by Rafferty (1985: 116), is a social “reorganization” that involves either “developing new ways of obtaining the resources previously obtained by moving the entire society from place to place” (i.e., technological innovation) or

“developing dependence on new resources that are more localized and at least equally as productive as the old” (e.g., a change in the diet breadth); these options largely result from human decision-making when faced with social and/or economic pressures. Such

163 pressures are often described as ultimate causes or “prime movers” (Winterhalder and

Goland 1997) of which population growth, environmental deterioration and territorial constriction are the most commonly cited; humans, when challenged with such pressures, will attempt to reorganize their economic decisions so as to alleviate existing stresses and return to what might be termed equilibrium.

Equilibrium might be achieved through a number of responses, including population limitation, migration, and technological and organizational changes. Regional environmental traits will impact the success or failure of different human responses to resource stress and its ultimate causes; such traits might be described in terms of resource productivity, diversity, and compaction (Rafferty 1985; Kelly 2007). Human responses to stress combined with environmental preconditions and mediators, such as resource diversity and productivity, will impact the reorganized economy and settlement patterns.

Resulting subsistence outcomes have been described as either diffuse or focal, whereas resulting settlement patterns have been categorized into three types: nonsedentary, nucleated sedentary, and dispersed sedentary (Rafferty 1985: 123). These types have limited explanatory power, as sedentariness exists along a continuum of variation that does not easily lend itself to finite categories. This said, however, there is value in a general typology such as that which Rafferty (1985:123) provides. Greater attention to landscape management and resource gathering/production combined with settlement patterning would make this typology much more effective.

Among the other issues with Rafferty’s model (1985) is the turn to ultimate causes as the driving force behind changes in existing human mobility patterns. As Zeder

164 and Smith (2009) point out, there is little evidence in Near East and Eastern North

American archaeological contexts that suggests the typical “kick-start” resulting in system changes such as would be consistent with a “prime movers” based argument.

Similarly, O’Brien (1987) points out that increases in population density, the domestication of plant species, reorganization of socio-political structures and changes in settlement patterns likely coevolved, rather than one ultimate cause igniting all other changes in the social and cultural systems. Producing a model that explains changes in degrees of mobility requires understanding the economic benefits and costs that influence decision-making with respect to subsistence strategizing.

5.2 Applying Optimization Models to Sedentism

Optimization models have primarily been applied to explain economic decision- making among forager populations. Due to the flexibility of these models, they are not restricted to foraging subsistence or food acquisition, but are applicable to any behavior that is potentially fitness-enhancing (Winterhalder and Smith 2000). The major assumption governing these optimization models is that humans, like all other organisms, should act to optimize on currencies that provide fitness-related benefits (MacArthur and

Pianka 1966).

Habitual management and domestication of floodplain terraces can be understood using the patch choice foraging model. Extending patch choice models to human residential placement and sedentariness requires answering the question: when is it optimal to move the patch to the community versus moving the community to the patch?

165

This is not a new question in evolutionary ecology, or human behavioral ecology for that matter, but one that is riddled with complex interactions between selective, environmental, and cognitive influences and mechanisms (Smith 1987).

Patch choice and marginal value modeling has focused primarily on understanding when foragers should continue to feed at a patch versus when they should move on to another patch. Generally, a forager will move from one patch in search of another when the “the marginal capture rate of the patch…drops to the average capture rate for the habitat” (Charnov 1976: 132). The time between consumption of the last prey items in the patch and abandonment of the patch has been termed the “giving up time”

(GUT); environments richer in resources tend to encourage lower GUT since resources are abundant across the landscape and encounter rates are higher thus decreasing travel time and costs. With respect to sedentariness, GUT is also critical as it reframes the primary question and instead asks: when is it more optimal to abandon “giving up” on a patch and instead invest in the management of a landscape through food production?

One way to assess when humans will choose to invest in landscape management is to consider resource catchment zones as a tool to achieve optimization. To some degree this has been done by considering the costs and benefits of niche construction (Smith

2011; Broughton et al. 2010). Niche construction theory asserts that organisms alter or modify their environments in ways that may be beneficial to their own survival. Thus, their offspring not only inherit their ancestor’s genetics, but an altered environment which in turn can impact selective pressures. Niche construction therefore produces an evolutionary feedback loop in which organisms are impacted by natural selection in the

166 framework of a particular environment, while simultaneously modifying that environment and potentially altering the direction of selection (Odling-Smee 2003).

Niche construction among humans differs from that of other organisms due to cultural knowledge and culturally-informed decision-making. Carrying over the assumptions of optimal foraging theory and the tech investment model, a niche or other human inhabited environment can potentially serve as a tool where time/energy investment can be added to increase the yield of the particular land plot. The technological investment model is intended to predict when it is beneficial for foragers to invest greater time/energy into tool production to improve the procurement of resources.

The base assumption of this model, as described in Chapter 2, is that humans will invest greater energy and time into the creation, design and innovation of tools used in the collection and processing of food resources so long as greater investment provides increased rates of payoff minus the investment costs.

As mentioned before, this model differs from other investment models, such as front-back loading (Bettinger 2009: 47-57; Bettinger 1999) and conservation models

(Alvard and Kuznar 2001) which tend towards particular “predetermined” goals

(Bettinger 2009: 60). The technological investment model functions similarly to contingency models where the goal is not a specific outcome but optimization, in which higher resource payoffs are achieved by investing greater amounts of time/energy into technological investment, so that the payoff exceeds what would otherwise be procured even after investment costs are deducted.

167

As described in Chapter 2, the technological investment model requires that two conditions be met for its application: 1. The more costly technology must produce a higher rate of return than the less costly technology (Bettinger 2009: 61) and 2. The technology with the lower return must produce a rate of return per unit of manufacturing time at least equal to that of the technology with the higher return (Bettinger 2009: 62). In applying this model to landscape investment, similar conditions can be outlined: 1.

Managed land must produce a higher return rate than unmanaged plots of land, and 2.

Unmanaged land plots must produce return rates per unit of investment at least equal to that of the managed plot. This is to say that the natural productivity (i.e., yield per unit of land) of unmanaged and managed plots of land must be comparable so that the measure of greater yields is produced from increased efficiency (i.e., yield per unit of labor) in the form of investment. When these conditions are met, landscapes as a tool for achieving residential stability can be considered.

This approach offers a break from traditional descriptions of niche construction and environmental management by considering landscapes within the conceptual framework of tool investment by applying aspects of the patch choice model and the model of technological investment. Similar to the tech investment model, residential stability as an objective is not a predetermined goal but better understood as an optimization outcome in the particular context of landscape investment in order to gain higher resource payoff. A more thorough description of residential stability and the associated behavioral attributes are described below. When considering landscapes as a tool, the land itself should be considered the tool in which time/energy (i.e.,

168 manufacturing costs under the tech investment model) is invested. Since the goal of technological investment is optimization, investment is often geared towards specialization in handling or processing of particular resources. By applying this model to landscapes, optimization would be achieved through patch management contextualized within a subsistence strategy intended to produce dietary stability. By incorporating concepts of patch choice, the issue of mobility can be included in assessments of landscape management resulting in consideration of both dietary and geographic strategizing to produce a model of residential stability.

4.3 Model of Residential Stability

Residential stability is the ability of a population to sustain its dietary or economic needs without relocating the population; patch investment is almost certainly required to achieve residential stability. However, the degree of patch investment differs depending on the residential population size. All foraging populations invest at least minimally in their landscape (Kelly 2007), however these communities tend to sustain smaller populations than do food producers. Among farming communities the degree of patch investment should be substantially larger in order to produce enough food to sustain the given residential population. The point here is only to note that population size probably plays a role in the degree of patch investment as larger residentially stable populations would create larger rates of resource consumption. Population size may have further impacted the degree of population mobility due to the challenges of relocating larger numbers of people.

169

Some generalizations can be made about population residential stability and degrees of mobility. Residential stability is relatively high for populations that exist within a constricted catchment zone that is able to meet the group’s dietary and economic needs; nonsedentary populations are not residentially stable but must regularly move, to varying degrees, in order to obtain resources necessary for survival (Kelly 2007).

Sedentariness provides one of the key components of residential stability as it assures access to resources within a catchment zone despite competition from external human populations. Just as resource compaction can be understood as an environmental precondition for sedentariness, territorialism (Dyson-Hudson and Smith 1978:22) of a catchment zone expressed through boundary markers, defensive walls such as palisades, or lineage claims could be understood as a precondition for residential stability. More densely populated regions should indicate greater degrees of territoriality since competition for resources would be higher. Generally, populations that have staked some claim to a catchment zone will be more conditioned to invest in a residential area within that zone and preserve it through behaviors that promote stability (Dyson-Hudson and

Smith 1978). This idea is comparable to the arguments made by North and Thomas

(1977) that state that changes in property rights were required before humans would transition from foraging to farming. North (1981:89) further elucidates this point:

When common property rights over resources exist, there is little incentive for the acquisition of superior technology and learning. In contrast, exclusive property rights which reward the owners provide a direct incentive to improve efficiency and productivity, or, in more fundamental terms to acquire more knowledge and new techniques.

170

With landscapes, this point proves to be particularly true. Why invest in the productivity of a resource patch, only for rights to the food to be usurped at the point of harvest? This highlights the point that farming in general is a method of delayed-return production, meaning that the time from initial investment to consumption is extended over a period of time. The innate delay between initial investment and harvest/consumption in farming increases the risk of predation making territorial behavior of increased importance in insuring access to food resources. Woodburn (1980:97) notes that human economic systems can be divided on the basis of whether they are “immediate-return economic systems” or “delayed-return economic systems.” Winterhalder and Kennett (2009) further note that “agriculture greatly extends the delay from production decisions to consumption” thus requiring greater levels of defense, seasonal strategizing, and resource management if risks are to be avoided between the period of initial investment in a resource and the time of consumption.

Delayed systems are more vulnerable to cheaters or free-riders since the turnaround from investment to consumption is large enough to prohibit meaningful detection of cheating. Foraging groups have a “relatively short duration of the production interval [allowing] for quick assessment, sanction and correction before imbalances grow too large” (Winterhalder and Goland 1997). However, because farming populations can manage and maintain production at multiple locations at once, whereas foragers cannot hunt and gather in multiple locations simultaneously, “populations increasingly dependent on a few high-yield domesticates will face selection pressures to move risk management within the household” (Winterhalder and Goland 1997:141).

171

In all instances, these studies indicate the importance of defending resources as foraging populations began implementing land management strategies to encourage the production of annual seed plants. Thus, residential stability requires alterations in the seasonal patterns of mobility (e.g., particularly in temperate environments with significant periods of scarcity such as the winter months), increasing defense of managed patches, and a domestic economy largely controlled at the household level (Sahlins 1974;

Dyson-Hudson and Smith 1978; Redding 1988; Smith 1989; O’Shea 1989; Winterhalder and Goland 1993; 1997; Kelly 2007). Each of these points is taken in turn below with respect to residential stability.

5.4 The Effects of Environment on Mobility and Defense

We all move about the landscape to obtain different resources over the course of a year, although admittedly to different degrees. In this sense, no population is completely sedentary, although some populations certainly partake in a greater degree of sedentariness than do others. Because most decisions to move about a given landscape are motivated by economics, variation among human behaviors that are categorized under the question of sedentism should carry a significant level of environmental influence.

Rafferty’s (1985) model of sedentariness considers environmental influence through environmental preconditions and environmental motivators, or resource compaction and environmental productivity/diversity, respectively. Environmental preconditions and motivators can be altered to human economic needs through land and resource management. Thus human intervention in resource patches can result in greater patch

172 productivity; such management can also alter the diversity of species available within a patch as humans select for species that provide the nutritive values necessary for increased health and success. The environmental parameters that previously limited the expanse of the focal plant populations are thus transcended by human management creating a coeveolutionary relationship between people and plants that allows the populations of both to increase through a form of symbiosis (O’Brien 1987: 179; Rindos

1984).

Decision-Making, Defense and the Environment

How we apply optimization models depends on the level at which decision- making is occurring. For example, application of these models by Alvard and Kuznar

(2001) to conservation and animal husbandry is at the level of the individual animal as a member of the herd. Botanical resources involve a number of other levels that can be understood longitudinally on the basis of packet size, with the individual seeds being at the smallest scale, a bushel or unit of yield being of a larger scale, the patch being still larger, and the catchment zone itself containing multiple managed patches of different species as the largest. Investment in different levels implies different costs and returns.

The degree of human spatial containment within a finite environmental range or catchment zone is further complicated by socio-political influences such as territorialism as expressed through social and political boundaries that restrict outsiders, boundary markers or symbolic monuments that communicate ownership, and cultural identity that

173 expresses association between individuals of a residential group (Sack 1986; Mantha

2009).

The economic defensibility model for spatial organization as presented by Dyson-

Hudson and Smith (1978) predicts that populations will adopt “geographically stable territorial systems” in environments where resource distribution is both predictable and dense. Economic defensibility considers the relationships between resource density and predictability and the cost versus benefit of defending resources within a particular territory. Environments where resources have a low rate of predictability inevitably result in greater mobility, with lower resource density encouraging population dispersion and higher densities encouraging territorial shifting as populations move to exploit available patches. Environments with higher rates of resource predictability tend to facilitate defensive behaviors, with “home-range systems” developing in areas with low rates of resource density and more stable systems emerging in territories with high levels of resource density. Geographic stability differs from residential stability, as the former is documented among mobile populations (Kelly 2007) and the latter is determined by residential and catchment zone investment. However, populations becoming more geographically stable within an increasingly smaller geographic space can be understood as a precondition (e.g., though not necessarily a determinate) of residential stability.

The issue of defensibility in the context of resource predictability can be understood in the framework of the diet breadth model. This model has formerly been described as the “encounter-contingent model” (MacArthur and Pianka 1966; Schoener

1974; Stephens and Krebs 1986; Winterhalder and Goland 1997) and primarily considers

174 the ranking of different food resources in a particular environment; the rank of a food item indicates whether foragers will utilize a particular item upon encounter. The rank of an item is often determined by the food’s caloric value minus the pursuit and handling costs of the resource. Winterhalder and Goland (1997: 128-131) summarize the general predictions surrounding dietary decisions as outlined by the diet breadth model:

1. Top ranked resources will always be considered part of the diet. 2. Food items with high enough rank to be considered part of the diet should always be pursued if encountered. 3. As a high ranked item diminishes in a particular environment, the efficiency of pursuit will decline thus pushing the diet to expand to include lower ranked resources. 4. Any changes that increase the pursuit and handling efficiency of an unharvested resource above marginal foraging efficiency levels will move that resource into the optimal set.

If these predictions are combined with the predictions of defensibility, it can be deduced that as lower-ranked resources which have high rates of predictability are added to the optimal set (and thus becoming high-ranked), the degree of defensibility will increase while mobility levels should decrease. Annual seed plants which prove a more predictable resource than masting nut species will encourage home range systems when their levels of density are low. Furthermore, annual species are more efficient as a cultivation investment since the delayed return rate is only a few months or a single growing season whereas the more unpredictable masting arboreal species have return rates that may be delayed by many years. Ultimately, investment in the management of the annual weedy resources can increase their density, encouraging systems of defense that are more stable.

175

Residential stability will occur in circumstances where resources are either dense or dispersed, but where they are predictable. Rafferty (1985) describes these circumstances as instances of sedentariness, with the former leading to nucleated settlement patterns and the latter typical of dispersed settlement patterns. In both instances, the model predicts evidence of defensive behaviors particularly when arable land is converted into garden plots which increase the density of resources in the environment. This is consistent with cultural changes in resource ownership as described by North (1981) and the transition from land tenure to territoriality (Kelly 2007). North

(1981:86) proposes that the inception of territorial behaviors “consisted of first excluding outsiders from harvesting [a rich] resource and then devising rules to limit the intensity of exploitation of the resource by insiders.” The inconsistency with North’s proposal and the archaeological data from the Hocking Valley is that he turns to population pressure as the prime motivator from which defensive behaviors spring. The base of his proposal, omitting the causative agent, is however applicable, namely that a precondition for assessing the degree or type of residential stability requires identification of defensive behaviors. This is admittedly a challenging task for the archaeologist who is left only with material remains of prehistoric human behaviors.

Archaeological detection of residential stability requires a holistic investigation of prehistoric sites at various scales. In order to determine preconditions such as territorial markers, a landscape approach as advocated by Dunnell and Dancey (1983) is most effective as it moves the unit of study beyond the single site to a scale that is inclusive of behavioral and cultural processes within a larger ecological zone. A further example of

176 the superiority of this approach considers the necessity of resource extraction sites, particularly those resources that might be limited or unavailable within the residential zone, such as chert outcrops.

5.6 Assumptions, Predictions and Hypotheses related to Residential Stability

Establishing if and when populations in the Hocking Valley became residentially stable was a primary concern of this research project. Several hypotheses were generated and tested in order to accomplish this objective. The middle range assumptions related to human investment on which these hypotheses were based are defined first. Each of the hypotheses tested are described in the context of the assumptions:

Prediction 5.1: Cultural markers such as mounds, petroglyphs, etc., are material forms of territorial behavior indicating an intention to defend the associated residential spaces, catchment zones and resources. Investment in the construction of these markers serves as a costly signal (Winterhalder and Smith 2000) propagandizing group defense against outsiders. Territorial markers are indicative of cultural ownership and area precondition for residential stability. Therefore, there should be an increase in the number and visibility of territorial markers such as earthworks and mounds over time in the Hocking valley, coinciding with architectural indicators of residential stability.

Prediction 5.2: Greater time-energy investment in domestic structures indicates a greater degree of sedentariness, as such investments are indicative of populations intending to

177 inhabit the structure for longer periods of time than ephemeral architecture. A trend in increased sedentariness should therefore be marked by more substantial architectural features, such as larger or more numerous postmolds, longer-lasting walls as marked by daub construction. Based on Predictions 5.1 and 5.2, the earliest high-investment domestic architecture should correlate chronologically or supervene the construction of territorial markers.

Prediction 5.3: As populations became more residentially stable, economic decision- making moved from the community to household level. This concept is inherent in the

North and Thomas model (1977) of changes in property rights as they indicate greater emphasis on individual access to resources and restriction of free-riders. Further research in other regions of the world has indicated a transition from communal access to resources to household autonomy with the development of farming subsistence strategies

(Kuijt et al. 2011). Such a transition would be associated with moving food processing to the interior of structures or spaces directly associated with domestic structures versus more communally located areas. This is particularly true of cooking behaviors, as indicated by thermal feature locations, as populations attempt to express greater household control over food resources. Furthermore, just as larger vessel orifices are typical of serving vessels allowing greater simultaneous access by consumers (Rice

1987), larger thermal features should be typical of communal access to food resources; as economic decision-making moved to the household level, thermal feature size should decrease, indicating greater defense of resources. Furthermore, cooking spaces should

178 move from central locations to direct association with domestic structures, perhaps even to the interior of such structures. In line with this prediction, thermal feature size (i.e., measured by volume) decreased as economic decision-making moved from the community to household level. These changes correlate with or supervene the emergence of residential stability and should be chronologically congruent with high-investment domestic structures.

Prediction 5.4: Due to differences in seasonal temperatures, domestic structures that were occupied year-round will be associated with interior and exterior thermal features, where as structures which were only seasonally occupied will be associated with one or the other dependent on whether the season of occupation was during the warmer or cooler months. Placement of thermal features will therefore indicate seasonality of occupation.

5.7 Territoriality and Residential Stability in the Hocking Valley

As mentioned above, territoriality is a primary precondition for residential stability. Evidence of territoriality in the Hocking Valley is represented by the presence of ridgetop mounds. As argued by Hicks et al. (2008), these monuments, likely built for ancestral veneration, provide a physical marker or potential territory boundary that unites geographical space with lineage identity; based on Assumption 5.1 above, these structures may serve to communicate defense or potential defense of the landscape by those lineages who invested in their construction. Thus, mounds may represent ancestral presence in their surrounding geographical landscape and potentially provide a familial

179 bond for the descendants living in the region (Hicks et al. 2008; Charles and Buikstra

1983). Each of these mounds is visible from adjacent mounds at least for the region surrounding The Plains Mound Center, and each mortuary structure is likely associated with a homestead area (Abrams 1992; Waldron and Abrams 1999; Abrams and Freter

2005; Crowell et al. 2005; Hicks et al. 2008).

Using GIS analyses, Waldron and Abrams (1999:106) found that of 42 small mounds at least one other mound in the sample was visible from atop of another; as these mounds were associated with hamlets, these earthen structures served as a visible marker of hamlet presence and vicinity. Ultimately, these ridge top mounds served as a costly signal indicative of territoriality and may have even been used by prehistoric populations to communicate with other hamlets in the vicinity. Few radiometric dates for ridgetop mounds exist; Crowell and colleagues (2005:93) note that no ridgetop mounds in the

Hocking Valley have been dated since Murphy’s (1989: 371) publication concerning the

Rock Riffle Run Mound (ca. 440 BCE), the Bob Evans Mound (ca. 430 BCE), and the

Daines Mound II (ca. 280 BCE). These dates are consistent with architectural changes at habitation sites, particularly when compared to the transition from circular to rectilinear domestic structures at the Patton 3 site (ca. 400 to 200 BCE).

5.8 Investment in Architecture

The degree of investment in domestic architecture was measured by analyzing architectural remains, particularly post mold diameter, post mold quantity and the

180 presence of daub artifacts. The results of these analyses are described below followed by a summary of architectural investment for the sample periods.

Architectural Post Mold Diameter

The diameter of domestic post molds was used as an indicator of time-energy investment in house construction and thus of residential stability. Greater investment in the construction of domestic structures to increase their longevity should occur as mobility decreases and populations begin spending longer periods of time at the same location; one measure of this increased investment would be the use of more durable building materials at a site, including larger posts to stabilize structure walls. As populations made the transition from high levels of mobility and seasonal site occupation to greater levels of sedentariness and residential stability, the average diameter of posts should have increased. Furthermore, the materials (i.e., tree species) used in construction should become more standardized (e.g., hardwoods over softwoods, species that are more pest-resistant, etc.) as populations invest more consideration into their building decisions.

A larger sample of charcoal from postmolds must be analyzed to test this latter hypothesis.

Two hundred and thirty-nine post molds dating between the Late Archaic to the

Middle Woodland Periods were excavated from the Patton 1, Patton 3, Taber Well,

County Home and Boudinot 4 sites. Posts were aggregated with one of the five temporal designations in question based on radiometric dates and site stratigraphy (see Appendix

C). Patton 1 yielded 46 postmolds, all associated with the Middle Woodland occupation

181 at the site; although two additional posts were recovered in the Late Archaic “area” of the site, these were omitted from feature comparison as they did not represent architectural remains but were likely used for spit-roasting or some other cooking related activities.

The Patton 3 site yielded the greatest number of post molds due to the recovery of six largely complete structural outlines in Greg’s Field locus and two in Dave’s Field locus.

The County Home site provided the third greatest number of posts with a total of 29; the majority of these were associated with the Middle Woodland Period, totaling twenty-one, with two associated with the Early Woodland and six with the Late Archaic. Excavations at Taber Well yielded a total of eleven post molds, seven of which were associated with the Middle Woodland component at the site and five with the older Early Woodland

Period. Further indicating the change in architectural construction, these raw numbers of post molds were divided by the approximate amount of sediment excavated from each temporal period. The Late Archaic Period density of posts was the lowest at 0.15 posts per m3 of sediment excavated. The Early Woodland post density was 1 post per m3 of sediment. Finally, the Middle Woodland Period yielded the greatest density of post molds at 2.23 per m3.

An ANOVA statistical analysis was conducted on post mold maximum diameters by temporal period. Measurements were aggregated into one of five temporal periods:

Late Archaic, Early Woodland, Terminal Early Woodland/Incipient Middle Woodland,

Central Middle Woodland, and Terminal Middle Woodland. A total of 277 posts were associated with the Middle Woodland Period compared with only six from the Late

Archaic Period (see Table 41). This disparity in number is potentially indicative of

182 increased investment in structures during the later periods. The results of the analysis indicated general trends in architectural investment.

Table 41: Descriptive statistic for post mold diameters Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Diameter Diameter Diameter Diameter Diameter Statistic LA EW IMW MMW TMW 6 6 149 57 21 No. of observations 18.000 7.000 7.000 7.000 9.000 Minimum 25.000 30.000 54.000 40.000 49.000 Maximum 18.500 7.750 13.000 14.000 19.000 1st Quartile 20.000 14.500 18.000 18.000 22.000 Median 22.250 25.750 24.000 24.000 26.000 3rd Quartile 20.667 16.833 19.658 19.789 23.429 Mean 7.867 108.567 69.200 73.633 69.157 Variance (n-1) 2.805 10.420 8.319 8.581 8.316 Standard deviation (n-1)

Descriptive statistics indicated comparable measures of post mold diameter across the temporal periods. The low number of posts associated with the Late Archaic and

Early Woodland periods prohibited strong conclusions concerning post mold size; still the difference in quantity of observations seems to be indicative of changes in architectural investment. The County Home site, seasonally associated with the late summer through winter months (see Chapter 4), would have had more substantial

183 architecture than that of the upland Early Woodland sites, seasonally associated with the warmer months of the year; this may account for the difference in the mean diameter of post molds between the Late Archaic and Early Woodland assemblages. Regardless, the means from the Early Woodland Period through the Terminal Middle Woodland gradually increased (See Figure 16). Standard deviations for the three sub-classifications for the Middle Woodland period suggest house construction had become largely standardized. An ANOVA analysis was conducted on the changes for all periods, however results did not indicate a statistically significant change (df=4, F=1.18, p=0.32).

Box plots ( Post mold Diameter)

30 Diameter

Medial Mid. Woodland 0 Early Woodland Late Archaic Incipient Mid. Woodland Terminal Mid. Woodland

Figure 16: Box plot of post mold maximum diameter spanning from the Late Archaic to the Terminal Middle Woodland Period.

Wood charcoal from all post molds included in the macrobotanical sample was analyzed in order to identify trends in the raw materials used in prehistoric domestic 184 architecture construction. Thirty-one posts were included in this analysis. Only two of these posts were from a temporal association other than the Middle Woodland Period, preventing any significant analysis of changes in building materials over time. Table 42 provides the wood types identified, the weight of charcoal samples analyzed, and the ubiquity for each type.

Table 42: Wood Types identified from post molds included in the research sample. Percentage of Weight Wood Type total by Ubiquity (g) weight Hickory 3.8 24% 29% White Oak 0.44 3% 10% Red Oak 4.16 26% 16% Walnut 0.12 1% 3% Elm 0.57 4% 7% Maple 0.83 5% 10% Chestnut 0.6 4% 3% Willow 0.56 4% 3% Ash 0.09 1% 3% Pine 0.79 5% 3% Ring porous 0.49 3% 16% Diffuse porous 1.03 7% 7% Semi-Ring 0.006 <1% 3% Porous Indeterminate 2.27 14% 7%

Of the wood types that could be identified to at least the genus level, hickory and red oak were the highest by weight, percentage and ubiquity; together they made up over

50% of the identified wood types. Both are durable hard woods; there use over other wood types indicates standardization in domestic architecture construction as well as a concern for structure longevity.

185

Daub Artifacts

During the flotation of sediment samples for archaeobotanical analysis (see

Chapter 4), fragments of daub were recovered from all four sites; stratigraphic and radiometric analyses of the associated features allowed daub artifacts to be temporally associated with specific site temporal components. In the absence of well-preserved structure outlines, daub from post mold features serves as a proxy for relatively high investment in the construction of prehistoric houses. All samples were analyzed using a binocular dissecting microscope with adjustable magnification of 10x to 30x. Samples were noted on the basis of presence or absence rather than counts/weights since the goal here was only to identify the construction of wattle and daub structures versus more expedient or ephemeral domestic structures.

The Patton 1 site contained clear daub outlines associated with the Middle

Woodland posts excavated at the site. Given the ubiquity of daub artifacts, the presence and absence of this material was not noted in the sampled features. Excavation analysis by Weaver et al. (2011) provided detailed evidence that three superimposed and consecutive high investment wattle and daub structures had been constructed at the site.

Similar evidence was found at Patton 3. A daub outline was noted during excavation of

Structure 1 in the Greg’s Field locus at Patton 3, and two daub outlines associated with

Structure A and B of the Dave’s Field locus houses were documented. Additionally, daub artifacts were associated with Structures 2, 3, 4, and possibly Structures 5 and 6 in Greg’s

186

Field. These data confirm that indigenous populations were constructing wattle and daub structures by the terminal Early Woodland/Incipient Middle Woodland Period.

Features at Taber Well that contained daub fragments in the flotation heavy fraction samples included five posts (e.g., 1, 2, 11, 19, and 20). Voids or casts were present in most of the larger (>2 mm) daub fragments; these characteristics represent where organic material, such as leaves and twigs, had been included in the clay matrix but have since decayed away. All features containing daub fragments were stratigraphically associated with radiometric dates (e.g., Features 5, 12, and 21); since these dates span Middle Woodland Period, these data are consistent with the presence of daub structures at Patton 1 and Patton 3. The stratigraphically deepest feature at Taber

Well, Feature 17, contained pottery fragments comparable to those at Late Archaic

County Home pottery fragments; however it did not contain any evidence of daub.

Twenty features were analyzed from the County Home site; those associated with

Late Archaic dates lacked daub fragments. Five posts of the seven analyzed from the site

(e.g., Features 1, 2, 53, 54, and 60) did contain fragments of daub that are comparable to those recovered from the Taber Well site. These posts are stratigraphically congruent; charred material from Feature 54 provides a radiometric date with a two sigma range of

30 to 405 CE, placing it firmly in the Middle Woodland Period. Despite the presence of earlier occupation at the County Home site, only features stratigraphically associated with the Middle Woodland contained daub fragments. Combined with results from the Taber

Well, Patton 1 and Patton 3 sites and the results of post mold diameter comparisons, these data suggest that greater emphasis on the use-life of houses culminated in a shift to wattle

187 and daub architecture beginning around or before 2270 BP with continued construction of these domiciles through the Middle Woodland Period.

Architectural Investment: Summary

Based on post mold size, quantity of post molds, the presence of daub, house shape, and interior house area, general estimates for house construction can be calculated.

Firstly, as mentioned above, average post mold size only gradually increased from the

Early Woodland Period to the Terminal Middle Woodland and not at statistically significant levels. Although subtle, the post mold mean increases by approximately 7 cm from the Early Woodland feature sample to the Terminal Middle Woodland. Descriptive statistics indicate comparable minimum post diameters for the Early Woodland through

Terminal Middle Woodland periods (i.e., 7-9 cm), while Late Archaic minimum diameters were twice this measure (i.e., 18 cm). Similarly, the maximum value for all three Middle Woodland sub-divisions was ≥40 cm, while Late Archaic maximum post diameters did not exceed 25 cm; thus the maximum post mold diameter for the Middle

Woodland was approximately 1.5 times that of the Late Archaic maximum diameters.

The standard deviation for the Incipient Middle Woodland through Terminal Middle

Woodland periods is largely even, measuring approximately 8 cm; the Late Archaic standard deviation of post mold diameters is approximately 3 cm. Excavation of the

Middle Woodland structures from County Home, Patton 1 and Patton3 suggested the presence of interior lines of post that may represent interior walls or benches (Weaver et al. 2011); the similarity of standard deviations likely represent the differences between

188 primary wall posts and interior wall posts. Thus the similarity of standard deviations for these periods indicate comparable variation, suggesting houses were composed of different post sizes but that these sizes were comparable across the temporal span.

Changes in post mold diameter size and the move towards more distinct size classes correlates with the shift from circular structures to rectilinear, or possibly rectangular structures beginning around 400 BCE. Data from the Patton 3 site appears to have captured the historic shift from the former circular form to the latter rectangular form, a transition that increases the average interior surface area by approximately 3 times. Cross-cultural ethnographic analysis allows for a quantification of the person-days associated with these different house forms. Circular structures constructed by the San

(Lee 1979), Siriono (Holmberg 1969), and Costa Rican peasant populations (Lange and

Ryberg 1972), range from two to twenty-five days with a mean of ten person-days of time-energy expenditure for the construction of each domicile (Abrams 1994: 102-107).

Ethnographic data concerning the construction of wattle and daub rectangular structures indicates overall higher rates of investment ranging from approximately 40 to 60 person- days (Wilk and Rathje 1982; Abrams 1994; Abrams and Patton 2012). Based on these ethnographic data, circular structures from the lower stratigraphic levels of the Patton 3 site are consistent with lower amounts of investment, approximately 10 person-days, while the rectangular structures of the higher stratigraphic levels likely represent investment measuring approximately 40 to 60 person-days.

Aside from time-energy investment as an indicator of greater structure permanence, the shift in structure shape or form has been used as an indicator of the

189 degree of population mobility. Fortier (1993:271) notes that prehistoric structures in the

American Bottom “evolve from irregular to oval to square to rectangular.” Similarly,

Baby (1971) notes the transition from “Adena” circular structures to “Hopewellian” and

“Fort Ancient” rectangular domiciles. Although these trends can be used to construct culture history seriations, Peregrine (1992) along with other researchers (Abrams 1989,

1994; Rafferty 1985; Webb and Snow 1974; Zink 2009) have associated these changes with rates of mobility as well as economic and sociopolitical activities. Together the archaeological and ethnographic data indicate that the transition from circular or curvilinear structures to rectangular or rectilinear structures is consistent with greater degrees of sedentariness and house permanence.

The increase in time-energy investment of wattle and daub structures from the preceding smaller and less energetically-demanding circular structures indicates a change in mobility and subsistence strategizing. As mentioned above, these changes, particularly at the Patton 3 site with a two sigma date range of 401 to 206 BCE, correlate with the construction of ridgetop mounds throughout the Hocking Valley, which likely represent a territorial stake on the surrounding catchment zone. The corroboration of these cultural changes is consistent with a punctuated evolutionary occurrence (Niles and Gould 1972) rather than a gradual change in cultural behavior. Furthermore, this directional change indicates a shift from open access to resources to defensive behaviors constraining the degree of communal sharing among populations in the Hocking Valley.

5.8 Thermal Features

190

Just as changes in architectural construction materials and house shape were considered as evidence of time/energy investment in domestic structures, similar comparison was conducted on thermal features. Twenty-five thermal features were analyzed with respect to their individual volumes (see Appendix E for thermal feature raw data). An ANOVA statistical analysis was conducted on these measurements, aggregated into one of four temporal periods: the Late Archaic, Early Woodland,

Incipient Middle Woodland, and Medial Middle Woodland. The temporal designations for this analysis broke from previous temporal categories since none of the features from the Terminal Middle Woodland component of the County Home site had been designated as thermal features; as a result, no data from the Terminal Middle Woodland period were included in the thermal feature ANOVA analysis.

All volumes of thermal features were calculated using measurements of feature maximum diameter and maximum depth. The sample size for this feature group by temporal period was largely comparable across the temporal components except for the

Early Woodland Period which was relatively small (i.e., two features). ANOVA analysis results indicated that the decrease in thermal feature volume from the Late Archaic to the

Medial Middle Woodland period was statistically significant to the 95% confidence interval (df=3, F=3.241, p=0.043). Aside from ANOVA analysis descriptive statistics were calculated for the thermal features by temporal designation (Table 46). The descriptive statistics for the thermal feature assemblage revealed substantially larger features during the Late Archaic period when compared to all other periods; a box plot was created to aid in visualization of these data (see Figure 17). These data are consistent

191 with expectations that Late Archaic populations were aggregating into larger groups to mass process botanical foods in the late summer or early autumn months of the year.

Based on the unusual size of County Home Late Archaic thermal features 9, 45,

47, 48 and 62 (i.e., botanicals from 9, 47, and 48 were analyzed here; see Table 1 for feature radiocarbon dates from the County Home Site), Heyman et al. (2005:70) argue the site was used for feasting by “episodic aggregate communities.” Such models of subsistence and social organization borrow from MacNeish (1981), who documented the seasonal aggregation of “microbands” in resource-rich zones for “communal consumption” (Dietler and Hayden 2001:3), thus forming “macrobands” that increased economic productivity particularly when such aggregations were correlated with annual periods of plenty (e.g., late summer to early autumn) for the Hocking Valley. These concepts are paralleled by patch-choice models (Kelly 2007). Limited linear patch choice predicts that when resources are unpredictable in an environment and aggregated, humans will gather in aggregate patches and will not fission off until resources are completely harvested (Kelly 2007:215).

Late Archaic botanical remains recovered from the County Home site are consistent with patch-choice predictions. The low density or in some cases absence, of botanicals from seasons other than late summer and autumn suggests the County Home site was utilized as an aggregation locus for food processing in preparation for the largely barren winter. Consistent with this hypothesis, the site would have likely functioned as a base camp where smaller bands would have merged to process and share foods while cohabitating through the winter months. Upon the arrival of spring, these groups would

192 have dispersed across the landscape. This Late Archaic subsistence and settlement model conforms to that outlined by Binford (1980) and Adovasio et al. (2001) for other foraging populations.

Additionally, posts associated with a Middle Woodland Period structure were recovered from the site. This structure measured approximately 7 x 4 m, making it comparable in size to structures at the Patton 1 and Patton 3 sites. Similar to structures at the aforementioned site, the County Home structure contained an interior line of posts that may represent a dividing wall.

Table 43: Descriptive statistics for thermal feature diameters aggregated by temporal period. Volume Volume (L) Volume (L) Medial Volume (L) (L) Early Terminal Middle Statistic Lat Archaic Wood E. Wood Wood No. of observations 8 2 6 9 Minimum 39.584 61.739 36.317 11.781 Maximum 1809.557 65.391 441.080 190.041 1st Quartile 159.074 62.652 67.007 39.270 Median 456.002 63.565 127.134 57.340 3rd Quartile 821.227 64.478 183.126 124.407 Mean 649.197 63.565 163.403 82.479 Variance (n-1) 478239.214 6.672 21957.679 4271.291 Standard deviation (n-1) 691.548 2.583 148.181 65.355

Similarly, as populations become more residentially stable and management of economy (i.e., with respect to food processing and regular management of thermal features) shifted to the household level, thermal feature size decreased as less food was processed and cooked in individual events. Due to seasonal variables such as summer 193 heat and winter cold, thermal features located both inside and outside of domestic structures would be more typical of residentially stable populations who were living year- round at a particular location. Since domestic structures were only identified for the

Terminal Early Woodland through Middle Woodland Periods, this characteristic could not be compared by temporal association; however almost all of the structures associated with these temporal periods had both interior and exterior hearths.

Thermal Features Size Changes over Time

2000

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

Volume (L) Volume 800

600

400

200

0 LA EW TEW/IMW MW

Figure 17: Boxplot of thermal feature changes over time.

5.9 Chapter Discussion and Summation

Few ridge top mounds from the Hocking Valley have been radiometric dated; when the available mound dates are compared to the date available for domestic

194 structures at the Patton 3 site, Hypothesis 4.1 is strongly supported. The hypothesis that territoriality should be evidenced before sedentariness is supported and suggests a cultural shift from land tenure to territorial behavior beginning during the Terminal Early

Woodland Period. The statistical significance resulting from ANOVA analysis of changes in thermal feature size further supports Hypothesis 4.2 indicating that economic decision-making shifted as well from the communal level to the household level at a temporally comparable period. These changes indicate a change in cultural perception of ownership and resource access that corresponds with landscape investment.

These data suggest that prior to this period, investment in domestic construction was relatively low and correlates with a largely mobile lifestyle. Populations moved from patch to patch utilizing resources but likely had “central places” at which they aggregated and wintered over. Over time these locations became more “cultural” environments than natural patches, producing a gradual alteration of the biological matrix to one that was more efficient to meeting human resource needs. The increased production of resources in central places eventually resulted in a greater payoff than moving the population to a new patch, even after discounting for the defensive behavior of mound construction. This transition culminates as the switching point from high rates of mobility to greater sedentariness and the construction of high-investment domestic structures. How these changes in landscape investment and domestic architecture correlate with food production and investment in food processing technology are discussed in the subsequent chapters and further contribute to arguments of residential stability.

195

Chapter 6: Evaluation of Food Processing Tools

Ceramic technology, the ability to mold clay into shapes and in some cases fire it to permanently preserve the work of the craftsman, was developed as early as 31,000 to

27,000 years ago (Vandiver et al. 1989; Kralik et al. 2002). Long before humans colonized the New World, small figurines of fired clay called Venus statues were madethroughout Europe and Eurasia. However, the widespread use of ceramic to create vessels did not occur until approximately 20,000 years later (Rice 1987).

In Eastern North America, the oldest pottery vessels date to as recent as 4000-

5000 years before present. As throughout many parts of the Old World, New World pottery production corresponds with shifts in human subsistence strategies, from foraging based economies to those that integrate food produced through small scale farming. The innovation of pottery technology into the prehistoric human toolkit corresponds with the adoption of ground stone technologies, and likely coevolves with subsistence changes.

The timing of these changes and the details of investment in pottery over the subsequent temporal periods has not received broad consideration by previous archaeologists in the

Eastern Woodlands region (See Braun 1983 as an exception).

6.1 Performance of Ceramic Vessels 196

Midwestern American pottery was used as a tool for food production; particularly, pottery was used in the chemical processing of foods (e.g., cooking, soaking, and leaching). Processing botanicals caused task-specific stresses on pottery; the more specialized a vessel was to offset and resist these impacts, the less time and energy would be spent on replacing new vessels and minimize the loss of goods contained within them.

If pottery production was seasonally delimited as suggested by Brown (1984:204) and

Crown and Willis (1995:178), the value of efficient, stress-resistant pottery is substantially increased; task-specific vessels minimized loss. For example, producing direct-heat cooking vessels that were resistant to thermal-shock would increase the lifespan of vessels used in this task; qualities of strength would enhance the durability of vessels used in transport or storage. Selecting for less permeable storage containers reduced the risk of fungi, vermin, and moisture that could destroy seeds and other botanical products. Macro-characteristics such as temper, wall thickness, shape, size, and surface treatment can encourage or discourage particular vessel qualities. Investment in task-specific macrocharacteristics enhanced a vessel’s ability to withstand the stresses of specific tasks. Such technological developments come with their own costs requiring more energy to be spent both in tool production and upkeep or maintenance.

Optimization of tool production occurs when technological investment costs average less than the benefit achieved in prey handling. Existing models fail to consider how investment decisions are affected by the length of time over which a tool may be used

(Ugan et al. 2003: 1316), instead focusing largely on efficiency.

197

Using experimental and behavioral archaeology, an evolutionary model can consider how investment in efficiency through tool performance (e.g., durability and longevity relative to particular tasks) articulates with subsistence transitions. Since many food processing tools increase carrying costs, mobility likely played a role in the degree of technological investment. Experimental archaeology creates measurable artificial systems under which relevant variables can be controlled and processes studied (Schiffer et al. 1994). The focus of the experimental archaeologist is to simulate prehistoric behaviors and materials to make observations about “one or more processes involved in the production, use, discard, deterioration, or recovery of human material culture” (Skibo

1992:18). A number of ceramic components and properties have been tested with regard to the performance qualities they influence, for example, wall thickness, temper and surface treatment. An overview of the relationship between pottery macrocharacteristics and performance characteristics is provided below:

6.2 Strength

Whereas hardness often describes the surface of a ceramic, strength is an overall measure of the durability of the vessel body. It is best understood as the ability of a ceramic to tolerate stress, including penetration, abrasion, fracture, deformation, and breakage (Rice 1987). Strength, as well as hardness, is related to the composition of a ceramic and its firing environment. Strength in a vessel is usually always preferred by potters, as few tasks require the use of weak vessels; still, investment in the strength of a vessel may require an excessive production cost (e.g., fuel). Transport vessels or pots that

198 must be carried a distance require special attention to the quality of strength because they possess the greatest risk of being dropped or jostled. Components such as thick walls are less prone to breakage and fracture under the mechanical stresses of food processing

(e.g., pounding, stirring, and mixing), but prove weak when exposed to higher heat (Rice

1987:227-229). Strong vessels that have thin walls can be produced by considering vessel forms and stability. Temper components can impact strength; both limestone and shell tempered vessels have greater resistance to breakage than grit tempered vessels, but require unique firing conditions to prevent spalling and fracture during production; furthermore, these vessels have high acquisition and processing costs in many regions where geology constrains the availability of limestone resources (Hoard et al. 1995;

Feathers 2006). Cordmarking or roughing the exterior surface of a vessel decreases the risk of spalling during initial firing and increases vessel wall strength (Schiffer et al

1994). Shape and size also directly impact the strength of a vessel (Rice 1987;

Henrickson and McDonald 1983).

6.3 Permeability

The ability for water, other liquids, or air to move through a ceramic from surface to surface is referred to as permeability. This quality is primarily controlled by the size, shape, number, kind, and distribution of pores in the ceramic walls. Wall thickness, the temperature of a particular ceramic, and the nature of the liquid also contribute to a vessel’s permeability (Rice 1987:351-352). Although closely related to measures of porosity, permeability is strictly concerned with open pores that allow liquid or air

199 transference. Permeability can be reduced by decreasing the grain size of temper materials (Rice 1987); smaller aggregates within the clay tend to decrease the porosity of the ceramic and in turn, reduce its permeability. Polishing or slipping vessel interiors has similar effects (Schiffer 1988, 1990; Hendrickson and McDonald 1983). Slips are often produced from a mixture of clay minerals (e.g., crushed hematite), and occasionally organic materials that clog pores in the interior wall and reduce gaps through which water or vessel contents can escape (Rice 1987; Cotkin et al. 1999). Low to no permeability is necessary in tasks that involve water carrying and moist cooking such as soaking, boiling, or simmering. Tasks such as fiber reduction, concentrating carbohydrate fractions, detoxification, and cooking stews, broths, or soups require vessels with minimal permeability. High frequencies of vessels that can be used in moist-heat cooking should be expected of populations in which starchy seed and tuber foods are staple components of human diet. The permeability of a vessel would be a lesser concern in dry food cooking; the pores of these vessels become clogged by small food grains after a few uses, thus eliminating the need for slip application (Rice 1987).

Aside from time-energy costs, the reduction of permeability by use of slips impacts vessel strength. Slipped pottery is more susceptible to abrasions than its unslipped counterparts, and in turn, decreases the overall strength of the vessel (Skibo et al. 1997). High permeability may have been advantageous in indirect-heat cooking; early

Midwestern vessels were thick walled, contained organic fibers or coarse stone temper that created a more porous and thus permeable vessel. These vessels may have been used in indirect heating or stone cooking where larger pores were beneficial in transferring

200 heat into the vessel interior; thick walls further aided in the retention of heat (Sassaman

1993; Gremillion 2004).

6.4 Carrying Weight

Carrying weight is a specific concern in tasks involving distance transport; clay density, temper materials, vessel size, wall thickness, and vessel contents all contribute to the weight of a vessel. Very few circumstances would make a heavier vessel advantageous; instead, greater weight is often an unintentional result of producing thicker walled or larger vessels that have high strength qualities (Rice 1987). Adjusting carrying weight requires thinning vessel walls and reducing the vessel size. Temper material selection and production technique aids in wall thinning; when limestone is used its small particles produce a paste similar to plaster that strengthens thin-walled, light weight vessels.. Use of coiling methods in production enhances vessel stability and allows for containers with thinner walls to be produced (Rice 1987:127-128). Archaeological literature for the Hocking Valley notes an abundance of limestone temper in sherds recovered from temporary use rockshelters, a phenomenon consistent with adjustments for strength and carrying weight of vessels (Murphy 1989; Patton et al. 2009).

6.5 Thermal Shock Resistance

Because ceramic pottery is exposed to heat and fire, its resistance to thermal shock is a quality of concern. When vessels are heated, clay particles and other inclusions (e.g., temper materials) expand. These particles subsequently contract during

201 cooling. Individual particles may differ in their extent and direction of thermal expansion coefficients, placing constraint and stress on one another that is relieved through fracturing, cracking, and spalling (Braun 1983). Thermal shock resistance refers to the ability of a vessel or ceramic unit to withstand sudden temperature change without these significant failures (Rice 1987: 365). This characteristic is significant for producing vessels used in heating and cooking food.

Reducing thermal shock can be achieved by: 1) Using temper materials with coefficients of expansion that are close to that of the clay, and 2) Producing vessels with thinner walls that heat more rapidly (Rice 1987; Braun 1983; Brown 1989). Grog temper, made from crushed pottery sherds, is perhaps the best material for vessels that are regularly exposed to thermal shock. Often made of the same clay as the pottery paste, grog shares a close coefficient of expansion with the ceramic matrix thus substantially reducing vessel failure during cooking (Rice 1987). Calcium carbonate materials, available in the Hocking Valley as limestone or freshwater clam shells, also have a close coefficient of expansion to clay. Of the materials most commonly used as temper, quartz sand and grit are the least resistant to thermal shock as these materials expand at a different rate than does the clay matrix (Rice 1987).

As conductors of heat, thinner walled vessels permit direct cooking with reduced risk of pottery breakage and loss. Thick walled vessels are typically used in indirect heating because they retain heat (Gremillion 2004; Braun 1983). Both indirect and direct heating has the capacity to gelatinize starches and increase nutritional yields of foods.

Indirect heating usually requires that rocks are directly fired and then placed within the

202 vessel; this process takes longer than boiling food through direct heating methods. As seed-food dependency increased, direct heating would be more important for maximizing nutrient extraction from grains, resulting in a demand for thinner walled vessels (Braun

1983).

6.6 Summation of Performance of Ceramic Vessels

Modifying particular macro-characteristics would have been the best means to directly affect performance characteristics relative to task demands. Changes in ceramic macrocharacteristics should directly relate to the functional qualities that are adaptive in the chemical processing of seed foods. Given mobile foragers’ tendency to leave behind objects on the landscape that are heavy or burdensome to carry (Kelly 2007), the payoffs of spending greater time and energy in task-specific production may only become beneficial when population mobility had decreased enough to allow for tool longevity, and also when food production relies on seeds as a dietary staple. Earlier pottery, correlating with a greater reliance on foraged seed foods and greater degrees of mobility, should display performance characteristics that are relatively unspecialized and required only minimal investment. In order to build an evolutionary model that explains these relationships, measures of performance characteristics, subsistence behaviors and changes in subsistence, as well as degrees of mobility should all be taken into account.

Analysis of tool macrocharacteristics was conducted in order to determine performance characteristics compared with existing experimental and behavioral archaeological data (Fitzhugh 2001). Because many pottery samples included in the site

203 assemblages are small and heavily fragmented, magnification was utilized to ease in analysis, as well as other standard tools for accessing pottery physical measurements (see

Rice 1987). Ceramic pottery in the Hocking Valley has traditionally been analyzed using culture history classifications of types that were most often defined by temper, wall thickness, and surface treatment. Many of these types were not defined systematically so as to allow cross-site comparison (Murphy 1989; Prufer and McKenzie 1967; Rice 1987).

As a result, the existing pottery typologies for the region have been developed for purposes of seriation sequencing and did not prove effective in this research project (see

Patton et al. 2009 for problems with traditional Hocking Valley ceramic typologies). As a result, this project refrained from using these classifications. Instead, ceramic pottery was analyzed by count, weight, length, width, thickness, temper, surface treatment (e.g. slips, cordmarking, basket impressions, etc.), surface decoration (e.g., incising, punctuates, etc.) rim diameter, and when possible, rim and body form (Rice 1987) in order to generate estimates of investment. Estimates of investment were generated by applying the production-step index (Feinman et al. 1981) to utilitarian wares.

Furthermore, facsimile vessels were created using steps comparable to those suggested by ceramic remains; each step was measured with respect to the time it took to complete.

Manufacturing time by a novice was used as a proxy measure for energetic investment.

6.7 Secondary Hypotheses Relevant to Ceramic Technological Investment

Two secondary hypotheses were tested with respect to ceramic technological investment:

204

Hypothesis 6.1: The initial investment in ceramic pottery correlates with the widening of diet breadth to incorporate seeds, and initially aided in parching these foods to prevent germination during winter storage at open air sites.

Following Diet Breadth models (Hames 1982; Grayson 1998; Madsen 1998;

Kelly 2007), there should be an inverse correlation between nutshell and seed densities if the latter was initially used to offset scarcities of nut resources.

Similarly, an inverse relationship between early pottery vessels and nutshell should be evident if the primary function of these tools was related to food processing. Although pottery could have been used for nut processing, the inception of pottery appears to occur with the advent of small seeds in the human diet; furthermore, due to their large size, parching of nuts could easily be conducted without the use of a ceramic container (Gardner 1997; Rice 1987).

Hypothesis 6.2: Changes in ceramic macrocharacteristics directly relate to the functional qualities that are adaptive in the chemical processing of seed foods; the payoffs of spending greater time and energy in task-specific production only become beneficial when population mobility had decreased to allow for tool longevity and when food production results in a high reliance on seeds as a dietary staple. Earlier pottery, correlating with a greater reliance on foraged foods and greater degrees of mobility, should display performance characteristics that are relatively unspecialized and required only minimal investment. As populations became more residentially stable, pottery should

205

demonstrate a greater investment in task-specific characteristics associated

with performance.

6.8 Pottery Macrocharacteristic Analysis and Results

A total of 1076 pottery sherds weighing 494.32 grams from the five sites, including Boudinot 4, were analyzed as part of this study. This assemblage represents nearly 100% of all Archaic through Middle Woodland pottery recovered from middle to lower Hocking Valley habitation sites. The vast majority of the ceramics would have been considered fragments by Midwestern archaeological standards if the baseline of 4 cm2 had been used (Abrams et al. 2005); instead all pottery remains greater than 2 mm2 were analyzed using a binocular dissecting microscope. Foregoing the regional nomenclature of referring to all pottery fragments smaller than 4 cm2 as sherdlets, all pottery analyzed as part of this study is described as sherds. Due to the fragmentary nature of the sherds, only approximately 10% of the total assemblage contained interior and exterior surfaces that would allow for accurate measures of thickness and surface treatments. Despite this limited measure, sherds were also analyzed for temper agents, temper aggregate size, and production method. When possible, vessel form, orifice circumference, and rim type were documented. Evaluation of these variables was used to identify changes in the investment of time and energy spent during the production of pottery vessels throughout the temporal periods of focus.

Additionally, a survey of archaeological literature for pottery from non-habitation sites throughout the Hocking Valley with temporal associations to the Late Archaic

206 through Middle Woodland Periods was compiled. Data from these sources was compared with the macrocharacteristics of the primary research assemblage. The goal of these analyses was to test whether greater investment in pottery production occurred as populations became more residentially stable and reliant on farming and land management.

6.9 Thickness Measurements

A total of 97 sherds contained both interior and exterior surfaces, allowing for thickness quantification using a carbon fiber composites digital caliper with a resolution of .1mm and an accuracy measure of ± .2mm. All measurements were taken from the thickest part of the sample sherds to provide consistency in measurements. Thickness measurements were aggregated temporally in two different ways: 1. Thicknesses for all sherds versus time measured in years before present and based on feature direct dates, and 2. Thicknesses for the means of all sherds versus time measured in years before present and based on feature direct dates. All measurements represent maximum sherd thickness; Twenty-three sherds from the County Home site, five from the Boudinot 4 site, five from the Early Woodland component of the Patton 1 site, 22 from the Middle

Woodland component of the Patton 1 site, 40 from the Taber Well site, and two from the

Patton 3 site were measured for thickness. Pottery sherds recovered from separate dated features were treated as distinct analytical units. All sherds were associated with one of twelve radiometric dates from charred materials found in features; as a result, thicknesses

207 from these sherds could be chronologically ordered with greater temporal control than typical seriation studies.

A Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient value was obtained using Microsoft Excel

XSTAT add-in. The Pearson’s r value indicates a positive correlation between decreasing time measured in radiometric years before present and a decrease in pottery thickness. A coefficient of determination value (e.g., r2) was calculated following a linear regression model to correlate pottery wall thickness to time measured in radiocarbon years before present. The coefficient of determination value serves as a statistical measure between 0 and 1 to determine how well the regression line correlates with the data points; the closer the measure is to 1 the better the fit of the regression line to the actual data points. The inclusion of all pottery associated with radiometric dates produced an R2 value of 0.596

(see Figure 18). The Pearson’s coefficient value (r) was 0.7717, suggesting a moderate correlation that was statistically significant (i.e., p-value <0.0001).

The second statistical analysis followed Purtill (2008) and aimed to offset abnormal thickness measures due to the inclusion of basal and rim sherds. In this case, the mean of sherds associated with each radiometric date was utilized. Using a sample size of twelve for the sherd group means and ten degrees of freedom (i.e., total groups minus 2 = degrees of freedom for Pearson’s Coorelation Coefficient), the r value of 0.923 represented a statistically significant correlation with a p value <0.0001. This is to say that 99 times out of 100 the relationship between decreasing time in radiometric years before present to decreasing average pottery thickness, identified in this sample of twelve temporal groups of sherd averages, will be found in the total population (Figure 19).

208

Regression of Thickness (mm) by RCYBP (R²=0.596)

Pearson's Coefficient r= .7717 8 (mm) Thickness p-value <.0001 6

4 3350 3150 2950 2750 2550 2350 2150 1950 RCYBP

Active Model Conf. interval (Mean 95%) Conf. interval (Obs. 95%)

Figure 18: Regression of Thickness (mm) of all sherds by RCYBP.

Similar statistical analysis was conducted by Purtill (2008:63-65) on sherds from ten sites throughout the Mid-Ohio Valley. As here, pottery sherds recovered from separate dated features were treated as distinct analytical units producing a sample size of

16 sherd thickness means. Purtill (2008) conducted two statistical analyses, one comparing thickness measures versus time while the other compared only directly-dated assemblages. Results from this study, spanning from approximately 3600 BP to 1600 BP, yielded similar results with a Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient p value of .020 in the former analysis and .001 in the latter. These results indicated that 1. The decrease in wall thickness is predictable with respect to temporal estimates; and 2. Changes in wall thickness appears to have been directional towards a reduction in thickness, as would be

209 anticipated if functional traits (e.g., wall thickness) were selected for due to their utility with a specific task. Correlation is not necessarily indicative of causation, however; the decrease in wall thickness, although directional and indicative of selective pressures, likely relates to the overall increase of seed proportion in botanical diet.

Regression of Mean Thickness (mm) by RCYBP (R²=0.852)

Pearson's Coefficient r = .923 (mm) Thickness Mean 8 p-value <.0001 7

6 3350 3150 2950 2750 2550 2350 2150 1950 RCYBP

Active Model Conf. interval (Mean 95%) Conf. interval (Obs. 95%)

Figure 19: Average thickness of all sherds associated with radiometric dates measured in years before present.

6.10 Temper and Temper Particle Size

Various materials were added to the clays used in pottery production. These materials, known as temper, were intended to provide greater strength and plasticity to the clay matrix during the shaping or forming of the vessel (Shepard 1976:25). These

210 foreign particles also have an effect on the vessel’s ability to withstand different pressures during its subsequent use-life. Clays from the Hocking Valley and surrounding region may contain what are referred to here as natural inclusions, or materials that were mixed into clays during the initial or subsequent deposition of the clay stratums. These were not purposefully added by humans during the production of pottery, but depending on their presence, absence, and quantity may have influenced prehistoric potters to decide for or against using a particular clay resource. The use of the term inclusions follows Rye

(1981:31-32) and as described by Rice (1987:411) does not make assumptions about how the materials entered into the clay. In combination with the qualifier natural, these inclusions are distinct from temper materials.

Distinguishing natural inclusions from tempers remains challenging for archaeologists, since pottery analyses are typically restricted to macrocharacteristics.

Material type, particle size, shape and amount are typically used to distinguish between natural inclusions and temper; use of binocular dissecting microscope can greatly aid in qualifying and quantifying these attributes. Inclusions identified in the study sample and noted in the literature review included general categories of organics, rock/mineral (e.g., quartz, limestone, muscovite, chert, etc.) and grog. Particle size was used to distinguish differences within these larger (hierarchically speaking) inclusion categories. For example, inclusion particles were crudely sized following the Wentworth (1922; 1933) size class standards of medium (<.5mm), coarse (.5-1mm), very coarse (1-2mm), granule

(2-4mm) and pebble (>4mm). Particle amount or proportion was not conducted by point

211 counts using petrographic analysis but rather was estimated based on particle size following Rice (1987:349; Figure 12.2).

Particle shapes were defined broadly based on angularity. Four classes of angularity were used following Herbert (2009:28): rounded, subrounded, subangular, and angular. Due to the subjective nature of these categories the classification also included particle size and quantity for purposes of determining whether a material was a natural inclusion or temper. Following Herbert (2009:27-28), all tempers sized at the .5mm or less were typically assumed to be naturally occurring in the clay matrix, but especially when grains were non-angular in shape and occurred in proportions less than 10%. This assumption is based not only on the results of Herbert’s (2009) research along the North

Carolina coast, but that inspection of naturally occurring clay samples throughout the

Hocking Valley almost always contained organic components and sand particles measuring less than .5mm (Patton 2007).

Organic materials

Organic inclusions refer to leaves, twigs, and other plant based materials added to the clay; these materials were identified on the basis of their casts (Rice 1987:409), which are voids left in the clay fabric after the materials burn during the vessel firing.

Determining whether organic inclusions were natural or temper is generally dependent on the amount of casts in the clay fabric; for example, organic temper from the Southeastern

United States occurs in such abundance as to be described as “fiber tempered” (Goodyear

1988). Hocking Valley sherds that contained organic materials as inclusions were largely

212 identified from Late Archaic ceramics and likely represent natural inclusions.

Particularly, Late Archaic pottery from the Patton 1 site contained organic inclusions and comparative analysis to clays from the nearby Patton 1 wetlands confirmed organics were ubiquitous throughout this depositional environment. Similarly, County Home Late

Archaic pottery contained some organic casts that were also likely natural inclusions. In both assemblages, the inclusion casts were typically less than .5mm in size with quantity estimates of less than 5%.

Rock or mineral

The category of rock or mineral was generically used in reference to inorganic stone or solid aggregates that were naturally formed, thus omitting grog, botanical materials, and shell. Three broad subcategories were determined based on size: 1. Sand,

2. Grit, and 3. Pebble. Sand was defined as those particles which included fine, medium and coarse size classes (.125-1mm), following Herbert (2009:28). This definition was intended to exclude those particles most likely to be natural inclusions from the larger category of grit which was typically a temper material. Sand particles, often occurring in combination with organic inclusions (Patton et al. 2010), were typically of quartz and muscovite which are readily present throughout the valley in parent sandstones. With fine to coarse particle sizes, these materials were always sub-rounded to rounded, and in Late

Archaic to Early Woodland, samples occurred in proportions of 5% or less; together these data suggest sand as a natural inclusion. Observations of clays from throughout the valley, as part of previous studies by Patton et al. (2010) and Pitts (2001), yielded similar

213 conclusions. Independent sampling of clay outcrops surrounding the Patton 3 site as part of the initial site survey confirmed the presence of sand particles in clays and further supports these conclusions.

Grit particle classes are those inclusions greater than 1mm and less than 4mm.

The presence of grit in Hocking Valley pottery always occurs in estimates greater than 5 to 10% proportions and by the nature of its size, indicates its use as a temper.

Furthermore, grit inclusions in pottery are subangular to angular, suggestive of human processing rather than natural deposition in the clay fabric. The term grit temper refers to crushed rock or minerals added to clay fabrics by prehistoric potters to improve or alter attributes of the clay. In some instances, particular rock materials were used exclusively as temper, such as limestone or chert. As a result, limestone and chert were not categorized as grit temper since their occurrence tended to be exclusive of other rock or mineral types suggesting their use was a matter of the particular rock type instead of rock in general. Limestone and chert tempers were not found exclusively in the pottery from the open-air sites of this study. Instead, they are documented from the literature review and most common in rockshelter contexts.

The pebble size class includes rock inclusions greater than 4mm. Such inclusions were specific to the Boudinot 4 site and are associated with the Early Woodland Period.

Proportions of pebble in these sherds were estimated at greater than 10% and were subangular to angular in shape. These inclusions do not occur naturally in any clays sampled in the valley (Patton et al. 2010) and are undoubtedly examples of temper.

214

Grog

Grog is defined as crushed pottery sherds, and when found in pottery is undoubtedly a temper. First identified in the Hocking Valley at the Rock Riffle Mound by Murphy (1988) and then additionally at the Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric Allen 2 site (Formica et al. 2009), grog temper was isolated from a Patton 1 Middle Woodland sherd and subjected to geochemical analysis by Patton et al. (2010) to confirm it was an illite clay similar to the clays used to produce the site’s ceramics. Grog temper has been identified throughout Eastern North America including North Carolina (Herbert 2009),

Georgia (Sassaman 1993), Kentucky (Mainfort and Carstens 1987), Tennessee (Phillips,

Ford and Griffin 1951), and the American Bottom (Milner 1998).

Herbert’s (2009) research into North Carolinian pottery attempted to distinguish grog temper from clay temper using petrographic analyses. This distinction was not made on the Hocking Valley pottery; however, the angularity and general shape of the inclusions does suggest that crushed pottery sherds were used instead of clay slabs.

Inclusion Comparison Results

For purposes of consistency, all inclusions were documented, including those determined natural in origin. Identified tempers included grit, grog, and pebble. The literature review further included grit particles that were limited to a specific rock type

(e.g., chert and limestone; Abrams 1992; Murphy 1989; Shane and Murphy 1967).

Temporal trends were apparent when inclusions were placed in chronological order

(Figure 20). As mentioned above, organic and sand inclusions were present at natural

215 levels in the earliest pottery samples. The absence of any temper material in these sherds suggests that the benefits of adding temper to pottery with respect to functional advantages were not considered by the valley’s first potters, or that time/energy considerations were more heavily weighted. The addition of inclusions by potters began with pebble temper at the start of the Early Woodland Period and was soon replaced by smaller grit sized temper which continued until approximately 2000 BP, when grog became the dominant material in domestic ceramics. Based on inspection of Allen site pottery, grog continued to be ubiquitous at habitation sites into the Late Woodland Period

(Patton et al. 2010). The Early Woodland Period is unique when compared to the Late

Archaic and Middle Woodland Periods, as all four inclusion categories occur during this period; this diversity likely indicates a period of trait experimentation under which grog temper outcompetes the other temper types.

In order to track changes in inclusion size, the voids and/or temper materials were measured for 288 pottery sherds. All of these sherds were associated with charred material that was radiometrically dated. Larger sherds were selected for inclusion measurements; these sherds were selected simply for purposes of ease in using a caliber to take the measurements. Because some sherds contained hundreds of inclusions (i.e., particularly for sand sized particles), average measurements were documented for a sherd or a group of sherds that shared inclusion type, temporal affiliation, and site context. This resulted in 53 measurements that were associated with one of 14 radiometric dates. A linear regression model was applied to this sample with inclusion size considered the dependent variable to time measured in radiocarbon years before present. Inclusion size

216 over time was also considered by inclusion material. The results of this statistical analysis were significant with an R2 value of 0.894 and a p-value of <0.0001 (df=6 (7 inclusion types minus 1), F=63.556; see Figure 22 below).

100 Percentage of Inclusion Type by Temporal Period 80 Natural Inclusions 60 Grit

40 Pebble

20 Grog 0 Late Archaic Early Woodland Middle Woodland

Figure 20: Percentage of Inclusion Type by Temporal Period. Note that all inclusion types qualified are present in the Early Woodland.

The shift from the larger pebble temper to the smaller grit class during the

Terminal Early Woodland/Incipient Middle Woodland suggests a trend toward reducing grain size. The mean temper size for ceramics at the Boudinot 4 site, although based on a miniscule assemblage of only five sherds, was 4.98mm; by 2180 BP at the Taber Well site, temper sized had decreased to an average of 1.41mm with a maximum size of

3.2mm and a minimum of .6mm. The earliest grog temper appears around 2000 BP at

Patton 1 and Taber Well sites with aggregate sizes measuring between 4.71 mm to

3.56mm and a mean of 4.25mm. A single grog temper sherd from a Middle Woodland

County Home site post mold with an associated date of 1810 BP had an inclusion size 217 mean of 2.2mm (Figure 20). Statistical analyses of inclusion size over time suggest these changes were related to inclusion type more than other factors. Direct dating of sherds from individual sites using thermoluminescence techniques may better the ability to draw distinctions in inclusion size changes within a particular type of temper material.

Regression of Temper size by Assoc. Date (RCYBP) (R²=0.894)

2 Temper size Temper 1

0 3930 3430 2930 2430 1930 Assoc. Date (RCYBP)

Model(Grit) Model(Grog) Model(Sand) Model(org/sand) Model(organic) Model(pebble)

Average Inclusion Size 5 4 3 2 1 0 3850 3350 2850 2350 1850

Figure 21: A. Regression of Inclusion size by RCYBP and inclusion type and B. mean of inclusion sizes from sherd sample compared to time in years before present. Note the large dip occurring around 2300 BP is due to a shift from grit to sand inclusions.

218

6.11 Surface Treatment

Surface treatment is often understood as decorative embellishments on the exterior surface of pottery vessels. Here a distinction is made between surface treatment and surface decoration, with the latter referring to stylistic or aesthetic based attributes and the former referring to functional attributes resulting from production techniques. As is often the case with utilitarian wares, no surface decorations were clearly identified from the sherds in the sample assemblage; evidence of slips, most likely produced from a mixture of powdered hematite, water, and illite clay, is present on a number of Middle

Woodland sherds, but was categorized as a surface treatment due to its inherent functional advantages. A total of 158 sherds contained evidence of a slip; these surface treatments do not occur before the Middle Woodland (omitting the Boudinot 4 sherds).

Aside from slips, two other categories of surface treatment were identified in the primary sample: impressed and plain. The former category was first identified in the valley by Patton et al. (2010) and represents impressions from basketry used as a mold in early pottery production. In many cases, these impressions are extremely worn due to use-wear or pressures from the depositional environment after prehistoric disposal. Of the samples from the Late Archiac and Early Woodland periods, 68 of the sherds have impressions; the remaining sherds from these temporal periods were too fragmented and worn for impressions to be detected on their surfaces. These impressions are not present on any of the Boudinot 4 sherds or subsequent ceramic samples; these samples were classified as plain due to the absence of such treatments. The change in surface treatment

219 correlates with the addition of temper to the clay matrix, indicating a directional shift towards greater investment in pottery production.

6.12 Rim Classification and Vessel Form

Only seven samples from the total assemblage are rim sherds. As a result, the scope of the rim sherd analysis was too limited to produce significant or meaningful comparison. All rim sherds were associated with radiometric dates and include samples from Late Archaic features at County Home and Patton 1, an Early Woodland feature at

Boudinot 4, and Middle Woodland components at Patton 1 and Taber Well.

Rim classification is one of the primary methods of identifying vessel form; however, this type of macrocharacteristics analysis was limited due to the small number of rim sherds recovered. No attempt at identifying vessel forms was made given the poor condition of sherds and the insignificant number of rim sherds. A few Middle Woodland period vessel forms from the Patton 1 and Taber Well sites could have been assessed based on the existing data; this discrepancy between temporal periods was likely impacted by the higher investment in pottery construction during the latter temporal periods.

6.13 Production Method

The phrase production method is used to refer to differences in how vessels were shaped and constructed before initial firing. Ethnographic research has identified numerous techniques for shaping and forming pottery, ranging from construction

220 techniques to the types of paddles used. Rice (1987:124-125) identifies six common procedures for the construction of pottery; these include lump modeling the clay, slab modeling, molding, casting, coiling, and throwing. These techniques, however, are not necessarily exclusive, and subsequent steps in the construction process may destroy evidence of previous methods utilized. Production methods can thus be characterized as primary or secondary (Rye 1981; Rice 1987:124) depending on the order and distinction to which a composite of methods are used. Only lump modeling, molding and coiling are defined here, since there is no archaeological evidence that the other techniques were used by Hocking Valley potters (Patton et al. 2009).

Lump modeling is described as those methods which utilize a single lump of clay to produce a vessel by “pinching” and “drawing up” the walls vertically into a container shape; the term pinching is generally used to refer to the production of smaller lump modeled containers that are formed by inserting the thumbs into the center of the clay lump and pinching the shape using the thumbs and index fingers. Drawing has been applied to the construction of larger vessels using the lump modeling technique in which the walls are pulled up from the clay lump and the fingers are used to thin the vessel walls. Lump modeling, or a comparable technique, is often used in combination with other methods to produce “pinched rims” or “outward flaring rims” at the vessel orifice

(Rice 1987).

Molding refers to the use of a preexisting container or other object to produce a vessel by pressing clay into the shape. Depending on the type of mold utilized, a single lump of clay may be used and worked over the entire mold or smaller pieces of clay may

221 be pushed into the mold and melded together by overlapping clay pieces and thinning.

Ethnographic data suggests that a number of mold varieties are used throughout the world, including two-piece molds that are later pushed together producing a seam

(Paposek 1981), whole or full-piece molds which are single units, convex molds where the clay is shaped over the mold exterior, and concave molds where the clay is shaped in the mold interior. As the clay dries, it shrinks and separates from the mold easing the removal of the clay vessel from the original object; in some cases, a parting agent (e.g., such as hickory oil or rice chaff) may be added to the mold surface to aid in the removal of the clay following drying (Rice 1987:125).

Coiling refers to the creation of clay ropes or coils which are melded together to produce the vessel walls (Blandino 1984). The clay is essentially rolled between the hands to produce a long rope that is typically twice to three times the diameter of the desired vessel wall thickness. This excess clay is then pinched and used to join the coil layers into a strong bond. Rice (1987:127) identifies three variants of the coiling method: ring building, segmental coiling, and spiral coiling. The former method involves stacking separate rings of clay to produce the height of the vessel, whereas the second method is a variation of the former where a number of segments are used for each ring instead of a single coil. The latter method refers to using a coil to spiral the entire shape of the vessel, increasing the vessel height with each subsequent spiral. Additional cords are added to the initial rope as necessary to effectively produce the entire vessel using the spiral technique. Following the initial stacking of coils, paddles and other tools are often used to help form coil junctures.

222

A number of attributes may be used to identify the type(s) of production method(s) used in the manufacture of an archaeological vessel. Lump modeling methods, for example, tend to produce highly irregular wall thicknesses. In instances were little subsequent treating of the surface walls is conducted, finger impressions or depressions may still be preserved on the pottery. Molding, as defined above, refers to the use of an existing container to build the shape of the vessel by pressing chunks of clay into the interior of the container. As the clay dries, shrinkage occurs allowing the new clay vessel to be easily pried from the interior of the initial container. Breakage of these vessels typically would occur along weakened lines where different clumps of clay were melded together during the initial manufacture, producing irregular breakage patterns, as well as relatively thick sherds. Depending on what type of mold was used, residual impressions may be left on the vessel surfaces; the presence of such impressions on either the interior or exterior of the vessel can further assist in determining whether a convex or concave mold was utilized. During the production of vessels using the coil technique, “the junctions of the coils are usually obliterated by later finishing treatments” (Rice

1987:127), thus removing the most obvious evidence that this method was utilized.

However, if coils were poorly bonded, as is regularly the case in utilitarian pottery, breakage will occur along these seams. The break pattern typically follows the lines of the spirals, producing parallel break edges which are often “relatively smooth and rounded” (Rice 1987:128). These distinct patterns of breakage and the other abovementioned attributes indicate the techniques utilized during pottery production.

223

Given the fragmentary nature of many of the sherds in the study assemblage, production methods could not evenly be determined across the sample population.

However, sherds from each temporal period contained enough associative attributes to categorize general production methods. Basketry impressions from a number of the

County Home Late Archaic sherds suggested that organic containers likely constructed of weaved reeds were initially used to produce the shape of the valley’s earliest vessels.

Although such impressions were not universally identified across the entire site assemblage, their presence was noted on almost all sherds that did not appear to have heavy surface degradation or post-depositional wear. The impressions on Sherd 40-9B-9-

15 were so well preserved that the basketry weave could be clearly discerned on the sample’s exterior surface. Similar impressions were visible below the rim flare of Sherd

990-1 from the Patton 1 site; given the pinched shape of the rim on this particular sherd, potters were using a composite method of molding the body of the vessel while pinch modeling the vessel rim.

As noted above, by the Terminal Early Woodland/Incipient Middle Woodland

Period at the Boudinot 4 site, potters had stopped producing pottery using a mold method and had transitioned to produce pottery by coiling. Break lines along the edges of these coils is apparent on the Boudinot 4 sherds as well as subsequent pottery assemblages.

Evidence for this change in production method correlates with changes in temper material as well as a continuing reduction in wall thickness further indicating an increasing investment in pottery traits; that these changes all trend towards higher resistance to thermal stresses is indicative of directional change and selection.

224

6.14 Pottery Time/Energy Investment

The investment in utilitarian pottery was measured using two different scales. The first applied the Pottery Step Index to utilitarian wares; the second involved the results of a mini-experiment conducted as part of this study (see Table 44). This former approach measured the amount of steps involved in the production of a vessel. Each step in the production process is given a value of one, representing a measure of both time and energy. For example, the use of sand temper would have required collection of the resources, and working them into the clay producing a value of 1, whereas the use of grog temper would have required collecting ceramics and crushing them before working the fragments into the clay for a total investment value of 2; the greater the cost value is the result of an additional step. The total values for the production of a vessel are then summed and compared in order to determine which vessels would have required greater or lesser amounts of investment. Steps that are general and the same for production of all vessel varieties (i.e., the collecting of clay, drying and firing of vessels, etc.) are not included in the summation of steps. Although a simple method, this index allows for a general measure of time/energy investment in pottery to be tabulated and compared among units. In using this method, macro-characteristics, which impact and influence the performance characteristics of a vessel, can be measured for the cost of their use.

The second method used to assess the investment costs of a particular vessel involved the creation of facsimile vessels using methods comparable to those used during prehistoric times. In order to make such an assessment, clay was gathered from an

225 outcrop near the Patton 3 site. The clay was used to produce four vessels mimicking methods identified from the research assemblages. Construction time was used as a proxy for energetic investment. Two pots were constructed using a basket as a mold; no temper was added to the clay following the pottery artifacts recovered from Late Archaic County

Home and Patton 1 site features. Complete construction of these vessels was minimal; the first took a total of eleven minutes to produce, the second seven minutes. The average production time for this vessel type was nine minutes.

Two other vessels were constructed using the coiling production method. Grog temper, produced by crushing an older non-tempered vessel was added to the clay of these vessels. Additionally, a slip was created by powdering hematite and mixing it with an illite clay and water. Using the step index, this total process constituted five steps. The first of these steps, crushing the temper into an average aggregate size of two to four mm, took approximately seven minutes with additional four to five minutes to work it into the clay (Step 2). Subsequently step 3, the coiling and forming of the vessel shape, took an additional 24 minutes. Step 4, the creation of a slip, and step 5, the application of the slip, produced a combined time of 12 minutes. These measures are calculated and compared with the Step Index in Table 44, below.

Despite the difference in approach, both methods demonstrated large differences between the investment in Late Archaic and Middle Woodland pottery. The step index measure detected a quintuple difference in time/energy invested in pottery production between the two temporal periods; a measure of time/energy in minutes demonstrated an increase of almost 16 times more time/energy between those vessels produced in the Late

226

Archaic to those produced in the Middle Woodland. This latter measure was based on

extrapolating values. The Coil Vessel Type values were based on a vessel measuring

approximately six centimeters in diameter and 10 centimeters in height; excavated

examples of well-preserved Middle and Late Woodland pottery measure approximately

three times this size (Schweikhart et al. 2005: 118).

Table 44: Step Index counts and average time for each step in the production of different pottery types as identified from the study assemblages Step Average Index Time/Step Vessel Step Description Count (minutes) Basket Impressed Molding clay using a basket 1 9 Total Average Investment in Basket Impressed Vessels: 1 9 Coiled Vessel (Type 1) Addition of temper 1 13.5* Coiling and forming vessel shape 1 72* Total Average Investment in Coiled Vessel (Type 1): 2 85.5* Coiled Vessel (Type 2) Crushing temper 1 20.25* Addition of temper 1 13.5* Coiling and forming vessel shape 1 72* Total Average Investment in Coil Vessel (Type 2): 3 105.75* Coiled Vessel (Type 3) Crushing of temper 1 20.25* Addition of temper 1 13.5* Coiling and forming vessel shape 1 72* Crushing and mixing of slip material 1 27* Application of slip 1 9* Total Average Investment in Coil Vessel (Type 3): 5 141.75* *Extrapolated based on experimental data from production of a vessel 1/3 typical size.

6.15 Literature Survey of Prehistoric Ceramics

A survey of pottery described in archaeological literature from the Hocking

Valley was conducted; the goal of this survey was to construct a backdrop for the pottery

analyzed as part of this study and to determine if other pottery macrocharacteristics

227 varied by site type. The sample for the literature survey was derived from Hocking

Valley excavation and surface collection reports available through various publication media (e.g., books, journal articles, special publications, conference papers, etc.). The survey included 11 sites from across the valley. All sites included here were located in the Unglaciated Alleghany Plateau and were temporally associated with the periods relevant to the primary research data. Two site types formed the basis for the majority of the survey: burial mounds and rockshelter/caves. Only one open air or habitation sites was included in the literature survey, the Bremen site (33Fa1460), since all other assemblages from sites of this nature were included in the primary pottery analysis.

Unfortunately due to the large number of mounds that have been looted or destroyed in the Hocking Valley, and the lack of documentation that exists concerning their contents, only five mound sites could be included in the sample: Rock Riffle Run, Daines I, Daines

II, Daines III, and Armitage (33AT434) mounds. Five rockshelters were included in this survey; they are Facing Monday Creek Rockshelter, Carpenter Rockshelter, Written

Rockshelter, Shaw Rockshelter, and Chesser Cave. The literature review represents data collected from a total of 13,605 pottery samples.

Only assemblages that were analyzed using comparable and numeric values were used to generate the literary sample. Unfortunately, most of the pottery from The Plains

Mound Center, the largest group of earthworks in the valley, was described in general terms, and these descriptions prevent comparison of their subjects or inclusion in this survey. Similarly, mound sites throughout the valley have been heavily looted by amateur collectors resulting in poor representation of mortuary pottery. Weight

228 measurements for pottery samples were rarely available, restricting comparison to counts.

Spilt sherds (i.e., fragmented down the middle so that one exterior surface was missing) were not included in this survey unless adequate analysis of their surface treatments or other macro-characteristics could be assessed.

Sites and ceramic assemblages were not equally represented by existing documentation. With regard to literary data, the detail with which the assemblages were described depends on several factors including the research design focus, the interest and attention of the excavator, and the theoretical approach employed. Early archaeological projects in the Hocking Valley (before 1943) tend to lack the detail necessary for inclusion in the data due to differential methods of excavation and documentation.

Firstly, temper and surface treatment were rarely described in these early accounts.

Provenience was usually only mentioned informally and rarely in standard measurements. Artifact counts were described in numeric form in only a few accounts, and descriptions such as “a pocketful of sherds” or “a few broken pieces of pottery” were quite common (Goslin 1952; Moorehead 1895; Andrews 1877).

Site functions are not evenly represented from the three millennia of prehistoric pottery production in the Hocking Valley. Mortuary samples have only been recovered from Early/Middle Woodland sites, and the majority of rockshelter samples were collected from Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric contexts, although radiometric dates confirm that earlier use of these natural structures occurred (Spertzel et al. 2007). Despite the limits of these existing data, comparison of samples demonstrated trends or levels of

229 systematic changes in macro-characteristics and a temporal-spatial distribution in the ubiquity of varying characteristics.

Late Archaic Pottery

The Bremen site was the only site part of the literature survey that contained Late

Archaic pottery. Located at the confluence of Rush and Little Rush Creeks at approximately 283 masl, the Bremen site was excavated through Phase I and Phase II level investigations by Ohio Valley Archaeological Consultants in 2000 and 2001

(Pecora and Burks 2005). Four features were recovered during the course of these investigations, including a midden, a conical pit, and two thermal features. Two radiocarbon samples were dated; both samples were from features containing pottery.

Feature 2 contained two pottery sherds with a radiocarbon date of 3980±60 BP. Feature 3 contained 17 sherds for a total weight of 14 g and was dated to 3290±120 BP. All sherds were recovered through water screening and had been so degraded as to contain no exterior surfaces. Grit inclusions were present in the clay matrix of the sherds, although the size and amount were not noted; it is not clear whether these were natural inclusions or temper, but given the early date it is most likely the former. Altogether, these ceramic samples are comparable to those recovered from the County Home site.

Early Woodland Pottery

Four Early Woodland mortuary sites, all ridgetop mounds, were included in this survey; together they contribute an additional 192 sherds to the analysis of this temporal

230 period (See Table 45). All Early Woodland mound pottery samples were excavated and collected by Murphy (1989); although Daines 2, the largest of the Daines group, had been partially excavated by Ohio University geology student Michael Moskal (Murphy

1989:155). Radiometric dates were only available for two of these sites, Rock Riffle Run

Mound and Daines Mound 2 dating to approximately 2400 BP and 2200 BP, respectively. These dates are congruent with the Terminal Early Woodland/Incipient

Middle Woodland component at the Patton 3 site.

The sherds from Rock Riffle Run Mound were the most diverse of the four mortuary sites due to the discovery of one cordmarked grog temper sherd; Murphy

(1989) noted that this sherd was most likely an inclusion from a later component based on its context in mound backfill. The majority of the sherds (N=116) from Rock Riffle

Run were plain grit temper samples with temper particle sizes >6 mm. The thickness of these samples ranged from 5.9 to 10.9 mm. The few rim sherds recovered suggested a slightly excurvate vessel with a flattened lip. Nine other sherds were collected from the mound, all of which were limestone tempered; temper particles were as large as 10 mm in thickness, with sherd thickness ranging from 8-10 mm. Four of the limestone temper samples were cordmarked, although all samples likely belonged to a single vessel. Based on depictions of these sherds, what Murphy (1989:178) described as cordmarking was most likely evidence of basket impressions consistent with a molding production method, as identified at the Patton 1 and County Home sites. Sixty percent of the Rock Riffle

Mound ceramic assemblage was between 7 and 9 mm thick. Including the single grog sherd, a total of 125 pottery sherds were collected from the Rock Riffle Run Mound.

231

The three remaining Early Woodland mound sites were located on a single ridgetop, nearby the Rock Riffle Run ridgetop in Athens, Ohio. Only the Daines 2 Mound was radiometrically dated, although relative dating of the Daines 1 and 2 Mounds suggests construction occurred during the Terminal Early Woodland/Incipient Middle

Woodland Period (Murphy 1989). Seriation studies of Liverpool Stemmed points found in Daines 1 suggest the mound was built before 2200 BP; similarities between the Daines

1 and Rock Riffle Run Mound assemblages further suggest that this earthwork predates the latter two Daines Mounds. The artifact assemblage of Daines 3 is comparable to that of Daines 2 suggesting a relative date of ca. 2230 BP (Murphy 1989).

Eleven sherds were recovered from the Daines 1 Mound, two grit and nine limestone tempered; all samples were plain surfaced. The nine limestone tempered sherds had a thickness range of 5-13.1 mm, while the grit tempered samples had an average thickness of 9 mm. Murphy (1989:155) noted that grit samples demonstrated evidence of a coiling method of production, consistent with the earlier presence of coiling production at Boudinot 4. Only three rim sherds were collected from Daines 1 and had a thickness range of 5-10 mm; these samples were limestone tempered with a slight flare and a flattened lip. The Daines 1 Mound sherds likely represent only two vessels.

The Daines 2 Mound assemblage was slightly larger in count than Daines 1 but likely represents only two vessels. Of the total 31 sherds recovered from the mound, 12 were grit tempered and 19 were limestone. All samples had plain surfaces. Grit tempered sherds ranged in thickness from 5-13.1 mm with a thickness average of 7.8 mm. Only eight limestone tempered body sherds could be measured for thickness as the remaining

232 ten were split; limestone tempered body sherds ranged in thickness from 7-14.2 mm with an average of 10 mm. One limestone tempered rim with a rounded lip was recovered from the Daines 2 Mound; this sherd had a thickness of 9.3 mm. One sample from Daines

2 was analyzed by geochemical techniques; the results of this analysis identified that clays from the Hocking floodplain were likely used in production of the Daines 2 ceramics (Patton et al. 2009).

Only eleven sherds were collected from the Daines 3 Mound; six of these sherds, including one rim sherd, were grit tempered, while the remaining five, including one rim, were limestone. All samples omitting one grit tempered sherd were plain surfaced; the one outlying sherd was a cordmarked rim sherd with a flattened lip and a thickness of 8 mm. All limestone tempered sherds had a thickness of 8 mm, and the one rim sherd had a flattened lip. The grit tempered sherds had a thickness range of 5-8 mm. The Daines 3

Mound assemblage likely represents only two to three vessels. Although a larger sample of pottery may have been present at the Daines 3 Mound, the site was bulldozed before complete excavation of the mound could be conducted (Murphy 1989:163-165).

The Shaw Rockshelter (33Ho7) is located in Wildcat Hollow of Laurel Township,

Hocking County, Ohio. Surveyed in 1965 by Shane and Murphy (1967), two 5’x5’ test units revealed Early Woodland through Late Prehistoric components. Shaw Rockshelter is only a single chamber of a series of shelters formed in a Black Hand sandstone outcrop; the series of rockshelters extends for approximately 100 yards along Wildcat

Creek. No radiometric dates are available for the shelter, but a relative chronology for

233 recovered pottery was possible through seriation of associated points (Shane and Murphy

1967).

The Early Woodland Shaw samples consisted of 13 limestone tempered body sherds. All sherds were plain surfaced and ranged in thickness from 5-12 mm; the average sherd thickness was 10.2 mm. Samples were found in association with ovate- stemmed points which have been recovered from both the Daines 2 and Rock Riffle Run

Mounds with their associated radiometric dates. Shaw Rockshelter is the only temporary-stay site in this survey with pottery clearly dating to the Early Woodland

Period.

The Early Woodland pottery from the literature survey was only recovered from non-habitation sites. Comparable to the Boudinot 4 pottery, these sherds contained crushed rock as a temper, although approximately 29% of these sherds were exclusively tempered with limestone.

234

Table 45. Early Woodland Samples (NA signifies that data was not available in the existing publication; RS signifies rock shelter) Assoc. Feature Surface Thick. Thick. Site Dates N Assoc. Temper Treatment Range Mean Source

Rock Riffle Run Mound 440±60 BCE 116 Mortuary Grit Plain 6-11 mm 8 mm Murphy 1989

5 Mortuary Limestone Plain 8-10 mm NA

Cordmarked (Basket 4 Mortuary Limestone impressed?) 8-10 mm NA

1 Mortuary Grog Cordmarked NA NA

Daines Mound 1 NA 2 Mortuary Grit Plain 9mm 9 mm Murphy 1989

9 Mortuary Limestone Plain 5-13 mm NA 7.8 Daines Mound 2 280±140 bce 12 Mortuary Grit Plain 5-13 mm mm Murphy 1989

19 Mortuary Limestone Plain 7-14 mm 10 mm

Daines Mound 3 NA 5 Mortuary Grit Plain 5-8 mm NA Murphy 1989

1 Mortuary Grit Cordmarked 8 mm 8 mm 5 Mortuary Limestone Plain 8 mm 8 mm Shane and Murphy Shaw Rock Shelter NA 13 RS Limestone Plain 5-12 mm 10 mm 1967

Middle Woodland Pottery

Only two sites from the literature survey contained solidly Middle Woodland components, Armitage Mound and Shaw Rock Shelter. Only the former site was radiometric dated, whereas the latter site’s temporal association was based on culture history seriation sequencing of points. Together the sites contribute an additional 76 sherds to the analysis of this temporal period.

The Armitage Mound (33AT434), excavated as a salvage operation by Abrams and the 1987 Ohio University Field School, is a conical mortuary mound located in The

Plains, Ohio, and over one kilometer southwest of the Hocking River. This mound was part of a larger cluster of earthworks represented by over 30 conical mounds and sacred circles, most of which have been destroyed and replaced by residential structures. Seven 235 of eight radiometric dates from four mounds from the cluster indicated Middle Woodland construction of the earthworks, with the remaining sample dating to the Late-Early

Woodland Period. Two radiometric dates from the Armitage Mound place its construction 1810 ± 45 BP and 1880 ± 90 BP (SMU-2161; charred material; 1810±45 B.

P.; cal AD 83-340; intercept AD 236; Beta-27705; charred material; 1880±90 B. P.; cal

50 BC-AD 380; intercept AD 128; calibration based on Stuiver et al. 1998). These dates are congruent with the Middle Woodland County Home site component.

Excavation of the Armitage Mound recovered 14 cremations surrounding a single fully articulated adult male skeleton (Abrams 1992). Furthermore, 21 pottery sherds, belonging to no more than two vessels, were recovered from the mound. All but one sherd were body sherds; the single rim sherd was too fragmented to provide data concerning lip or rim shape. Sherds contained a mix of limestone temper and sand inclusions, although it is probable that sand particles were not an intentional inclusion but resultant of the clay utilized in pottery production. Limestone temper ranged in size from

1-3 mm. All samples were plain surfaced and exhibited no evidence of a slip. Thickness measurements for the 21 sherds ranged between 4-10.25 mm. Three samples from the

Armitage Mound were analyzed by geochemical techniques; results revealed that the

Armitage ceramics were produced from clays collected from the nearby Hocking River floodplain similar to those used to produce ceramics at the Daines II Mound (Patton et al.

2009).

A Middle Woodland component at the Shaw Rockshelter was identified by Shane and Murphy (1967). Fifty-four pottery samples were recovered and relative dated by

236 association with three Middle Woodland points and one hafted scraper. All sherds were cordmarked, grit tempered, and probably represent a single vessel. No temper aggregate size measures were available. Thickness of the samples ranged from 5-8 mm with an average of 6.2 mm. The presence of cordmarking on these ceramics is consistent with sherds from the Late Woodland Allen site; their presence in the rockshelter assemblage but not in the habitation data of this study may suggest that this trait evolved later in the temporal trajectory of the valley than accounted for by the primary data in this study.

Table 46. Middle Woodland Samples Thick Thick. Cnt Feature Surface . Average Site Dates . Assoc. Temper Treatment mm mm Source Armitage Abrams Mound 200±125 ce 21 Mortuary Limestone/Grit Plain 4-10 1992 Shane and Shaw Murphy Rockshelter 54 --- Grit Cordmarked 5-8 6.2 1967

6.16 Pottery Description and Summation

The earliest pottery sherds from the Hocking Valley were recovered from the

County Home site. This assemblage is largely fragmentary and small (N = 692) with an average sherd weight of .29g. However, this assemblage may represent evidence of a container “software phase.” Rice (1999:38) notes that the earliest evidence of pottery “is represented by unfired, sunbaked, or low-fired noncontainer objects thus far known primarily from the Upper Paleolithic of Europe.” These artifacts, including animal and human figurines, are “nonutilitarian, noncontainer and nonculinary” in nature, and provide evidence of the social and symbolic spheres of human culture (Rice 1999:38).

Late Archaic County Home pottery can reasonably be defined as low-fired low-

237 investment containers. The use of clays with natural inclusions of organic materials and sands may have been intentional since these clays would have provided easier workability than clays lacking such inclusions, and did not necessarily require the increased investment of temper “production.” Sherds from Bremen, Patton 1, Patton 3, and the deepest levels of Taber Well are comparable.

These pots meet the expectations of Archaic-period ceramic technology suggested by Schiffer and Skibo (1987:607) in which “high priority” was placed “on [the] ease of manufacture and portability, whereas [in the Woodland periods]…technology stressed heating effectiveness and characteristics that promote longer uselives (e.g., impact resistance, thermal shock resistance, and abrasion resistance).” Macrocharacteristic analysis and consideration of the production investment in Hocking Valley Late Archaic pottery suggests that an individual pottery container was not intended for prolonged use.

Although not a precise measure of investment, the Step Index for Utilitarian Pottery defines the manufacture of Late Archaic County Home ceramics as minimal and requiring an exceedingly low level of investment. Experimental data from this study suggests that such pots took approximately 9 minutes to produce. If such pottery were used without drying, the investment in these initial pots was extremely low. Even if such pottery was dried and subsequently fired before use, the time/energy investment in such pottery was far surpassed by the investment in subsequent pottery.

The initial adoption of pottery by Hocking Valley inhabitants follows the assessment of Clark and Gosser (1995:212-219) and further elucidated by Rice

(1999:43), that incipient pottery “mimics natural container forms of tree, vine, and bottle

238 gourds and hard-rind squashes” (Rice 1999:43). Particularly in the case of Late Archaic pottery from the County Home and Patton 1 sites, basketry was used as a mold to shape lumps of clay into viable vessels for processing food. Thus, the earliest forms of pottery might best be understood not as an invention but rather as an innovation of an existing technology, or as Rice (1999:43) describes it, a “substitution of containment media,” in this case a change from basketry to clay. Similarly, gourds and squashes may have been used as molds in the production of this early pottery, although there is no present evidence of this in the archaeological record of the Hocking Valley. Given the smooth surfaces of such botanical vessels, it is hard to conceive of empirical data that might leave enough of a lasting impression to be indicative of the use of cucurbit molds.

The timing for this innovative change from early organic containers to clay vessels appears to correlate with an increasing reliance on seed foods as part of the prehistoric diet and a decrease in nutshell in the proportion of botanical foods. The earliest feature dates for the sites researched come from the Boudinot 4 and County

Homes sites. No pottery was recovered from Boudinot 4 associated with the Late Archaic

Period, despite an abundance of Late Archaic County Home pottery fragments. Similarly, abundant seed remains were recovered from the County Home site Late Archaic contexts, particularly those associated with late summer and autumn contexts, whereas the

Boudinot 4 seed assemblage was largely restricted to spring species and particularly maygrass. These data are consistent with largely mobile populations occupying different ecological niches dependent on the season and availability of resources. Investment in

239

Late Archaic pottery is largely limited to sites were foraging populations were gathering in the late summer and autumn, preparing for the coming winter season of scarcity.

Early Woodland pottery indicates a period of change and a greater investment in pottery as a tool in food preparation and processing. Simultaneously, potters began adding temper to the clay they coiled into vessels. They added slips to the interior of pots, which experimental studies have demonstrated reduces the permeability of the ceramic matrix which allowed a pot to hold liquids for longer durations (Rice 1987; Schiffer

1988, 1990; Cotkin et al. 1999). Wall thickness of these pots continued to decrease from that of earlier vessels; vessels with thinner walls have a lower thermal gradient and are thus less susceptible to thermal stress (Rice 1987: 229; Van Vlack 1964: 117-165;

Lawerence and West 1982: 226). These traits produced vessels more equipped for the mechanical and thermal stresses of cooking, and particularly with respect to porosity, the cooking of broths and soups. These foods could be consumed and better digested by infants or young children; this point should not be underestimated as such changes in diet may have allowed mothers to wean children earlier and decrease the interbirth interval

(Watson and Kennedy 1991). Such reproductive advantages would allow for substantial increase in the number of offspring per mother, and as Richerson and Boyd (2005) have argued, greater population lends itself to great likelihood of technological variation and in turn, innovation. Many of these innovations would have required greater time and energy to be invested in technology, which may have only paid off if the tool had a longer use- life. Settlement data from the Patton 3 site further suggests that populations were becoming more sedentary on the landscape, allowing for a vessel with a greater use-life

240 to be more advantageous. That evidence of sedentariness predates high investment in food processing technology further indicates the effect of carrying costs on technological investment. The chronological order of these phenotypic behaviors suggestions selective mechanisms were responsible for these transitions versus other evolutionary pressures.

By the Middle Woodland, potters had settled on the thermal advantages of grog temper. Almost 92% of all tempers used during this period were grog, as opposed to the

1% used in the previous temporal period. As Rice (1987:229) describes, “a major determinant of resistance to thermal stress is the composition of the ceramic, particularly the inclusions present or added, because certain materials have lower coefficients of thermal expansion than others.” Rye (1976: 119) notes that preventing the damages caused by thermal stress and producing pottery that is best adapted to such pressures is the dominant concern at habitation sites, where the primary use of pottery would have been for cooking meals. The failure of a vessel during the process of cooking would not have only meant the loss of a pot but more importantly, the loss of food and the energy it took to gather and prepare it. “The optimal solution in the manufacture of vessels intended for use with heat,” as described by Rice (1987:229), “would be to have inclusions (temper) with [thermal] coefficients similar to or less than that of clay.” Grog temper, particularly that produced from the same clays as the vessel matrix, meets these requirements better than any other temper material available in the valley, although mollusk shell and other calcium carbonate based materials provide similar results when fired under specific conditions (see Feathers 2006 for an evolutionary approach to the

Mississippian and Late Prehistoric Period transition to shell temper pottery).

241

The adoption of grog temper in Middle Woodland pottery was not a singular trait change but was part of a larger suite of changes. Such changes included a decrease in average wall thickness from approximately 9.5 mm thick to 7.75 mm; this difference in measure occurs quickly over the course of approximately 150 years, representing the largest drop in wall thickness for such a period of time in the entire study chronology.

The next closest decrease in wall thickness, measuring approximately 1.5 mm, occurred during the Late Archaic to the Early Woodland transition, and was substantially more gradual, occurring over the course of 600 years. The temporal correlation between the decrease in wall thickness and the spike in grog temper frequency is indicative of a directional selective mechanism, especially considering that both traits produce a vessel that is better adapted to the stresses of cooking. Such pots were high investment when considered under both the Step Index and experimental data. This latter information indicates a sixteen times greater investment in the production of Middle Woodland pottery over incipient pottery from the valley.

These correlations directly relate to food and settlement, indicating a coevolutionary process. Increasing sedentariness evidenced by wattle and daub structures at the Patton 3 Early Woodland site, the Patton 1, Taber Well and County Home Middle

Woodland components, are indicative of increased time/energy investment into the durability and use-life of domestic structures. However, ceramics from Patton 3 are still relatively low investments with respect to time/energy, particularly when compared to the high levels of investment in domestic structures at the site; these data indicate a coevolutionary sequence under which the highest levels of investment in pottery

242 production did not occur until after populations became essentially sedentary. This indicates that the use-life and carrying costs of pottery vessels was a primary determinate of production investment. Furthermore, the macrocharacteristics of pottery artifacts may be used as an indicator of the degree to which populations were residentially stable at a particular site.

6.17 Ground stone technology and the Eastern Woodlands Neolithic Transition

Just as pottery was used in the chemical processing of botanical foods, mechanical alteration, i.e., grinding, milling, and pulverizing, was accomplished using ground stone technologies. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses were conducted on the ground stone in order to provide a more holistic approach to changes in food processing technology. Ground stones were typically used to remove the harder parts

(e.g., nutshells, endocarps, testas, etc.) of plant foods from the oily or starch interiors, as well as grind and mill the edible seed parts into flours. As indicated by the archaeobotanical analysis above, numerous nut and seed species were processed for food in prehistory. Various species required different processing methods, and thus different types and shapes of ground stones. For example, hickory nutmeats cling tightly to their shells making separation difficult. However, due to the fat content of these foods, crushing the nuts and boiling them in water produces hickory oil that can be readily skimmed from the water surface while nutshell and nutmeat sinks to the bottom (Scarry

2003; Fritz et al. 2001:1-27; Talalay et al. 1984:352-353). Ethnographic data confirms a long standing tradition of processing hickory in this manner (Swanton 1946). Munson

243

(1986) identifies a noteworthy increase in hickory nutshell beginning in the Middle

Archaic Period throughout Eastern North America. These data are teamed with increased number of shallow basin shaped pits ideal for extracting oil from hickory nuts. Oil, in turn, was likely used to flavor foods, increase their nutritional value, and serve as a preservative for meats. Purtill (2009) notes that during the Middle Archaic Period there is a recognizable increase in ground stone artifacts throughout the Ohio Valley, further coinciding with what Munson (1986) perceives as evidence of hickory oil production.

These data suggest that the use of ground stones far preceded the origins of cultivation and domestication of the EAC, and likely developed as a tool for processing nuts.

No standard typology exists for ground stone artifacts in Eastern North America, particularly the chronological periods included in this research project. Similarly, no studies from this region have focused on the density or quality of ground stones relevant to technological investment and the Neolithic transition. However, general conclusions concerning these trends and ground stone presence have been noted at individual sites in the region. Purtill (2009: 575) notes that by cal 5950 BP, “a well developed ground and pecked stone tool industry was in use” and is represented by various stone raw materials, including but not limited, to granite, quartzite, sandstone, and limestone. The Unglaciated

Plateau of Ohio, which includes the Hocking Valley, is devoid of many of these harder stone materials, but contains numerous hematite outcrops. Abrams and Freter (2005) identify the presence of ground stone artifacts as indicative of a growing concern with landscape maintenance and food processing. Weaver and colleagues (2012) identified activity areas with high densities of ground stone artifacts at the Middle Woodland Patton

244

1 site as food processing locations associated with a domestic houselot. A primary focus of this project was to test whether ground stone artifacts increased in quantity and became more specialized as farming became a greater part of the prehistoric subsistence strategy.

A total of 253 ground stone artifacts weighing 69 kg and 203 ground stone fragments weighing 19,548.2 grams were recovered from the sites. Fragments refer to those artifacts which were too broken to reasonably determine to which artifact category they belonged. Due to the limited attention this artifact class has received in the Eastern

Woodlands region, no standard method of categorization exists for the assemblage. A general typology was created using Adams (2002) and focused on comparing ground stone material (i.e., sandstone, limestone, granite, etc.), tool type (i.e., handstone, abrader, netherstone, etc.), and degrees of tool investment through modification (i.e., did they modify the stone to produce “finger grips”, did they carve regions of the stone that were subsequently utilized in order to ease in use, etc.). Ground stone size was measured via weight. The majority of ground stones analyzed were composed of sandstone; this is not surprising given its ubiquity throughout the Hocking Valley region. A number of tool types were defined including handstones, netherstones, and abraders. Subcategories are defined below under each of the primary categories.

6. 18 Handstones

Handstone is a generic category that includes all ground stone artifacts that are handheld. However, abraders were broken off into a separate category, despite that they are a “handheld” ground stone given the high density of these artifacts at the sample sites.

245

Artifacts that could not be identified to a subcategory were labeled with the generic

“handstones” following Adams (2002:98). Handstones were used in tasks that involved grinding and pulverizing, justifying their taxonomic separation from abraders that were typically used for sharpening, smoothing and polishing. Subcategories of handstones included manos, pestles, hammer stones, and pecking stones. The definitions and criteria used to determine each of these subcategories are provided below.

Hammerstones

Hammerstones are a subcategory of handstones used to apply force against other materials. As percussion tools, hammerstones are described as often being expedient, of heavy weight and moderately large sized (Haury 1976:279). Those hammerstones which are modified before use typically have finger grips cut into them to ease in holding or wielding during strikes against other materials (Adams 2002:151). Nutting stones, a category often used to type Eastern North American ground stones, are hammerstones particularly used in the task of breaking hard-shelled nuts such as hickory, walnuts and acorns. Due to this function, many hammerstones have large nut-sized impressions in one or more surfaces from repeated contact with these food items. The intensity of hammerstone use results in numerous breaks and fractures and thus regular discard of this tool type. Arguably, the majority of ground stone fragments recovered from prehistoric domestic sites represent broken hammerstones that were subsequently used as hearth stones; as a result hammerstone fragments may often be recovered from fire-cracked-rock assemblages.

246

A total of 25 hammerstones weighing 7,538.9 grams were recovered from the sites analyzed as part of this research project. Additionally, four groundstones weighing

1617.2 grams were defined as multi-categorical specimens (i.e., hammerstone and mortar, hammerstone and pecking, etc.).

Pecking Stones

Pecking stones are a subcategory of handstones, similar to hammerstones. Adams

(2002:152) describes these tools as having “a fuzzy boundary” given that they share the same “basic design” and that “both are used with forceful strokes that create impact fractures and chips.” The differences that occur between these tools is a matter of kinetic force, with pecking stones being used with less force intensity that results in greater use- wear uniformity along the impact surface of the tool. The particular instances of pecking stone use are vast and may include the shaping of other hand stones and netherstones, crushing seeds and grains, smashing fruits, and splitting leaves. As with hammerstones, modification of this subcategory is most often present in the form of carved finger grips or reshaping to ease in handling and use. A total of 57 pecking stones weighing 10,122.7 grams were recovered from the sites analyzed as part of this research project.

Manos

Mano is a subcategory of handstones that is used in the grinding and pulverizing of plant materials in conjunction with a netherstone, or metate. Given the coupling of these two artifacts and that one is of little use without the other, they are often analyzed in

247 pairs (Adams 2002:99; Adams 1999; Hayden 1987); in archaeological assemblages, only one of the two is commonly recovered due to site formation processes (Shiffer 1983).

Manos can be either expedient or modified, whereas the latter are usually shaped to better fit the metate netherstone. Comfort modification is also commonly documented in the form of finger grips when manos are used extensively, usually to grind or crush seeds and grains into flour. This mechanical processing increases the surface area of food particles allowing for better digestion and absorption of nutrients. Although not conducted as part of this analysis, manos can be further subcategorized based on shape; such classifications are largely related to their use with a particular metate. These classifications include basin, concave, trough and flat; further data concerning these shape classifications can be found in Adams (2002:99-127). A total of ten manos weighing 3,350.4 grams were recovered from the sites analyzed as part of this research project.

Pestles

A pestle is a subcategory of handstone tools that is used in crushing, grinding and pulverizing materials. The particular functions of these artifacts are often defined by the shape and size of the tool, with larger pestles used to breakup material into small pieces and smaller tools used to grind and crush objects. As with other handstones, pestles can be expediently used or modified to produce specific shapes, finger grips, or other attributes beneficial to their use. Many pestles are used in conjunction with a mortar or cupped stone in which instances the distal ends of the pestle have the heaviest wear and abrasions. Due to their use in crushing and grinding, pestles might have some functional

248 overlap with manos; Adams (1995:84) provides an example of a pestle used with a mortar to crush mesquite pods and subsequently used with a metate to grind the crushed pods into flour. For this reason, manos are defined by medial use wear and pestles by distal use. A total of nine pestles weighing 1,564.1 grams were recovered from the sites analyzed as part of this research project.

6.19 Netherstones

Netherstones is a generic category that includes all ground stone artifacts that were used as under or bottom stones on which some item or material was worked.

Though not universal, netherstones are often used in conjunction with a handstone which was used to apply pressure to the materials placed atop of the netherstone. Due to the nature of their use, netherstones are typically large stones composed of coarse grains as these characteristics make the artifact more likely to withstand the stress of grinding, milling and pulverizing that took place on the tool’s surface. Like handstones, the category of netherstone is subdivided into specific categories including metates and mortars; the generic netherstone category was also used for those stones which did not clearly present the characteristics used to distinguish an artifact as a metate or mortar.

Many of these generic netherstones were likely grinding slabs, however such a tool type has not been consistently defined or sorted to provide comparative value (Adams

2002:145; Woodbury 1954:113-116). Additionally, netherstones can be subcategorized as lithic anvils, pottery anvils, or lapstones; these categories were not used in this analysis due to their vast overlap in characteristics with metates and mortars. A total of seven

249 generic netherstones weighing 3,310.8 grams were recovered from the sites analyzed as part of this research project.

Metates

A metate, as mentioned above, is a subcategory of netherstone used in conjunction with a mano; the metate is the grinding surface on which seeds and grains may be worked into a flour. In many regions of the Americas, there is confusion over the categorization of this tool type as it is singularly assigned to the processing of maize

(Wright 1994; Huckell 1998:120; Rinaldo 1957; Adams 1999; Adams 2002); in this analysis, the use of this subcategory is not specific to or indicative of maize processing.

Adams (2002:100) reiterates this point by noting that “a technical approach classifies artifacts according to design, using amount of wear as one indicator of life history…keeping in mind that morphology does not indicate what specific food substances are processed.” These tools are large, containing a flat to slightly basin-shaped surface on which botanicals were ground to flour. Future research using starch grain analysis might improve this classification by combining design classes with specific food substances. A total of fifteen metates weighing 7,954.1 grams were recovered from the sites analyzed as part of this research project.

Mortars

A mortar is a subcategory of netherstone that is “designed with a basin that confines an intermediate substance that is worked with a pestle in some combination of

250 crushing, stirring, or pounding strokes” (Adams 2002:127). These tools are often used in conjunction with a pestle to breakdown various materials including seeds, pottery, and ochre. Mortars are subtyped by Adams (2002) into pebble mortars, rock mortars, boulder mortars, stationary mortars, and shaped mortars. This former subtype is defined by the small size of its basin which is usually less than 5 cm in diameter and no deeper than 2 cm. The use of this label to describe the subtype has presented some confusion; advocacy for retaining this label is presented by Adams (2002:128) due to its utility (see Martin

1979; Wheat 1955). Rock mortars are larger than pebble mortars (i.e., containing wider and deeper basins) but are still of a size that is portable, unlike boulder mortars which are built into stones that are typically too big to permit easy carrying or stationary mortars which are built into bedrock and caves (Woodbury 1954:117) and cannot be moved.

Finally, shaped mortars are defined as those which are modified into particular shapes and are likely associated with use in specific crushing tasks. This latter subtype has much overlap with the aforementioned categorizes as well as metates. A total of 58 mortars weighing 24,317.5 grams were recovered from the sites analyzed as part of this research project.

6.21 Abraders

Abrader is a generic category distinguishing all ground stone artifacts used to alter the surfaces of other items such as wood and bone tools, pottery, stone and shell. They are defined by the presence of abrasive wear patterns; although by default, this category includes smoothers and polishers. Adams (2002:77) defines these tools as those which

251

“remove material from the contact surface through adhesive and abrasive mechanisms.”

These tools are usually handheld, thus overlapping with handstones; however, the corner or edge of large netherstones occasionally were used as expedient abraders in order to sharpen or otherwise alter the surface of handstones or other tools. For the purpose of this research, abraders were not subcategorized as there use was often secondary to handstones and netherstones in the tasks of botanical food processing. Future research in the Hocking Valley region may warrant a research design that subcategorizes abraders into this former type, smoothers, polishers, and hide-processing stones. A total of 38 abraders weighing 5,632.2 grams were recovered from the sites analyzed as part of this research project.

6.22 Ground Stone Discussion and Summary

Gremillion (2004) and others (Weaver et al. 2012) have proposed that the sheer size of ground stones makes them inefficient tools for largely mobile populations given the energetic cost of carrying them from place to place; Nelson and Lippmeier (1993) have proposed that mobile populations would store ground stone artifacts at central locations that would be seasonally utilized and built into a larger logistical strategy for obtaining and processing food resources. Neither thesis is directly applicable to sedentary populations except to indicate that as populations become more settled on the landscape, the number of ground stone tools and tool fragments would accumulate to significantly greater levels than those at sites occupied intermittently or for limited amounts of time.

252

As implied by the pottery analysis results above, sedentary populations have a higher likelihood of investing time/energy into the modification of tool shape in order to make them more effective in processing tasks. Such investment would only be beneficial in situations where the use-life of the tool was great enough to offset the initial cost of modification. If ground stone tools were not regularly carried from place to place due to their size and thus increased carrying costs, increased modification of tool shape could be used as an archaeological indicator of decreased degrees of mobility. Furthermore, the size of ground stones carried by mobile populations should be relatively small compared to that of tools kept at central locations or sedentary sites. Thus an increase in the number of ground stone tools over time, a greater number of tools modified, and an overall increase in ground stone size should correlate with increased sedentariness and residential stability.

Ground stones from each site were aggregated by temporal association in order to aid in comparison of temporal period assemblage size, trends in modification and shaping, and average tool size. Table 47 compares the count and weight for ground stones associated with each temporal period. Comparison was made at the type level and included abraders, handstones, or netherstones. Multi-purpose artifacts, fragments, or unidentifiable artifacts were omitted from quantitative analysis. The majority of artifacts that fit into the omitted types were associated with the Middle Woodland Period.

Of the total ground stone assemblage that was identified as an abrader, handstone, or netherstone, 87% by count and 93% by weight were associated with the Middle

Woodland Period (Table 47). Counts and weights for the Patton 3 site were somewhat

253 biased due to emphasis on ground stone collection during field excavations; this led to a slight inflation of the Middle Woodland raw count/weight. However, very little collection of ground stones from the Middle Woodland component at the County Home site was conducted; this was largely due to the increased emphasis of excavating the large Late

Archaic thermal features at the site and the associated cultural levels. Furthermore, fire- cracked rock was not systematically collected from either the County Home or Taber

Well sites. Given the high number of ground stones and fragments that were recovered from the Patton 1 and Patton 3 FCR assemblages (i.e., due to prehistoric reuse of these artifacts as hearth stones), the ground stone count and weight totals for the Taber Well and County Home assemblages (e.g., largely associated with the Middle Woodland

Period) are likely underrepresented. In order to overcome some of these inherent data biases, ground stone quantities were normalized using two different methods: by percentage of the total count and weight (g) per temporal association and by calculation of approximate density per temporal period.

254

Table 47: Quantitative analysis results for ground stone artifacts as aggregated by temporal period associations. Abraders Handstones Netherstones Weight Weight N Weight N N Temporal Period (g) (g) Late Archaic 5 544.3 19 2365.5 6 1559.3

Early Woodland 0 0 1 118.2 0 0

Middle Woodland 30 4953.2 92 22264.7 86 36781.6

Count/Weight

Late Archaic 14% 10% 17% 10% 7% 4%

Type

Early Woodland 0% 0% 1% <1% 0% 0% Total

Middle Woodland 86% 90% 82% 90% 93% 96%

Percentage of Percentage

Late Archaic 0.125 13.6 0.48 59.1 0.15 38.9 sediment

Early Woodland 0 0 0.1 11.8 0 0

Middle Woodland 0.3 123.8 0.92 222.6 0.86 367.8

Approx. Density/m³ Density/m³ Approx.

Late Archaic 40% 49% 68% 65% 67% 57%

Early Woodland 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0%

Middle Woodland 30% 21% 52% 58% 47% 63% Percent of Type Modified ofType Percent

As indicated in Table 47, the percentage of each type was calculated using the total count or weight of ground stones per temporal period (See the second tier of Table

255

47). For all types of ground stone, percentage measures were higher by weight than by count for the Middle Woodland assemblage; this disparity indicates that the Middle

Woodland ground stones were larger on average than the Late Archaic or Early

Woodland artifacts. Similarly, the percentage of each type for the Late Archaic Period was higher by count than by weight. Overall, the percentage of each type was exceptionally higher for the Middle Woodland assemblage than either of the other two temporal periods.

Secondly, the approximate density of ground stones was calculated for each temporal period. This analysis result is described in the third tier of Table 47. The total volume of sediment was approximated based on temporal associations of each level excavated from the sample sites. Due to the removal of the plowzone from the Patton 3 and County Home sites using a backhoe or bulldozer, some ground stone artifacts may have been lost as sediment from this stratigraphic level was not screened. The total excavated sediment from each temporal period for the sample sites was approximated at

40 m3 for the Late Archaic Period, 10 m3 for the Early Woodland Period, and 100 m3 for the Middle Woodland Period.

Comparison of densities indicates an increase in the amount of ground stone artifacts from the Late Archaic to Middle Woodland Periods. The density by count of recovered abraders increased by 2.4 times and 9.1 times by weight for the Middle

Woodland Period; similarly, the density of handstones increased by 1.92 times by count and 3.77 times by weight. The density of netherstones revealed the greatest jump with counts increasing by 5.73 times and weights 9.46 times. These data indicate that not only

256 did the number of ground stones increase between the Late Archaic and Middle

Woodland Periods, but that the size difference of ground stones between these temporal periods was noteworthy, as among all three types the weight densities increased at a much higher rate than did the count densities.

Finally, the degree of modification was considered for ground stones from each temporal period. Modification included a number of different forms of investment by manufacturers, although most common were the creation of finger grips, particularly on abraders and handstones, and shaping; this latter form of modification was often identified on netherstones, and in this particular case, commonly refers to the carving of a concave area of the stone presumably used to crush and grind seeds and other small items. Rather than reporting the raw numbers for modified ground stones (the number of

Middle Woodland artifacts that were modified would greatly outnumber those of the Late

Archaic Period), the percentage of modified ground stones for each type per temporal period was calculated. The greatest percentage of modified ground stones came from the

Early Woodland assemblage, but since this sample represents only a single specimen, the percentage is not of statistical value.

Omitting artifacts from the Patton 3 site and abraders as a class, the majority of both Late Archaic and Middle Woodland ground stone artifacts were modified at all sites.

When comparing the aggregation of all ground stones for a particular temporal period, only abraders yielded a majority of unmodified tools. The high number of unmodified abraders may be due to the expedient nature of this tool type. Regardless, modification of ground stones was not dependent on temporal period, suggesting that these tools were

257 invested in early on in the cultural trajectory. However given the increasing count and size (i.e., average weight) over time, ground stone artifacts became more abundant and important during the Middle Woodland Period, indicating a connection with sedentariness as described above.

258

Chapter 7: Discussion and Summary

In 1987, Stuart Fiedel (236) emphatically stated, “Hopewell settlements were concentrated on or near river bottomlands, not for floodplain agriculture, but because wild resources were most abundant in those micro-environments.” By 1993, many scholars (Smith 1992; Scarry 1993; Yarnell 1986) had already provided substantial data contributing to the argument that Middle Woodland populations were at least partially sustaining themselves through the cultivation of native weedy species. Still, caution was paramount in what this meant for the settlement patterns and domestic economy of these prehistoric populations, for as Fritz (1993:39) warned “sedentariness is not necessarily correlated with the presence of cultigens.” By 1997, however, the data from Ohio had become more convincing due to the excavation of a handful of sites, including Murphy 1,

Murphy 3, Campus, and NUWAY, by Dancey and Pacheco (1997; Dancey 1991;

Pacheco 1993) in the Licking River Valley. Analysis of the archaeobotanical data from these sites by Wymer (1997:160) concluded that “people must have invested considerable amounts of time and energy in the creation, maintenance and harvesting of…garden plots and in the processing of the products derived from the gardens.” Wymer (1993:160) further argued that “at a minimum, some individuals must have been occupying these and

259 other such sites during spring planting, summer maintenance, and fall harvesting of horticultural products. This implies some degree of sedentism.” Such a presence during the growing season is essential for instances of defense and at least somewhat necessary for garden management and routine planting to stager harvests. Wymer’s conclusions were met with resistance, namely by Yerkes (2006; 1990) but others (Cowan 2006;

Lepper and Yerkes 1997), who argued that the archaeobotanical assemblages from the aforementioned sites were seasonally distinct and indicative of seasonal occupations versus sedentary hamlets. This stark contrast in the description of Middle Woodland subsistence and domestic economy remains a major point of contention in our understanding of the prehistoric past.

The hypothesis that Middle Woodland populations remained largely mobile foragers is based on three key pieces of evidence:

1. Middle Woodland populations remained focused on foraged food species, despite the presence of cultigens in archaeobotanical assemblages (Yerkes 2006). 2. Middle Woodland populations only seasonally occupied habitation sites (Lepper and Yerkes 1997) to such a degree that they were not “farmers” (Yerkes 2006). 3. The toolkits of Middle Woodland populations are more indicative of sites that were seasonally and temporarily occupied than sedentary hamlets or farmsteads (Cowan 2006; Yerkes 1990).

Before addressing the primary hypothesis and objectives of this research study, each of these premises is taken in turn below and considered under the present data from the

Hocking Valley. Results of these data were considered and used to promote a new set of premises that are specific to the prehistoric occupants of the Hocking Valley region, but may easily be applied to the surrounding Scioto and Muskingum valleys. 260

Premise 1: Middle Woodland populations remained focused on foraged food species, despite the presence of cultigens in archaeobotanical assemblages.

The domestication process in Eastern North America was unlike that in many other parts of the world. Unlike the Near East, Africa or the secondary agricultural regions of Europe, there were no large pack animals to pull a plow or transfer goods from place to place (Abrams and Freter 2005). Similarly, there were no animals, aside from dogs, that were domesticated as a regular source of meat-protein. In the absence of domesticated livestock, Eastern Woodlands populations continued to rely on hunting for animal protein that provided essential amino acids. However, protein intake could have been and appears to have been supplemented by an abundance of edible nut species, particularly those belonging to the hickory and walnut genera. Gardner (1997) considered the energy costs of procuring and processing the regionally available nut species and found hickory and black walnut to be the most economical. The continued reliance on these high fat/moderate protein nuts through all temporal periods included in this project has contributed to arguments by some scholars (Yerkes 2006; Cowan 2006) against

Middle Woodland farming. The ubiquity of nutshell at Woodland habitation sites has further prompted other scholars (Pacheco and Dancey 2006; Smith 2006) to describe

Middle Woodland populations as subsisting on a “mixed” foraging-farming economy.

Undeniably, Middle Woodland populations remained committed to the use of wild botanicals long after the presence of weedy cultigens appear in the archaeobotanical assemblages of the Ohio Valley region (Scarry 2003). The earliest clear evidence of

261 domestication in the Hocking Valley dates to ca. 3340 B.P. and comes from Feature 30 at the County Home site from which a carbonized seed of Iva annua measuring above the domestication threshold was recovered. Numerous later domesticated seeds predating the

Middle Woodland Period were recovered from County Home, Patton 3, and Boudinot 4.

Despite these archaeobotanical remains, Middle Woodland assemblages from County

Home, Patton 1, and Taber Well confirm the continued reliance on wild species such as hickory, walnut, hazelnut, sumac, and raspberry as food sources. These data would appear to corroborate the first premise of the seasonally mobile foragers model as presented by Yerkes (2006) and others (Cowan 2006).

However, the bulk of this premise rests on the assumption that wild foods were

“foraged” and beyond the reach of human alteration and control. This assumption harkens back to what is meant by terms such as domestication, farming, and foraging.

Furthermore, did humans intervene in the lifecycles of these plant species to such a degree that their presence in an archaeobotanical assemblage might not be indicative of foraging behaviors, but of land management? Rossen (1992:196-199), for example, notes the moderate to high quantities of sumac seeds (Rhus spp.) recovered in Ohio Valley archaeobotanical assemblages to suggest that these plants may have been planted, managed and maintained by prehistoric populations as a food resource. Interaction between humans and plants to this suggested degree would provide reasonable grounds to reallocate sumac from the “wild” category to that of “cultigen” or at least “maintained.”

Similar arguments could be made for raspberries and its sister species of the Rubus genus. Raspberries grow best in soils that have been disturbed and could have been

262 cultivated or encouraged by prehistoric populations. As an early succession species, raspberries form thickets that protect hardwood seedlings which quickly grow upwards and replace berry patches (Perine and Profant 2007). To sustain a long-term patch of raspberries, continued maintenance of the patch is required to prevent later succession plants from taking hold. Such suggested behaviors again challenge the dichotomy of wild versus domesticated by indicating a potential mid-region of landscape maintenance.

The aforementioned “wild” species, particularly raspberry and sumac, have a relatively short maturity cycle (i.e., a year to a few years) before they become reproductive. Nut species tend to take longer periods of time, with the first few years of their lifecycles spent on physical growth rather than fruit production. Hazelnut (Corylus spp.), for example, takes approximately 5 years before producing nuts (Bonner and

Maisenhelder 1974; Grimm 1983; USDA); shagbark hickory typically does not produce nuts until 25 years of age, with maximum production occurring when the tree is between

60 and 200 years of age (Bonner and Maisenhelder 1974; Grimm 1983; USDA). Given the prolonged periods between germination and nut production, cultivation of these species seems highly unlikely. However, hickory species are often outcompeted by faster growing oak species (Nelson 1965), and regular management of floodplain terraces in the form of clearing competitive species by prehistoric humans may have created greater nut yields. Black and colleagues (2006) provide further data that Native American influence through burning, landscape maintenance, and resource extraction impacted forest makeup to the benefit and dominance of hickory, oak and chestnut. Although these nut species were never “domesticated,” they were clearly outside the realm of “wild” or “foraged

263 foods” and instead may have proved a consistent and reliable fat and protein resource due to artificial selective pressures created through landscape and terrace management. Their abundance, however, in archaeobotanical assemblages should be assessed with caution; as Yarnell (1993) points out, the woody structures of these species creates a taphonomic bias towards them over the starchy and oily seeds of many of the local annuals.

Furthermore, Yarnell’s (1993) meticulous analysis of paleofeces from Salt Cave suggests that nut species composed only 20% of the prehistoric botanical diet; however this could have been a specialized “cave diet”.

Nut species, however, would have provided important nutritional aspects to the human diet. Nutritional analysis of shagbark hickory revealed high-energy ratios of 696 calories per 100 g of nutmeat; protein content registered at 11% and fat at 72.7% (Scarry

2003:62-63). Juglans nigra, or black walnut contained similar measures with 621 calories per 100 g; the meat from this species is composed of 24.1% protein and 58.5% fat (Scarry

2003:62-63). Nutritional composition of Juglans cinera, white walnut or butternut, is comparable to the latter species while Corylus spp., or hazelnut is more comparable to the former (Scarry 2003).

Yerkes (2006:59) argues that oily and starchy foods were available in the Eastern

Woodlands lowlands and nuts were more readily available in uplands, thus encouraging a seasonal strategy of lowlands occupation during the warm months and uplands occupation during the colder months. However, this argument is challenging due to the natural ranges of these botanical resources; nut species of the genera Carya and Juglans typically grow in groves (Scarry 2003:60), with the larger of the species Carya ovata

264

(shagbark hickory) and Carya laciniosa (shellbark or king-nut hickory) ubiquitous along floodplain terraces in the Hocking Valley (Perine and Profant 2007). Wymer (1997) further points out that Corylus spp. (hazelnut) often fall prey to small mammals and would need regular attendance to promote successful harvests; these species typically grow along forest edges and further indicate regular niche maintenance. At the Patton 3 site, the terrace forest is composed of large nut producing hickories and walnuts, with hazelnuts, raspberries, and sumacs filling the understory along the forest edge and surrounding modern agricultural fields. The paramount conclusion from these points is that botanical remains typically categorized as “wild” do not necessarily represent foods that were beyond the reach of human cultural influence; instead, many of the species described as “foraged” were likely managed, maintained and impacted by a larger mosaic of human subsistence strategies in anthropogenic environments. Simply that many of these plants were first succession species, they would have required constant management of the environment to prevent later succession species from outcompeting them. Furthermore when considered within the temporal palimpsest of this study, nutshell densities clearly decrease from the Late Archaic to the Middle Woodland Periods as the proportion of seeds in the botanical assemblage becomes dominant.

2. Middle Woodland populations only seasonally occupied habitation sites to such a degree that they were not “farmers.”

Most of the arguments against Middle Woodland farming are based on the question of how long and when habitation sites were occupied (Yerkes 2006; 1997).

265

Furthermore, this premise is similarly questioned as farming is possible without year- round residence at a site. Analyses from the Hocking Valley has refuted assumptions that these populations were largely mobile (Weaver et al. 2012; chapters 4-6 above ), but attention remains focused on the Scioto Valley, considered one of the “Pinnacle cores of

Hopewell,” where habitation data has not been forthcoming due to a research concentration on mound centers and earthworks. Excavations from the Patton 1 site

(Weaver et al. 2011) firmly concluded that at least some Middle Woodland populations were constructing wattle and daub structures that required high levels of energetic investment. Using Yerkes (2006:56) own criteria for identifying “stable, formally organized, year-round settlements,” Weaver and colleagues (2011) established that residence of the Patton 1 habitation site spanned approximately 23 years, with prehistoric rebuilding of domestic Structure 1 twice, before abandonment. Furthermore, sediment sample analysis conducted as part of this study confirmed the presence of similar structures at the County Home and Taber Well sites via the recovery of daub from post features. Despite the heavy investment in the Patton 1 structure, wall posts “only extended into the ground an average of 12 cm” (Weaver et al. 2011:31). Had the site undergone agricultural plowing, all traces of the Patton 1 Middle Woodland posts would have been erased. If inhabitants of the Murphy 1(Dancey 1991) or Jennison Guard sites

(Kozarek 1997) constructed their houses in a manner similar to that of the inhabitants at

Patton 1, the historic plowing of the sites may be responsible for the absence of domestic postmolds, despite the presence of thermal features and “twig-impressed daub” (Kozarek

1997:137) suggesting their presence..

266

The seasonal analysis of archaeobotanicals that was conducted as part of this study further indicates that populations at the Patton 1 Middle Woodland site were present during all seasons of the year. Similar results were obtained for the Terminal

Early Woodland/Incipient Middle Woodland Patton 3 site, the Central-Middle Woodland

Taber Well site, and Terminal Middle Woodland County Home site.

3. The toolkits of Middle Woodland populations are more indicative of sites that were seasonally and temporarily occupied than sedentary hamlets or farmsteads.

The bulk of this premise has rested on chipped stone assemblages rather than the more domestic-site specific pottery and ground stone artifacts; these latter artifact types are more directly related to food processing, both chemical and mechanical. Based on the time/energy investment analysis as described in Chapter 6, pottery artifacts indicate increasing emphasis on specialized production, specifically cooking vessels. Such investment would only have proved beneficial if such pottery had an increased use life to offset initial production costs. Given the results of pottery production and investment costs as described above in chapter six, the tool data are indicative of sedentary communities beginning circa 400-300 BCE.

Objectives

The first objective of this research project was to identify general trends in the prehistoric botanical diet spanning from the Late Archaic to the Middle Woodland

Periods for the Ohio Valley region. The second and third objectives considered tool

267 investment and mobility within a larger coevolutionary context. The chronological sequence of changes based on the three lines of data analyzed as part of this research indicate changes in subsistence occurred prior to increases in technological investment and sedentariness. Foraging populations in the Hocking Valley began supplementing their diets with seeds from plant species available in floodplain and terrace environments along the second and third order streams throughout the watershed. The inclusion of these resources into the forager diet occurred by at least the Late Archaic Period, although it may extend to the Middle Archaic Period. This latter period is marked by sparse archaeological remains and the absence of large artifact assemblages (Purtill 2009).

Pollen profiles spanning from approximately 7750 to 4500 BP indicate high levels of local variability in climate and extensive changes in the vegetation throughout Ohio

(Shane et al. 2001:30). Among the plants that increased during this period were non- arboreal botanical species, particularly grasses. A decrease in beech pollen between approximately 6000 and 4500 BP is indicative of a period of general warming and possible drought that likely impacted masting arboreal species, upon which foraging populations were heavily dependent. Thus, changes in environmental conditions during the Middle Archaic Period and the climatic episode referred to as the Hypsithermal

Interval (Shane et al. 2001; Ogden 1966) may account for the inclusion of starchy and oily seeds into the human diet as a means of risk reduction during years when masting species were unproductive. Greater archaeological inquiry into this period of prehistoric occupation of the region may clarify our understanding of the inception of plant cultivation.

268

Pollen profiles from throughout the state of Ohio suggest climate and vegetation was largely comparable to modern times beginning circa 4500 BP, during the Late

Archaic Period (Shane et al. 2001). During this period, it is clear that foragers of the region were utilizing plants such as chenopods, knotweeds, marshelder, and squash to offset the food resource shortages associated with the winter months, a behavioral trend that was likely adopted in the prior period, as described above, but which continued as a risk reduction strategy in non-mast years. Thus, the persistence of grasses and starchy seeds in the diet during the Late Archaic Period was likely motivated by seasonal strategies and use of these cultigens as fallback foods during seasons of scarcity

(Gremillion 2011:59). The results of analyses from the Late Archaic component sites and features, as summarized below, provide further details concerning subsistence and domestic economy during this period.

Late Archaic Period

The Late Archaic archaeobotanical assemblage came predominantly from the

County Home site, although small assemblages were recovered from the Patton 1 site

(i.e., Feature 1) and the Taber Well site (i.e., Feature 17). In the case of the latter site assemblage, a Late Archaic association was presumed based on feature stratigraphy and associated pottery attributes. Inclusion of data from the Boudinot 4 site further contributed to the Late Archaic assemblage, although only minimally; a single feature from the site (i.e., Feature 16) dated to the Late Archaic Period and yielded a single seed of Rugelli’s plantain (Plantago rugelli; Wymer and Abrams 2003).

269

The Late Archaic component at the County Home site consisted of six features

(i.e., Features 4, 30, 39, 47, 48 and 62). Analyses indicated that seeds were harvested during the late summer through autumn seasons with occupation likely continuing through the winter. During this time the diet would have been based largely on stored foods. Analysis of paleofeces from the Eastern Woodlands region provides unequivocal evidence that seed foods were being stored and consumed during winter and spring months (Gremillion 1996; Gremillion and Sobolik 1996). Given the scarcity of botanical foods during these periods of the year and the evidence for their consumption during such periods of scarcity, there is little question that these resources emerged as a method of risk reduction (Gremillion 2011:63).

Of the 177 identifiable seeds recovered from these features, 96.6 % were seasonally associated with late summer and autumn. Chenopods represented 69.5% of the

Late Archaic assemblage at County Home, followed by 16.4% for sumac; the remaining seed assemblage was composed of nine other genera, none offering more than 3% of the period assemblage at the site. These include grape, legumes (i.e., likely lespedeza), bedstraw, viburnum, grasses (i.e., fescue and love grass, minimally), bulrush, bittersweet, and hypericum.

With respect to seasonal mobility, these analyses suggest populations were gathering at lowlands sites during the late summer and autumn when patches in these ecological niches would have been in high production. Populations were aggregating to more effectively process large quantities of storable foods in preparation for the barren

Ohio winter. Furthermore, the County Homes site is unique in that it contains Late

270

Archaic architectural postmolds associated with this particular period. The presence of these features at County Home and their absence from the remaining three sites with Late

Archaic components suggests a greater investment in the prehistoric occupation of the site, perhaps due to the need to escape winter temperatures and precipitation. However, these architectural remains were minimal when compared to later Middle Woodland domestic structures at Patton 1 and County Home. The lack of substantial architectural structures from the Late Archaic Period further corroborates a mobile foragers model advocated by Yerkes (2006) and others; however, the seed assemblage and their seasonal associations does contradict arguments offered by Yerkes, who advocated that autumn and winter seasons would have been spent in uplands environments.

Evidence for uplands Late Archaic occupation comes from the Patton 1, Taber

Well and Boudinot 4 sites, and this is comparably sparse. However, this is due to the lack of features recovered from this particular period at these sites (i.e., N=3). The Patton 1 assemblage contained only one identifiable seed, Ambrosia sp., and eight seed fragments.

As mentioned above, the Boudinot 4 Late Archaic feature contained only a single seed of rugelli’s plantain. Finally, the Taber Well feature contained three seeds of which two could be identified, a chenopod and a maygrass seed. Although the majority of these assemblages indicate a spring and summer seasonal occupation, the minimal amounts of archaeobotanicals from do not support a conclusive interpretation. One explanation for the low number of spring and summer seeds at these sites may be that populations were relying more heavily on young plant shoots and greens, such as bedstraw (Galium spp.) and greenbrier (Smilax spp.), which would have been readily available in these

271 environments. Feature 1 from the Patton 1 site further yielded fish scales, indicating at least some reliance on local riverine resources for food. These remains attest to the accuracy of ethnographic analogs (Binford 1980; Kelly 2007) that would suggest high rates of mobility by temperate forest foragers, moving residential camps with regularity and frequency. Greater degrees of sedentariness during these temporal periods should be indicated by greater feature frequency and more discernible domestic architecture, but these are simply lacking for the Late Archaic.

Arboreal nuts, particularly hickory, walnut, chestnuts, and acorns, were a component of the Late Archaic diet and continued to be an important dietary resource through the Middle Woodland Period. Of the 2391 nutshells recovered from County

Home, hickory was the most abundant representing approximately 64% of the Late

Archaic nutshell assemblage by count. Walnut species (including both white and black) made up 5% of the assemblage. Additionally, approximately 30% of the assemblage by count was identified as belonging to the hickory/walnut family (Juglandaceae), but were too fragmented to conclusively identify to which genus they belonged, given the disproportionate ratios of hickory to walnut, these specimens likely belong to the former genus, Carya. The remaining 1% of the Late Archaic nutshell from the County Home site was identified as chestnut.

Similar assemblages were recorded from the Boudinot 4 and Taber Well Late

Archaic assemblages. Wymer and Abrams (2003) identified 30% by count of the nutshell from Feature 16 at the former site as hickory while the remaining 70% could not be identified beyond the hickory/walnut family. The entire nutshell assemblage (N=5) from

272

Late Archaic Feature 17 at the Taber Well site was identified as walnut. The Patton 1

Late Archaic assemblage, however, was composed of almost equal portions of hickory and acorn. Approximately 47% of the assemblage by count was identified as hickory nutshell, while about 5% was categorized as belonging to the hickory/walnut family. The remaining 48% of the assemblage by count was composed of acorn. The seasonal significance of acorn is described below as it applies to the Terminal Early

Woodland/Incipient Middle Woodland Patton 3 site. In passing, acorn appears to be indicative of springtime occupation. These data suggest that populations were abandoning the fall/winter aggregation sites, such as County Home, and upon the spring thaw adopted a more mobile seasonal strategy in smaller band-like groups.

Additionally, other botanical specimens were recovered from the County Home,

Boudinot 4, and Patton 1 assemblages; these included cucurbit rinds, a fruit stem, and a cane stem joint. The former of these three specimen types were ubiquitous at the three sites. Wymer and Abrams (2003:185) identified a single squash rind from Boudinot 4

Feature 16 that “exhibited the characteristics indicative of the early prehistoric domesticated squash typical for the Midwest.” Thirty-one squash rind fragments were recovered from the Late Archaic features at County Home, with half of the features yielding specimens. Additionally, 12 specimens were recovered from Late Archaic

Feature 1 at the Patton 1 site. The squash rind fragments likely belong to Cucurbita pepo var. ovifera. Squash, probably casually planted in the spring before groups dispersed from aggregate winter sites like County Home, were harvested in the autumn and stored through the winter as an easy to carry, fleshy food for spring consumption. The single

273 fruit stem was recovered from the Patton 1 site and most likely represents raspberry or blackberry (i.e., Rubus spp.), further indicating occupation of this site during the spring and early summer months.

The Late Archaic assemblage from the Hocking Valley provides important information concerning the prehistoric diet and subsistence strategy for this period.

Previous to this study, no domesticated botanicals had been recovered from Late Archaic sites in the state of Ohio other than squash (Purtill 2009:586). Clearly, the botanical assemblage from the Hocking Valley indicates that aside from a reliance on foraged food resources that were seasonally available in the region, such as grapes, berries, grasses, and wild beans, Late Archaic populations were at least minimally managing small patches of domesticated plants, including maygrass, sumpweed, and most likely chenopod. The numerous overlapping thermal features at County Home, suggests that populations were annually returning to the same locations, and the similarity of botanical contents in these features suggests this regularity was part of an annual subsistence strategy that relied heavily on foraged foods as well as cultigens. However, the absence of large pit features and high-investment structures suggests that such populations were not residentially stable, but rather sustained a high level of mobility consistent with a largely foraging based economy. Furthermore, the substantial size of Late Archaic thermal features are indicative of community-level cooking associated with seasonal aggregations; such data are comparable with Binford’s (1980) model of logistical systems and seasonal strategizing. Such mobility persisted in a landscape with culturally accepted boundaries or “habitation” locations given the regularity of use at the County Home site.

274

This is consistent with models of land tenure as summarized by Kelly (2007:181-

189). Kelly distinguishes between the terms land tenure and territoriality on the basis of defense of a specific resource, including land. Dyson-Hudson and Smith (1978) define defensive behavior as occurring when the cost associated with protecting or defending a particular “resource is less than the benefit that could be derived from it” (Kelly

2007:189). As described above, defense and in turn territoriality can take on many different behavior forms. However in the Hocking Valley, the earliest archaeological evidence of defense is the construction of ridgetop mounds; radiometric dating of less than a handful of these ubiquitous structures throughout the valley indicate their association with the terminal Early Woodland/Incipient Middle Woodland Period.

Early Woodland Period

The Early Woodland samples analyzed as part of this study outnumber those dated to the Late Archaic. However, the majority of these samples were recovered from the Terminal Early Woodland/Incipient Middle Woodland Patton 3 site. When radiometric dates are aggregated by temporal period, ten dates are associated with the

Late Archaic Period and seven with the Middle Woodland; only three dates are associated with the Early Woodland Period of which one has a one-sigma overlap with the Late Archaic and two with the Middle Woodland.

By the nature of the data, focus was placed on the Terminal Early

Woodland/Incipient Middle Woodland Period. These samples indicate a difference in subsistence from the Late Archaic Period in the Hocking Valley. During the Early

275

Woodland, populations became more residentially stable and further adopted a diet with greater inclusion of seed foods. Particular emphasis appears to have been placed on starchy foods, not only with respect to seed species, but also acorns, despite their high processing costs. Although typically associated with fall harvests, acorns probably represent spring food resources having been leached over winter to remove tannins to make them more palatable; ethnographic data from the Northwest United States

(Moerman 2002:459) suggests a form of passive leaching in which indigenous populations stored acorns in moist pits through the winter months to aid in their leaching by exploitation of natural hydraulic processes, ultimately minimizing the time/energy cost of processing, and producing a surplus of food for the early spring months. Mathews

(2009) has identified prehistoric evidence of these behaviors from the Sunken Village

Wetsite in the Northwest region. Although these ethnographic and archaeological data are not regionally comparable to the Ohio Valley, they certainly provide evidence that such behaviors were within the realm of possibility and may account for the high number of pit features and acorn shells at the Patton 3 site.

The Patton 3 site, given its unusual degree of preservation, provided the strongest evidence of Terminal Early Woodland/Incipient Middle Woodland domestic economy and dietary composition. Archaeobotanical analysis yielded a high density of chenopods followed by ragweed and wild legumes. Analyses of these seeds indicate a late summer through autumn occupation of the site; if acorns do represent a spring food resource as suggested above, the Patton 3 site archaeobotanical assemblage would support arguments

276 of year-round site occupation. Feature and architectural data certainly meets those expectations outlined by Yerkes (2006:56) for sedentary communities.

As described in Chapter 4, the evidence of residential stability is apparent at the

Patton 3 site. In light of ethnographic data and models concerning house construction and investment (Abrams 1994), architectural postmolds indicate a transition from small circular structures to larger rectangular structures.

Middle Woodland Period

The feature assemblages associated with the Middle Woodland Period were larger than those associated with any other temporal period included in this study; Patton 1,

Taber Well and County Home all contained relatively robust Middle Woodland components. General trends of recovered botanicals indicated a heavier reliance on cultivated foods than in previous periods. Seasonal percentages of archaeobotanicals for the Middle Woodland Period culminated in the Central-Middle Woodland Patton 1 site which yielded seeds that were evenly divided among the seasons of the year. Given the relative degrees of architectural and technological investment, Middle Woodland populations in the Hocking Valley can be described as essentially sedentary and effectively residentially stable.

The results of the above analyses and consideration of the data gathered contributes to a new model for human life in the Hocking Valley during the Middle

Woodland Period. Firstly, evidence of defensive behaviors (i.e., mound construction) and high investment domestic architecture beginning during the Terminal Middle Woodland

277 as well as archaeobotanical data indicate that 1. Middle Woodland populations were

“essentially sedentary” and sites associated with this temporal period indicate populations were residentially stable. Seasonality of archaeobotanicals recovered from the sample sites indicates that 2. Middle Woodland populations inhabited residential sites “year-round.” However, satellite sites were seasonally frequented by small hunting groups who exploited natural resources, (i.e., white-tailed deer, wild turkey, etc.) as a supplement to food produced via farming. Finally, by the application of technological investment models 3. The domestic toolkits of Middle Woodland populations are more indicative of sites that were continuously occupied than those of a mobile foraging subsistence strategy. This latter point is discussed in greater detail below.

Primary Hypothesis: The question of when to invest

In order to test the primary hypothesis of this research project, approximate calculation of the investment costs of food-processing tools per use was required. These estimates were calculated using a combination of ethnographic analogs and the experimental data generated as part of this study (see Chapter 6). Firstly, the average rate of mobility for foraging populations living in the Hocking Valley needed to be quantified in order to determine the average use-life of a pottery vessel that was produced at a camp and abandoned during a single residential move/stay.

278

Determining the Rate of Mobility

Ethnographic data suggests a correlation between the primary biomass of a region and the average number of annual residential moves by a foraging population (Kelly

2007). Despite the fact that some level of food production was occurring by at least the

Late Archaic in the Hocking Valley, these data can at least provide a baseline for quantifying potential residential moves by prehistoric populations. The primary biomass estimate for the state of Ohio was calculated to be 15.88 kg/m2 (Zhang and Kondragunta

2006). Given the diversity of ecological zones in the state and that many of these are not comparable to the Hocking Valley, the primary biomass for surrounding states were calculated. For West Virginia and Kentucky, these measures were estimated at 17.24 kg/m2 and 16.33 kg/m2, respectively. Based on an average of these values, the primary biomass for the Hocking Valley watershed was estimated to be approximately 16 kg/m2.

Using this estimate, the amount of annual residential moves of foraging populations living in the Hocking Valley can be roughly assessed based on ethnographic analogs.

Kelly (2007) notes that in non-tropical temperate regions where the primary biomass in relatively high, the annual residential moves correlate with the primary biomass. The exception to this trend is when populations rely heavily on aquatic resources, particularly fish. Yesner (1980) documents low residential mobility among populations that rely heavily on aquatic resources. Kelly (1983:292) further points to an inverse correlation between residential moves and primary biomass for populations that rely largely on aquatic foods. A small number of fish scales were recovered from the archaeobotanical samples in this study; however their presence was neither ubiquitous

279 nor substantial. Thus the data from the Hocking does not indicate a heavy reliance on aquatic resources, suggesting a behavioral paradigm more comparable to the Montagnais

(Tanner 1994; Leacock 1954), Mistassini Cree (Rodgers 1963; 1967; 1972), and Ona

(Gusinde 1934; Stuart 1972). These data suggest Hocking Valley foragers moved residential locations approximately 10 to 60 times annually. This calculates to a residential move every 6.1 to 36.5 days.

The distance of residential moves has been roughly correlated with the effective temperature of a region Binford (1980). Because resources “tend to become more spatially segregated along a gradient of decreasing temperature” (Kelly 2007: 128), effective temperature can be used as a proxy for food resource distribution across the landscape. Effective temperature is calculated using the following formula:

ET = 18W – 10C (W – C) +8

where W is the mean temperature (°C) of the warmest month and C is the mean temperature of the coldest month. The approximate measure of the effective temperature for the Hocking Valley using the mean temperature of July (W) and January (C) is

13.39°C. Although other variables related to specific resources utilized can compound this correlate trend (i.e., fishing in coastal environments, bison hunting in the Great

Plains, and terrestrial/aquatic species in the Arctic circle), ethnographic data suggest an average residential move of between 8 and 20 km for this effective temperature (Kelly

2007: 127-130).

280

Estimating Investment Payoffs

When this calculation is compared with the results of the pottery production investment analyses (see Chapter 6), estimates concerning the investment payoffs can be made. Assuming the lowest investment pottery recovered from the Hocking Valley archaeological assemblages, Basket Impressed Vessels (BIV), were produced anew at each residential move and discarded before the next residential move, the average investment cost per use would measure approximately 0.247 to 1.475 units of investment/use (assuming one use per day). Similarly, the average investment cost per use for a Type 3 coil vessel would measure approximately 3.88 to 23.24 units of investment/use. Considering the higher cost per use of the cheaper technology ((BIV) at

1.475 units/use), a Type 3 coil vessel would have to be used for 96.10 days (at one use/day) to offer a competitive alternative. At the level of a single use a day, this amounts to a use-life of just over a quarter of the year before the initial costs of the vessel production would reach payoff. This measure would further be compounded by the addition of carrying costs associated minimally with 2.5 to 15 residential moves over a quarter year period (Kelly 2007).

Due to recent interest within popular culture for exercise and dieting trends, substantial data exist concerning caloric costs of carrying items for short and long distances. Using these data, estimates for the cost of carrying a ceramic vessel from place to place can be generated as well as a rough estimate cost of producing a BIV over a

Type 3 vessel. Using Calorie Counter’s online calculator (available at caloriecount.about.com), pottery production costs a human weighing 150 lbs

281 approximately 136 calories per hour (i.e., this measure based on the counter total for pottery making/arts and crafts). This estimate was used to approximate the cost of producing a BIV and Type 3 coil vessel at 20.34 calories and 320.355 calories, respectively, assuming production time for each based on the experiment results in

Chapter 6.14. Assuming each vessel weighed approximately 3 lbs, the carrying costs would be approximately 3.2 calories/km in addition to the cost traveling this distance.

This equals a calorie loss of 25.6 to 64 per estimated residential move for distances of 8 to 20 km. Based on ethnographic data, populations in the Hocking Valley moved residential locations approximately 10 to 60 times annually, equaling carrying costs of

256 to 3840 calories per year. Under these assumptions, the rate of carrying a BIV from one residential camp to the next produces a minimum net loss of 5.26 calories per move compared to simply discarding the vessel produced at one camp and producing a new one at the next.

282

Figure 22: Benefit of BIV versus Type 3 pottery by unit of use-life and caloric benefit.

Together these data lend themselves to answering the primary question behind the model of technological investment: when should humans invest in costlier technology and particularly for this project—food processing technology. As described in Chapter 6, the initial adoption of ceramic technology appears to have been an innovation built on already existing tools such as basketry. Changes in food processing techniques (i.e., wet- heat cooking) of seed foods likely created a particular niche for this new technological innovation to fill. Existing archaeobotanical data from the early part of the Late Archaic

Period in other parts of the Ohio Valley lack evidence of dietary reliance on seeds or technological investment in the production of pottery (Purtill 2004; Bowen 1987;

Stothers et al. 2001). However by 3340 BP, both are present at the County Home site in the Hocking Valley. An absence of data from earlier periods prevent any discussion, with certainty, as to what circumstance led to the incipient creation of Hocking Valley pottery. 283

However, it seems likely it was related to the selective pressures of wet-heating/cooking of seeds that made basketry as a cooking tool maladaptive, or at least less competitive and pottery less costly. Basketry, by its nature, is light weight and less prone to breakage than pottery (Underhill 1979), but required high rates of investment in the gathering of raw materials and their assemblage. Exposure to heat and fire likely undermined the use- life of basketry making the low-cost BIV a more cost effective alternative.

Given the high investment costs of Type 3 pottery compared to BIV, the latter remained adaptive to the circumstances of a largely mobile lifestyle. The transition from the latter to Type 3 coil vessel pottery was only beneficial once the dependence on seed foods increased to such a degree that the shorter use life of BIV was undercut by more frequent uses of pottery, so that its performance characteristics could not withstand the performance pressures of regular use. Assuming the quantitative measures related to rates of mobility, carrying costs, and production cost, producing a BIV at the higher rate of mobility (i.e., every 6.1 days) would result in an annual caloric loss of 1,217.06; if Type 3 pottery was produced at this same rate, it would result in an annual caloric loss of

19,168.76. Traveling with the Type 3 pottery at this rate of mobility would result in an annual caloric loss of 1,852.1566, assuming that each of these pots had a minimum use- life of a year; this latter point is highly unlikely due to the increased likelihood of being dropped during travel.

284

The Effect of Tool Use Life

A minimum use life of 6.1 days was used to calculate these data based upon the smallest amount of residential stay from ethnographic data for an environmentally comparable forager population. As the County Home site is the earliest habitation in the valley to yield BIV remains and given the likelihood that it was occupied for a greater period of time than 6.1 days (e.g., based on seasonality data inferred from archaeobotanical samples), the use-life of a BIV was longer than this minimum measure.

If the use-life of this vessel type was increased to at least a month, the use-life of Type 3 pottery would need to be at least 472.49 days (at one use per day) to be a competitive alternative; this measure threshold does not include associated costs of carrying which would require an even longer use life to offset costs. These analyses then confirm that investment in at least Type 3 coil vessel pottery would not have been adaptive until populations had settled down on the landscape and become residentially stable. This type of pottery then can be used as an archaeological indicator of sedentariness. Quantification of Type 1 and Type 2 pottery needs to be calculated and a comparison with larger assemblages of these types of pottery to changes in diet to indicate the role their production played in changing rates of mobility. Importantly, it is only after populations in the Hocking Valley became residentially stable that they invested in higher-cost pottery. Together these data indicate that mobility played an important and central role in determining when populations would invest in food technology.

285

Chapter 11: Conclusions and Future Research

This research project considered the interrelationship between food production, human mobility, and food processing technology. The analyses described above indicate that investment in food technology was only adaptive after a suite of other cultural changes had occurred, but primarily a decrease in rates of seasonal mobility. Regionally, the study indicates that Middle Woodland populations were residentially stable and invested high rates of energy into the management and tending of catchment zones. These data suggest that domestication of a number of native weedy species had already occurred by the Late Archaic Period and that subsequently cultural changes with respect to rates of mobility occurred which led to human residential stability by the Terminal

Early Woodland Period.

This study applied Darwinian evolution to changes in subsistence, settlement and technological innovation, as phenotypic traits of human beings through HBE models, particularly the model of technological investment. It found that the shift from foraging to farming occurred alongside increased investment in tools, such as pottery and ground stones, greater concern for the use-life of domestic structures, and a shift from geographical stability to residential stability. This transition required seasonal strategizing 286 and regular land management to produce stable catchment zones capable of sustain the inhabiting population.

The results of this research project demonstrate the role mobility played in tool investment among prehistoric human populations in the Hocking Valley. Similarly, the connection between food production, sedentariness and technology is elucidated through the concept of residential stability. As foraging populations invested greater time/energy into landscape management, they produced a mosaic of resources that promoted defensive behaviors prohibitive of open-access to catchment zones. The result of this territoriality was a shift in the human cultural perspective of resource ownership. The timing for this change occurred after seed foods had already become part of the human diet breadth as part of a seasonal subsistence strategy that offset winter scarcity.

The initial impact of human aggregations during the winter months at areas where these seedy plants were naturally predisposed to was likely unintentional; however, as humans annually returned to these locations to harvest the wild ancestors of their later

“domesticates,” they produced reliable measures of disturbance that gave their weedy counterparts an ecological advantage to increase their populations. Eventually, the costs of defense were offset by the economic benefits of insuring exclusive use-rights. Mound construction served as a costly signal to outsiders that the surrounding land was “spoken for;” it likely also served as an internal signal of group membership and a demonstration of commitment to the social unit. Defensive behaviors such as these were a point of risk- avoidance to prevent loss due to free-riders or outsiders. Following this transition in cultural perceptions of use-rights and settlement on the landscapes, humans began

287 investing more energy into the specialization of food processing technology, particularly pottery and ground stones.

Future directions of research should focus on the temporal periods surrounding those of this project. Greater emphasis on the excavation of Middle Archaic and Incipient

Late Archaic sites should elucidate the cultural and environmental setting under which the first native plants in the Eastern Woodlands were domesticated. Furthermore, exploration of Late Woodland and Late Prehistoric sites in the region may better uncover the circumstances that led to the adoption of maize agriculture in the Hocking Valley; presently only a few sites from these temporal periods have been excavated and analyzed from the region of inquiry, and no analysis of investment in technology or food production such as was conducted in this study has been completed. Analyses using the models outlined here can further be applied to neighboring valleys in southeastern Ohio in order to elucidate cultural variations in human decision-making and subsistence.

288

References Abrams, E. M. 1989 The Boudinot 4 Site. West Virginia Archaeologist 41:16-26.

Abrams, E. M. 1992 Woodland Settlement Patterns in the Southern Hocking River Valley, Southeast Ohio. In Cultural Variability in Context: Woodland Settlements in the Mid-Ohio Valley, edited by M. Seeman. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology Special Paper, No. 7:19-23.

Abrams, E. M. 1992 Archaeological Investigations of the Armitage Mound (33At434), The Plains, Ohio. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 17:80-111.

Abrams, E. M. 1994 How the Maya Built Their World: Energetics and Ancient Architecture. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Abrams, E. M. 2009 Hopewell Archaeology: A View from the Northern Woodlands. Journal of Archaeological Research 17:169-204.

Abrams, E. and C. Bergman, D. Miller 2005 The Allen Site and Late Prehistoric Community Structure in the Hocking River Valley. In The Emergence of the Moundbuilders: Tribal Societies of Southeastern Ohio. Ohio University Press, Athens.

Abrams, E. and A. Freter 2005a The Archaeological Research History and Environmental Setting of the Hocking River Valley, Southeastern Ohio. In The Emergence of the Moundbuilders: Tribal Societies of Southeastern Ohio, edited by Elliot Abrams and AnnCorinne Freter, pp. 1 - 24. Ohio University Press, Athens.

Abrams, E. and A. Freter 2005b Tribal Societies in the Hocking River Valley. In The Emergence of the Moundbuilders: Tribal Societies of Southeastern Ohio, edited by Elliot Abrams and Ann Freter, pp. 174 - 196. Ohio University Press, Athens.

Abrams, E. M. and M. F. LeRouge 289

2008 Political Complexity and Mound Construction among Early and Late Adena in the Hocking Valley, Ohio. In Transitions: Archaic and Early Woodland Research in the Ohio Country, edited by M. P. Otto and B. G. Redmond, pp. 214- 231. Ohio University Press, Athens.

Abrams, E. M. and P. E. Patton 2012 The Ecology of Indigenous Domestic Architecture in the Hocking Valley, Ohio. Paper presented at the Eastern States Archaeological Federation, 79th annual meeting, Perrysburg, Ohio.

Adams, J. L. 1995 The Ground Stone Assemblage: the Development of a Prehistoric Grinding Technology in the Eastern Tonto Basin. In The Roosevelt Community Development Study, vol. 1, Stone and Shell Artifacts, edited by M. D. Elson and J. J. Clark, pp. 43-114. Anthropological Papers 14. Center for Desert Archaeology: Tucson.

Adams, J. L. 1996. Manual for a technological approach to ground stone analysis.Tucson: Center for Desert Archaeology.

Adams, J. L. 1999 Refocusing the role of food-grinding tools as correlates for subsistence strategies in the US Southwest. American Antiquity:475-498.

Adams, J. L. 2002 Ground stone analysis. University of Utah Press.

Adovasio, J. M., R. L. Andrews, D. C. Hyland, J. S. Illingworth, B. J. Humphrey and J. S. Gardner 2001 Perishable industries from the windover bog: an unexpected window into the Florida Archaic. North American Archaeologist 22(1):1-90.

Alvard, M. S. and L. Kuznar 2001 Deferred Harvests: The Transition from Hunting to Animal Husbandry. American Anthropologist 103(2):295-311.

Anderson, E. 1952 Plants, Man and Life. Little Brown and Co., Boston.

Anderson, E. 1956 Man as Maker of New Plants and New Plant Communities. In Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth, edited by W. L. Thomas, pp. 763-777. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 290

Andrews, E. B. 1877 On Exploration of Ash Cave in Benton Township, Hocking County, Ohio. Tenth Annual Report of the Peabody Museum of Harvard University 11:48-50.

Angier, B. 1993 Field Guide to Wild Medicinal Plants. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg.

Applegate, D. 2005 Woodland Taxonomy in the Middle Ohio Valley: A Historical Overview. In Woodland Period Systematics in the Middle Ohio Valley, edited by D. Applegate and R. C. Mainfort Jr., pp. 1-18. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Asch, D.L. and N.B. Asch 1982 Chronology for the Development of Prehistoric Horticulture in West- central Illinois. Paper presented at the 47th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Minneapolis. Center for American Archaeology, Archeobotanical Laboratory Report 35.

Asch, D. L. and N. B. Asch 1985 Prehistoric Plant Cultivation in West-Central Illinois in Prehistoric Food Production in North America. Anthropological Papers (75):149-203.

Asouti, E. 2010 Beyond the "Origins of Agriculture": Alternative Narratives of Plant Exploitation in the Neolithic of the Middle East. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, edited by P. Matthaie and L. Romano, pp. 189-203. vol. 1. Otto Harrassowitz GmbH and Co. KG, Wiesbaden.

Baby, R. S. and S. Langlois 1971 Prehistoric architecture: A study of house types in the Ohio Valley. Ohio State University; Ohio Academy of Science.

Bailey, G. 2007 Time Perspectives, Palimpsests and the Archaeology of Time. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26:198-223.

Bar-Yosef, O. and A. Belfer-Cohen 1991 From sedentary hunter-gatherers to territorial farmers in the Levant. In Between bands and states, Center for Archaeological Investigation occasional paper (9), edited by S. Gregg, pp. 181-202. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale 291

Belfer-Cohen, A., and O. Bar-Yosef. 2002 Early Sedentism in the Near East. Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: 19-38.

Bender, B. 1985 Emergent tribal formations in the American midcontinent. American Antiquity:52-62.

Bettinger, R. L. 1991 Hunter-Gatherers as Optimal Foragers. In Hunter-Gatherers: Archaeological and Evolutionary Theory, edited by R. L. Bettinger, pp. 83-111. Plenum Press, New York.

Bettinger, R. L. 2009 Hunter-Gatherer Foraging: Five Simple Models. Eliot Werner Publications, Clinton Corners, NY.

Bettinger, R. L. and J. Eerkens 1999 Point Typologies, Cultural Transmission, and the Spread of Bow-and- Arrow Technology in the Prehistoric Great Basin. American Antiquity 64 (2):231- 242.

Bettinger, R. L., B. Winterhalder and R. McElreath 2006 A simple model of technological intensification. Journal of Archaeological Science 33:538-545.

Binford, L. R. 1962 Archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity:217-225.

Binford, L. R. 1968 Post-pleistocene adaptations. New perspectives in archaeology:313-341.

Binford, L. R. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dog's Tails: Hunter- Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4-20.

Black, B. A., C. M. Ruffner, and M. D. Abrams 2006 Native American Influences on the Forest Composition of the Alleghany Plateau, North West Pennsylvania. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 1266-1275.

Blandino, B.

292

1984. Coiled pottery, traditional and contemporary ways. Chilton: Radnor, Pennsylvania.

Boas, F. 1932 The aims of anthropological research. Science. 76;605-613.

Bolger, D. 1996 Figurines, Fertility, and the Emergence of Complex Society in Prehistoric Cyprus. Current Anthropology. Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 365-373.Boyd, R. and P. J. Richerson 1988 Culture and the evolutionary process. University of Chicago Press.

Bonner, F. T. and L. C. Maisenhelder 1974 Carya Nutt., Hickory. In Seeds of Woody Plants in the United States, Agricultural Handbook, edited by C. S. Schopmeyer. USDA Forest Service: Washington, D.C.

Boserup, E. 1965 The Conditions of Agricultural Growth. Allen and Unwin: London.

Bowen, J. 1987 Late Archaic Occupation at the Scioto County Homes Site (33SC17). Ohio Archaeologist 37(1).15-17

Boyd, R. and P. Richerson 1985 Culture and the Evolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Boyd, R. and P. J. Richerson 1988 The evolution of reciprocity in sizable groups. Journal of Theoretical Biology 132(3):337-356.

Boyd, R. and P. J. Richerson 1995 Why does culture increase human adaptability? Ethology and sociobiology 16(2):125-143.

Braun, D. P. 1983 Pots as Tools. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited by J. Moore and A. S. Keene, pp. 107-134. Academic Press: New York.

Braun, D. P. 1987 Coevolution of Sedentism, Pottery Technology, and Horticulture in the Central Midwest, 200 B.C.-A.D. 600. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by W. F. Keegan. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occassional Paper 7. Southern Illinois University: Carbondale. 293

Braun, D.P. 1991 Why decorate a pot? Midwestern household pottery, 200 B.C.-A.D. 600. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10: 360–397.

Braun, D. P. 1995 Style, Selection, and Historicity: in Style, Society, and Person: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives, edited by C. Carr and J.E. Neitzel, pp. 123-141. Plenum Press, New York

Braun, D. P. and S. Plog 1982 Evolution of" tribal" social networks: Theory and prehistoric North American evidence. American Antiquity:504-525.

Bright, J., A. Ugan and L. Hunsaker 2002 The effects of handling time on subsistence technology. World Archaeology 34(1):164-181.

Broughton, J. M. and J. F. O'Connell 1999 On Evolutionary Ecology, Selectionist Archaeology, and Behavioral Archaeology. American Antiquity 64(1):153-165.

Broughton, J., M. Cannon and E. Bartelink 2010 Evolutionary Ecology, Resource Depression, and Niche Construction Theory: Applications to Central California Hunter-Gatherers and Mimbres- Mogollon Agriculturalists. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 17(4):371-421.

Brown, D. 1984 Prospects and Limits of a Phytolith Key for Grasses in the Central United States. Journal of Archaeological Sciences, 11:345-368.Chapman, J. and A. B. Shea 1981 The archaeobotanical record: Early Archaic period to contact in the lower Little Tennessee River Valley. Tennessee Anthropologist 6(1):6.

Brown, J.A. 1989 The beginnings of pottery as an economic process. In What’s New? A Closer Look at the Process of Innovation. Edited by S.E. Van Der Leeuw, and R. Torrence. Unwin Hyman, London.

Carneiro, R. L. 1970 A Theory of the Origin of the State. Science. New Series, Vol. 169, No. 3947 pp. 733- 738.

Chapman, J. and A. B. Shea 294

1981 The archaeobotanical record: Early Archaic period to contact in the lower Little Tennessee River Valley. Tennessee Anthropologist 6(1):6.

Charles, D. K. and J. E. Buikstra 1983 Archaic Mortuary Sites in the Central Mississippi Drainage: Distribution, Structure, and Behavioral Implications. In Archaic Hunters and Gatherers in the American Midwest, edited by J. A. Phillips and B. J. A., pp. 117-145. Academic Press, New York.

Charnov, E. L. 1976 Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theoretical population biology 9(2):129-136.

Childe, V. G. 1948 Man makes himself (1936). Lond., Watts:167.

Childe, V. G. 1951 The Neolithic Revolution. In Man Makes Himself, pp. 59-86. New American Library, New York.

Clark, J. E. and D. Gosser 1995 Reinventing Mesoamerica's first pottery. The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC:209-221.

Coon, M. S. 2009 Variation in Ohio Hopewell Political Economies. American Antiquity 74(1):49-76.

Cotkin, Spencer J., Christopher Carr, Mary Louise Cotkin, Alfred E. Dittert, and Daniel T. Kremser 1999 Analysis of Slips and Other Inorganic Surface Materials on Woodland and Early Fort Ancient Ceramics, South-central Ohio. American Antiquity 64.

Cowan, C. W. 1978 The prehistoric use and distribution of Maygrass in eastern North America: cultural and phytogeographical implications. In The nature and status of ethnobotany, edited by R. I. Ford, pp. 263-288. vol. Anthropological Papers 67. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology.

Cowan, F. L.

295

2006 A Mobile Hopewell : Questioning Assumptions of Ohio Hopewell Sedentism. In Recreating Hopewell, edited by D. K. Charles and J. E. Buikstra, pp. 26-49. Universoty Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Cowan, C. W., P. J. Watson and N. L. Benco 1992 The origins of agriculture: An international perspective. Smithsonian series in archaeological inquiry.

Crowell, D., E. M. Abrams, A. Freter and J. Lein 2005 Woodland Communities in the Hocking Valley. In Emergence of the Moundbuilders: The Archaeology of Tribal Societies Southeastern Ohio, edited by E. M. Abrams and A. Freter, pp. 82-97. Ohio University Press, Athens.

Crown, P. L. and W. H. Willis 1995 The Origins of Southwestern Containers: Women’s Time Allocation and Economic Intensification. Jounral of Anthropological Research 51:173-186.

Dancey, W. S. 1991 A Middle Woodland settlement in central Ohio: A preliminary report on the Murphy site (33Li212). Pennsylvania Archaeologist 61(2):37-72.

Dancey, W. S. 1997 Ohio Hopewell community organization. Kent State University Press.

Dancey, W. S. and P. J. Pacheco 1997 A Community Model. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by W. S. Dancey. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Darwin, C. 1859 On the origin of species by means of natural selection.

Demuria, J. 2007 The Paleobotanical Assemblage at the County Home Site. Masters, Ohio University. Diamond, J. 2002 Evolution, consequences and future of plant and animal domestication. Nature 418(6898):700-707.

Diamond, J. and P. Bellwood 2003 Farmers and their languages: the first expansions. Science 300(5619):597-603.

Dietler, M. and B. Hayden

296

2001 DIGESTING THE FEAST: GOOD TO EAT, GOOD TO DRINK, GOOD TO THINK AN INTRODUCTION. Feasts: archaeological and ethnographic perspectives on food, politics, and power. pp, 1-20. Smithsonian Institute Press.

Dunnell, R. C. 1978 Natural selection, scale, and cultural evolution: Some preliminary considerations. Paper presented at the 77th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Los Angeles.

Dunnell, R. C. 1978 Style and function: a fundamental dichotomy. American Antiquity:192- 202.

Dunnell, R. C. 1980 Evolutionary theory and archaeology. Advances in archaeological method and theory 3:35-99.

Dunnell, R. C. 1982 The Harvey Lecture Series. Science, Social Science, and Common Sense: The Agonizing Dilemma of Modern Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Research:1-25.

Dunnell, R. C. 1986 Methodological issues in Americanist artifact classification. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 9:149-207.

Dunnell, R. C. 1988 The concept of progress in cultural evolution. Evolutionary Progress:169- 194.

Dunnell, R. C. and W. S. Dancey 1983 The siteless survey: a regional scale data collection strategy. Advances in archaeological method and theory 6:267-287.

Dyson-Hudson, R. and E. A. Smith 1978 Human Territoriality: An Ecological Reassessment. American Anthropologist 80(1):21-41.

Eldredge, N. and S. J. Gould 1972 Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. Models in paleobiology 82:115.

Feathers, J. K.

297

1990 An Evolutionary Explanation for Prehistoric Ceramic Change in Southeast Missouri. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Washington.

Feathers, J. K. 2006 Explaining shell-tempered pottery in prehistoric Eastern North America. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13(2):89-133.

Feathers, J. K. 2009 Problems of Ceramic Chronology in the Southeast: Does Shell-Tempered Pottery Appear Earlier than We Think? American Antiquity 74(1):113-142.

Feinman, G. M., S. Upham and K. G. Lightfoot 1981 The production step measure: an ordinal index of labor input in ceramic manufacture. American Antiquity:871-884.

Fiedel, S. J. 1987 Algonquian Origins: a Problem in Archaeological—Linguistic Correlation. Archaeology of Eastern North America:1-11.

Fitzhugh, B. 2001 Risk and Invention in Human Technological Evolution. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20:125-167.

Flannery, K. V., P. J. Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby 1969 Origins and ecological effects of early domestication in Iran and the Near East. The domestication and exploitation of plants and animals.:73-100.

Ford, R. I. 1985 Prehistoric food production in North America. University of Michigan Press.

Formica, T. H. 2006 The Domestic Economy at Locus 2 of the Allen Site (33AT653): a Late Woodland-Late Prehistoric Household in Southeastern Ohio Ohio University.

Formica, T. H., E. Abrams, A. Freter, and D. Sack 2009 The Domestic Economy at the Allen Site 2 (33AT653), A Late Woodland - Late Prehistoric Community in the Hocking Valley, Southeastern Ohio. West Virginia Archaeologist 56: 28-52.

Fortier, A. C. 1993 American Bottom house types of the Archaic and Woodland periods: An overview. Illinois Archaeology 5(1):260-275.

298

Fowells, H. A. 1965 Silvics of forest trees of the United States. Agric. Handb. US Dep. Agric. (271).

Fritz, G. J. 1989 Evidence of plant use from Copple Mound at the Spiro site. Contributions to Spiro Archaeology: Mound Excavations and Regional Perspectives, Studies in Oklahoma's Past (16):65-87.

Fritz, G. J. 1993 Early and Middle Woodland period paleoethnobotany. Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands:39-56.

Fritz, G. J. 1997 A Three-Thousand-Year-Old Cache of Crop Seeds from. People, Plants, and Landscapes: Studies in Paleoethnobotany:42.

Fritz, G. J., V. D. Whitekiller and J. W. McIntosh 2001 Ethnobotany of ku-nu-che: Cherokee hickory nut soup. J. Ethnobiol 21(2):1-27.

Gardner, P. S. 1997 The Ecological Structure and Behavioral Implications of Mast Exploitation Strategies. In People, Plants, and Landscapes: Studies in Paleoethnobotany, edited by K. Gremillion, pp. 161-178. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Goodyear, A. C. 1988 On the Study of Technological Change. Current Anthropology 29 (2):320- 323

Goslin, R. M. 1952 Cultivated and Wild Food from Aboriginal Sites in Ohio. Ohio Archaeologist 2(2):9-29.

Gould, S. J. 2007 Punctuated equilibrium. Harvard University Press.

Grayson, D. K. 1998 Moisture history and small mammal community richness during the latest Pleistocene and Holocene, northern Bonneville Basin, Utah. Quaternary Research 49(3):330-334.

Greber, N. B. 299

2005 Adena and Hopewell in the Middle Ohio Valley: To Be or Not to Be? In Woodland Period Systematics in the Middle Ohio Valley, edited by D. Applegate and R. C. Mainfort Jr., pp. 19-39. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Greenman, E. F. 1932 Excavation of the Coon Mound and an Analysis of the Adena Culture. FJ Heer Print Company.

Gremillion, K. J. 1993 Crop and Weed in Prehistoric Eastern North America: The Chenopodium Example. American Antiquity 58(3):496-509.

Gremillion, K. (editor) 1997 People, Plants, and Landscapes: Studies in Paleoethnobotany. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Gremillion, K. 2003 Eastern Woodlands Overview. In People and Plants in Ancient Eastern North America, edited by P. E. Minnis. vol. 17-49. Smithsonian Books, Washington.

Gremillion, K. J. 2004 Seed processing and the origins of food production in Eastern North America. American Antiquity:215-233.

Gremillion, K. J. 2011 Ancestral appetites: food in prehistory. Cambridge University Press.

Gremillion, K. J. 1996 Early Agricultural Diet in Eastern North America: Evidence from Two Kentucky Rockshelters. American Antiquity 61:520-536.

Gremillion, K. J. and K. D. Sobolik 1996 Dietary variability among prehistoric forager-farmers of eastern North America. Current Anthropology 37(3):529-539.

Grimm, E. C. 1983 CHRONOLOGY AND DYNAMICS OF VEGETATION CHANGE IN THE PRAIRIE WOODLAND REGION OF SOUTHERN MINNESOTA, USA*. New Phytologist 93(2):311-350.

Gusinde, M.

300

1934 The Selk'nam: On the Life and Thought of a Hunting People on the Great Islands of Tierra del Fuego (tr. by F. Schutze). New Haven: Human Relations Area Files.

Halstead, P., and J. O'shea. 1989 Introduction: cultural responses to risk and uncertainty. Bad year economics: Cultural responses to risk and uncertainty: 1-7.

Hames, R. B. and W. T. Vickers 1982 Optimal diet breadth theory as a model to explain variability in Amazonian hunting. American Ethnologist 9(2):358-378.

Harlan, J. R., J. M. J. De Wet and E. G. Price 1973 Comparative evolution of cereals. Evolution 27(2):311-325.

Hastrof, C. A. 1989 The Use of Paleoethnobotanical Data in Prehistoric Studies of Crop Production, Processing, and Consumption. In Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains edited by C. A. Hastrof and V. S. Popper, pp. 119-144. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Haury, E. W. 1976 The Hohokam, desert farmers & craftsmen: excavations at Snaketown, 1964-1965. University of Arizona Press.

Hayden, B. 1987 From chopper to celt: the evolution of resharpening techniques. Lithic technology 16:33-43.

Henrickson, E. F. and M. McDonald 1983 Ceramic form and function: an ethnographic search and an archeological application. American Anthropologist 85(3):630-643.

Herbert, A. F. 2009 The Archaeology of Whangarei Harbour: The Unique Palaeoenvironment of the Harbour and Its Importance in Prehistoric MÄ•ori Settlement, Anthropology)--University of Auckland.

Heyman, M., E. M. Abrams and A. Freter 2005 Late Archaic Community Aggregation and Feasting in the Hocking Valley. In The Emergence of the Moundbuilders, edited by E. M. Abrams and A. Freter, pp. 67-81. Ohio University Press, Athens.

301

Hicks, J. J., E. M. Abrams, A. Freter and J. Ueland 2008 The Formation of Indigenous Sedentary Communities in the Monday Creek Tributary of the Hocking River Valley. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 78(2):44-63.

Hoadley, R. B. 1990 Identifying wood: accurate results with simple tools. Taunton Press.

Hoard, R. J., M. J. O'Brien, M. G. Khorasgany and V. S. Gopalaratnam 1995 A materials-science approach to understanding limestone-tempered pottery from the Midwestern United States. Journal of archaeological science 22(6):823-832.

Hole, F., K. V. Flannery and J. A. Neely 1969 Prehistory and human ecology of the Deh Luran Plain: an early village sequence from Khuzistan, Iran. University of Michigan.

Holmberg, A. R. 1969 Nomads of the long bow: The Siriono of eastern Bolivia 20. Published for the American Museum of Natural History [by] Natural History Press.

Huckell, B. B. 1998 A San Dieguito Site on the Lower Gila River, Southwestern Arizona. The Kiva:145-174.

Hunter, A. A. 1992 Utlilization of Hordeum pusillum (little barley) in the Midwest United States: Applying Rhinos’ Co-Evolutionary Model of Domestication. Ph.D dissertation, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia

Hunter, A. A. and B. R. Gassner 1998 Evaluation of the Flote-Tech machine-assisted flotation system. American antiquity:143-156.

Jakes, K. A. and A. G. Ericksen 2001 Prehistoric Use of Sumac and Bedstraw as Dye Plants in Eastern North America. Southeastern Archaeology:56-66.

Jefferies, R. W. 1996 Hunters and Gatherers after the Ice Age. In Kentucky Archaeology, edited by R. B. Lewis, pp. 39-78. University of Kentucky Press, Lexington.

Johannessen, S.

302

1993 Paleoethnobotany. In American Bottom Archaeology, edited by C. J. Bareis and J. W. Porter, pp. 197-214. University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago.

Johnson, G. A. 1982 Organizational structure and scalar stress. Theory and explanation in archaeology:389-421.

Justice, N. D. 1995 Stone age spear and arrow points of the midcontinental and eastern United States: a modern survey and reference. Indiana University Press.

Kadane, J. B. 1989 Possible Statistical Contributions to Paleoethnobotany. In Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains edited by C. A. Hastrof and V. S. Popper, pp. 206- 214. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Keeley, L. H. 1988 Hunter-gatherer economic complexity and “population pressure”: A cross- cultural analysis. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7(4):373-411.

Keeling, K. 2012 A Spatial Distribution of Lithic Artifacts from a Late Archaic-Middle Woodland Site, the County Home Site (33AT40), Athens County, Ohio. Masters Thesis, Program of Environmental Studies, Ohio University: Athens.

Kelly, R. L. 1983 Hunter-gatherer mobility strategies. Journal of Anthropological Research:277-306.

Kelly, R. L. 1992 Mobility/Sedentism: Concepts, Archaeological Measures, and Effects. Annual Review of Anthropology (21):43-66.

Kelly, R. L. 1997 Late Holocene Great Basin prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 11(1):1-49.

Kelly, R. L. 2007 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Persheron Press, Clinton Corners.

Kindscer, K.

303

1987 Edible Wild Plants of the Prairie: an Ethnobotanical Guide. University Press of Kansas: Lawerence.

King, F. B. 1985 Early Cultivated Curcurbits in Eastern North America. Prehistoric Food Production in North America, edited by Richard I. Ford. Vol. 75, pp. 73-97, Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

King, J. E. 1981 Late Quaternary Vegetational History of Illinois. Ecological Monographs 51(1):43-62.

Kislev, M. E., A. Hartmann and O. Bar-Yossef 2006 Early Domesticated Fig in the Jordan Valley. Science 312:1372-74.

Koenig, W. D. and J. M. H. Knops 2000 Patterns of annual seed production by northern hemisphere trees: a global perspective. American Naturalist 155:59-69.

Kozarek, S. E. 1997 Determining sedentism in the archaeological record. Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, Kent State University Press, Kent, OH:131-152.

Kuijt, I., E. Guerrero, M. Molist, and J. Anfruns 2011 Changing Neolithic Household: Household autonomy and social segmentation, Tell Halula, Syria. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (4): 502-522.

Lange, F. W. and C. R. Rydberg 1972 Abandonment and post-abandonment behavior at a rural Central American house-site. American Antiquity:419-432.

Lawrence, W. G. and R. R. West 1982 Ceramic Science for the Potter. Chilton Company: Radnor, Pennsylvania.

Layne, J. N. and W. G. Abrahamson 2004 Long-term trends in annual reproductive output of the scrub hickory: factors influencing variation in size of nut crop. Am. J. Bot. 91(9):1378-1386.

Leacock, E. 1954 The Montagnais" Hunting Territory" and the Fur Trade. American Anthropological Association Memoir no. 78. American Anthropologist 56.

304

Lee, R. B. 1979 Men, Women, and Work. Cambridge University Press.

Lepper, B. T. and R. W. Yerkes 1997 Hopewellian occupations at the northern periphery of the Newark Earthworks. Ohio Hopewell Community Organization:175-205.

MacArthur, R. H. and E. R. Pianka 1966 On optimal use of a patchy environment. American Naturalist:603-609.

MacNeish, R. S. 1981 Tehuacan’s accomplishments. Handbook of Middle American Indians, Supplement I: Archaeology, University of Texas Press, Austin:31-47.

Madsen, D. B. and D. N. Schmitt 1998 Mass collecting and the diet breadth model: A Great Basin example. Journal of Archaeological Science 25(5):445-455.

Mainfort Jr, R. C. and K. C. Carstens 1987 A Middle Woodland Embankment and Mound Complex in Western Kentucky. Southeastern Archaeology:57-61.

Mantha, A. 2009 Territoriality, social boundaries and ancestor veneration in the central Andes of Peru. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28(2):158-176.

Martin, C. J. M. 1979 Spanish Armada pottery. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 8(4):279-302.

Martin, A. C. and W. D. Barkley 2000 Seed Identification Manual. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Mathews, B. 2009 Balanophagy in the Pacific Northwest: The acorn leeching pits at the sunken village wetsite and comparative ethnographic acorn use. Journal of Northwest Anthropology, 43(2):125-140.

McCarthy, B. C. and J. A. Quinn 1989 Within- and among-tree variation in flower and fruit production in two species of Carya (Juglandaceae). American Journal of Botany 76:1015-1023.

McCord, B. K. and D. R. Cochran

305

2008 The Adena Complex: Identity and Context in East-Central Indiana. In Transitions: Archaic and Early Woodland Research in the Ohio Country, edited by M. P. Otto and B. G. Redmond, pp. 334-360. Ohio University Press, Athens.

McCorriston, J. and F. Hole 1991 The ecology of seasonal stress and the origins of agriculture in the Near East. American Anthropologist 93(1):46-69.

Medsger, O. P. 1966 Edible Wild Plants. Collier Books: New York.

Meltzer, D. J. 1998 Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley. 150th Anniversary Edition. By E.G. Squier and E.H. Davis. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Mendel, G. 1866 Versuche uber Pflanzenhybriden. Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereines in Brunn 4: 3 44.

Miller, N 1988 Ratios in paleoethnobotanical analysis. In Current Paleoethnobotny: Analytic Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains, edited by Christine Hastorf and Virginia Popper pp.72-85. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London

Milner, G. 2005 The Moundbuilders: Ancient People of Eastern North America. Thames and Hudson, London.

Milner, G. 1998 The Cahokia Chiefdom: The Archaeology of a Mississippian Society. Smithsonian Institute Press: Washington, D.C.

Moorehead, W. K. 1895 A Preliminary Exploration of Ohio Caves. Archaeologist 111:8-16.

Munson, P. J. 1986 Black Sand and Havana tradition ceramic assemblages and culture history in the central Illinois River Valley. In Farnsworth, K. B., and Emerson, T. E. (eds.),Early Woodland Archaeology, Center for American Archaeology Press, Kampsville, Ill., pp. 280–299.

Murphy, H.

306

1986 Further Investigations along the Proposed ATH-50-4.95 Project Corridor (P.F. 464 and 1065). CRM Report submitted to the Ohio Department of Transportation.

Murphy, J. L. 1989 An Archaeological History of the Hocking Valley. Revised ed. Ohio University Press, Athens.

Neff, H. 1992 Ceramics and Evolution. Archaeological Method and Theory 4:141-193.

Neiman, F. D. 1995 Stylistic Variation in Evolutionary Perspective: Inferences from Decorative Diversity and Interassemblage Distance in Illinois Woodland Ceramic Assemblages American Antiquity 60(1):7-36.

Nelson, M. C. and H. Lippmeier 1993 Grinding-Tool Design as Conditioned by Land-Use Pattern American Antiquity 58(2):286-305.

Nelson, Thomas C. 1965. Mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa Nutt.). In Silvics of forest trees in the United States. p. 115-118. H. A. Fowells, comp. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook 271. Washington, DC.

Nixon, C. M., M. W. McClain and L. P. Hansen 1980 Six years of hickory seed yields in southeastern Ohio. Journal of Wildlife Management 44:534-539.

North, D. C. 1981 Structure and Change in Economic History. Norton: New York.

North, D. C. and R. P. Thomas 1977 The First Economic Revolution. The Economic History Review 30(2):229- 241.

O'Brien, M. J. 1987 Sedentism, Population Growth, and Resource Selection in the Woodland Midwest: A Review of Coevolutionary Developments. Current Anthropology 28(2):177-97.

O'Brien, M. J. 1996 Evolutionary archaeology: theory and application. University of Utah Press. 307

O'Brien, M. J. and R. L. Lyman 2002 Evolutionary archeology: Current status and future prospects. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 11(1):26-36.

O'Connell, J. F. 1995 Ethnoarchaeology needs a general theory of behavior. Journal of Archaeological Research 3(3):205-255.

Odling-Smee, F. J. 2003 Niche Construction. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Ogden, J. G. 1966 Forest history of Ohio. I. Radiocarbon dates and pollen stratigraphy of Silver Lake, Logan County, Ohio: Ohio Jour. Sci 66:387-400.

O’Shea, J. 1981 Coping with Scarcity: Exchange and Social Storage. In Economic Archaeology:Towards an Integration of Ecological and Social Approaches, edited by A. Sheridan and G. Bailey, pp. 167-86. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 96. Oxford.

Pacheco, P. J. 1993 Ohio Hopewell settlement patterns: an application of the vacant center model to middle woodland period intracommunity settlement variability in the Upper Licking River Valley, Ph.D. dissertation. Ohio State University: Columbus.

Pacheco, P. J. 1996 Ohio Hopewell regional settlement patterns. A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus:16-35.

Pacheco, P. J.

1997 Ohio Middle Woodland Intracommunity Settlement Variability: A Case Study from the the Licking Va,,ey. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 41-84. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Pacheco, P. J. and W. S. Dancey 2006 Integrating Mortuary and Settlement Data on Ohio Hopewell Society. In Recreating Hopewell, edited by D. K. Charles and J. E. Buikstra, pp. 3-25. Universoty Press of Florida, Gainesville. 308

Papousek, D. A., R. A. M. van Zantwijk and M. R. Nettinga 1981 The peasant-potters of Los Pueblos: stimulus situation and adaptive processes in the Mazahua region in central Mexico. Van Gorcum.

Patterson, T. C. 1995 Toward a social history of archaeology in the United States. Harcourt Brace College Publishers: Fort Worth.

Patton, P. E., E. Abrams, A. Freter 2009 A Geochemical Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics in the Hocking Valley, Southeastern Ohio. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 79:54-74.

Patton, P. E., M. J. Pistrui and E. M. Abrams 2011 Preliminary Results from the Patton 3 Site (33AT1026): An Early Woodland Habitation in the Hocking Valley, Southeastern Ohio. In OAC Spring 2011, Columbus OH.

Pearsall, D. M. 2000 Paleoethnobotany: A handbook of procedures. Emerald Group Pub Limited.

Pecora, A. and J. Burks 2005 The Bremen Site: A Terminal Late Archaic Period Upland Occupation in Fairfield County, Ohio. In The Emergence of the Moundbuilders, ed. E. M. Abrams and A. Freter, 39-58. Ohio University Press, Athens.

Peoples, N., E. M. Abrams, A. Freter, B. Jokisch and P. Patton 2008 The Taber Well Site (33HO611): A Middle Woodland Habitation and Surplus Lithic Production Site in Hocking Valley, Southeastern Ohio. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 33(1):107-127.

Peregrine, P. N. 1992 Mississippian Evolution: A World-System Perspective. Prehistory Press Monog. World Preh. No. 9. Madison.

Perine, B. and D. Profant 2007 Trees, Shrubs and Vines of Southeastern Ohio and Appalachia. Self Published.

Peters, W. E. 1947 Athens County, Ohio. Volume 1. By Author, Athens.

Peterson, L. A. 309

1977 A Field Guide to Edible Wild Plants: Eastern/Central North America. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Phillips, R. 1986 Wild Food. Little Brown, Boston

Phillips, P., J. A. Ford and J. B. Griffin 1951 Archaeological survey in the lower Mississippi alluvial valley, 1940-1947 25. Corinthian Press.

Pitts, E. 2001 An Analysis of Hocking Valley Pottery Using X-Ray Diffraction, X-Ray Fluorescence and Optical Petrography. Honors Thesis, Department of Geology, Ohio University.

Pollan, M. 2002 The botany of desire: a plant's-eye view of the world. Random House Trade Paperbacks.

Prufer, O. H. 1965 The McGraw site; a study in Hopewellian dynamics. Cleveland Museum of Natural History.

Prufer, O. H. 1997 How to construct a model: A personal memoir. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by W. Dancey and P. Pacheco, pp. 105-128. Kent State University, Kent, Ohio.

Prufer, O. H. and D. H. McKenzie 1967 Studies in Ohio archaeology. Kent State University Press.

Purtill, P. M. 2008 Down by the River: Late Archaic through Terminal Archaic Dynamics at the Davisson Farm Site (33LE619), Lawerence County, Ohio. In Transitions: Archaic and Early Woodland Research in the Ohio Country, edited by M. P. Otto and B. G. Redmond, pp. 41-78. Ohio University Press, Athens.

Purtill, P. M. 2008 Early Woodland Plain Surface Pottery from the Mid-Ohio Valley: Two Recently Excavated Assemblages from Ohio and Kentucky. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 33 (1): 41-71.

Purtill, P. M.

310

2009 The Ohio Archaic: A Review. In Archaic Societies: Diversity and Complexity across the Midcontinent, edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath and A. C. Fortier, pp. 565-606. State University of New York Press, Albany.

Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles and C. R. Bell 1968 Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Rafferty, J. E. 1985 The Archaeological Record on Sedentariness: Recognition, Development, and Implications. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8:113-156.

Rafferty, S. M. 2006 Evidence of early tobacco in Northeastern North America? Journal of Archaeological Science 33(4):453-458.

Railey, J. A. 1992 Chipped Stone Artifacts. In Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio Valley, ed. A. G. Hnederson, 137-169. Monographs in World Archaeology. no. 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

Railey, J. A. 1996 Woodland Cultivators. In Kentucky Archaeology, edited by R. B. Lewis, pp. 79-126. University of Kentucky Press, Lexington.

Redding, R. W. 1988 A general explanation of subsistence change: From hunting and gathering to food production. In Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7.1: 56-97.

Rice, P. M. 1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Rice, P. M. 1999 On the Origins of Pottery. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6(1):1-54.

Richerson, P. J. and R. Boyd 1989 The role of evolved predispositions in cultural evolution: Or, human sociobiology meets Pascal's wager. Ethology and Sociobiology 10(1):195-219.

Richerson, P. J. and R. Boyd 1992 Cultural inheritance and evolutionary ecology. Evolutionary ecology and human behavior:61-92.

311

Richerson, P. J. and R. Boyd 2000 Climate, culture and the evolution of cognition. The evolution of cognition:329-45.

Richerson, P. J. and R. Boyd 2005 Not by genes alone: how culture transformed human evolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Riley, T. J., G. R. Walz, C. J. Bareis, A. C. Fortier and K. E. Parker 1994 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) Dates Confirm Early Zea Mays in the Mississippi River Valley. American Antiquity 59(3):490-498.

Rinaldo, J. B. 1957 Artifacts. In Late Mogollan Communities, Four Sites of the Tularosa Phase, Western New Mexico, ed. P.S. Martin, J. B. Rinaldo, and E. R. Barter, pp. 39-88. Fieldiana: Anthropology 49:1. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.

Rindos, D. R. 1984 The Naturalness of the Human-Plant Relationship. In Origins of Agriculture, pp. 82-137. Academic Press.

Rindos, D. 1996 Undirected Variation and the Darwinian explanation of cultural change. In Evolutionary Archaeology: Theory and application, edited by M.J. O’Brian, pp. 152-176. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. [Reprinted from Archaeological Method and Theory 1:1-45. (1989)]

Rogers, E. S. 1963 Changing settlement patterns of the Cree-Ojibwa of northern Ontario. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology:64-88.

Rogers, E. 1967 Subsistence Areas of the Cree-Ojibwa of the Eastern Subarctic: A Preliminary Study. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 204:59-90.

Rogers, E. 1972 The Mistassini Cree. In Hunters and Gatherers Today, edited by M. G. Bicchierri, pp. 90-137. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Rosenberg, M. 1990 The mother of invention: Evolutionary theory, territoriality, and the origins of agriculture. American Anthropologist 92(2):399-415.

Rossen, J. 312

1992 Botanical Remains. In Muir: An Early Fort Ancient Site in the Inner Bluegrass, edited by Christopher Turnbow and William Shap, pp. 243-264. Archaeologicsl Report no.165. Program for Cultural Resiurce Assessment, University of Kentucky, Lexington

Rossen, J. 1999 The Flote-Tech Flotation Machine: Messiah or Mixed Blessing? American Antiquity Vol. 64, No. 2 (Apr., 1999), pp. 370-372.

Ryan, C. W., J. C. Pack, W. K. Igo and A. Billings 2009 Influence of mast production on black bear non-hunting mortalities in West Virginia. Ursus 18(1):46-53.

Rye, O. S. 1976 Keeping your temper under control: materials and the manufacture of Papuan pottery. Archaeology & Physical Anthropology in Oceania:106-137.

Rye, O. S. 1981 Pottery technology: principles and reconstruction. Taraxacum: Washington, D. C..

Rypma, R. B. 1961 The Structure and Pattern of the Primary Forests of Athens and Washington Counties, Ohio. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Botany, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Sack, R. D 1986 Human Territoriality: Its Theory and History. Cambridge University Press.

Sahlins, M. 1974 Stone Age Economics. London: Tavistock Publications.

Sassaman, K. E. 1993 Early pottery in the Southeast: tradition and innovation in cooking technology. University Alabama Press.

Sauer, J. 1952 A Geography of Pokeweed. Annuals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 39:113-125.

Scarry, C. M. 1993 Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 313

Scarry, C. M. 2003 Patterns of Wild Plant Utilization in the Prehistoric Eastern Woodlands. In People and Plants in Anceint Eastern North America, edited by P. E. Minnis, pp. 50-104. The Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Schiffer, M. B. 1983 Towards the Identification of Formation Processes. American Antiquity 48(4): 675-706

Schiffer, M. B. 1988 The structure of archaeological theory. American Antiquity 53(3):461-485.

Schiffer, M. B. 1990 The influence of surface treatment on heating effectiveness of ceramic vessels. Journal of Archaeological Science 17(4):373-381.

Schiffer, M. B. and J. M. Skibo 1987 Theory and experiment in the study of technological change. Current Anthropology 28 (5):595-622.

Schiffer, M. B., J. M. Skibo, T. C. Boelke, M. A. Neupert and M. Aronson 1994 New perspectives on experimental archaeology: Surface treatments and thermal response of the clay cooking pot. American Antiquity 59 (2):197-217.

Schiffer, M. B., J. M. Skibo, J. L. Griffitts, K. L. Hollenback and W. A. Longacre 2001 Behavioral Archaeology and the Study of Technology. American Antiquity 66(4):729-737.

Schoener, T. W. 1974 Resource partitioning in ecological communities. In Science 185.4145: 27- 39.

Schweikhart, J. F. 2005 The Swinehart Village Site: A Late Woodland Village in the Upper Hocking Valley. In The Emergence of the Moundbuilders, edited by E. M. Abrams and A. Freter, pp.115-125. Athens: Ohio University Press.

Schweikart, J. F. 2008 Upland Settlement in the Adena Heartland: Preliminary Evidnce and Interpretations from Two Early Woodland Nonmortuary Habitations in Perry County, OH. In Transitions: Archaic and Early Woodland Research in the Ohio Country, edited by M. P. Otto and B. G. Redmond, pp. 183-213. Ohio University Press, Athens. 314

Seeman, M. F. 1979 Feasting with the dead: Ohio Hopewell charnel house ritual as a context for redistribution. Paper presented at the Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Shane, O. C. and J. L. Murphy 1967 A survey of the Hocking Valley, Ohio. In Studies in Ohio Archaeology, edited by O. Prufer and D. McKenzie, pp. 360. Cleveland (OH): Western Reserve University Press.

Shane, L., G. Snyder, and K. Anderson 2001 Holocene Vegetation and Climate Changes in the Ohio Region. In Archaic Transitions in Ohio and Kentucky Prehistory, edited by O. Prufer, S. Pedde, and R. Meindl, pp. 11-55. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.

Shepard, A. O. 1976 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington.

Silverman, S, 2005 The United States. In One Discipline, Four Ways: British, German, French and American Anthropology, edited by F. Barth, A. Gingrich, R. Parkin, and S. Silverman. pp.257-347. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

Skibo, J. M. 1992 Pottery function: a use-alteration perspective. New York: Plenum Press.

Skibo, J., M., Tamara C. Butts, and Michael Brian Schiffer. 1997 Ceramic surface treatment and abrasion resistance: An experimental study. In Journal of archaeological science 24.4: 311-317.

Skibo, J. M., M. B. Schiffer and K. C. Reid 1989 Organic-Tempered Pottery: An Experimental Study. American Antiquity 54(1):122-146.

Skinner, S. M. and R. Norris 1981 Archaeological Assessment of Six Sites in the Central Hocking River Valley for the Proposed Relocation of Route 33 through Athens and Hocking Counties. Submitted to the Department of Archaeology, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.

Smith, B. D.

315

1978 An Atlas and Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press: Fayetteville.

Smith, B. D. 1984 Chenopodium as a Prehistoric Domesticate in Eastern North America: Evidence from Russell Cave, Alabama. Science 226:165-167.

Smith, B. D. 1985 The role of Chenopodium as a domesticate in pre-maize garden systems of the eastern United States. Southeastern Archaeology 4 (1):51-72.

Smith, B. D. 1987 Independent Domestication of Indigenous Seed-Bearing Plants in Eastern North America. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by W. F. Keenan, pp. 3-47. Occassional Paper No. 7. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University: Carbondale.

Smith, B. D. 1989 Origins of Agriculture in Eastern North America. Science 246:1566-1571.

Smith, B. D. 1992 Rivers of Change. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Smith, B. D. 1995 The emergence of agriculture. Scientific American Library, New York.

Smith, B. D. 2001 Low Level Food Production. Journal of Archaeological Research 9:1-43.

Smith, B. D. 2006 Eastern North America as an independent center of plant domestication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(33):12223-12228.

Smith B. D. 2009 Resource resiliency, human niche construction, and the long-term sustainability of pre-Columbian subsistence economies in the Mississippi River Valley corridor. Ethnobiology (29):167–183

Smith, B. D. 2011 General Patterns of Niche Construction and the Management of “Wild” Plant and Animal Resources by Small-Scale Pre-Industrial Societies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences 366(1566):836-848.

316

Smith, B. D. and C. W. Cowan 1987 Domesticated Chenopodium in prehistoric eastern North America: New accelerator dates from eastern Kentucky. American Antiquity 52 (2):355-357.

Smith, B. D. and C. W. Cowan 2003 Domesticated Crop Plants and the Evolution of Food Production Economies in Eastern North America. In People and Plants in Anceint Eastern North America, edited by P. E. Minnis, pp. 105-125. The Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Smith, E.A. 1983 Anthropolocical Applications of Optimal Foraging Theory: A Critical Review. Current Anthropology 24:625-51.

Smith, E.A and B. Winterhalder 1992 Natural Selection and Decision Making: Some Fundamental Principles. In Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior, edited by E. Smith and B. Winterhalder, pp. 25-60. Hawthorne, N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter.

Spencer, H. 1910 [2006] Systems of Synthetic Philosophy. Read Books

Spertzel, S., E. Abrams, A. Freter, and G. Springer 2007 Facing Monday Creek Rock Shelter (33HO41): a Late Woodland Hunting Location in Southeastern Ohio. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 77(1):53-70.

Squier, E. G. and E. H. Davis 1848 Ancient monuments of the Mississippi Valley. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Stephens, D. W. and J. R. Krebs 1986 Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Steward, J. H. 1955 Theory of culture change. University of Illinois Press Urbana.

Stothers, D. M., A. M. Schneider and M. Pape 2001 Early Archaic Side-Notched Points from East Central Ohio. Archaic Transitions in Ohio and Kentucky Prehistory, edited by O. H. Prufer, S. E. Pedde, and R. S. Meindl, pp.210-230. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Striker, M., K. Gibbs, R. Rahe, and A. Tonetti

317

2001 Report of Phase 2 of a Phase 1 Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed University Estates Planned Unit Development in Athens Township, Athens County, Ohio. Submitted to University Estates, Athens.

Stuart, D. 1972 Band Structure and Ecological Variability: The Ona and Yahgan of Tierra del Fuego. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico.

Stuiver M., P. J. Reimer, and T. F. Braziunas 1998 High-precision radiocarbon age calibration for terrestrial and marine samples. Radiocarbon 40(3):1127–51.

Swanton, J. R. 1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Bulletin No. 137. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C

Tainter, J. A. and B. B. Tainter 1996 Riverine Settlement in the Evolution of Prehistoric Land-Use Systems in the Middle Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. In Desired Future Conditions for Southwestern Riparian Ecosystems: Bringing Interests and Concerns Together, compiled by Douglas W. Shaw and Deborah M. Finch, pp. 22-32. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-272.

Talalay, L., D. Richards and P. J. Munson 1984 Hickory Nuts, Walnuts, Butternuts, and Hazelnuts: Observations and Experiments Relevant to Their Aboriginal Exploitation in Eastern North America. In Experimentsand Observations on Aboriginal Wild Plant Food Utilization in Eastern North America,Edited by Patrick J. Munson, pp. 338-359, Prehistory Research Series Vol. 6, No. 2. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis

Tanner, V. 1944 Outline of the Geography, Life and Customs of Newfoundland-Labrador. Acta Geograhica 8:I-907

Underhill, R. M. 1979 Pueblo Crafts. AMS Press, New York.

Ugan, A., J. Bright and A. Rogers 2003 When is technology worth the trouble? Journal of Archaeological Science 30(10):1315-1329.

318

Vandiver, P. B., O. Soffer, B. Klima, and J. Svoboda. 1989 The origins of ceramic technology at dolni vecaronstonice, czechoslovakia. In Science 246, no. 4933: 1002.

Van Vlack, L. H. 1964 Physical ceramics for engineers. Addison Wesley Publishing Company.

Wagner, G. E. 1987 Uses of Plants by the Fort Ancient Indians. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis

Wagner, G. E. 1988 Paleoethnobotanical Research at the Incinerator Site. In A History of 17Years of Excavation and Reconstruction: A Chronicle of 13th Century Human Values and the Built Environment, edited by J.M. Heilman, M.C. Lileas, and C. A. Turnbow pp. 72-108.Dayton Museum of Natural History, Dayton Ohio.

Wagner, G. E. 1991 Tobacco in Prehistoric Eastern North America. Paper presented at the 56th Annual Meeting, Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.

Wakeman, J. 2005 The Impact of Maize on Settlement Patterns in the Hocking Valley. In The Emergence of the Moundbuilders: Tribal Societies of Southeastern Ohio, edited by Elliot Abrams and AnnCorinne Freter, pp. 163-173. Ohio University Press, Athens.

Waldron, J. and E. Abrams 1999 Adena Burial Mounds and Inter-Hamlet Visibility: A GIS Approach. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 24: 97-111.

Watson, P. J. and M. Kennedy 1991 The Development of Horticulture in the Eastern Woodlands of North America: Woman’s Role. In Engendering Archaeology: Woman and Prehistory. Edited by Margaret W. Conkey and Joan M. Gero, pp. 225-275. Basil Blackwell Ltd. Oxford

Watson, R.A. and P.J. Watson 1969 Man and Nature. Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.

Weaver, S. A. 2009 Middle Woodland Domestic Architecture and the Issue of Sedentism; Evidence from the Patton Site (33AT990), Hocking Valley, Ohio. Masters thesis, Ohio University. 319

Weaver, S. A., E. Abrams, A. Freter, and D. Sack 2011 Middle Woodland Domestic Architecture and the Issue of Sedentism: Evidence from the Patton Site (33AT990), the Hocking Valley, SE Ohio. Journal of Ohio Archaeology 1: 22- 37.

Webb, W. S. and C. E. Snow 1974 The Adena People. University of Tennessee Press.

Wentworth, C. K. 1922 A scale of grade ad class terms for clastic sediments. The Journal of Geology. pp. 377-392

Wheat, J. B. 1955 Mogollon culture prior to AD 1000. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology. No. 10.

White, L. A. 1949 The Science of Culture: A study of man and civilization. Farrar, Straus, New York. Wilk, R. R., and W. L. Rathje 1982 Household Archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist. 25:617-659

Winterhalder, B. 1986 Diet choice, risk and food sharing in a stochastic environment. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5:369-392.

Winterhalder, B. 2001 Intragroup resource transfers: comparative evidence, models and implications for human evolution. Meat-eating and Human Evolution: 279-301.

Winterhalder, B. 2002 Behavioral and other human ecologies: Critique, response and progress through criticism. Journal of Ecological Anthropology 6(1):4-23.

Winterhalder, B. 2007 Risk and decision-making. Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology: 433-445.

Winterhalder, B. and C. Goland 1997 People, plants, and landscapes: Studies in paleoethnobotany. Peoples, Plants and Landscapes Studies in Paleoethnobotany.

Winterhalder, B. and D. J. Kennett 320

2009 Four neglected concepts with a role to play in explaining the origins of agriculture. Current anthropology 50(5):645-648.

Winterhalder, B. and E. A. Smith 2000 Analyzing Adaptive Strategies: Human Behavioral Ecology at Twenty- Five. Evolutionary Anthropology 9(2):51-72.

Woodburn, J. 1980 Hunters and gatherers today and reconstruction of the past. Soviet and Western Anthropology: 95-117

Woodbury, R. B. 1954 Prehistoric stone implements of northeastern Arizona. Vol. 34. Periodicals Service Co.

Wright, K. 1994 Ground-Stone Tools and Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence in Southwest Asia: Implications for the Transition to Farming. American Antiquity 52:238-262

Wymer, D. A. 1984 The Archaeobotanical Assemblage from the Connett Mounds #3 and #4, the Wolf Plains Project, Athens County, Ohio. Report submitted to the Ohio Historical Society, Department of Contract Archaeology.

Wymer, D. A. 1990 Archaeobotany. In Childers and Woods: Two Late Woodland Sites in the Upper OhioValley, Mason County, West Virginia, edited by M.J. Shott, pp. 402- 535. Archaeological report 200, Cultural Resource Assessment. University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Wymer, D. A. 1997 Paleoethnobotany in the Licking River Valley, Ohio: Implications for Understanding Ohio Hopewell. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by W. S. Dancey and P. J. Pacheco, pp. 153-171. Kent State University Press, Kent.

Wymer, D. A. 2005 Late Prehistoric Agriculture and Land-Use in the Hocking Valley. Emergence of the Mound Builders, edited by Elliot Abrams and Anne-Corinne Freter-Abrams, pp. 151-162

Wymer, D. A. and E. M. Abrams

321

2003 Early Woodland Plant Use and Gardening: Evidence From an Adena Hamlet in Southeastern Ohio. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 28(2):175- 194.

Yarnell, R. A. 1969 Contents of Human Paleofeces. In The Prehistory of Salts Cave, Kentucky, by P. J. Watson, pp. 41-54. Illinois State Museum, Reports of Investigations 16. Springfield.

Yarnell, R. A. 1974 Plant Food and Cultivation of the Salts Cavers. In Archaeology of the Mammoth Cave Area, edited by P. J. Watson, pp. 113-122. Academic Press, Orlando.

Yarnell, R. 1983 Prehistory of Plant Foods and Husbandry in North America. Paper presented at the 48th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Pittsburgh.

Yarnell, R. 1986 A Survey of Prehistoric Crop Plants in Eastern North America. Missouri Archaeologist 47:47-59.

Yarnell, R. A. 1993 The Importance of Native Crops during the Late Archaic and Woodland Periods. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by C. M. Scarry, pp. 13-26. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Yerkes, R. 1990 Using Microwear Analysis to Investigate Domestic Activities and Craft Specialization at the Murphy site, a Small Hopewell Settlement in Licking County, Ohio. In The Interpretative Possibilities of Microwear Studies, edited by B. Gräslund, H. Knutsson, K. Knutsson, and J. Taffinder, pp. 167-176. Aun 14, Uppsala, Sweden.

Yerkes, R. 1994 A Consideration of the Function of Ohio Hopewell Bladelets. Lithic Technology19:109-127.

Yerkes, R. 2002 Hopewell Tribes: A Study of Middle Woodland Social Organization in the Ohio Valley. In The Archaeology of Tribal Societies, edited by W. Parkinson, pp. 227-245. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 15, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

322

Yerkes, R. W. 2006 Middle Woodland Settlements and Social Organization in the Central Ohio Valley : Were the Hopewell Really Farmers? . In Recreating Hopewell, edited by D. K. Charles and J. E. Buikstra, pp. 50-61. Universoty Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Yesner, D.R. 1980 Martime Hunter-Gatherers: Ecology and Prehistory. Current Anthropology 21:727-73.

Zedeno, M. N. 1997 Landscapes, Land Use, and the History of Territory Formation: An Example from the Pueblan Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4(1):67-103.

Zeder, M. A. and B. D. Smith. 2009 A Conversation on Agricultural Origins. Current Anthropology 50.5: 681- 690. Zhang, X., and S. Kondragunta. 2006 Estimating forest biomass in the USA using generalized allometric models and MODIS land products. Geophysical research letters 33.9: L09402.

Zink, Justin Parker 2009 Form and Function: Interpreting the Woodland Architecture at the McCammon Circle in Central Ohio. Thesis for Masters of Arts in Anthropology from The Ohio State University.

323

Appendix A: Feature Descriptions

The following appendix provides individual descriptions of each of the features analyzed as part of this dissertation and the associated samples analyzed from each feature. All feature data presented are based on field notes produced during site excavations by the Ohio University Archaeological Field Schools and laboratory analysis conducted by the author and/or graduate students in the Ohio University Program of

Environmental Studies.

Patton 1 Feature Descriptions

Feature 1

The Patton 1 Late Archaic component was restricted to the northern corner of

Terrace 1 and included a single radio-carbon dated thermal feature (i.e., Feature 1), two additional postmolds (i.e., Features 3 and 11) stratigraphically associated with the former thermal feature, and artifacts recovered from the surrounding cultural surface

(See Figure3). Feature 1 was first identified by the magnetic gradient survey conducted by Burks and is apparent in Figure 2 (i.e., Anomaly A5). The feature was 2.4 m long and

1.8 m wide with a depth of 40 cm, with an approximate volume of 1357.17 liters; located along the north western edge of Upper Terrace 1, the thermal feature was only a few centimeters below the ground surface and would have been largely destroyed if the site

324 had ever undergone agricultural plowing (Weaver et al. 2011). Comparable to County

Home Feature 47, Patton 1 Feature 1 contained two fire cracked rock platforms with copious amounts of charcoal in between. The top platform of the feature contained areas devoid of fire-cracked rock that likely served to allow access to open flames for fuel tending and cooking. Wood charcoal from Feature 1 was radiometric dated to 2970±40

BP with a calibrated intercept of B.C.E. 1130 (Weaver et al. 2011:26). Excavation of the interior of the hearth and the surrounding cultural surface yielded a small quantity of chipped stone artifacts.

Twenty-three liters of sediment from Feature 1 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 205.738 grams of charred wood, 60 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of .518 grams, 12 pieces of cucurbit rind weighing .o22 g, 1 fruit stem, 1 fish scale, and 9 seeds or seed fragments. Only one of these seeds could be identified to a genus level and belonged to an Ambrosia spp.

(Ragweed).

Feature 4

Located approximately 3 meters outside of Structure 1 to the east (See Figures 4,

6 and 7), Feature 4 had a maximum length of 71 cm and a width of 62 cm, with a maximum depth of 48 cm with an approximate volume of 165.95 liters. The interior of the feature was packed with fire-cracked rock and charcoal, and like Feature 1, contained a circular area devoid of rock that likely served as an access area for fuel tending and open-flame cooking. Artifact analysis yielded a Robbins point, a point fragment, chipped

325 stone, hematite nodules, bone fragments, charred nutshell, and twelve pottery sherds

(Weaver et al. 2011).

Feature 4 consisted of three overlapping fire-cracked rock platforms, consistent with other features at the site. These platforms likely represent episodes of burning and rebuilding of the domestic structure; the lack of sterile sediment between said platforms is suggestive of continuous site use (Weaver et al. 2011). Wood charcoal from Feature 4 was radiometric dated to 1940±40 BP with a calibrated intercept of A.D. 120 (Weaver et al. 2011:26).

Twenty and one-fourth liters of sediment from Feature 4 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 33.615 g of charred wood, 156 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 3.597 g, 1 fruit stem (likely

Rubus spp.) and 13 seeds or seed fragments.

Feature 20

Feature 20 was a postmold located in the southwestern corner of the most recent construction of Structure 1; the feature diameter measured 25 cm and had a depth of 15 cm. The approximate feature volume was 7.36 liters. One and a quarter liters of sediment from Feature 20 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded .112 g of charred wood, 4 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of

.011 g, 8 seeds, and 1 seed fragment.

326

Feature 32

Feature 32 was located in the center of the Middle Woodland Structure 1 and likely served as the primary indoor heating and cooking hearth for the domicile. The feature was composed of three platforms, consistent with the three construction episodes of Structure 1 (See Figures 4, 6 and 7). The lowest platform was 60 cm in diameter, whereas the middle and upper platforms measured 40 cm in diameter. The combined depth of the three overlapping hearths measured 44 cm deep for a total approximate volume of 124.41 liters. Initial artifact analysis of Feature 32 conducted by Weaver and colleagues (2011) yielded chipped chert debitage, carbonized nutshell, ground stone fragments, and hematite nodules. Wood charcoal from Feature 32 was radiometric dated to 1870±40 BP with a calibrated intercept of A.D. 130 (Weaver et al. 2011:26).

Eleven and a quarter liters of sediment from Feature 32 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.874 g of charred wood, no nutshell, 8 seeds, and 2 seed fragments. Unlike thermal Feature 4, no pottery was recovered from Feature 32.

Feature 40

Feature 40 was a large storage pit measuring 45 cm by 125 cm with a maximum depth of 30 cm; the total approximate volume of the feature was 132.54 liters. This large oval feature was present in both the second and third episodes of construction at the

Patton 1 site and was situated just north of Structure 1. The feature contained low densities of artifacts (Weaver et al. 2011). During the third episode of construction at the site, a second storage pit, Feature 54, was dug adjacent to the larger Feature 40. Six and a

327 quarter liters of sediment from Feature 40 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Few botanical remains were recovered from the feature, likely due to the lack of carbonization of the interred remains thus limiting preservation. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.624 g of charred wood, eight pieces of nutshell weighing a total of

0.027 g, and no seeds.

Feature 42

Feature 42 was a thermal feature associated with the Middle Woodland Period. No diameter or depth measurements were documented for Feature 42; as a result, approximate total volumes for the feature were not available. Ten liters of sediment from

Feature 42 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 14.258 g of charred wood, no nutshell, and 39 seeds.

Feature 60

Located approximately one meter north of Structure 1, Feature 60 was a large refuse pit measuring 146 cm in length, 104 cm in width, and 30 cm deep for a total approximate volume of 357.76 liters. Artifact analysis of the feature, omitting flotation sample contents, yielded 1192 chipped stone debitage weighing 1637 g, two projectile points, one perform, and two expedient tools. Additionally, 321 pieces of chipped stone debitage weighing 322.4 g, one projectile point, and three informal tools were recovered from the units surrounding Feature 60. Altogether, the chipped stone debitage recovered from the feature and the surrounding sediment make up 47% by count and 44% by

328 weight of such artifacts from the entire site assemblage (Weaver et al. 2011). Only one- third of the feature was excavated and screened due to time constraints, while the remaining sediment was bagged for flotation; excavation, however, did reveal artifact density concentrations within the feature, suggesting assemblage accumulation occurred slowly over the use-life of the feature. Feature 60 was stratigraphically comparable to

Features 4 and 32, providing an approximate date of use to ca. C.E. 120-130.

Archaeobotanical analysis at the Patton 1 site focused on Feature 60, since few

Middle Woodland midden pits have been recovered throughout the Ohio Valley. As a result, over 115 liters of sediment from Feature 60 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains; this is about one-half of the total sediment analyzed from the site. Sediment sample analysis yielded 84.958 g of charred material, 458 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 7.448 g, 102 seeds and 70 seed fragments.

Feature 66

Feature 66 was a medium sized postmold measuring 19 cm in diameter with a depth of 11 cm. The approximate total volume of the postmold was 3.12 liters. Feature 66 was part of the western wall of the second episode of construction of Structure 1. A half liter of oil from Feature 66 was floated and analyzed for archaeobotanicals. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.094 g of charred wood and one piece of nutshell weighing 0.004 g. No seeds were recovered from the feature.

329

Feature 68

Similar to Feature 66, Feature 68 was a postmold associated with the second episode of construction of Structure 1. Feature 68 had a diameter of 18 cm with a depth of 73 cm.

This feature likely represents a postmold that was utilized in the first and second episodes of construction given its unusual depth compared to other posts at the site. Seven liters of sediment from Feature 68 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanicals. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.055 g of charred wood. No nutshell or seeds were recovered from the feature samples.

Taber Well Feature Descriptions Feature 1

Feature 1 was a postmold measuring 17 cm by 17 cm, with a maximum depth of

11 cm. The approximate volume of the feature was 3 liters. It was stratigraphically associated with Features 5 and 12 which were radiometrically dated to the Middle

Woodland Period. Although no clear outlines of domestic structures were identified from the Taber Well site, likely due to formation processes such as timber harvesting and agricultural plowing, Feature 1 is part of a cluster of posts that form what appears to be a straight line and possible prehistoric wall (together with features 15 and 11). Given the small size of the postmold, one hundred percent (i.e., 3 liters) of the sediment from the feature was floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded .789 grams of charred wood, seven pieces of nutshell weighing a total of .06 grams, two seeds, and four seed fragments. Additionally, two fragments of cucurbit rind were identified. 330

Feature 2

Feature 2 was a large post measuring 30 cm by 23 cm, with a maximum depth of

18 cm. The approximate volume of the feature was 9.75 liters. Although this feature was not radiometrically dated, it likely dated to the Early Woodland Period based on its stratigraphic location and associations. Seven and a half liters of sediment from the feature were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 15.765 grams of charred wood, eleven pieces of nutshell weighing a total of .042 grams, two seeds and three fragments.

Feature 3

Feature 3 was a post measuring 13 cm by 15 cm, with a maximum depth of 17 cm. The approximate volume of the feature was 2.6 liters. Feature 3 was stratigraphically comparable to Feature 2. One liter of sediment equaling almost 50% of the feature were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded

0.143grams of charred wood, one piece of nutshell weighing less than 0.001 grams, and three seeds.

Feature 4

Feature 4 was a thermal feature measuring 50 cm by 50 cm with a maximum depth of 20 cm. The approximate volume of the feature was 39.27 liters. Feature 4 was stratigraphically associated with posts 13, 14 and 20; based on feature radiometric dates

331 and stratigraphy, these features are likely associated with the terminal Early

Woodland/Middle Woodland temporal period. A single pottery sherd was recovered from

Feature 4, weighing .063 grams. This sample was not included in the pottery macrocharacteristic analysis.

Twelve and a half liters of sediment from Feature 4 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 2.212 grams of charred wood, four pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.027 grams, fifteen seeds and six seed fragments.

Feature 5

Feature 5 was a thermal feature measuring 70 cm by 30 cm with a maximum depth of 18 cm. The approximate total volume of the feature was 29.688 liters. The hearth was stratigraphically associated with nearby postmolds 7, 8, 18 and 19 and likely represents a domestic cooking feature. Radiometric analysis of the feature was conducted by Beta-Analytic on a charred wood sample resulting in a Middle Woodland date of 2130

± 40 BP with a 2 sigma calibrated date of BCE 350 to 300 (Beta-178277; Peoples et al.

2008). Thirteen pottery sherds weighing 29.2 grams were recovered from Feature 5. All sherds were grit tempered and plain surface; however the application of a slip was apparent on the vessel interior.

Twenty and a half liters of sediment from Feature 5 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 13.505 grams of charred

332 wood, 33 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.225 grams, 44 seeds and 11 seed fragments.

Feature 6

Feature 6 was determined not to be a feature in the field. Further laboratory analysis of the artifacts recovered from the excavation of this feature confirmed that it was in fact a ground stone formation. Due to the nature of this feature type and the low likelihood of carbonized botanical remains, only limited amounts of sediment from

Feature 6 were floated and analyzed.

One and a half liters of sediment from Feature 6 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.088 grams of charred wood, 4 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.018 grams, two seeds and one seed fragment.

Feature 7

Feature 7 was a thermal feature measuring 50 cm by 40 cm with a depth of 6 cm; the total maximum volume of the feature was 9.43 liters. Given the shallow depth of

Feature 7 and its location at the bottom of the plowzone, this feature was largely disturbed by agricultural processes which are to blame for the miniscule feature depth.

Three and three-quarter liters of sediment from Feature 7 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.076 grams of charred

333 wood, six pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.096 grams, 25 seeds and 5 seed fragments.

Feature 8

Feature 8 was a medium sized thermal feature measuring 38 cm by 45 cm with a maximum depth of 12 cm; the total maximum volume of the feature was 16.12 liters. The feature was located at the base of the plowzone and was likely disturbed by modern agricultural processes. Four and a half liters of sediment from Feature 8 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.887 grams of charred wood, three pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.034 grams, and six seeds.

Feature 9

Feature 9 was a large thermal feature measuring 78 cm by 60 cm with a maximum depth of 11 cm. The feature total volume was approximately 44.11 liters. Feature 9 was located 3 cm below the plowzone and represents a largely undisturbed hearth; its stratigraphic association and proximity to postmolds 1, 10, 11, and 15 suggests this feature was used for cooking by the occupants of a prehistoric household. Excavation of the feature revealed a layer of fire cracked rock atop a layer of darker sediment containing larger chunks of charcoal. Thirteen liters of sediment from Feature 9 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded

0.869 grams of charred wood, three pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.015 grams, fourteen seeds and one seed fragment.

334

Feature 10

Feature 10 was a large postmold measuring 30 cm by 20 cm with a depth of 11 cm; the total feature volume was approximately 5.18 liters. Given the size of this postmold, it likely represents the northeastern corner post of a domestic structure associated with thermal feature 9. One and a quarter liters of sediment from Feature 10 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.66 grams of charred wood, no nutshell, and no seeds.

Feature 11

Feature 11 was a relatively large postmold measuring 24 cm by 24 cm with a depth of 7 cm; the total feature volume was approximately 3.17 liters. Given its size, the post most likely represents the southwestern corner of a domestic structure associated with thermal feature 9. Five and a quarter liters of sediment from Feature 11 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 1.565 grams of charred wood, twelve pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.082 grams, six seeds and eleven seed fragmentss.

Feature 12

Feature 12 was a large pit measuring 37 cm by 27 cm with a depth of 30 cm; the total feature volume was approximately 23.54 liters. Charred material from Feature 12 was submitted to Beta-Analytic for radiometric analysis and provided a calibrated

335 radiocarbon date of 1960 ± 80 RCYBP (Beta-178278; Charred material; Calibrated

Radiocarbon age of 1960 ± 80; 2 sigma calibration of BP 2120 to 1720; intercept with calibration curve BP 1900; 2 sigma BCE 160 to CE 230). Feature 12 was most likely used to store botanical foods such as cultigens and/or gathered nuts, such as hickory and walnut. Five and three quarters liters of sediment from Feature 12 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 54.379 grams of charred wood, 108 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 1.829 grams, four seeds and six seed fragments.

Feature 13 and 14

Feature 13 was a medium to small sized post measuring 14 cm by 14 cm with a depth of 9 cm; the total feature volume was approximately 1.36 liters. Feature 14 was a medium to small sized post measuring 13 cm by 13 cm with a depth of 9 cm; the total feature volume was approximately 1.19 liters. Feature 13, along with post Feature 14, were dug into the larger and older Feature 16. Peoples and colleagues (2008) argued this was evidence of site reuse and recurrent occupation by prehistoric populations. Sediment samples from these two features were bagged together resulting in a combined feature sample. Three and a half liters of sediment from Feature 13/14 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 3.625 grams of charred wood, no nutshell, and no seeds.

336

Feature 15

Feature 15 was a relatively small post measuring 7 cm by 11 cm with a depth of 4 cm; the total feature volume was approximately .24 liters. The feature was located at the base of the plowzone and given its small depth measure, was likely disturbed by modern agricultural processes. A half liter of sediment from Feature 15 was floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.296 grams of charred wood, four pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.036 grams, and no seeds.

Feature 16

Feature 16 was a relatively large pit measuring 35 cm by 27 cm with a depth of 15 cm; the total feature volume was approximately 11.13 liters. The younger post features

13 and 14 were dug into this larger feature. Given this intrusion, the function of Feature

16 is obscured although it likely represents a storage pit or large structural post. Eight and three quarters liters of sediment from Feature 16 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 2.396 grams of charred wood, 26 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.232 grams, eleven seeds and thirteen seed fragments.

Feature 17

Feature 17 was a large thermal feature measuring 60 cm by 40 cm with a depth of

14 cm; the total feature volume was approximately 26.39 liters. This feature was the deepest feature excavated from the Taber Well site, stratigraphically located 12 cm below

337 the plowzone. The feature was associated with an Upper Mercer Brewerton cluster point, chronologically affiliated with the Late Archaic Period. Similarly, analysis of sediment samples from the feature yielded a number of pottery fragments comparable to those recovered from Late Archaic contexts at the County Home and Patton 1 sites. Lacking an associated radiometric date, these non-tempered thick sherds were excluded from the pottery analysis conducted as part of this study. Four liters of sediment from Feature 17 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 2.069 grams of charred wood, five pieces of nutshell weighing a total of

0.037grams, and three seeds.

Feature 18

Feature 18 was a small to medium sized post measuring 10 cm by 16 cm with a depth of 11 cm; the total approximate feature volume was 1.38 liters. The feature lines up with the adjacent post 19 and likely represents part of a prehistoric domestic structure.

This structure was likely associated with thermal feature 5, located approximately 1 meter to the northwest. One and a half liters of sediment from Feature 18 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.051 grams of charred wood, 63 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.585 grams, and no seeds.

338

Feature 19

Feature 19 was a small postmold measuring 12 cm by 14 cm with a depth of 8 cm; the total approximate feature volume was 1.05 liters. The feature lines up with the adjacent post 18 and likely represents part of a prehistoric domestic structure. This structure was likely associated with thermal feature 5, located approximately 1 meter to the northwest. A half liter of sediment from Feature 19 was floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 2.41 grams of charred wood, nine pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.034 grams, and no seeds.

Feature 20

Feature 20 was a small postmold measuring 11 cm by 11 cm with a depth of 12 cm; the total approximate feature volume was .36 liters however the surrounding sediment was removed for sampling as part of the feature. Altogether this sediment totaled one liter of sediment. One hundred percent of sediment from Feature 20 was floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded

0.282 grams of charred wood, seven pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.086 grams, and two seed fragments.

Feature 21

Feature 21 was a small postmold measuring 10 cm by 15 cm with a depth of 8 cm; the total approximate feature volume was 1 liter, though sediment sample totals were greater due to the removal of sediment surrounding the post. Charred material from

339

Feature 21 was submitted to Beta-Analytic for radiometric analysis and provided a calibrated radiocarbon date of 2000 ± 80 RCYBP (Beta-169752; Charred material;

Calibrated Radiocarbon age of 2000 ± 80; 2 sigma calibration of BP 2140 to 1800; intercept with calibration curve BP 1940; 2 sigma BCE 190 to CE 150). Feature 21 included a large deposit of in situ pottery sherds used as chinking; this assemblage probably represents the remains of a single vessel. At minimum, this deposit indicates an attempt to preserve the architectural post of a prehistoric structure and concern with house longevity (Peoples et al. 2009).

Three and three quarter liters of sediment from Feature 21 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 5.678 grams of charred wood, eight pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.218 grams, five identifiable seeds and four seed fragments.

County Home Feature Descriptions

Feature 1

Feature 1 was a large post measuring 35 cm in diameter with a depth of 19 cm; the total approximate volume of the feature was 18.28 liters. Stratigraphically the post was associated with Feature 54 which dated to the Middle Woodland period. Eighteen liters of sediment from Feature 1 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains.

Sediment sample analysis yielded 1.113 grams of charred wood, nine pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.059 grams, 52 identifiable seeds and 2 seed fragments.

340

Feature 2

Feature 2 was a medium to large sized postmold measuring 18.5 cm in diameter with a depth of 20 cm; the total approximate volume of the feature was 5.09 liters.

Stratigraphically the post was associated with Feature 54 which dated to the Middle

Woodland period. Feature 2 lined up with Feature 1 and likely was part of the wall of a prehistoric domestic structure. Four liters of sediment from Feature 2 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded .298 grams of charred wood, 1 piece of nutshell weighing a total of 0.002 grams, and 12 identifiable seeds.

Feature 4

Feature 4 was a medium sized pit, likely used for storage, measuring 43 cm in diameter with a depth of 13 cm; the approximate volume of the feature was 18.88 liters.

Stratigraphically the pit was associated with the Late Archaic features from the site although it was located approximately 7 to 10 meters to the east of the large thermal features 47, 62 and 9. Seven liters of sediment from Feature 4 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.071 grams of charred wood, seven pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.155 grams, and 25 identifiable seeds.

Feature 7

Feature 7 was large pit feature measuring 80 cm in length and 85 in width with a depth of 5 cm; the approximate volume of the feature was 26.70 liters. The feature was

341 likely much deeper in prehistoric times but was impacted by historic plowing which removed the upper levels of the pit. Based on its stratigraphic placement and overlap with the historic plowzone, the feature was associated with the latest temporal component at the site, the Middle Woodland Period. Furthermore, the pit was located along the exterior of the southeastern wall of a Middle Woodland domestic structure. Three and three- fourths liters of sediment from Feature 7 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded .197 grams of charred material, 3 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of .03 grams and 6 seeds.

Feature 8

Feature 8 was a generic pit with a depth of 6cm. Existing field notes for the

County Home site do not include diameter measurements for the feature, prohibiting calculation of approximate total feature volume. The feature was recovered in a stratigraphic level between the Middle Woodland and Late Archaic components, justifying its temporal association with the Early Woodland Period. Four and a half liters of sediment from Feature 8 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains.

Sediment sample analysis yielded no charred wood, 4 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of .096 grams and 10 seeds. The lack of charcoal from the feature, suggest it was used as a storage pit.

342

Feature 9

Feature 9 was a large thermal feature with a maximum length of 84 cm and a maximum width of 40 cm, with a depth of 35 cm. The total approximate volume was

653.84 liters. This feature was radiocarbon dated to 2960 ± 40 BP, confirming its Late

Archaic association. Twenty-two and a half liters of sediment from Feature 9 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded

1.462 grams of charred material, 84 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.696 grams,

23 seeds and 6 seed fragments.

Feature 29

Feature 29 was a large pit measuring 70 cm in diameter with a maximum depth of

8 cm. Like Feature 7, it was likely much deeper in prehistoric times but was impacted by historic plowing which removed the upper levels of the pit. Based on its stratigraphic placement and overlap with the historic plowzone, the feature was associated with the latest temporal component at the site, the Middle Woodland Period. The feature was located in the north-central region of the trenched block along with a number of other pit features of comparable size; approximately 2 meters north of the Middle Woodland structure at the County Home site, these pits likely represent features for food storage or winter leaching of acorns (see below). Twenty-seven and a half liters of sediment from

Feature 29 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 2.336 grams of charred material, no nutshell, 21 seeds and 7 seed fragments.

343

Feature 30

Feature 30 was a large pit feature measuring 75 cm in length and 80 cm in width, with a depth of 37 cm. The approximate total volume of the feature was 174.36 liters.

Based on strategraphic association with Feature 47 and 48, the feature was determined to be part of the Late Archaic component at the site. Twenty liters of sediment from Feature

30 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.474 grams of charred material, 37 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.608 grams, 22 seeds and 5 seed fragments.

Feature 33

Feature 33 was a pit feature associated with the Middle Woodland Period based on strategraphic association. No measurements of diameter or depth were available for this feature; as a result, total approximate feature volume could not be calculated. Six liters of sediment from Feature 33 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded no charred wood, no nutshell, 7 seeds and 4 seed fragments.

Feature 36

Feature 36 was a large pit feature measuring 100 cm by 76 cm with a depth of 23 cm; the approximate total volume was 137.29 liters. Based on stratigraphic associations with dated features and diagnostic artifacts, Feature 36 was associated with the Middle

344

Woodland Period. Twenty-four liters of sediment from Feature 36 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.193 grams of charred wood, ten pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.056grams, and 44 seeds.

Feature 37

Feature 37 was a small to medium-sized postmold with a diameter of 13 cm and a depth of 15 cm. The total approximate volume was 1.99 liters. Based on stratigraphic associations with dated features and diagnostic artifacts, Feature 37 was associated with the Middle Woodland Period. Five liters of sediment from Feature 37 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 27.277 grams of charred wood, one piece of nutshell weighing a total of 0.196 grams, and 189 seeds, and 6 seed fragments.

Feature 39

Feature 39 was a small postmold measuring 12 cm in diameter and 17 cm deep.

The total approximate volume of the feature was 1.92 liters. Stratigraphically, the feature was associated with others at the site dated to the Late Archaic Period. One liter of sediment from Feature 39 was floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains.

Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.067 grams of charred wood, 54 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.403 grams, and 1 unidentifiable seed.

345

Feature 40

Similar to Feature 39, Feature 40 was a medium sized postmold stratigraphically associated with the Late Archaic Period. The diameter of the feature was 21 cm with a depth of 25 cm. The total approximate volume of the feature was 8.66 liters. Two and a half liters of sediment from Feature 40 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.08 grams of charred wood, 30 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.232 grams, and 6 seeds.

Feature 47

Feature 47, the third largest of the thermal features at the County Home site, had a volume of 418 liters. Maximum length of the feature was 96 cm with a width of 86 cm and a maximum depth of 75 cm. The western wall of the feature contained two small interior shelves, with a larger shelf (approximately 35 cm wide) along the northern wall supporting a charcoal lens. Initial analysis of artifacts from the feature yielded 3,591.4 g of fire-cracked rock, 5.1 g of faunal bone, 8.4 g of coal, 44.9 g of pottery fragments, 155 chert artifacts weighing 329.3 g, and 2 ground stones weighing 680.6 g (Heyman et al.

2005: 73-74). The majority of chip stone artifacts (approximately 75% by weight and

81% by count) were composed of Brush Creek chert, with the remaining chipped stone made up of almost even amounts of Upper Mercer, Flint Ridge, and Zaleski cherts.

Almost 86% of chert artifacts by count represented late stage reduction consistent with retouching of tools during food processing activities (Heyman et al. 2005: 74). The presence of faunal remains in the thermal feature, as well as pottery fragments and

346 ground stone artifacts, further indicate the use of the feature in food preparation. Direct dating of the feature to 3070±60 BP places its use firmly within the Late Archaic Period

(Purtill 2009).

The total approximate volume of the feature was 473.87 liters. Thirteen liters of sediment from Feature 47 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains.

Sediment sample analysis yielded 2.629 grams of charred wood, 94 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 1.286 grams, thirteen seeds and 10 seed fragments.

Feature 48

Feature 48 was the largest thermal feature by volume excavated at the County

Home site. At maximum, the feature measured 85 cm in length, 83 cm in width, and 97 cm in depth for a total volume of 581.35 liters. Initial content analysis from the feature yielded 2,101.9 g of fire-cracked rock, 14.6 g of faunal bone, 54.4 g of pottery fragments,

83 chert artifacts weighing 377 g, and 1 ground stone weighing 944.1 g (Heyman et al.

2005: 73-74). The majority of chipped stone artifacts by weight were Upper Mercer, due to a single core weighing 318.6 g. Omitting this single artifact, the majority of artifacts by count and weight (approximately 52% and 62%, respectively) were composed of Brush

Creek chert, with the remaining chipped stone made up of Flint Ridge and Upper Mercer, and minimal amounts of Zaleski cherts (Heyman et al. 2005: 74). Wood charcoal from

Feature 48 was radiocarbon dated to 2820±70 BP. Ten and a half liters of sediment from

Feature 48 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample

347 analysis yielded 3.36 grams of charred wood, 2168 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of

24.43 grams, 122 seeds and 43 seed fragments.

Feature 49

Feature 49 was a medium-sized postmold measuring 19 cm in length, 22 cm in width, and 8 cm in depth. The total approximate volume of the postmold was 2.63 liters.

This postmold was associated with County Home site Structure 1, dated to the Middle

Woodland Period based on a radiocarbon date for Feature 54. Five liters of sediment from Feature 49 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.186 grams of charred wood, 22 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.233 grams, and 4 seeds.

Feature 54

Feature 54 was a medium sized post with a diameter of 20 cm and a depth of 9 cm; the total approximate volume of the feature was 2.4 liters. Feature 54 was the North western corner of a rectilinear structure. Charred material from the feature was radiocarbon dated to the Middle Woodland Period (Beta-169749; charred material; cal CE

28 to CE 414; intercept CE 236; calibration based on Stuiver et al. 1998). Two liters of sediment from Feature 54 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains.

Sediment sample analysis yielded 1.957 grams of charred wood, no nutshell, and 30 seeds and 12 seed fragments. Included in the recovered seeds were two carbonized kernels of Zea mays, indicating that the species had made it into the valley by the Middle

348

Woodland Period. Despite these kernels, maize likely played a very little role in the

Middle Woodland diet.

Feature 60

Feature 60 was a large post with a diameter of 21 cm and a depth of 27 cm; the approximate total feature volume was9.33 liters. Feature 60 was a architectural post along the southern wall of the Middle Woodland Structure 1 associated with Feature 54. Two liters of sediment from Feature 60 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.679 grams of charred wood, 10 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.129 grams, and 1 seed and 1 seed fragment. Additionally 2 pottery fragments weighing a total of .4 g were recovered from the post; their miniscule size prohibited their inclusion in the pottery analysis conducted as part of this study.

Feature 61

Feature 61 was a shallow medium sized pit measuring 25 cm in diameter and 8 cm in depth. The approximate total volume of this feature was 3.68 liters. Based on its strategraphic association with Feature 54, Feature 61 was included in the site’s Middle

Woodland component. Five and a half liters of sediment from Feature 61 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.046 grams of charred wood, no nutshell, and 15 seeds.

349

Feature 62

Feature 62 was a large thermal feature measuring 100 cm by 95 cm with a depth of 47 cm; the total approximate feature volume was 466.92 liters. Initial analysis of artifacts from the feature yielded 1,627.4 g of fire-cracked rock,3.9 g of bone, 15.3 g of coal, 18.2 g of pottery fragments, 8 chert artifacts weighing 45.8 g, and 2 ground stones weighing 31.7 g (Heyman et al. 2005: 73-74). The majority of chip stone artifacts

(approximately 58% by weight and 50% by count) were composed of Brush Creek chert.

Almost 88% of chert artifacts by count represented late stage reduction consistent with retouching of tools during food processing activities (Heyman et al. 2005: 74). The presence of faunal remains in the thermal feature, as well as pottery fragments and ground stone artifacts, further indicate the use of the feature in food preparation. Direct dating of the feature to 3220 ± 70 BP places its use firmly within the Late Archaic Period

(Purtill 2009).

Ten liters of sediment from Feature 62 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 1.278 grams of charred material, 31 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.479 grams, 8 seeds and 7 seed fragments; additionally 2 pieces of cucurbit rind were recovered from the 10 liters of sediment analyzed from Feature 62. Sediment sample analysis yielded 49 pottery sherds weighing a total of 16.7 g. No temper was identified in the sherds although natural sand and organic inclusions less than .5 mm were present.

350

Feature 69

Feature 69 was a large pit measuring 49 cm by 37.5 cm and 9 cm in depth; the total approximate feature volume was 13.42 liters. Given the small depth of the feature and its location at the base of the modern plowzone, it was likely impacted by historic agricultural plowing and other formation processes. Feature 69 was located at the southeastern corner of the site and was probably used to store botanical foods.

Six and a quarter liters of sediment from Feature 69 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.083 grams of charred wood, nine pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.037 grams, and 5 seeds.

Patton 3 Feature Descriptions

Feature 1

Feature 1 was a large thermal feature from Greg’s Field measuring 120 cm in length by 70 cm in width with a maximum depth of 39 cm. The approximate maximum volume was 257.29 liters. The feature was associated with a single Middle Woodland

Snyders point which was recovered from directly above the feature surface. Although this feature was outside of the central village that included Structures 1 through 4 in Greg’s

Field, the stratigraphy and associated diagnostic artifact suggests that Feature 1 was part of the Terminal Early Woodland/Incipient Middle Woodland occupation of the site. Two and a quarter liters of sediment from Feature 1 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.915 g of charred wood, 5 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.058 g, and 1 seed.

351

Feature 4

Feature 4 was a large thermal feature from Greg’s Field Locus measuring 62 cm in length, 78 cm in width, and 41 cm deep. The approximate total volume was 155.73 liters. The feature was associated with Structure 3; based on the post alignment of

Structure 3, Feature 4 likely represents an exterior hearth. Twelve and a half liters of sediment from Feature 4 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains.

Sediment sample analysis yielded 3.927 grams of charred wood, 14 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of .066 grams, 5 seeds and 9 pieces of cucurbit rind weighing 0.017 grams.

Feature 5

Feature 5 was a large thermal feature from Greg’s Field Locus. The feature was associated with Structure 4; based on the post alignment of Structure 4, Feature 5 likely represents an exterior hearth. Seven liters of sediment from Feature 5 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.927 grams of charred wood, 35 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of .065 grams, 9 seeds and 4 seed fragments.

Feature 8

352

Feature 8(a) was a large postmold measuring 34 cm by 33 cm with a depth of 20 cm. Immediately below this post was a second postmold (Feature 8b) measuring about 30 cm in diameter with a depth of 17 cm; the approximate volume of post 8a was 17.62 liters and that of 8b was 12.02 liters, for a total approximate volume of 29.64 liters. Feature 8

(a) was the Southeastern corner post of Structure 1 in the Greg’s Field Locus, whereas 8b appears to be part of an early circular domestic structure; based on this and similar features, the Patton 3 site likely represents evidence of the transition from circular to rectilinear structures. The feature contained sandstone rock and 9 pottery sherds (i.e., weighing 3.1 g) used as chinking and indicating investment in post preservation. The superimposition of these posts suggests continued occupation of the site (see Weaver et al. 2012). As described above, charred material from Feature 8a was AMS dated to 2270

± 40 BP, indicating Terminal-Early Woodland/Incipient Middle Woodland occupation of the site. Ten liters of sediment from Feature 8 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 4.153 g of charred wood, 65 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of .136 g, 19 seeds, 26 seed fragments, 9 fruit stems, and 2 fish scales.

Feature 10

Feature 10 was a small postmold measuring 8 cm in diameter with a depth of 14 cm; the approximate feature volume was 0.7 liters. Stratigraphically associated with

Feature 8b, this post was part of the circular domestic structure, superimposed by the rectilinear Structure 1. A half liter of sediment from Feature 10 were floated and analyzed

353 for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded .03 g of charred wood, no nutshell, 3 seeds and 2 pieces of achene from an Aster (Asteraceae).

Feature 11

Feature 11 was a medium-sized postmold measuring 11 cm by 13 cm and 25 cm in depth; the total approximate feature volume was 2.81 liters. The feature was associated with the first level of construction of Structure 1, the circular house. Excavation of

Feature 11 yielded an Upper Mercer scraper likely deposited during surface clearing between construction episodes. Three-quarters liter of sediment from Feature 11 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded

.018 g of charred wood, 5 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of .002 g, and 5 unidentifiable seeds.

Feature 12A

Feature 12(a) was a medium-sized postmold measuring 19 cm in diameter with a depth of 14 cm; immediately below this post was a second post, Feature 12(b) measuring

13 cm in diameter with a depth of approximately 10 cm. The approximate feature volume of 12(a) was 3.97 liters, with an approximate volume of 1.33 liters for 12(b) totaling 5.30 liters for both posts. Feature 12(a) was part of the southern wall of Structure 1 in the

Greg’s Field Locus, whereas 12(b) appears to be part of an early circular domestic structure. During excavation of the feature, a whole carbonized acorn was recovered.

Two liters of sediment from Feature 12 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical

354 remains. All sediment sampled came from Feature 12(a). Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.08 grams of charred wood, 14 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.595 grams including a complete acorn nutmeat, and no seeds.

Feature 32

Feature 32 (a) was a large thermal feature measuring 57 cm in length, 58 cm in width, and 20 cm in depth. The total approximate volume of this feature was 51.93 liters.

The feature was the central hearth on the interior of Structure 1 in Greg’s Field Locus. A second feature was located immediately below this feature. Feature 32(b) was a thermal feature that likely served as the interior hearth of the earlier circular structure. This earlier thermal feature measured approximately 35 cm in diameter and 20 cm deep. The total approximate volume for this older feature was 18.69 liters. All sediment sampled from this feature was associated with Feature 32 (a). Twenty liters of sediment from Feature 32 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 7.986 g of charred wood, 22 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.389 g, 12 seeds, 12 seed fragments, and 1 fruit stem.

Feature 505

Feature 505 was a large thermal feature measuring 65 cm in length, 46 cm in width, and 32 cm deep. The feature had a total approximate volume of 77.50 liters.

Feature 505 was the central thermal feature of Structure 2 in Greg’s Field Locus. The feature contained numerous chunks of fire cracked rock and charcoal but no artifacts.

355

Nineteen liters of sediment from Feature 505 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.146 grams of charred wood, no nutshell, and five seeds.

Feature 509

Feature 509 was a medium-sized thermal feature measuring 58 cm in length, 68 cm in width and 10 cm deep. The feature had a total approximate volume of 30.98 liters.

Associated with Structure 2 in the Greg’s Field Locus, Feature 509 likely represents an exterior hearth. Four and three-quarters liters of sediment from Feature 509 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.25 grams of charred wood, 2 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.001 g, 19 seeds and 2 seed fragments.

Feature 510

Feature 510 was a large postmold measuring 37 cm in length, 44 cm in width, and

21 cm in depth. This feature had a total approximate volume of 26.85 liters. Feature 510 was the northeastern corner post of Structure 2 in Greg’s Field Locus. Like many of the other posts excavated at the Patton 3 site, the post contained small rocks on the circumference of the feature which likely represent chinking intended to increase post preservation. Six liters of sediment from Feature 510 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.268 grams of charred wood, 1 piece of nutshell weighing a total of .002 g, 7 seeds and 2 seed fragments.

356

Feature 512

Feature 512 was a large thermal feature measuring 54 cm in length, 56 cm in width, and 21 cm in depth. The total approximate volume of the feature was 49.88 liters.

Located just northwest of Structure 2 in Greg’s Field Locus, Feature 512 was likely a storage pit that may have been used for winter leaching of acorns. Eleven and a half liters of sediment from Feature 512 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains.

Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.383 grams of charred wood, no nutshell, and 25 seeds.

Feature 518

Feature 518 was a large sheet midden feature with a maximum length of 434 cm and 394 cm in maximum width. The depth of this feature was not homogenous across its circumference, but instead contained pockets of refuse which measured from approximately 5 to 20 cm. As a result, no approximate volume was calculated. Over ten such pockets were excavated aside from the “sheets” that spread across the surface area of the feature and measured a few centimeters deep. Analysis suggests the feature represents “kitchen” midden or the material removed from household cooking features.

Twenty-two and a half liters of sediment from Feature 518 were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 9.071 grams of charred wood, 7 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.013 grams, 6 seeds and 2 seed fragments.

357

Feature 519

Feature 519 was a large thermal feature with a maximum length of 96 cm, a maximum width of 74 cm and a maximum depth of 20 cm. The approximate total volume of this feature was 111.59 liters. Based on postmold alignment, Feature 519 was an exterior hearth associated with Structure 4 in Greg’s Field Locus. Based on stratigraphic association, this feature was dated to the Terminal Early Woodland/Incipient Middle

Woodland Period. The feature was lined in stream pebbles or gravel that were fire- cracked. Additionally, chert fragments and groundstone fragments were recovered from the interior of the thermal feature. Approximately a quarter of the total volume of the feature was floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.74 grams of charred wood, seven pieces of nutshell weighing 0.013 grams, and

233 seeds.

Feature 534

Feature 534 was a shallow basin pit measuring 79 cm in length, 50 cm in width and 8 cm in depth. The total approximate volume was 24.82 liters. Chert flakes, fire- cracked rock, and daub fragments were recovered from the feature in addition to archaeobotanical remains. The feature was located just to the east of Structure 2 in Greg’s

Field Locus; its function was indeterminate based on the limited data available. Eleven and three-quarters liters of sediment were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 0.002 grams of charred wood, one piece of nutshell weighing 0.001 grams, eight seeds, and one seed fragment.

358

Feature 563

Feature 563 was a large postmold measuring 31 cm in length, 27 cm in width and

20 cm deep. The total approximate volume of the feature was 13.15 liters. This feature was associated with the earlier strategraphic layer below Structure 2 in Greg’s Field

Locus. Feature 563 was not directly associated with the outline of the earlier circular structure. Eight and a half liters of sediment were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded no charred wood, no nutshell, two seeds, and one seed fragment.

Feature 573

Feature 573 was a small postmold measuring 16 cm in diameter and 11 cm in depth. The total approximate volume of the feature was 2.21 liters. Feature 573 was part of the outline of a circular structure below Structure 2 in Greg’s Field Locus. Given the associated dates of the later temporal component of the site, this post and the associated structure likely date to the Terminal-Early Woodland Period. Six liters of sediment from the feature were floated and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 7.345 grams of charcoal, no nutshell and one seed.

Feature 574

Feature 574 was a large postmold measuring 40 cm in diameter and 12 cm in depth. The approximate volume of this feature was 15.08 liters. Like Feature 573, it was

359 part of the outline of the circular structure below Structure 2 in Greg’s Field Locus. Nine and three-quarters liters of sediment were floated and analyzed from this feature, representing over fifty percent of the total feature volume. Sediment sample analysis yielded 7.085 grams of charred wood, no nutshell, six seeds, and one seed fragments.

Feature 575

Feature 575 was a medium-sized postmold with a diameter of 20 cm and a depth of 11 cm. The approximate total volume of this feature was 3.46 liters. Feature 575 was part of the outline of the circular structure below Structure 2 in Greg’s Field Locus.

During excavation, it became clear that the feature had suffered from bioturbation at the hand of a rodent which had spread the feature contents out laterally. In order to recover the cultural debris that had been impacted by such formation processes, the surrounding sediment, including that disturbed, was removed. Six and three-quarters liters were floated and analyzed from this feature. Sediment sample analysis yielded 20.024 grams of charred wood, no nutshell, four seeds, and two seed fragments.

Feature D4

Feature D4 was the only feature in this study from Dave’s Field Locus at the

Patton 3 site. This medium-sized pit feature measured 30 cm in length by 29 cm in width, and had a depth of 30 cm. The total approximate volume of Feature D4 was 20.5 liters.

Just to the west of Structure A, this feature likely represents a storage pit used to cache food goods, such as seeds and nuts. Ten liters of sediment from Feature D4 were floated

360 and analyzed for archaeobotanical remains. Sediment sample analysis yielded 8.291 of charred wood, 36 pieces of nutshell weighing a total of 0.322 grams, twenty-one seeds and seven seed fragments.

361

Appendix B: Macrobotanical Raw Numbers

362

Table 48: Patton 1 Seed Assemblage

Count Seeds Count

Volume

Feature # Feature

Rhus spp. Rhus

Iva annua Iva spp. Viola

Fragments

Rubus spp. Rubus

Galium spp. Galium spp. Scirpus

Oxalis stricta Oxalis

Panicum spp. Panicum

Barbarea spp. Barbarea

Nicotiana spp. Nicotiana

Ambrosia spp. Ambrosia

Euphorbia spp. Euphorbia

Asimina triloba Asimina

Lespedeza hirta Lespedeza

Polygonum spp. Polygonum

Vicia caroliniana Vicia

Unknown Woody Unknown

Total Total

Hordeum pusillum Hordeum

Chenopodium spp. Chenopodium

Phalarsis caroliniana Phalarsis Phytolacca americana Phytolacca

1 23 9 1 8

4 20.25 13 1 1 2 1 8 363 20 1.25 9 5 1 2 1

32 11.25 10 6 1 1 2

40 6.25 0

42 10 39 2 3 1 33

49 5 10 5 1 4

60 115.5 172 15 14 11 2 7 1 1 5 2 2 3 1 2 2 34 70

66 0.5 0

68 7 0

Total 200 262 33 14 12 2 7 1 1 2 1 1 7 4 2 3 3 1 2 39 2 1 43 81

363

Table 49: Patton 1 Nutshell Assemblage

Weight

Volume

Feature # Feature

J. nigra Count nigra J.

J. cinera Count cinera J.

J. nigra Weight nigra J.

Carya sp. Count sp. Carya

J. cinera Weight cinera J.

Carya sp. Weight sp. Carya

Juglans sp. Count sp. Juglans

Quercus sp. Count sp. Quercus

Juglans sp. Juglans

Corylus spp. Count spp. Corylus

Castanea sp. Count sp. Castanea

Quercus Sp. Weight Sp. Quercus

Juglandaceae Count Juglandaceae

Castanea sp. Weight sp. Castanea

Total Count Nutshell Count Total Weight spp. Corylus

Juglandaceae Weight Juglandaceae Total Weight Nutshell Weight Total

1 23 0.518 60 0.401 28 .003 3 .114 29

4 20.25 3.597 156 1.47 79 .18 5 .99 44 .864 22 .93 6

364 20 1.25 0.011 4 .011 4

32 11.25 0 0

40 6.25 0.027 8 0.026 7 0.001 1

42 10 0 0

49 5 0 0

60 115.5 7.448 458 4.197 239 0.076 5 1.838 156 .564 18 .1 1 .616 29 .007 1 0.054 9 66 0.5 0.004 1 .004 1

68 7 0 0

200 11.609 687 6.094 353 0.076 5 2.025 165 1.554 62 .964 23 .709 35 .007 1 0.18 43

365

Table 50: Taber Well Seed Assemblage

spp.

sis

spp. spp. spp.

al Count Count al

Seeds Celtis

rustica

Starchy

Volume

Fragaria

Feature Feature #

Phalarsis

Ambrosia

Nicotiana Unknown Unknown

Viola

virginiana

Fragments

americana

Rubus

Phytolacca

Polygonum

caroliniana

Tot

Galium

mississippien

Leguminosae Chenopodium 1 3 6 1 1 4

2 7.5 5 1 1 3

3 1 3 3

4 12.5 21 7 2 1 5 6

5 20.5 55 31 1 1 2 1 8 11

6 1.5 3 1 1 1

7 3.75 30 20 1 2 1 1 5

8 4.5 6 6 365 9 13 15 10 1 1 2 1

10 1.25 0

11 5.25 17 1 1 1 3 11

12 5.75 10 1 1 2 6

13/14 3.5 0

15 0.5 0

16 8.75 24 5 1 2 1 1 13

17 4 3 1 1 1

18 1.5 0

19 0.5 0

20 1 2 2

21 3.75 9 3 1 1 1 4

Total 103 209 90 4 4 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 4 2 1 25 67

366

Table 51: Taber Well Nutshell Assemblage

spp. spp.

spp.

spp. spp.

Cou Count Count Count

Weight Weight Weight Weight

Volume

Nutshell Nutshell

Feature #

Carya Carya

Total Count

Juglans spp.

Juglans

Quercus Quercus

Total Weight

Juglandaceae Juglandaceae 1 3 0.06 7 0.06 7

2 7.5 0.042 11 0.042 11

3 1 0.001 1 0.001 1

4 12.5 0.027 4 0.027 4

5 20.5 0.225 33 0.16 24 0.065 9

6 1.5 0.018 4 0.017 3 0.001 1

366 7 3.75 0.093 6 0.026 5 0.067 1

8 4.5 0.034 3 0.034 3

9 13 0.015 3 0.014 2 0.001 1

10 1.25 0 0

11 5.25 0.082 12 0.076 8 0.006 4

12 5.75 1.829 108 0.185 19 1.625 88 0.019 1

13/14 3.5 0 0

15 0.5 0.036 4 0.022 1 0.006 1 0.008 2

16 8.75 0.232 26 0.147 20 0.085 6

17 4 0.037 5 0.037 5

18 1.5 0.585 63 0.229 10 0.27 49 0.086 4

19 0.5 0.034 9 0.025 4 0.009 5

20 1 0.086 7 0.067 6 0.019 1

21 3.75 0.218 8 0.218 8

Total 103 3.654 314 1.306 127 1.938 145 0.384 28 0.026 14 367

Table 52: County Home Seed Assemblage

m m

e e

spp. spp. spp. spp. spp.

hirta

Seeds

stricta agments

Oxalis Oxalis

Poacae

Starchy

Volume

Panicum Panicum

Phalarsis Phalarsis scandens

Feature # Feature Mais Zea Celastrus

Vitis spp. Vitis

Iva annua Iva

Rhusspp. Unknown Unknown

Eragrostis Eragrostis

americana Viola spp.

Viburnum Viburnum

Lespedeza Lespedeza Eleocharis Fr

Phytolacca Phytolacca

caroliniana

Polygonu

Total Count Count Total

Galium spp. Galium spp. Scirpus

Festuca spp. Festuca Leguminosa

Hypericacea Chenop. spp. Chenop.

1 18 54 38 11 2 1 2

2 4 12 11 1

4 7 25 14 5 1 1 2 2

7 3.75 6 5 1

8 4.5 10 6 3 1

9 22.5 29 11 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 6

29 27.5 28 7 1 6 1 2 2 1 7

30 20 27 15 2 1 1 3 5

367 33 6 11 4 1 2 4

36 24 44 26 3 1 1 4 1 2 6

37 5 196 2 1 3 182 1 7

39 1 1 1

40 2.5 6 3 1 2

47 13 23 8 5 10

48 10.5 165 80 4 1 24 2 1 2 3 5 43

49 5 4 1 1 2

54 2 42 27 1 2 12

60 2 2 1 1

61 5.5 15 11 1 2 1

62 10 15 6 1 1 7

69 6.25 5 4 1

Total 200 720 279 19 7 1 1 4 4 217 1 3 7 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 4 7 16 1 7 25 104

368

Table 53: County Home Nutshell Assemblage

ea ea

ht ht

C. C. C.

sp. sp.

eae eae Sp.

Total Total Total

Count Count Count Count

Count

Weig Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight J. nigra Weight J. nigra Weight Weight

Juglans Juglans Juglans

Volume

J. cinera J. cinera J. cinera Quercus Quercus

Nutshell Nutshell

Castan Castanea

Feature # Feature

Carya sp. Carya sp. Carya sp.

sp. Count sp. Count sp. Count sp.

Juglandac Juglandac

eae Count eae

Illinoensis Illinoensis Illinoensis

1 18 0.059 9 0.059 9 2 4 0.002 1 0.002 1 4 7 0.155 7 0.025 2 0.13 5 7 3.75 0.03 3 0.009 1 0.021 2 8 4.5 0.096 4 0.019 1 0.077 3 9 22.5 0.696 84 0.606 72 0.079 9 0.011 3 29 27.5 0 0 30 20 0.608 37 0.194 22 0.159 12 0.255 3 33 6 0 0 36 368 24 0.056 10 0.056 10

37 5 0.196 1 0.196 1 39 1 0.403 54 0.403 54 40 2.5 0.232 30 0.232 30 47 13 1.286 94 1.16 84 0.126 10 48 10.5 24.43 2168 15.074 1244 0.454 107 4.186 716 1.727 27 2.788 49 0.201 25 49 5 0.233 22 0.101 10 0.132 12 54 2 0 0 60 2 0.129 10 0.129 10 61 5.5 0 0 62 10 0.479 31 0.227 20 0.252 11 69 6.25 0.037 9 0.037 9 Tot. 200 29.127 2574 18.066 1550 0.454 107 4.287 726 0.355 13 1.727 27 4.026 123 0.201 25 0.011 3

369

Table 54: Patton 3 Seed Assemblage

spp.

cae

pp.

s spp. spp. spp.

Count

rustica

Poa

annuus

Starchy

Volume Volume

Chenop. Chenop.

pusillum

Brasicca Brasicca

Feature # Feature

Hordeum Hordeum

Analyzed

Legumin

Ambrosia

Nicotiana Nicotiana Unknown Unknown

Fragments

Total Seed Seed Total

Asteraceae

Helianthus Helianthus

Polygonum Galium

1 2.25 1 1

4 12.5 5 1 1 1 2

5 7 13 8 1 4

8 10 45 1 1 9 1 1 6 26

10 0.5 5 2 2 1

11 0.75 5 5

12A 2 0

32 20 22 4 5 3 12

D4 10 28 2 1 11 3 4 7

505 19 5 4 1

509 4.75 21 7 9 3 2

510 6 9 7 2

512 11.5 25 18 1 1 1 1 3

518 22.5 8 2 2 1 1 2

519 28.5 233 226 3 1 3

534 11.75 9 6 2 1

563 8.5 3 2 1

573 6 1 1

574 9.75 7 1 1 4 1

575 6.75 6 2 1 1 2

Total 200 451 277 1 29 1 2 1 9 3 1 4 20 3 42 60

369

Table 55: Patton 3 Nutshell Assemblage

ght

sp. sp.

sp. sp. sp.

Count Count Count Count

Weight Weight Weight Weight

Volume

Nutshell Nutshell

Feature Feature #

Carya Carya

Juglans Juglans

Quercus Quercus

Total Count

Total Wei

Juglandaceae Juglandaceae

1 2.25 0.058 5 0.016 1 0.03 3 0.02 1

4 12.5 0.066 14 0.039 9 0.03 5

5 7 0.065 35 0.01 2 0.055 33

8 10 0.136 65 0.029 2 0.107 63

10 0.5 0 0

11 0.75 0.002 5 0.002 5

12A 2 0.595 14 0.005 3 0.59 11

32 20 0.389 22 0.36 7 0.029 15

D4 10 0.322 36 0.31 32 0.012 4

505 19 0 0

509 4.75 0.001 2 0.001 2

510 6 0.002 1 0.002 1

512 11.5 0 0

518 22.5 0.028 4 0.028 4

519 28.5 7 1 6

534 11.75 0.001 1 0.001 1

563 8.5 0 0

573 6 0 0

574 9.75 0 0

575 6.75 0 0

Total 200 1.665 211 0.787 59 0.06 10 0.02 1 0.799 141

370

Appendix C: Post Mold Raw Data

The table below contains measurements for all architectural post molds from the sites analyzed as part of this study. The table indicates maximum diameters; temporal associations were based on radiometric dates, relative dating based on tool seriation, and sediment stratigraphy.

Table 56: Post Mold Raw Data Associated Temporal Post Diameter Site Structure Period County 40 LA 23 Home Taber Well 2 EW 30

Patton 3 3 1 IMW 30 Patton 3 8a 1 IMW 34 Patton 3 9 1 IMW 11 Patton 3 12a 1 IMW 19 Patton 3 13 1 IMW 13 Patton 3 15 1 IMW 10 Patton 3 16 1 IMW 19 Patton 3 17 1 IMW 11 Patton 3 18 1 IMW 9 Patton 3 26 1 IMW 14 Patton 3 28 1 IMW 17 Patton 3 29 1 IMW 20 Patton 3 30 1 IMW 12 Patton 3 31 1 IMW 20 Patton 3 33 1 IMW 10 continued 371

Table 56 continued

Patton 3 34 1 IMW 13 Patton 3 35 1 IMW 18 Patton 3 36 1 IMW 11 Patton 3 37 1 IMW 13 Patton 3 38 1 IMW 10 Patton 3 39 1 IMW 17 Patton 3 40 1 IMW 18 Patton 3 42 1 IMW 7 Patton 3 45 1 IMW 27 Patton 3 46 1 IMW 16 Patton 3 48 1 IMW 13 Patton 3 49 1 IMW 15 Patton 1 2 1 MMW 18 Patton 1 3 1 MMW 40 Patton 1 6 1 MMW 26 Patton 1 7 1 MMW 10 Patton 1 8 1 MMW 20 Patton 1 11 1 MMW 20 Patton 1 12 1 MMW 9 Patton 1 20 1 MMW 25 Patton 1 22 1 MMW 9 Patton 1 23 1 MMW 9 Patton 1 24 1 MMW 9 Patton 1 25 1 MMW 22 Patton 1 26 1 MMW 16 Patton 1 27 1 MMW 16 Patton 1 28 1 MMW 28 Patton 1 29 1 MMW 36 Patton 1 30 1 MMW 40 Patton 1 31 1 MMW 31 Patton 1 33 1 MMW 21 Patton 1 34 1 MMW 19 Patton 1 35 1 MMW 7 Patton 1 36 1 MMW 22 Patton 1 37 1 MMW 24 Patton 1 38 1 MMW 18 Patton 1 39 1 MMW 9 Patton 1 43 1 MMW 22 Patton 1 44 1 MMW 16 Patton 1 45 1 MMW 16 372 continued

Table 56 continued Patton 1 46 1 MMW 29 Patton 1 47 1 MMW 17 Patton 1 48 1 MMW 38 Patton 1 50 1 MMW 17 Patton 1 51 1 MMW 38 Patton 1 52 1 MMW 19 Patton 1 53 1 MMW 14 Patton 1 55 1 MMW 20 Patton 1 56 1 MMW 18 Patton 1 59 1 MMW 11 Patton 1 61 1 MMW 24 Patton 1 62 1 MMW 33 Patton 1 63 1 MMW 20 Patton 1 64 1 MMW 15 Patton 1 66 1 MMW 19 Patton 1 67 1 MMW 10 Patton 1 68 1 MMW 33 Patton 1 69 1 MMW 15 Patton 3 502 2 IMW 28 Patton 3 503 2 IMW 54 Patton 3 506 2 IMW 24 Patton 3 538 2 IMW 35 Patton 3 507 2 IMW 32 Patton 3 508 2 IMW 23 Patton 3 510 2 IMW 37 Patton 3 511 2 IMW 37 Patton 3 517 2 IMW 24 Patton 3 526 2 IMW 27 Patton 3 527 2 IMW 25 Patton 3 528 2 IMW 30 Patton 3 529 2 IMW 17 Patton 3 530 2 IMW 17 Patton 3 531 2 IMW 17 Patton 3 532 2 IMW 20 Patton 3 533 2 IMW 31 Patton 3 535 2 IMW 22 Patton 3 536 2 IMW 20 Patton 3 537 2 IMW 21 Patton 3 539 2 IMW 18 continued 373

Table 56 continued Patton 3 540 2 IMW 22 Patton 3 541 2 IMW 30 Patton 3 545 2 IMW 20 Patton 3 552 2 IMW 28 Patton 3 560 2 IMW 28 Patton 3 563 2 IMW 27 Patton 3 567 2 IMW 35 Patton 3 568 2 IMW 44 Patton 3 520 3 IMW 25 Patton 3 521 3 IMW 8 Patton 3 522 3 IMW 32 Patton 3 523 3 IMW 10 Patton 3 524 3 IMW 18 Patton 3 546 3 IMW 17 Patton 3 553 3 IMW 31 Patton 3 554 3 IMW 32 Patton 3 525 4 IMW 24 Patton 3 542 4 IMW 30 Patton 3 543 4 IMW 17 Patton 3 544 4 IMW 14 Patton 3 550 4 IMW 23 Patton 3 557 4 IMW 17 Patton 3 558 4 IMW 19 Patton 3 559 4 IMW 21 Patton 3 561 4 IMW 22 Patton 3 562 4 IMW 25 Patton 3 564 4 IMW 20 Patton 3 565a 4 IMW 20 Patton 3 566 4 IMW 43 Patton 3 8b 5 IMW 34 Patton 3 10 5 IMW 8 Patton 3 11 5 IMW 13 Patton 3 12b 5 IMW 13 Patton 3 19 5 IMW 8 Patton 3 20 5 IMW 18 Patton 3 21 5 IMW 15 Patton 3 22a 5 IMW 11 Patton 3 22b 5 IMW 11 Patton 3 23 5 IMW 9 Patton 3 24 5 IMW 11 continued 374

Table 56 continued Patton 3 25 5 IMW 11 Patton 3 570 6 IMW 24 Patton 3 571 6 IMW 16 Patton 3 572 6 IMW 10 Patton 3 573 6 IMW 22 Patton 3 574 6 IMW 40 Patton 3 575 6 IMW 20 Patton 3 576 6 IMW 22 Patton 3 577 6 IMW 16 Patton 3 578 6 IMW 16 Patton 3 579 6 IMW 19 Patton 3 580 6 IMW 22 Patton 3 581 6 IMW 21 Patton 3 585 6 IMW 22 Patton 3 586 6 IMW 20 Patton 3 587 6 IMW 18 Patton 3 588 6 IMW 30 Patton 3 D1 A IMW 11 Patton 3 D2 A IMW 11 Patton 3 D3 A IMW 10 Patton 3 D7 A IMW 25 Patton 3 D10 A IMW 24 Patton 3 D13 A IMW 14 Patton 3 D14 A IMW 13 Patton 3 D15 A IMW 15 Patton 3 D16 A IMW 17 Patton 3 D17 A IMW 21 Patton 3 D18 A IMW 17 Patton 3 D19 A IMW 32 Patton 3 D20 A IMW 14 Patton 3 D21 A IMW 19 Patton 3 D22 A IMW 16 Patton 3 D23 A IMW 26 Patton 3 D24 A IMW 13 Patton 3 D25 A IMW 16 Patton 3 D26 A IMW 8 Patton 3 D27 A IMW 18 Patton 3 D28 A IMW 18 Patton 3 D29 A IMW 13 Patton 3 D30 A IMW 10 continued 375

Table 56 continued Patton 3 D31 A IMW 15 Patton 3 D33 A IMW 15 Patton 3 D34 A IMW 20 Patton 3 D35 A IMW 16 Patton 3 D37 A IMW 17 Patton 3 D38 A IMW 12 Patton 3 D39 A IMW 13 Patton 3 D40 A IMW 15 Patton 3 D41 A IMW 16 Patton 3 D42 A IMW 10 Patton 3 D45 A IMW 10 Patton 3 D46 A IMW 10 Patton 3 D47 A IMW 10 Taber Well 13 MMW 14

Patton 3 D5 IMW 27

Patton 3 D6 IMW 20

Patton 3 D8 IMW 20

Patton 3 D11 IMW 33

Patton 3 548 IMW 19

Patton 3 549 IMW 18

Patton 3 551 IMW 18

Patton 3 565b IMW 26

Taber Well 1 MMW 17

Taber Well 3 MMW 15

Taber Well 10 MMW 30

Taber Well 11 MMW 24

Taber Well 14 MMW 13

Taber Well 15 MMW 11

Taber Well 18 MMW 16

Taber Well 19 MMW 14

Taber Well 20 MMW 11

Taber Well 21 MMW 15

County 1 TMW 35 Home County 2 TMW 19 Home County 3 TMW 24 Home County 5 TMW 17 Home County 6 TMW 16 continued 376

Table 56 continued Home County 10 TMW 33 Home County 11 TMW 16 Home County 13 EW 28 Home County 16 LA 20 Home County 17 TMW 24 Home County 18 TMW 22 Home County 19 EW 19 Home County 32 TMW 21 Home County 34 TMW 22 Home County 37 TMW 9 Home County 52 TMW 20 Home County 53 TMW 27 Home County 54 TMW 20 Home County 55 TMW 22 Home County 58 TMW 19 Home County 59 TMW 30 Home County 60 TMW 21 Home County 63 TMW 26 Home County 68 LA 25 Home County 69 TMW 49 Home County 75 LA 18 Home County LA 76 18 Home 377 continued

Table 56 continued County 77 LA 20

Home Boudinot 4 20 EW 10

Boudinot 4 24 EW 7

Boudinot 4 25 EW 7

378

Appendix D: Pottery Macrocharacteristic Raw Data

Patton 1 Pottery Artifacts

Forty-three pottery sherds weighing a total of 83.3 grams were recovered from the Patton

1 site. As described above, all pottery sherds were recovered from feature contexts, particularly thermal features and the midden pit. Assemblages from both the Late Archaic (N=7) and Middle

Woodland Periods (N=36) were recovered. Similarly, a rim sherd from each temporal component was recovered during excavation. All pottery sherds recovered from the Patton 1 site were analyzed for macrocharacteristics as part of this study.

Aside from chipped stone, FCR and botanical artifacts, excavation of Feature 1 and the surrounding cultural surface yielded some of the earliest pottery sherds found in the Hocking

Valley. The Late Archaic Patton 1 pottery assemblage consisted of seven sherds belonging to the same vessel recovered from Feature 1 and the surrounding intact cultural surface. One rim sherd provided profile data, and a single lug handle was part of the assemblage. The single rim sherd was thickest below the lip, rounded, and outward flaring. All sherds contained organic inclusions, and the exterior surfaces were marked with basketry or fabric impressions. There was no evidence that a coil method was employed during manufacture; instead the surface impressions indicate that the vessel form was obtained by pressing the pottery clay into a basket 379 which served as a production mold. The sherd cores were lighter gray in color and darkened toward the surfaces indicating an oxidizing firing environment. Coloration further suggested the use of clay that was high in organic matter; clay sourcing studies using chemical analysis (Patton et al. 2007) proved the samples were produced from clays available at a nearby wetland, located less than 100 meters northeast of the site. Cores from this wetland are presently undergoing palynological analysis to provide a climatic profile for the region (Abrams 2012, personal communication).

Feature 4 yielded twelve pottery sherds weighing a combined total of 20.3 g. All pottery sherds were slipped on the interior surface and were exclusively grog tempered. Thickness of the sherds ranged between 5.8 and 7.8 mm. Aside from the presence of a slip, the surfaces of all sherds were plain, and along with wall thinness, a physical examination of the samples suggested that a coiling method had been used in vessel manufacture. The source clays utilized in production were the same as those used by Patton 1 Late Archaic potters, thus demonstrating that the ceramics were produced at the habitation site (Patton et al. 2007). These samples were likely the remains of a single vessel.

Including those recovered from sediment sample flotation, 24 grog tempered sherds and sherdlets weighing 45.1 g were excavated from Feature 60. The pottery assemblage from Feature

60 is identical to the sherds recovered from Patton 1, Feature 4.

Taber Well Pottery Artifacts

Seventy-three pottery sherds were recovered from the Taber Well site. The majority of these samples (cnt=60; 107.4 g) were grog tempered and slipped, while the remaining 13 sherds

380

(29.4 g) were grit tempered. No cordmarking was present on the samples collected, and the grog tempered sherds exhibited that powdered red ochre had been worked into the clay matrix. Fifty- nine of the grog tempered sherds and fragments were found in situ in postmold Feature 21; radiocarbon dates for this feature placed these ceramics within a Middle Woodland context

(Beta-169752; charred material; cal BC 190 to AD 150; intercept AD 10; calibration based on

Stuiver et al. 1998). These sherds represent a vessel that was likely used for chinking. Only two rim sherds were recovered among the grog tempered samples from Feature 21; these sherds were slightly flared with a flattened lip. Grog tempered sherds and fragments ranged in thickness from 6.3 to 8.7 mm. The single grit tempered rim sherd was also slightly flared with a flattened rim. The grit tempered sample ranged in thickness from 6.9 to 8.8 mm. Clay sourcing of four samples from the Taber Well site suggested ceramics were produced from local raw materials located along the Monday Creek floodplain (Patton et al. 2009).

County Home Pottery Artifacts

Over 700 pottery sherds and sherdlets were recovered from the County Home site, although only 27 samples possessed both interior and exterior vessel surfaces. Due to the poor preservation of pottery from County Home, only limited analysis of macrocharacteristics could be conducted. Since the assemblage from the site represents the earliest pottery thus far excavated in the Hocking Valley (i.e. based on associated radiocarbon dates of intact features), special care was taken to obtain as much data as possible, including analysis under a dissecting microscope.

381

Patton 3 Pottery Artifacts

All pottery artifacts recovered from Patton 3 were heavily eroded; these artifacts were recovered from Features 8 and 20 in Greg’s Field and Feature D4 in Dave’s Field. Pottery counts totaled 43 tiny sherds for a total weight of 7.6 g. Despite the poor ceramic preservation, enough macrocharacteristics of the pottery were present to assist in analysis. All sherds contained sand inclusions. Core coloration suggested uneven and low temperature firing consistent with pottery assemblages from Early Woodland sites in the Hocking Valley, such as County Home, Patton 1, and Boudinot 4. A single sherd from Post 8 with a maximum thickness of 10.88 mm contained an exterior surface with basket impressions suggesting a mold was used in production; similar data is present for sherds from County Home and Patton 1.

Boudinot 4 Pottery Artifacts

The Boudinot 4 assemblage consisted of five plain surfaced sherds that were thumbnail size and poorly preserved; these sherds weighed a total of 13.4 grams. The assemblage, consisting of one rim and five body sherds, represented fragments of a single vessel. All samples were tempered with crushed rock with particles ranging in size from .97 to 5.15 mm. The clay paste of all sherds was light brown to yellow brown in color; all sherds exhibited an interior slip that extended onto the exterior of the rim and probably onto the vessel shoulder. The Boudinot 4 sample represents the earliest evidence of slips in the Hocking Valley. The single rim sherd was slightly outwardly flared with a rounded lip. Although the sherds were heavily fragmented, breakage edges were consistent with those produced using a coil method.

382

Table 57: Pottery Raw Data. Artifact numbers indicate site ID-Feature Number-Sample Number. Assoc. Artifact Date Temper Surface No. (RCYBP) Cnt Wt Temper size Thickness Treatment 40-68-1 3970 7 1.2 org/sand 0.3 NA 40-30-1a 3340 6 3.22 org/sand NA 40-30-1a 3340 1 3.5 org/sand 0.3 13.4 Impressed 40-30-1b 3340 26 6.15 org/sand 40-30-2 3340 19 4.53 org/sand 0.4 40-30-2 3340 1 1.5 org/sand 0.4 11 Impressed 40-3-2 3340 1 1.2 org/sand 0.4 Impressed 40-30-3 3340 29 5.84 org/sand 40-30-3 3340 1 1.5 org/sand 11.3 Impressed 40-30-3 3340 1 1.8 org/sand Impressed 40-30-5 3340 22 3.89 org/sand 40-30-5 3340 1 2.3 org/sand 0.3 11.3 Impressed 40-40-2 3250 4 0.53 org/sand 0.3 40-40-2 3250 1 0.9 org/sand 0.3 10.6 Impressed 40-62-3 3220 9 2.44 org/sand 40-62-2 3220 9 2.02 org/sand 0.3 40-62-2 3220 1 1.3 org/sand 10.1 Impressed 40-62-2 3220 1 1.4 org/sand 0.5 11 Impressed 40-62-4 3220 12 2.62 org/sand 40-62-4 3220 1 4 org/sand 0.7 14.6 Impressed 40-62-1 3220 8 2.42 org/sand 40-45-1 3080 6 1.55 org/sand 40-45-2 3080 3 0.81 org/sand 0.4 40-45-3 3080 4 0.53 org/sand 40-45-4 3080 7 1.37 org/sand 40-47-2 3070 16 5.5 org/sand 0.4 40-47-2 3070 14 1.9 org/sand 40-47-1 3070 33 6.3 org/sand 0.4 40-47-1 3070 3 1.72 org/sand 40-47-1 3070 1 1.95 org/sand 0.6 13.7 Impressed 40-47-3 3070 1 1.5 Grit 1.5 10.4 Impressed 40-47-3 3070 1 2.1 org/sand 0.4 9.7 Impressed 40-47-3 3070 12 2.4 org/sand 0.3 40-47-4 3070 31 6.13 org/sand 0.4 40-47-5 3070 13 3.6 org/sand 40-47-5 3070 1 11.4 org/sand 15.5 Impressed

40-47-5 3070 1 3.8 org/sand 383 con tinued

Table 57 continued

40-9-2-2 2960 1 0.32 org/sand 40-9-2-1 2960 4 0.69 org/sand 40-9B-3- 13 2960 2 0.2 org/sand 40-9B-2- 12 2960 6 1.96 org/sand 40-9-2-2 2960 3 0.65 org/sand 40-9B-6- 16 2960 3 0.35 org/sand 40-9B-9- 15 2960 1 9.56 org/sand 10.5 Impressed 40-9C-2- 20 2960 5 0.82 org/sand 40-9C-1- 19 2960 3 0.3 org/sand 40-9B-7- 17 2960 7 1.46 org/sand 40-9B-8- 10 2960 2 1 org/sand 40-9C-3- 21 2960 10 3.04 org/sand 40-9C-5- 22 2960 12 3.03 org/sand 40-9C-5- 22 2960 1 1.7 org/sand 0.5 10.2 Impressed 40-9C-5- 23 2960 5 1.55 40-9C-7- 24 2960 9 1.81 40-9-1-1 2960 5 0.61 40-9B/C- 11 2960 8 1.48 40-9B-9- 15 burnt 3 1.26 Sand 40-9B-9- 15 2960 3 0.57 40-9-02 2960 15 3.87 40-9B-4- 14 2960 10 2.67 40-9B/C- 9-26 2960 6 1.49

40-9C-8- 25 2960 6 1.17 continued 384

Table 57 continued

40-9C-8- 25 2960 1 2.2 9.6 Impressed 17.6 40-48-3 2820 73 9 40-48-5 2820 36 6.7 40-48-5 2820 1 1.9 12.4 Impressed 40-48-5 2820 1 1.3 9.4 Impressed 40-48-4 2820 34 6.01 10.2 Impressed 40-48-4 2820 1 0.9 10.2 Impressed 40-48-4 2820 1 0.88 Grog 1.83 Impressed 10.7 40-48-4 2820 35 4 0.3 40-48-4 2820 1 1.3 0.4 9.4 Impressed 40-48-4 2820 1 1.8 0.3 10.3 Impressed 40-48-4 2820 1 1.1 0.3 10 Impressed 40-48-4 2820 1 1 0.3 Impressed 40-48-3 2820 24 6.61 40-48-2 2820 7 4.3 40-48-2 2820 37 6.73 40-48-2 2820 1 2.1 org/sand 10 Impressed 40-48-2 2820 80 9.2 org/sand 40-48-2 2820 1 2.1 org/sand 0.5 17.0 40-48-1 2820 76 8 0.9 40-72-1 7 1.6 Grog 2.5 40-72-1 4 3 Sand 40-62-1 5 0.8 org/sand 0.5 40-49-1 1 2.4 Grog 2.2 9.8 Impressed 521-1 1 Pebble 5.19 13.71 Slipped 521-2 1 Pebble 12.62 Slipped 521-3 1 Pebble 4.17 8.07 Slipped 521-4 1 Pebble 8.41 Slipped 521-5 1 Pebble Slipped 990-05 2970 1 1.2 Organic 0.4 11.74 Impressed 990-02 2970 1 6.2 Organic 0.3 14.43 Impressed 990-03 2970 1 4.1 Organic 11.64 Impressed 990-04 2970 1 1 Organic 0.3 990-09 2970 1 0.4 Organic 990-10 2970 1 0.9 Organic 10.07 Impressed continued 385

Table 57 continued 990-01 2970 1 4.1 Organic 1.35 10.02 Impressed 990-06 1940 1 1.4 Grog 6.08 Slipped 990-07 1940 1 2.1 Grog 7.45 Slipped 990-08 1940 1 1 Grog 4.71 7.29 Slipped 990-17 1940 3 3.8 Grog 4.23 6.24 Slipped 990-11 1940 1 2.3 Grog 4.1 5.83 Slipped 990-14 1940 1 1.5 Grog 4.29 6.95 Slipped 990-13 1940 1 2.2 Grog 4.43 7.53 Slipped 990-12 1940 1 2.4 Grog 3.56 7.55 Slipped 990-16 1940 1 0.6 Grog 7.82 Slipped 990-15 1940 1 3 Grog 6.47 Slipped 990-18 1940 1 12.5 Grog 10.15 Slipped 990-25 1940 1 2.3 Grog 11.58 Slipped 990-19 1940 1 3.5 Grog 8.38 Slipped 990-20 1940 1 1.9 Grog 6.44 Slipped 990-21 1940 1 1.9 Grog 9.34 Slipped 990-22 1940 1 2.4 Grog 7.25 Slipped 990-23 1940 1 2 Grog 8.7 Slipped 990-24 1940 1 2.1 Grog 9.91 Slipped 990-26 1940 1 4 Grog 7.12 Slipped 990-27 1940 1 1.4 Grog 6.45 Slipped 990-28 1940 8 2.3 Grog Slipped 990-60-9 1940 1 5.1 Grog 7.6 Slipped 990-60-10 1940 4 1.7 Grog Slipped 990-60-11 1940 1 2 Grog 8.2 Slipped 611-5-1 2130 1 2.5 Grit 1.3 7 Slipped 611-02 2130 1 4.7 Grit 8.04 Slipped 611-5-2 2130 1 3.4 Grit 3.2 8.5 Slipped 611-5-3 2130 1 2.9 Grit 1 7.1 Slipped 611-5-4 2130 1 2.2 Grit 2.1 6.7 Slipped 611-5-5 2130 1 3.9 Grit 0.9 7.8 Slipped 611-5-6 2130 1 2.6 Grit 1.7 7 Slipped 611-5-7 2130 1 3.1 Grit 0.5 8 Slipped 611-5-8 2130 1 1.7 Grit 1.4 6.7 Slipped 611-5-9 2130 1 1.4 Grit 0.6 7.1 Slipped 611-5-10 2130 3 0.8 Grit Slipped 611-01 2000 1 13.4 Grog 7.93 Slipped 611-21-2 2000 1 3.2 Grog 4.46 7.3 Slipped 611-21-3 2000 1 1.6 Grog 8.9 Slipped 611-21-4 2000 1 3.2 Grog 7.8 Slipped continued 386

Table 57 continued 611-21-5 2000 1 2.1 Grog 7.6 Slipped 611-21-6 2000 1 1.3 Grog 7.8 Slipped 611-21-7 2000 1 1.3 Grog 7.6 Slipped 611-21-8 2000 1 1.3 Grog 8.4 Slipped 611-21-9 2000 9 3.4 Grog Slipped 611-21-10 2000 1 6.8 Grog 8.6 Slipped 611-21-11 2000 1 2.3 Grog 8.6 Slipped 611-21-12 2000 1 3.1 Grog 6.6 Slipped 611-21-13 2000 1 0.7 Grog 7.5 Slipped 611-21-14 2000 9 5.5 Grog Slipped 611-21-15 2000 1 9.9 Grog 7.4 Slipped 611-21-16 2000 1 4 Grog 7.5 Slipped 611-21-17 2000 1 2.6 Grog 7 Slipped 611-21-18 2000 1 1.3 Grog 7.6 Slipped 611-21-19 2000 1 1.7 Grog 8.9 Slipped 611-21-20 2000 1 1.9 Grog 8 Slipped 611-21-21 2000 1 2.3 Grog 8 Slipped 611-21-22 2000 1 1.6 Grog 8.7 Slipped 611-21-23 2000 1 1.4 Grog 7.8 Slipped 611-21-24 2000 1 1.2 Grog 6.9 Slipped 611-21-25 2000 1 1.5 Grog 8.7 Slipped 611-21-26 2000 1 2.6 Grog 7.7 Slipped 611-21-27 2000 1 1.6 Grog 7.5 Slipped 611-21-28 2000 1 1.4 Grog 7.7 Slipped 611-21-29 2000 1 1 Grog 5.9 Slipped 611-21-30 2000 1 1.8 Grog 8.4 Slipped 611-21-31 2000 1 1.2 Grog 6.6 Slipped 611-21-32 2000 1 1.1 Grog 7.7 Slipped 611-21-1 2000 56 13.7 Grog Slipped 1026-8-1 2270 1 1.4 organic 0.6 9.4 Impressed 1026-8-1 2270 1 1.2 organic 0.7 9.4 Impressed 1026-8-1 2270 7 0.5 organic 1026-20-1 2270 1 1 organic 1026-D4-3 4 0.7 organic 1026-D4-1 29 2.8 organic

387

Appendix E: Thermal Feature Raw Data

This Appendix contains the raw measurements of volume that were used to generate the analysis of thermal features size and resulted in arguments for statistically significant changes in size over time.

Table 58: Thermal Feature Measurements Temporal Maximum Maximum Site Feature Volume (L) Association Diameter Depth Patton 1 1 LA 240 40 1809.557368 Boudinot 4 11 EW 68 17 61.73857883 Patton 3 1 TEW 120 39 441.0796086 Patton 1 4 MMW 71 48 190.0412228 Patton 1 32 MMW 60 44 124.4070691 Patton 1 42 MMW 126 14 174.5657374 Taber Well 4 MMW 50 20 39.26990817 Taber Well 5 MMW 70 18 69.27211801 Taber Well 7 MMW 50 6 11.78097245 Taber Well 8 MMW 45 12 19.08517537 Taber Well 9 MMW 78 12 57.34034911 Taber Well 17 LA 60 14 39.58406744 County 9 LA 84 35 193.9619304 Home County 45 LA 200 52 1633.62818 Home County 47 LA 96 75 542.8672105 Home County 48 LA 85 97 550.4266679 388 continued

Table 58 continued Home County 62 LA 100 47 369.1371368 Home Patton 3 4 TEW 78 41 195.9128595 Patton 3 32 TEW 58 20 52.84158843 Patton 3 505 TEW 65 33 109.5041389 Patton 3 509 TEW 68 10 36.31681108 Patton 3 519 TEW 96 20 144.7645895 Boudinot 4 5b MMW 60 20 56.54866776 Boudinot 4 14 EW 87 11 65.39146569 Boudinot 4 16 LA 73 13 54.41002857

389