Information to Users

Home , Actaea (pilot boat), Perfectly Preserved

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF MIDDLE ARCHAIC PLANT EXPLOITATION: GEOCHEMICAL, MACROBOTANICAL AND TAPHONOMIC ANALYSES OF DEPOSITS AT MOUNDED TALUS ROCKSHELTER, EASTERN KENTUCKY

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

Katherine Robinson Mickelson, M.A.

The Ohio State University 2002

Dissertation Committee:

Dr. Kristen J. Gremillion, Adviser

Dr. William S. Dancey

Dr. Jeffrey K. McKee Department of Anthropology

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3049089

_ __ _ ® UMI

UMI Microform 3049089 Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Copyright by Katherine Robinson Mickelson 2002

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT

The sandstone cliffs along the western edge of the Cumberland Plateau

in eastern Kentucky contain numerous rockshelters in which unusual

environmental conditions have resulted in the preservation of normally

perishable organic remains. The exceptional preservation of ancient plant

remains has stimulated much of the archaeological research that has been

conducted in the region and has provided important evidence for environmental

and subsistence change, including the development of an independent eastern

North American agricultural tradition.

The lack of water and the presence of nitrates are often cited as causal

agents for the exceptional preservation of plant remains beneath some of the

overhangs in the region. However, to date there has been no systematic attempt

to identify the major determinants of plant deposition and preservation. The

present study addresses three issues: 1) the source and mode of deposition of

plant remains, 2) the preservation of plant remains and, 3) Middle Archaic plant

exploitation at the Middle Archaic period (ca. 6000 BC-3000BC) Mounded Talus

rockshelter, Lee County, Kentucky. These issues are addressed by examining

the physical and spatial attributes of botanical remains and the geochemical

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. properties of sediments from Mounded Talus in order to assess relationships

between plant preservation and their environmental context.

The results of botanical and sediment analyses indicate that 1) the

majority of plant remains were deposited anthropogenically, 2) human

occupation of the rockshelter resulted in significant alterations to the

geochemistry of the sediments, 3) these alterations, especially the deposition of

ash, are the principle reasons that macrobotanical remains are so well

preserved. Subsequent to human occupation, few post-depositional

disturbances have occurred. 4) The analysis of a full range of size categories

has ensured the most accurate estimation possible of the actual deposition

patterns of different types of macrobotanical remains. Analysis of

archaeobotanical remains indicates that the Middle Archaic inhabitants of

Mounded Talus rockshelter followed a generalized mode of plant exploitation

from all landforms in the region, including a wide array of fleshy fruits and grains

including wild gourd ( Cucurbita) and sumpweed (Iva annua).

h i

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Dedicated to my family: Andrew, Epes, Anne, Suzanne and Hugh.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I gratefully acknowledge my adviser, Dr. Kristen Gremillion, for her intellectual

support, tireless encouragement and enthusiasm throughout this research and her

patience in reviewing this manuscript. I thank her for introducing me to beautiful

eastern Kentucky and for the opportunities to conduct research there, especially at

Mounded Talus rockshelter. Finally, I would like to thank her for her advice and

friendship throughout my graduate career.

I would like to thank Dr. William S. Dancey for his sage advice during my tenure

at OSU and for his helpful comments on this manuscript. I also gratefully acknowledge

his permission to use his laboratory equipment used to facilitate this research.

Dr. Jeffery McKee provided insightful comments on the dissertation proposal

and this manuscript. I would like to thank him for his assistance and advice in this

research and for his thoroughness in reading this manuscript.

I am indebted to Dr. Paul Sciulli for offering many hours of his time, computer

and advice in conducting statistical analyses. His patience, encouragement and sense

of humor are greatly appreciated. I acknowledge and thank Dr. Joy McComston for the

use of her laboratory and microscope camera.

I would also like to acknowledge Daniel Boone Forest Service archaeologists,

Cedi Ison and Johnny Faulkner for their assistance in conducting this research. Dr.

Cheryl Claassan deserves a spedal thank you for her support and encouragement that

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. led to my attending graduate school. I would also like to thank Dr. Sarah Boysen for her

comments on this manuscript.

National Register Evaluation excavations conducted in 1995 were supported by

a Cost Challenger Grant from the Daniel Boone National Forest awarded to Dr. Kristen

Gremillion. I am grateful to the Cave Research Foundation for their monetary support

of this research.

I would like to thank my family for their support throughout my graduate career,

and last but certainly not least, I would like to thank Andrew for his tireless enthusiasm,

support and general merriment without which this research would have seemed tedious

and daunting.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. VITA

November 24,1968 ...... Bom, Charlotte, North Carolina

1991 ...... B.A. Anthropology, Appalachian State University, N.C.

1996 ...... M.A. Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Ohio

1995-2002 ...... Graduate Teaching and Research Associate The Ohio State University

1994-2002 ...... Archaeobotanical Consultant

PUBLICATIONS

1. Tom Klatka, editor. 2002 Emergency Excavations at the Sawyer Site (44RN39), Area B:A Protohistoric Site in Roanoke County, Virginia. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.

2. Katherine R. Mickelson 2002 Red River, Kentucky Paleoethnobotany. In Mitigation of the Upper Portions of the Gladie Creek Site (15MF410), Red River Gorge Geological Area, Daniel Boone National Forest, Stanton Ranger District, Menifee County, Kentucky.

3. Gremillion, Kristen, Katherine R. Mickelson, Andrew M. Mickelson and Anne B. Lee. 2000 Rockshelters at the Headwaters: A Recent Archaeological Survey in the Big Sinking Drainage o f Eastern Kentucky. In Current Archaeological Research in Kentucky: Volume Six,edited by David Pollack and Kristen J. Gremillion. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort, 2000.

4. Mickelson, Katherine R. 1999 Analysis of Lithic Remains from Courthouse Rockshelter. In National Register Evaluation of Courthouse Rock Shelter, 15P0322, Powell County, Kentucky, edited by Kristen J. Gremillion.

v ii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5. Mickelson, Katherine 1999 McLeod Plant Exploitation. In The Late Woodland Period on the Lower Tombigbee River, edited by George W. Shorter, Jr. the University of South Alabama Center for Archaeological Studies, Mobile Alabama.

6. Mickelson, Andrew, Katherine R. Mickelson, Michael E. Mickelson, George Crothers, Charles Swedlund and Robert Ward 1997 An Archaeological and Historical Review of Niter Mining in Mammoth Cave, Kentucky. In Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Mammoth Cave National Park Science Conference, Mammoth Cave National Park and the Cave Research Foundation, Mammoth Cave, Kentucky, edited by Joe Meiman.

7. Gremillion, Kristen J. and Katherine R. Mickelson 1997 Archaeological Survey and Assessment in Portions of the Big Sinking Drainage, Lee County, Kentucky. Report submitted to USDA Forest Service, Daniel Boone National Forest, 1700 By-Pass Road, Winchester, Kentucky.

8. Crothers, George, R. Ward, C. Swedlund, Katherine Robinson Mickelson, A.M. Mickelson 1996 Cultural Resource Survey: Overview of the First Three Years, 1993-1995. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Mammoth Cave Science Conference, Mammoth Cave National Park.

9. Mickelson, Katherine and Kristen Gremillion 1996 Recent Archaeological Investigations at the Mounded Talus Shelter (15LE77). In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Kentucky Heritage Council Meeting, Louisville, Kentucky.

10. Gremillion, Kristen and Katherine R. Mickelson 1996 National Register Evaluation of the Mounded Talus Shelter (15LE77), Lee County, Kentucky. Report submitted to USDA Forest Sen/ice, Daniel Boone National Forest, 1700 By-Pass Road, Winchester, Kentucky.

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Anthropology

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ...... ii

Dedication ...... iii

Acknowledgments ...... v

V ita ...... vii

List of Figures ...... xiii

List of Tables ...... xvi

Chapters:

1. Problem statement...... 1

2. Environmental setting of the study region ...... 10

2.1 Geology and physiography ...... 11 2.2 Lithology ...... 11 2.3 Topography ...... 13 2.4 Flora and fauna ...... 13 2.4.1 F lo ra ...... 14 2.4.2 Fauna ...... 18

3. History of previous archaeological and paleoethnobotanical research ...... 20 3.1 Period I: Rockshelters o f Menifee, Powell, Lee, and Wolfe C o un ties ...... 20 3.2 Period II: The National Forest Sen/ice, Cultural resource management (CRM) and the origins of agriculture ...... 25 3.3 Paleoethnobotanical research ...... 26 3.3.1 Initial discovery and identification of paleoethnobotanical remains ...... 27 3.3.2 Research oriented investigations and paleoethnobotany 28 3.4 Culture history and paleoethnobotanical investigations ...... 30 3.4.1 Archaic Period rockshelter excavations ...... 31 3.4.2 Woodland Period rockshelter excavations ...... 40

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3.5 Summary...... 45

4. Geological and archaeological stratigraphy and the macrobotanical at Mounded Talus rockshelter ...... 48 4.1 Rockshelter formation and sedimentation ...... 48 4.1.1 Summary ...... 55 4.2 Archaeological stratigraphy of Mounded Talus shelter ...... 56 4.2.1 Previous archaeological investigations at Mounded Talus 56 4.2.2 Site Stratigraphy ...... 57 4.2.2.a Test Unit 1 ...... 58 4.2.2.b Test Unit 2 ...... 60 4.2.2.C Test Unit 3 ...... 61 4.2.2.d Cultural Features ...... 62 4.2.2.e Chronology...... 64 4.3 Materials recovered from archaeological deposits ...... 64 4.3.1 Non-botanical remains ...... 65 4.3.2 Organic artifacts ...... 66 4.3.3 Macrobotanical remains from point and column samples ...... 68 4.4 Summary ...... 71

5. Formation processes and the macrobotanical assemblage at Mounded Talus rockshelter ...... 74 5.1 Formation processes of the archaeological and macrobotanical record ...... 76 5.1.1 Cultural formation processes ...... 76 5.1.1.a Reuse ...... 77 5.1.1 .b Cultural deposition ...... 77 5.1.1.c Reclamation ...... 78 5.1.1.d Disturbance processes...... 78 5.1.2 Environmental formation processes ...... 80 5.2 Expectations of macrobotanical formal, spatial and, relational dimensions and hypothesis statem ents ...... 82 5.3 Macrobotanical and sediment variables ...... 84 5.3.1 Macrobotanical Variables ...... 84 5.3.1.a Macrobotanical S ize ...... 84 5.3.1.b Macrobotanical W eight ...... 86 5.3.1.C Macrobotanical Alteration ...... 86 5.3.1.d Spatial dimensions of the macrobotanical assem blage ...... 88 5.3.2 Geochemical Variables ...... 88 5.3.2.a Hydrogen Ion Concentration (pH ) ...... 89 5.3.2.b Organic Matter Content (O M ) ...... 89 5.3.2.C Phosphate (P ) ...... 90 5.3.2.d Nitrate (Nit) and Sodium (N a) ...... 90 5.3.2.e Calcium (C a ) ...... 91 5.3.2.f Potassium (K ) ...... 92

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5.3.2.g Particle Size Analysis ...... 92 5.3.2.h Moisture ...... 93 5.4 Summary...... 93

6. Results of macrobotanical analysis at Mounded Talus rockshelter ...... 95 6.1 Formal and spatial dimensions of macrobotanical remains ...... 96 6.2 Size and alteration of plant remains from surface samples ...... 97 6.3 Size and alteration of plant remains from subsurface samples ...... 105 6.4 Carbonized and non-carbonized plant remains from subsurface ...... 111 6.5 Summary...... 116

7. Results of geochemical analyses at Mounded Talus ...... 119 7.1. Geochemical attributes of surface sediments ...... 119 7.1.1 Particle Size Analysis ...... 120 7.1.2 Moisture ...... 120 7.1.3 Hydrogen Ion Concentration (pH ) ...... 121 7.1.4 Calcium (C a ) ...... 122 7.1.5 Potassium (K) ...... 122 7.1.6 Nitrate (N it) ...... 123 7.1.7 Phosphate (P ) ...... 123 7.1.8 Organic Matter Content (O M ) ...... 124 7.1.9 Sodium (N a ) ...... 124 7.1.10 Geochemistry of the Control Sam ple ...... 125 7.2. Relationships between surface geochemical attributes ...... 127 7.3. Subsurface sediment geochemistry from subsurface samples ...... 128 7.3.1 Particle Size ...... 129 7.3.2 Moisture ...... 131 7.3.3 p H ...... 132 7.3.4 Organic Matter Content (OM), Potassium (P), Nitrate (Nit), and Sodium (Na) ...... 133 5.3.5 Calcium (C a ) ...... 134 7.3.6 Summary of subsurface geochemistry ...... 134 7.4 Summary of surface and subsurface geochemistry ...... 135

8. Integration of macrobotanical and sediment geochemistry: results ...... 138 8.1 Mounded Talus data: correspondence analysis ...... 141 8.1.1 Surface samples ...... 142 8.1.2 Subsurface samples ...... 148 8.2. Discussion ...... 155 8.3 Summary and conclusions ...... 158

9. Archaeobotanical formation processes ...... 162 9.1 Archaeobotanical formation processes at Mounded T a lu s ...... 162 9.1.1 Environmental transformations ...... 163 9.1.2 Carbonization and sediment geochemistry ...... 164 9.2 Cultural transformations of the archaeobotanical assemblage ...... 166 9.2.1 Nutshell remains ...... 166

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9.2.1.a Chestnut ...... 166 9.2.1.bAco m ...... 168 9.2.1.c Hickory ...... 170 9.2.1.d W alnut ...... 171 9.2.2 Seed remains ...... 172 9.3 Analytical transformations of the archaeobotanical assemblage ...... 173 9.4 Summary ...... 178

10. Middle Archaic plant exploitation at Mounded Talus rockshelter ...... 180 10.1 The Mounded Talus archaeobotanical assem blage ...... 181 10.1.1 Nut utilization ...... 181 10.1.2 Seed resources ...... 183 10.1.2.a Season of a va ilab ility ...... 184 10.1.2.b Ecology of seed exploitation ...... 187 10.2 Discussion of select seeds: chenopod, marshelder and gourd 189 10.3 Discussion ...... 191 10.4 Summary...... 197

11. Summary and conclusions ...... 200 11.1 Formation processes and archaeobotanical assemblages in the Cumberland Plateau re g io n ...... 200 11.2 Importance of evaluating archaeobotanical formation processes 204

List of References ...... 208

Appendix A: Figures ...... 226

Appendix B: Tables ...... 287

xii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Map of study area showing select sites discussed in text ...... 227

2. Physiographic map of Kentucky and the study region ...... 228

3. Illustration of the Lee Sandstone formation showing sandstone and interbedded shale ...... 229

4. Cultural historical periods for eastern Kentucky ...... 230

5. Generalized schematic of rockshelter formation and sedimentation ...... 231

6. Schematic of rockshelter evolution ...... 232

7. Generalized schematic of a rockshelter cross-section illustrating four sources of geogenic sediments ...... 233

8. Planview map of Mounded Talus rockshelter ...... 234

9. Test Unit 1 west wall profile showing strata and location of column sample ...... 235

10. Test Unit 2 west wall profile showing strata and location of column sample ...... 236

11. Planview maps of Features 2 and 3 ...... 237

12. Profile of Feature 4, Test Unit 2, Stratum II ...... 238

13. Planview maps of Features 5 and 6 ...... 239

14. A model of transformations of an archaeological site context by environmental processes ...... 240

15. Schematic illustrating sieve sizes and proportions of grouped large, medium, and small size classes ...... 241

x iii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16. Map key for schematics of surface point samples discussed in Chapters 6-11 ...... 242

17. Schematic of Mounded Talus rockshelter showing the percentage of all botanical remains from each surface point sample ...... 243

18. Schematic of Mounded Talus rockshelter showing the percentage of all large, medium, and small plant remains recovered from each surface point sample ...... 244

19. Schematic of Mounded Talus rockshelter showing the average weight of botanical remains from surface point samples ...... 245

20. Schematic of Mounded Talus rockshelter showing percentage of all large wood, nutshell and seed remains that are carbonized and non-carbonized from surface point samples ...... 246

21. Schematic of Mounded Talus rockshelter showing percentage of medium wood, nutshell, and seeds that are carbonized and non carbonized from surface point samples ...... 247

22. Schematic of Mounded Talus rockshelter showing proportions of all small wood, nutshell, and seeds that are carbonized and non carbonized from surface point samples ...... 248

23. Schematic of Mounded Talus rockshelter showing percentage of select taxa of carbonized and non-carbonized seeds from surface samples ...... 249

24. Schematic of Mounded Talus rockshelter showing percentage of all carbonized and non-carbonized nutshell taxa from surface samples ...... 250

25. Stratigraphic profile of Test Units 1 and 2 showing stratigraphic units correlated with sample numbers and grouped strata discussed in Chapters 4-8 ...... 251

26. Percent of large, medium, and small size wood, nuts and seeds from subsurface samples ...... 252

27. Density of plant remains per liter by size group and strata for Test Units 1 and 2 combined ...... 253

28. Bar graph of all carbonized and non-carbonized plant remains by sample for Test Unit 1 and 2 ...... 254

xiv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29. Bar graph showing the average weight of plant remains for the Upper, Middle, and Lower strata for Test Units 1 and 2 ...... 255

30. Schematics of Mounded Talus rockshelter showing results of geo chemical analyses for surface sediments 256

31. Geochemical properties of Test Unit 1 ...... 260

32. Geochemical properties of Test Unit 2 ...... 261

33. Bar graphs of proportions of faunai remain fragments and calcium levels for Test Units 1 and 2 ...... 262

34. Line graphs of geochemical profiles of sediments for Test Units 1 and 2 ___ 263

35. Correspondence analysis plot of surface samples showing clustering of point samples on the basis of macrobotanical remains ...... 264

36. Correspondence analysis plot of surface samples showing clustering of macrobotanical categories with point samples ...... 265

37. Correspondence analysis plot of surface samples illustrating the clustering of samples when both macrobotanical and sediment variables are combined ...... 266

38. Correspondence analysis plot of surface samples illustrating the clustering of samples and the geochemical and macrobotanical attributes that are most characteristic of each sample ...... 267

39. Correspondence analysis plot of subsurface samples showing clusters of subsurface samples and the composition of plant remains most closely associated with each sample ...... 268

40. Correspondence analysis plot showing clusters of subsurface samples and the plant remains most closely associated with each sample ...... 269

41. Correspondence analysis plot illustrating the clustering of Test Units 1 and 2 subsurface samples based on the abundance of macrobotanical remains and geochemistry of the sediment ...... 270

42. Illustration of possible pathways in which water can enter the rockshelter.. .271

43. Correspondence analysis showing the relationship between nutshell taxa and geochemical properties of the sediment for subsurface samples. ..272

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44. Correspondence analysis showing the relationships between sediment geochemical properties and carbonized and non-carbonized nutshell taxa for Test Units 1 and 2 subsurface samples ...... 273

45. Bar graphs showing the percentage of carbonized and non-carbonized nutshell for all subsurface samples and percentage of carbonized and non-carbonized nutshell of select taxa by size category ...... 274

46. Bar graphs showing the percentage of seeds by functional/ecological categories and percentage of carbonized and non-carbonized fleshy fruits and grain/green seeds ...... 275

47. Graphs illustrating the importance of collecting and analyzing material from below 2 mm screen size ...... 276

48. Bar graphs showing proportions of nutshell by small screen size ...... 277

49. Bar graphs showing the percentage of nutshell by corresponding screen mesh size used to analyze archaeobotanical remains...... 278

50. Bar graphs showing percentage of carbonized and non-carbonized acorn and chestnut by corresponding screen mesh s iz e ...... 279

51. Graphs showing the percent of carbonized and non-carbonized nutshell by taxa, and comparisons of the proportions of starchy to oily nuts ...... 280

52. Graphs of seed remains from archaeobotanical assemblage ...... 281

53. Schematic of landform zones ...... 282

54. Graph showing percent of identified fruit seeds by landform zone ...... 283

55. Graphic illustrating landform zones and seasonality of plants ...... 284

56. Graph showing proportions of all nuts and seeds from landform zone ...... 285

57. Graphs of plant taxa illustrating the seasonality and landform from which plants were exploited and diversity index of each landform zone ...... 286

xvi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Modem floral communities in the Cumberland Plateau region ...... 288

2. Paleoethnobotanical data from rockshelter in the study region by cultural period ...... 298

3. Radiocarbon dates from rockshelter of the region ...... 308

4. Radiocarbon dates of Middle Archaic sites of the East ...... 314

5. Mounded Talus radiocarbon dates ...... 315

6. Weight of Mounded Talus sample components from surface and subsurface samples ...... 316

7. Numbers of fragments of plants from Mounded Talus ...... 317

8. Number of identified seed fragments ...... 318

9. Percentages of nutshell from Mounded Talus samples ...... 327

10. Processes and agents of post-depositional disturbance that alter the archaeological context of deposits ...... 328

11. Correlation matrix of sediment geochemical variables ...... 329

12. Number of plant remains by plant category and depth for Test Units 1 and 2 column samples ...... 330

13. Counts and density of seeds per liter of sediment grouped by Upper, Middle and Lower strata for Test Units 1 and 2 column samples ...... 331

14. Seed taxa by grouped strata fo r Test Units 1 and 2 ...... 333

15. Size of all carbonized and non-carbonized wood, hickory, acorn, chestnut and walnut remains by grouped strata for Test Unit 1 ...... 334

xvii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table Page

16. Size of all carbonized and non-carbonized wood, hickory, acorn chestnut and walnut remains by grouped strata for Test Unit 2 ...... 339

17. Correspondence analysis data fro surface sample and macrobotanical categories ...... 344

18. Correspondence analysis data of macrobotanical and sediment geochemical variables for surface samples ...... 345

19. Correspondence analysis data for macrobotanical variables for Test Units 1 and 2 column samples ...... 346

20. Correspondence analysis data for macrobotanical and sediment variables for Test Units 1 and 2 column samples ...... 347

21. Correspondence analysis report for Figure 4 3 ...... 348

22. Correspondence analysis report for Figure 4 4 ...... 349

23. Seed taxa grouped by ecological/functional categories ...... 350

24. Abundance of plant remains per landform zone ...... 351

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 1

PROBLEM STATEMENT

The sandstone cliffs along the western edge of the Cumberland Plateau

in eastern Kentucky contain numerous rockshelters in which unusual

environmental conditions have resulted in the preservation of normally

perishable organic remains. The exceptional preservation of ancient plant

remains has stimulated much of the archaeological research that has been

conducted in this region. These plant remains have provided important

evidence for environmental and subsistence change, including the development

of an independent eastern North American agricultural tradition (Cowan 1984;

Gremillion 1994,1993b; Smith 1987,1989,1992). Archaeological research in

the region has predominantly focused on the Late Archaic to Early Woodland

(ca. 3000 BP-800 BP) transition to and development of food production. In

contrast, subsistence practices in the period just prior to the archaeological

appearance of domesticates, the Middle Archaic period, have received little

attention. However, only with an understanding of Middle Archaic subsistence

can the subsequent origins of plant cultivation practices be properly understood.

The numerous macrobotanical remains from Mounded Talus rockshelter

provide a rare opportunity to evaluate Middle Archaic plant exploitation and the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. preservation of these remains, especially in light of the fact that there are few

sites dating to the Middle Archaic period in either rockshelter or open air

environments. The majority of rockshelter sites in the study region date to the

Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods while only a few sites — Cloudsplitter

(Cowan 1984; Cowan et al. 1981), Mounded Talus (Gremillion and Mickelson

1996), and Dillard Stamper #2 (Funkhouser and Webb 1932) — have been

directly dated or temporally placed within the Middle Archaic period. Of these,

only Cloudsplitter and Mounded Talus have been systematically excavated and

sampled with the analysis of archaeobotanical remains as an explicit goal.

However, Middle Archaic dates from Cloudsplitter have been judged as

erroneous (Cowan 1981:63) and are not associated with Middle Archaic cultural

materials. Thus, Mounded Talus rockshelter represents the single most

important rockshelter site in the region from which human use of plants during

the Middle Archaic period can be investigated.

The mode of deposition of plant remains within rockshelters of the region

has been at issue since the earliest explorations of Funkhouser and Webb

(1929a) who largely ignored them as unimportant. Based on his excavations at

Rogers, Haystack and Cloudsplitter, Cowan (1979a, 1979b, 1984) concluded

that numerous plants were “fortuitous” in their occurrence. O f these, the most

conspicuous and problematic are acorns. Due to the presence of gnawing on

some of the acorn remains, Cowan suggests that their presence is the result of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. rodent, and not human, feeding activities. Thus, acorns are not further

evaluated within his research. However, seeds that were gnawed, such as

raspberry and blackberry, are reported and used within the plant dataset (Cowan

1984). Similarly, rodent activity is questioned at Mounded Talus. Although no

animal burrows were noted during excavations, the presence of numerous small

rodent fragments in the basal deposits at Mounded Talus led investigators to

conclude that UA more parsimonious explanation [than human activity] at present

is that these fruit seeds were deposited by the rodents...” (Gremillion and

Mickelson 1996:67). These examples illustrate that it is necessary to examine

sources of plant deposition before drawing conclusions about human-plant

interactions. Without a clear understanding of such processes, inter-and

intrasite comparisons become problematic if not necessarily tenuous.

Based on initial test excavations at Mounded Talus, questions pertaining

to the agents responsible for deposition of plant material (i.e., anthropogenic,

geogenic or biogenic) and differential preservation of feunal and floral remains

arose (Gremillion and Mickelson 1996). The patterns of carbonization of plant

remains in the archaeobotanical assemblage and the density of feunal remains

in lower deposits at the shelter did not reveal which agents were primarily

responsible for the deposition of plant remains. Although it is generally

assumed that humans are responsible for carbonized remains (Keepax 1977;

Miksicek 1987; Minnis 1981), the same can not be assumed for non-carbonized

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. remains. Recent or prehistoric seed rain, animals, sheet wash from the ridge

top above, and humans are all possible agents of deposition for non-carbonized

remains. However, due to the micro-environmental conditions within many

shelters in the region, non-carbonized plant remains cannot simply be

discounted as they are in non-sheltered sites. Thus, in order to evaluate Middle

Archaic plant exploitation and use, those plants introduced by humans must be

distinguished from all other plants that may have been deposited through

geogenic and/or biogenic processes.

The lack of water and the presence of a silky, talc-like mineral thought to

be a nitrate (CaN03 or KN03) are often cited as causal agents for the

exceptional preservation of plant remains within some of the rockshelters in

eastern Kentucky (Cowan 1984; Gremillion 1995a; Gremillion and Mickelson

1996,1997; Ison 1988; Railey 1991b). Although previous research in the region

has documented that the environmental composition of these rockshelters is

highly variable and that there is a high degree of differential preservation within

them (Cowan 1984,1979a, 1979b; Cowan et al. 1981; Funkhouser and Webb

1929a, 1929b, 1930,1932; Gremillion 1997,1995a, 1995b,1993c, 1993e;

Gremillion and Mickelson 1996,1997;lson 1988; Jones 1936; Knudsen etal.

1983; Webb and Funkhouser 1936), to date there has been no systematic

attempt to identify the major determinants of plant deposition and preservation.

Depositional and post-depositional processes, environmental contexts, and the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. physical and chemical composition of plant remains are all factors that are

known to affect archaeobotanical deposition and preservation (Ford 1988; Frink

1992; Lopinot 1984; Miksicek 1987; Minnis 1981; Munson 1971; Pearsall 1988,

2000; Rossen and Olson 1985; Yamell 1982). However, correlations between

these processes are poorly understood. An understanding of the processes that

form the geological and archaeological deposits in which archaeobotanical

remains are recovered is an essential foundation for understanding the origin

and modification of the ancient plant materials themselves. Once these

transformations are understood, inferences of behavioral aspects of plant

selection and use by Middle Archaic populations can be made.

In order to assess the role that humans had in the formation of

archaeological deposits and deposition of plant remains at Mounded Talus, a

clear understanding of the environmental processes affecting site formation is

also needed. This premise is based on Schiffer’s (1987:11) contention that

“...formation processes 1) transform items formally, spatially, quantitatively, and

relationally, 2) can create artifact patterns unrelated to the past behaviors of

interest, and 3) exhibit regularities that can be expressed as (usually statistical)

laws.” It is not until these processes are assessed that inferences of Middle

Archaic subsistence strategies can be made from the paleoethnobotanical data

from Mounded Talus rockshelter.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The goals of this dissertation are threefold: 1) to identify the formation

processes relevant to understanding the archaeobotanical assemblage at

Mounded Talus Rockshelter, 2) identify any correlations between site formation

processes and archaeobotanical preservation and evaluate their causal

relevance, and 3) use this new understanding of archaeobotanical formation

processes and preservation to reevaluate Middle Archaic plant exploitation and

use. This research is further guided by two research questions that pertain to

site formation processes, archaeobotanical preservation and human use of

Mounded Talus shelter. The first question is, whether or not the integration of

sediment, geochemical, and archaeobotanical analyses can be used to test

hypotheses about site formation processes and the preservation of plant

remains. Specifically, the analysis of the geochemistry of the sediment and

macrobotanical remains will be used to test the hypotheses:

1) that humans are the primary agents of plant deposition, and

2) that the presence of nitrate in the sediment is the primary environmental determinant of plant preservation.

This question is based on the framework of formation processes as espoused by

Schiffer (1987) and Miksicek (1987) and the methodological approaches of Stein

(1985,1984,1987), Ferrand (1985, 2001), Hansen (2001), Woods and Johnson

(1978), Ahler (1973a, 1973b) and Pearsall (2000).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The second question that guides this research is, whether o r not

seasonal and ecological patterns of plant exploitation can be determined

through the analysis of archaeobotanical remains from Mounded Talus

rockshelter.This second research question dictates that processes affecting

the deposition, modification, and preservation of archaeobotanical remains be

evaluated so that:

1) anthropogenically deposited macrobotanical remains can be differentiated from those deposited through geogenic and biogenic processes

2) that anthropogenically modified archaeobotanical remains can be differentiated from those modified by geogenic and biogenic processes

3) that differential preservation of categories of plants (i.e., nuts and seeds) and Of specific plant taxa can be discerned and corrected for if necessary.

It is argued here that only after the proceeding hypotheses have been evaluated

can robust inferences concerning plant exploitation and use by Middle Archaic

inhabitants at Mounded Talus be made.

This research is important in that it 1) assesses the preservation potential

of botanical classes and taxa in a given environment, 2) provides a method for

comparing macrobotanical remains spatially, 3) assesses the influence of

anthropogenic, geogenic and biogenic agents of deposition, alteration and

preservation of macrobotanical remains, and 4) provides a platform to discuss

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and make inferences regarding Middle Archaic subsistence based on the

identification of anthropogenically deposited archaeobotanical remains.

The following chapter places this research in context by discussing 1) the

geology and physiography of the Cumbedand Plateau, and 2) the native flora

and founa of the region. Chapter 3 provides a history of previous archaeological

and paleoethnobotanical research in the study region. Chapter 4 provides a

discussion of both the geological and archaeological stratigraphy of Mounded

Talus rockshelter and an introduction to the macrobotanical assemblage from

the rockshelter. A general overview of site formation processes and the

methods employed in the analysis of the macrobotanical remains and sediment

geochemistry at Mounded Talus are the subject of Chapter 5. Within this

chapter, the definitions and a discussion of site formation processes are given.

Hypotheses regarding the mode of deposition and mechanisms of preservation

are also discussed. The results of analysis of the macrobotanical assemblage

are presented in Chapter 6 and the results of sediment geochemistry analyses

are presented in Chapter 7. The results of both the macrobotanical analysis and

the analysis of the sediment geochemistry are integrated in Chapter 8 to

evaluate the environmental determinants) of macrobotanical preservation at the

Mounded Talus rockshelter. Chapter 9 is a discussion of archaeobotanical

formation processes based on the archaeobotanical assemblage at Mounded

Talus rockshelter. Within this chapter, environmental, cultural, and analytic

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. transformations of the archaeobotanical assemblage are presented. An

evaluation of Middle Archaic plant use and exploitation in light of known

formation processes is the subject of Chapter 10. Chapter 11 provides a

summary and conclusion of this research.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 2

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE STUDY REGION

This dissertation examines formation processes that shaped the

macrobotanical assemblage from the Mounded Talus rockshelter. This chapter

places the work of this dissertation in context by providing a summary of the

environmental setting of the study region. Mounded Talus rockshelter is located

in Lee County, Kentucky, where Funkhouser and Webb’s (1929a) study of the

“ash caves” first brought the significance of the rockshelters in the region to the

attention of the archaeological community. Lee County and three adjacent

counties — Wolfe, Powell and Menifee — cover the area within which the

majority of archaeological investigations of rockshelters along the Cumberland

Plateau have occurred and thus comprise the study region (Figure 1).

Discussion of environmental setting of the study region is divided into two

sections: 1) the geology and physiography and, 2) the modem floral and faunal

communities of the area.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2.1 GEOLOGY AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

The rockshelters within the study area are situated along the western

edge of the Cumberland Plateau in the west-central portion of the Interior

Lowland Plateau, which extends from northwestern Alabama to

northwestemOhio (Hunt 1974). The eastern region of the Lowland Plateau

consists of the Appalachian Plateau Physiographic Province. The Appalachian

Plateaus are heavily dissected and “form a line between highland and lowland.

Rocks near this line dip towards the plateau and some prominent and long

continuous outfacing escarpments develop” (Fenneman 1938). The

Cumberland Plateau is one such notable escarpment (Figure 2).

The Cumberland Plateau extends from the Kentucky River Basin in

Kentucky to the Gulf Coastal Plain and marks the western edge of the

Appalachian Plateau (Fenneman 1938). In east-central Kentucky the

Cumberland Plateau is characterized as a highly dissected upland with sharp

ridges and V- shaped valleys (Rice and Weir 1984). The Cumberland Plateau is

bordered by the Pottsville escarpment in which “massive cliff forming sequences

of quartz, in part conglomerate sandstone” occur (Rice and W eir 1984).

2.2 LITHOLOGY

The Pennsylvanian sandstones of the Cumberland Plateau are underlain

by rocks that are Mississippian in age. These Mississippian deposits are

divided into the Slade and Paragon formations (formerly known as the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Pennington and Newman limestone formations, respectively) (Ettensohn et al.

1984). The Slade formation is divided into two parts, of which the lower part

consists of “thin to thick bedded carbonate members”.... and the upper part is

formed primarily of "persistent thin-to-thick bedded carbonate units with

interbedded shale” (Ettensohn et al. 1984). The Paragon formation is late

Mississippian in age and overlies the Slade formation. The Paragon formation

varies in thickness but generally thickens southward and eastward and

comprises sequences of shale, dolostone and limestone (Ettensohn et al. 1984).

The lower Mississippian age Paragon limestone and shale formations are

separated from the upper Pennsylvanian-aged sandstones by an unconformity.

The Pennsylvanian rocks are divided into the Breathitt and Lee formations, both

of which consist primarily of quartoze sandstone (Figure 3). The highly

resistant Corbin Sandstone member of the Lee formation is situated between the

Upper and Lower Tongues of the Breathitt formation (Haney 1976). The Corbin

sandstone is primarily composed of quartz (90 to 95%) and contains little or no

silt or clay-size matrix (Rice and Weir 1984.G3). These sandstones are most

fully exposed at the Pottsville escarpment where the Corbin Sandstone ranges

from 200 feet thick to as much as 280 feet thick in the Slade and Pomeryton

Quadrangles (Rice and Weir 1984; Greb 1993). These thick beds of Corbin

Sandstone form massive cliff sections. Rockshelters, such as Mounded Talus,

are formed in the lower portion of the Corbin Sandstone when the lower, less

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. resistant shale erodes, initially by lateral erosion. This lateral erosion initiates

rockshelter development and expansion of these rockshelter crevices is

enhanced by rock tell and attrition or “granular disintegration” (Donahue and

Adovasio 1990; Carson and Kirkby 1972).

2.3 TOPOGRAPHY

The study region is located within the boundaries of the mature and highly

dissected Cumberland Plateau, whose variable relief results in numerous low

mountains. The ridges of the region are generally narrow with precipitous

slopes and steep colluvial footslopes. The Big Sinking drainage, where

Mounded Talus is located, is characterized as highly dendritic with numerous

intermittent streams flowing to perennially running streams and rivers (Avers et

al. 1969). In the Big Sinking Drainage bottom lands consist of alluvial deposits

that are narrow to nonexistent.

2.4 FLORA AND FAUNA

The flora and fauna of the Cumberland Escarpment are quite rich and

diverse. Much of the diversity of the area is due to the varied topography of the

region, which includes uplands, precipitous escarpments, colluvial foot slopes,

alluvial floodplains and riverine areas.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2.4.1 Flora

Forests of the area are generally considered to be of the Mixed

Mesophytic type along the cliffline, slopes and valley floors (Braun 1950;

Thompson et al. 2000). The narrow, sandy upland ridges are considered to be a

Pine-Oak/Oak-Pine forest regime (Thompson et al. 2000). The most definitive

vegetation study of the Cumberland Escarpment was done by Braun (1950).

Additional vegetation studies in the Big Sinking Drainage and surrounding

counties along the Cumberland Escarpment have built upon Braun’s work

(Campbell and Meijer 1989; Guetig and Jones 1991; Johnson 1989; Johnson

and Nicely 1991; Jones 1985a; Jones 1985b; Thompson et al. 2000).

Forests on the ridgetops are dominated by pine trees (pitch, short-leaf

and Virginia pine) and oaks; however, tulip poplar, red maple, hickory trees (i.e.,

shagbark, mockernut and pignut), black gum, sassafras, serviceberry, dogwood

and black haw are also characteristic of the upland forests (Table 1). Shrubs

are abundant and include mountain laurel, rhododendron, blueberry (i.e., hillside

and highbrush blueberry and deer-berry), greenbrier, holly, and several species

of huckleberry. Depending on the maturity of the forest, a variety of herbaceous

plants thrive. Tickseed sunflower, goldenrod, aster(s) and grasses, such as little

bluestem, Indian grass, oat grass, and whip-grass, thrive in the open, sandy

ridge lines and along the escarpment edge. In more maturely developed areas,

herbaceous vegetation schemes include ferns, bellwort, Indian cucumber,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. cranefly orchids, snakeroot, mayapple, wild geranium, violet(s), wintergreen and

lady’s slippers.

The Mixed Mesophytic Forest of the slopes and valleys is quite diverse in

the types of vegetation and may vary in composition by location and ecotone

(Table 1). In general, the mesic forest canopy is dominated by beech, tulip tree,

basswood, maple(s), chestnut, various oaks and hemlock. Other trees are often

present but are more dependent on forest maturity and slope aspect. The Sub

canopy consists of smaller trees such as dogwood, magnolia(s), sourwood,

rosebud, holly and service-berry. The forest canopy and sub-canopy create a

rich, diverse forest environment where shrubs and herbaceous plants thrive.

Numerous shrubs have been documented in the Mixed Mesophytic Forest

Region of the Cumberland Plateau. The presence and dominance of particular

shrubs and herbaceous plants is dependent upon forest maturity and soil

conditions. However, shrubs common to the region include spice-bush, witch

hazel, and pawpaw. Rhododendron, gooseberry, hillside blueberry and

elderberry occur very frequently in the Plateau region while grape, Virginia

creeper and greenbrier occur on an occasional basis. Herbaceous plants

include trillium , trout lily, lady’s slipper violets, baneberry, various ferns, Indian

cucumber, mayapple, goldenrod, sedges and asters.

Vegetation in the lowlands is variable and dependent on the presence or

absence of alluvium. In the Big Sinking drainage near Mounded Talus, there

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. are few examples (or in some cases, no examples) of well-developed alluvial

floodplains. In these regions, the Mixed Mesophytic Forest vegetation is

dominant on the slopes. Additions to the Mixed Mesophytic suite of plants

include various sedges, hog peanut, birch trees, ferns, may-apple, cocklebur

and occasionally giant cane stands.

The distinctive nature of each ecozone (i.e., xeric upland Pine-Oak,

mesic slope Mixed Mesophytic and floodplain Birch-Sycamore and Mixed

Mesophytic Forest types) provides numerous plants that would have been

economically important to Native American inhabitants of the area. Ridgetops

would have had an abundance of fleshy fruits such as blueberry and

huckleberry, and mast resources (hickory nuts and acorn). Sources of roots

and greens would have been scarce on ridgetops but more abundant along the

mesic slopes and bottomlands. Like the xeric uplands, the slopes would have

had numerous fleshy fruits (i.e., pawpaw, gooseberry, and elderberry) available

for exploitation. Oaks were common components of the slope forests and would

have provided acorns during the fell. Tubers would have been abundant in the

moist, forested areas and would include items such as Indian cucumber, wild

ginger, groundnut and lilycorms. Ferns would have provided greens. The rich

alluvial bottomlands, where present, would have had a variety of economically

important plant resources. Walnut and butternut would have been restricted to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the bottomlands. Sources of fruits, seeds, tubers and greens would have

included grapes, smartweeds, ragweed, wild rye, and hog peanuts.

The composition of plant communities is greatly influenced by disturbance

processes. Forest maturity can decrease through land clearance processes

initiated by humans or naturally occurring fires. The opening of forests initiates

processes of successional change in the composition and patterning of

vegetation (Minnis 1994). Plant diversity can be low during successional

changes, but productivity rates of nut bearing trees, fleshy fruits, and other seed

producing flora increase, which would also attract deer and other game animals

(Forman and Godron 1981; Minnis 1994; Yamell 1982).

Modem plant communities do not directly mirror those that existed during

the period in which Mounded Talus rockshelter was occupied, primarily because

of historic-era land clearance and disturbance. Confidence in the use of modem

plant communities as analogs to past vegetation in the region of the Big Sinking

drainage is strengthened by pollen studies. Specifically, palynological data

from C liff Palace Pond, located approximately 20 km south of Mounded Talus

rockshelter, indicate that the climate was not significantly different from that of

today (Delcourt et al. 1998). The Cliff Palace pollen sequence indicates during

the period Mounded Talus was occupied, mixed mesophytic forest communities

prevailed and were dominated by hemlock, basswood, sugar maple, butternut,

hickories and oaks (Delcourt et al. 1998:274).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2.4.2 Fauna

The prehistoric fauna of the Cumberland escarpment would have likely

been rich and diverse based on the diversity of the flora. Railey (1991b:85) lists

faunal species that have been found archaeologically and would have been

important economically. Mammals include white-tailed deer, elk, black bear,

racoons, squirrels, chipmunks and racoons. W ild turkey, box turtles, softshell

turtle, and timber rattlesnakes were also important resources used

prehistorically. Although less common archaeologically, fish and shellfish would

have been likely food resources and would have been locally abundant along

streams and river valleys. Avian and/or reptile eggshell have been recovered in

rockshelter deposits (Cowan 1979b; Gremillion 1995a; Gremillion and Mickelson

1996). Eggs would have been a likely utilized resource; however, their presence

in rockshelter deposits may be due to more recent animal activity. In addition,

the large numbers of small rodents recovered archaeologically in rockshelters of

the region suggest these animals had an important part in the subsistence

regime.

In addition to food resources, fauna of the region would have supplied

materials for items such as tools, clothing, and perhaps shelter. Bone awls

were abundant in excavations conducted by Funkhouser and Webb (1929a,

1930,1396) and have been identified at other rockshelter sites (Cowan 1979a;

Gremillion 1993e, 1995a, 1999). Leather has been recovered at numerous

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sites and was presumably used for clothing, shelter or bags, as indicated by

stitching on leather recovered from Haystack shelter in Menifee County (Cowan

1979b; Funkhouser and Webb 1932).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 3

HISTORY OF PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEOETHNOBOTANICAL RESEARCH

Previous research in the region can be divided into two periods. Period I

consists of early investigations of rockshelters by William D. Funkhouser and

William S. Webb during the 1920's and 1930's. Period II (1960s to present) is

dominated by federally mandated Cultural Resource Management (CRM)

surveys and excavations of proposed areas of impact and academic research

geared towards agricultural origins, environmental reconstruction and past

human use of the landscape. This section will first examine the historical context

of archaeological research in the area. Second, an overview of

paleoethnobotanical research w ill be discussed in detail for the research area

which includes Lee, Wolfe, Menifee, and Powell counties.

3.1 PERIOD I: ROCKSHELTERS OF MENIFEE, POWELL, LEE, AND WOLFE COUNTIES

The first period of archaeological research in the region can be traced by

the work of W illiam S. Webb and William D. Funkhouser, both of whom were

associated with the University of Kentucky, Webb as a professor in physics and

Funkhouser as a naturalist (Lyon 1996). In the early 1920s, the University of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Kentucky began developing a program in archaeology. In 1927, Webb was

appointed as the chair of the newly founded Department of Anthropology and

Archaeology (Lyon 1996). Despite the fact that neither had formal training in

archaeology, Funkhouser and Webb paired up and began what was to be a 30

year quest to synthesize the ancient past of Kentucky. They began by

excavating burial mounds and so-called cemetery sites, such as the Page site in

Logan County, Kentucky. In 1929 they began to focus their attention on

rockshelters along the Cumberland Plateau region. Funkhouser and Webb’s

knowledge of and desire to create a synthesis of the prehistory of Kentucky led

to exhaustive travels throughout the state to document and investigate

archaeological sites. They continued excavating in the state through the 1940's

and were a driving force in the Works Progress Administration (WPA)

excavations in the state.

Initially attracted to the area by local tales of rich archaeological

deposits, Funkhouser and Webb began investigating rockshelters and

documenting ‘hominy holes’1 in 1929. They first focused on rockshelters sites in

Lee County. Referred to as “Ash Caves” by local residents of the area because

of thick ash deposits, these shelters were known to contain accumulations of

Hominy holes are pecked and ground cylindrical holes found in sandstone boulders in rockshelter of the region. The holes were originally presumed to be hominy (maize) grinding features. Funkhouser and Webb (1929b) had originally documented hominy holes along the Green River in west-central Kentucky. Reports of hominy holes in rockshelters of eastern Kentucky presumably were one of the reasons for their initial visits to rockshelter sites in Lee, Menifee, Powell and W olfe counties.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. lithics, ceramics, bone tools and organic remains such as vegetal fiber baskets,

bags and shoes. Funkhouser and Webb (1929a:37) “carefully

worked"[excavated] several of these sites and published their results. They

investigated six rockshelters in Lee County - Red Eye Hollow (15Le1), Little Ash

Cave (15Le2) and Big Ash Cave (15Le3), Cave Fork Hill (15Le4), Buckner

(15Le5) and Great Rockhouse (15Le6)- conducting excavations at all but Great

Rock House shelter2. During these investigations, they documented numerous

artifacts including lithic and bone tools, burials, “kitchen midden debris”

(primarily faunal remains), plant remains, wooden pestles, worked leather and

fabric (i.e, woven bags and moccasins) (Funkhouser and Webb 1929a). Stone

features such as hominy holes were also documented. The normally perishable

fabric items were of particular interest during these investigations , which in part,

led to further excavations in the Cumberland Plateau region (Figure 1). In 1930

Funkhouser and Webb returned to eastern Kentucky to document and excavate

at some of the numerous rockshelters in Wolfe and Powell counties under the

auspices of The University of Kentucky Anthropology and Archaeology

department, with grants from the National Research Council and Smithsonian

Institution (Funkhouser and Webb 1930:243). During this period, Funkhouser

and Webb (1930:243) documented three sites in Lee County, two in Powell

2 Great Rockhouse was determined by Funkhouser and Webb to have been too heavily disturbed by 1991 century niter mining to warrant excavation. A reconnaissance survey of the shelter in 1997 (Gremillion and Mickelson 1997) confirmed Funkhouser and Webb's suspicions of heavy disturbance, but also documented previously unreported rock features, including hominy holes, pecked basins and ground rock surfaces.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. County and 16 in Wolfe County, and fully excavated twelve of these. Large

quantities of material were recovered from these sites and hominy hole features

were recorded. For the most part, the artifact assemblages of these rockshelters

were consistent with those from the previous Lee county excavations.

In 1932 Funkhouser and Webb compiled the Archaeological Survey of

Kentucky, in which they detailed known archaeological sites on a county-by-

county basis. Based on their knowledge of rockshelters and archaeological sites

by county, they predicted that counties neighboring Lee, Wolfe and Powell

would have rich archaeological deposits in rockshelters. Noting that rockshelter

sites had not been documented for Menifee county (1932:105) Funkhouser and

Webb initiated excavations. During this period Webb and Funkhouser (1936)

documented 11 rockshelters in Menifee County. Of particular importance was

their excavation at Newt Kash Shelter, which would ultimately shape much of

future research in the region.

Newt Kash shelter (15Mf36) was excavated in the same manner as the

others studied by Funkhouser and Webb - shoveling out the ash beds from the

drip line back to the rear shelter wall. They noted (1936:130) numerous pit

features, post molds, grass "beds”, vegetable fiber fabric, cordage and

moccasins, lithics, wooden items, ceramics, faunal remains and importantly, an

abundance of “vegetable matter” consisting of squash and gourd rinds, seeds

and fruits, nuts, and seeds. Funkhouser and Webb sent these materials to

Volney Jones of the University of Michigan, Ethnobotany Laboratory in Ann

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Arbor, who immediately recognized the importance of the plant materials.

Jones (1936) suggested that these plant remains were ancient food remnants.

Jones identified numerous plant remains from the rockshelter midden and from

desiccated human feces including sunflower, marshelder, chenopod, and nuts.

Importantly, Jones (1936:163) suggested that many of these plants may have

been cultivated in eastern Kentucy prior to the introduction of maize because

many were recovered stratigraphically below maize cobs. The idea that there

may have been a pre-maize agricultural development in eastern North America

was not new (Linton 1924; Gilmore 1932; Nelson 1917) but evidence for such a

theory was limited.

The abundance of normally perishable remains from rockshelters in

Menifee, Powell, Lee and Wolfe counties, as documented by Funkhouser,

Webb, and Jones, has shaped much of the ensuing research in the area.

Specifically, the presence of preserved plant materials from rockshelters has

inspired detailed paleoethnobotanical research that supports Jones’ contention

of a pre-maize agricultural tradition in eastern North America. These remains

have also been used in environmental reconstruction and research on past

human use of the landscape in the region.

With the exception of Haag’s (1939) excavations at Hooton Hollow

(15Mf1) in Menifee county3, rockshelter excavations were halted in favor of the

3 Hagg’s excavations at Hooton Hollow were extensive and conducted in a systematic manner. However, nearly all data from these excavations were borrowed during World W ar II and never returned (Haag 1974). Gremillion (1995b) examined paleofecal remains from the site, and has written one of the few published reports on the site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Works Progress Administration (WPA) mound and settlement excavations in

western portions of the state (Lyon 1996). Archaeological research was renewed

during the 1960s with the advent o f federally mandated excavations and

academic research.

3.2 PERIOD II: THE NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE, CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (CRM) AND THE ORIGINS OF AGRICULTURE

Much of the project area lies within or is surrounded by the Daniel Boone

National Forest4. As such, many o f the archaeological sites fell under federal

protection. With the proposal of a Red River Reservoir along the North Fork of

the Red River in the 1960s there was a renewed interest in the archaeology of

the area. Surveys along the bottomlands of the Red River were conducted to

identify potentially significant archaeological sites that would be impacted by the

reservoir. Because surveys (Cowan 1974,1975,1976; Tumbow 1967) were

generally restricted to areas below the cliffline, few rockshelters were

investigated. However, this research led to the identification of open-air Archaic,

Woodland and Fort Ancient sites along the Red River. This research was until

recently (Gremillion 2002; A. Mickelson 2000,2001a, 2001b) some of the only

floodplain archaeology that had been conducted in the region. Due, in part, to

local protests and the potential for irreparable damage to natural and cultural

According to Collins (1975) efforts to create a National Forest in eastern Kentucky began in 1914. By 1930 land was purchased in Bath, Estill, Lee, Madison, Menifee, Morgan, Powell, Rockcastle, Rowan and Wolfe counties. This land was established as the Cumberland National Forest in 1937 by Presidential proclamation and additional land was acquired. The Cumberland National Forest was renamed the Daniel Boone National Forest in the 1960s.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. resources, efforts to construct the Red River Reservoir were ceased. However,

the proposal to build a reservoir renewed interest on the part of Forest Service

personnel and other archaeologists in documenting archaeological sites within

the area. Additional surveys and excavations have taken place along the

floodplain of the Red River and along the clifflines throughout the Daniel Boone

National Forestand adjacent areas (Cowan 1975,1979a, 1979b, 1984; Cowan

and W ilson 1977; Wyss and Wyss 1977; Gremillion 1993e, 1995a, 1995b,

1996a, 1997,1998,1999; Gremillion and Mickelson 1996,1997; A. Mickelson

2000, 2001a, 2001b; K. Mickelson 2000,2001a, 2001b; O’Steen et al. 1991). In

addition to the documentation of archaeological sites, all of these research

endeavors have been aimed at understanding past human subsistence

practices. Specifically, data collection has been oriented toward understanding

the transition to and development of food producing economies. Rockshelters

within the study region provide a unique opportunity to understand these

developments.

3.3 PALEOETHNOBOTANICAL RESEARCH

As previously noted, many rockshelters within the study area contain

ancient plant materials. Unlike open air sites, these shelters often contain non-

carbonized plant materials as well as those that have been preserved by

charring. Many of these plants were economically important to past populations

and are indicative of past environments. Table 2 lists all known

paleoethnobotanical data recovered from dated rockshelter contexts in the study

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. region. The following pages will discuss the paleoethnobotanical record for the

study area. The discussion and tables exclude unsystematically collected plant

remains (e.g., those recovered during reconnaissance surveys and noted as

only present or absent).

3.3.1 Initial Discovery and Identification of Paleoethnobotanical Remains

Excavations conducted by Funkhouser and Webb (1929a, 1932,1936)

led to the earliest reported recovery of paleoethnobotanical remains from

rockshelters in the study region. Initially, they did not realize the importance of

the large quantities of botanical remains observed during excavations and

subsequently did not collect or curate the plant remains. During their

excavations at Newt Kash Hollow Shelter in Menifee County, Webb and

Funkhouser (1936:130) noted that “While the Newt Kash Shelter yielded a

surprisingly small amount of flint, pottery, shell and bone, it was unusually rich in

vegetable materials. Some of this was easily recognized as gourd, pumpkin,

com (com cobs were numerous), chestnuts, various number of identifiable

seeds...”. Recognizing that they could not identify much of the plant

assemblage, Webb and Funkhouser solicited the aid of Dr. Volney Jones, at the

Ethnobotany Laboratory at University of Michigan. Jones (1936), in turn,

provided a discussion of the desiccated plant remains and described how they

differed from modem seeds and fruits, such as chenopod, maygrass, ragweed

and sunflower. Perhaps more importantly, Jones (1936) demonstrated the

economic importance of these plants through the analysis of paleofeces

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. recovered from the site. Jones hypothesized that the desiccated seeds from the

rockshelter were archaeologically older than maize based on their stratigraphic

position below maize cobs. In addition, he documented that these seeds were

much larger than modem specimens. Based on these factors, Jones posited

the plant remains represented an agricultural tradition that was independent

from maize agriculture. This seminal work by Jones initiated paleoethnobotanical

research in the area.

3.3.2 Research Oriented Investigations and Paleoethnobotany

Jones’ work in the region was largely ignored by the archaeological

community until the 1970s. Cowan’s (1979a, 1979b, 1984) excavations at

Rogers, Haystack and Cloudsplitter rockshelters in Powell County and Menifee

County represent the beginning of the second and current wave of

paleoethnobotanical research in the study area. Cowan’s excavations at the

three aforementioned shelters using modern techniques and precautions to

avoid the loss of small sized plant remains resulted in the recovery of numerous

normally perishable plant remains. Taking the lead from Jones’ earlier work,

Cowan focused on botanical remains from dry rockshelters with the goals of

understanding what plants were used as sources of food, fuel, and fiber.

Furthermore, Cowan departed from earlier descriptive accounts of plant remains

and incorporated specific questions into his research design. His research

questions pertained to 1) how prehistoric populations interacted with the local

environment, 2) how they adapted to seasonal and long-term changes in plant

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. communities and, 3) the effects o f plant acquisition and production by prehistoric

populations on the local environment. It was during this research that important

questions and avenues of research concerning the timing and origins of food

production arose. Secondarily, it was during this time period that Cowan (et al.

1981) noted that sediments within these rockshelters hold valuable information

pertaining to the depositions history and environmental composition of the

deposits and that many of the non-carbonized plant remains from rockshelters

may in fact be “fortuitous” rather than anthropogenic in nature. Although Cowan

conducted some limited analysis of rockshelter sediments from Cloudsplitter, the

determination of the sources of plant remains and their mode of deposition

remained largely unexplored.

Research within the area was not limited to Cowan’s excavations at

known rockshelters with dry deposits. Knudsen et al.’s (1983) large scale

survey in Lee County resulted in the documentation of historic and prehistoric

sites throughout the survey area. Of these, several rockshelter sites were

further investigated by O’steen et al. (1991) under the auspices of the National

Forest Service. This testing was designed to determine the impact of

widespread relic collecting in rockshelter of the region. One site, the Cold Oak

rockshelter (15Le50), was further tested by Gremillion (1995a) who expanded on

Cowan’s earlier research pertaining to the domestication of plants in eastern

Kentucky. Furthermore, the excavations carried out at Cold Oak represent one

of the most detailed analyses of changes in subsistence strategies and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. rockshelter use during the initial period of food production within the region.

Although somewhat limited in scale, excavations at the Courthouse Rock shelter

(15Po322) resulted in the recovery of numerous plant remains and preliminary

results appear to confirm many of Gremillion’s hypotheses from Cold Oak

(Gremillion 1999). Initial excavations at Mounded Talus (Gremillion and

Mickelson 1996) were conducted to determine the eligibility of the rockshelter to

the National Register of Historic Places and because of its potential to yield

large quantities of plant remains dating to the Archaic period.

In addition to conducting excavations, more recent surveys (Gremillion

and Mickelson 1997) were aimed at understanding the prehistoric use of cliffs

and overhangs within the Cumberland Plateau. Because an abundance of data

pertaining to site-specific subsistence strategies had by then already been

recovered, this survey emphasized plant use at the landscape scale. It remains

one of the few attempts to place rockshelter sites of the region into their

environmental context and explore the relationship between environmental

features of the landscape and rockshelter selection and use by prehistoric

peoples.

3.4 CULTURE HISTORY AND PALEOETHNOBOTANICAL INVESTIGATIONS

The prehistory of eastern Kentucky, as most of eastern North America, is

often divided into cultural-historical periods, each of which has distinguishing

characteristics in the form of tools, subsistence, and/or life ways (Table 2).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Rather than discuss each of these time periods in detail, the following section

will address only those periods in which botanical and/or sediment data was

systematically collected from rockshelters in the region (Figure 1). The majority

of paleoethnobotanical data collected to date comes from a few excavations that

predominantly fell within the Late Archaic to Early Woodland periods. The Late

Woodland period has a fair representation; however, the cultural periods prior to

the Late Woodland are poorly represented. Table 2 presents all known

paleoethnobotanical assemblages by cultural period within the study area and is

the basis for the following discussion.

3.4.1 Archaic Period Rockshelter Excavations

The Archaic period in Kentucky spans approximately 7000 years

(Jefferies 1996). Patterns of land use and technology first observed during the

Paleoindian period continued during the Archaic period as vegetational and

founal communities like those of today became established. In terms of climate,

the Archaic was a dynamic period of fluctuations in temperature and rainfall.

The Hypsithermal, a period of warming and drying between 7000 and 3000 BC,

had a great influence on plant and animal communities in Kentucky.

The Archaic period in Kentucky is divided into three sub-periods based on

environmental conditions, technology, subsistence practices and social

organization: the Early Archaic period (8000-6000 BC), the Middle Archaic

period (6000-3000 BC) and the Late Archaic/Terminal Archaic period (3000-800

BC) (Jefferies 1996).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Rockshelter use by Early Archaic populations has been described as

seasonal (Cowan et al. 1981; Jefferies 1988; Wyss and Wyss 1977). This

contention is based on the small number of Early Archaic sites identified and

limited number of associated features. Although Early Archaic deposits have

been identified from several rockshelters in the region, including Dillard Stamper

#1 in Wolfe County, Big Ash Cave and Zacharariah shelters in Lee County, and

Cloudsplitter in Menifee county, only Cloudsplitter yielded stratified deposits,

post molds and hearths from this time interval. Despite the well-documented

Early Archaic deposits from Cloudsplitter, Cowan et al. (1981:74) interpret the

site as a “seasonal, temporary, fall season camp, perhaps being occupied for

only a few days and nights before resource availability dictated movement.” The

only paleoethnobotanical remains identified represent nut resources: black

walnut, butternut, hickory and chestnut. The habitat preference for these

resources suggests that Early Archaic people were generalized in their

subsistence strategies and used resources from all landforms. However, these

generalizations are tenuous given the extremely small sample of

paleoethnobotanical remains.

The Middle Archaic period in Kentucky coincides with the Hypsithermal, a

climatic event that is characterized by a warming and drying trend. The

environmental conditions associated with the Hypsithermal led to changes in

plant and animal communities. Pollen data (Delcourt et al. 1998) indicate that

forest communities on the slopes of eastern Kentucky shifted to a Mixed

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Mesophytic regime characterized by hemlock and a dramatic increase in the

presence of oaks. Other components of the forest community include maples,

butternut and hickory.

A wide variety of plants and animals were exploited during the Middle

Archaic period. Deer, turkey, opossum, racoon and bear are often recovered

from archaeological sites of this period in Kentucky. Bird remains, mussel shells

and fish bones and scales are found at sites in some regions, especially along

the Green River of Kentucky. Plants were also important to Middle Archaic diets

throughout eastern North America, judging by the number of plant processing

tools found at sites outside the study; relevant data from east-central Kentucky

itself are scarce. Two sites in the region have dates falling within the Middle

Archaic period and have associated plant remains: Cloudsplitter (15MF36) and

Mounded Talus (15LE77) (Table 3). Cowan et al. (1981; Cowan 1984) states

that the Middle Archaic dates from Cloudsplitter are probably in error; however,

the presence of wild gourd ( Cucurbits) seeds, one of which dates to 3960 BC

(Table 3) does indicate at least an ephemeral Middle Archaic period occupation

a t the site . Gourd (Cucurbita) seeds, one with an AMS date of 3985 BC, were

also recovered from the Mounded Talus Shelter in Lee County (Mickelson and

Gremillion 1995). These two sites indicate that the wild gourd was important as

a food or, more likely, as a source of containers. The importance of this plant is

indicated by remains recovered from Middle Archaic sites in other regions of the

East, such as the Anderson, TN., Hayes, TN., Koster, IL., Napoleon Hollow, IL.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and Carlston Annis, KY sites (Table 4). In addition to squash, nuts, fruits,

tubers, and both starchy and oily seeds were important plant resources to Middle

Archaic people who occupied Mounded Talus (Mickelson and Gremillion 1995;

K. Mickelson 2000).

The Late and Terminal Archaic periods in Kentucky are characterized by

population increase, social organizational changes and continued adaption to

local conditions (Jefferies 1996:57). There is great diversity in the size of

archaeological sites and quantity of artifactual remains during this time period.

Toward the end of the Late Archaic period there is evidence that people began

to cultivate and tend plants, and the first evidence of domesticated plants

occurs.

Pollen and macrobotanical data indicate that changes in plant

communities occurred during the Late and Terminal Archaic periods in eastern

Kentucky (Delcourtet al. 1998). In this region, Mixed Mesophytic forests were

well established by the beginning of the Late Archaic period. However, by 4800

BP larval infestations led to a rapid and devastating decline in the population of

hemlock trees (Delcourt et al. 1998). Hemlock mortality, according to Delcourt et

al. (1998), led to the accumulation of dense deadwood that acted as fuel for

natural fires in eastern Kentucky. Catastrophic fires in the region reduced the

forest canopy, allowing red cedars to colonize open areas, while oaks ‘persisted’

and some weedy colonizers, such as ragweed, increased in numbers (Delcourt

et al. 1998:274). By 3000 BP, red cedar populations began to decline and oaks,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. chestnut and ash trees were again established along the slopes of the mountain

regions (Delcourt et al. 1998).

During much of the Late Archaic period people continued a hunting and

gathering life way. W ild plant and animal resources included deer, small

mammals, birds and fish. In some regions mussels were important food

resources. Hickory nuts, acorns, chestnut and a wide variety o f fruits and

starchy seeds were included in the subsistence base (Yarnell and Black 1985;

Yamell 1993). The first evidence of cultivated plants occurs during the Late

Archaic period. Based on paleoethnobotanical analyses, cultivated plant

resources did not make up the bulk of Late and Terminal Archaic populations’

diets (Cowan 1984; Ison 1988; Gremillion 1993c, 1994,1995a, 1995b. 1996b,

1996c, 1998,1999). Rather, the small quantities of these cultivated plants

suggests they were additions to a predominantly hunting and gathering

subsistence strategy. The quantity of cultivated plants increases by the end of

the Terminal Archaic period, a trend that continues during the ensuing

Woodland period and which suggests an increased reliance on these plants

through time.

Settlement patterns are highly variable during the Late and Terminal

Archaic period. Small ephemeral occupations indicating short term habitation

are interspersed with large deep midden sites, especially along the Ohio River

and Big Sandy drainages (Dunnell 1972; Jefferies 1996). The numerous

rockshelter sites occupied during the Late and Terminal Archaic periods along

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the Cumberland Escarpment suggests a preference for these sheltered sites.

However, surveys indicate that there are numerous Late Archaic sites along the

floodplain, especially along the Red River in eastern Kentucky. Many of these

floodplain sites have not been fully investigated, but recent research has been

aimed at correcting this bias (Gremillion 2002; A. Mickelson 2001a, 2001b).

Numerous Late and Terminal Archaic period sites have been identified in

the east-central portion of Kentucky. The majority of these sites are rockshelters

including: Cold Oak, Buckner, Pine Crest, Big Ash Cave, Little Ash Cave and

Rattiffe shelters in Lee County; Cloudsplitter and Newt Kash Hollow in Menifee

County; Steven DeHart Shelter and Courthouse Rock Shelter in Powell County;

and Sampson Spencer, Rhoda Smith, George Spencer, Dillard Stamper #1 and

#2, Green Gentry and Worth Creech shelters in Wolfe County. The Skidmore

and Rhondle Lee sites in Powell County and Gladie Creek in Menifee County

represent open air sites (Applegate 1995; Cowan and Wilson 1977; Funkhouser

and Webb 1929a, 1930,1932; Gremillion 1993c, 1995a, 1997,1999; Gremillion

et al. 2000; Jefferies 1996; Knudsen 1983; A. Mickelson 2001b; O'Steen et al.

1991; Tumbow 1975; Webb and Funkhouser 1936).

Paleoethnobotanical analyses have been completed on materials from

Cold Oak (15Le50) (Gremillion 1995a), Cloudsplitter (15Mf36) (Cowan 1984),

Hooton Hollow (15Mf1) (Gremillion 1995b), Courthouse Rock Shelter (15Po322)

(Gremillion 1999) and Newt Kash(15Mf10) rockshelters (Gremillion 1997)

(Figure 1).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Late Archaic strata at Cloudsplitter consisted of a dark brown silty sand

with “massive ash deposits” (Cowan 1984:327). This deposit was directly

underlain by sand sediments with poorly preserved botanical remains that were

dated to the Early Archaic period. Features, including postmolds and hearths,

were excavated within the Late Archaic zones. Botanically, this Late Archaic

deposit was dominated by wood and nutshell of which hickory and walnut were

the most abundant, followed by butternut. Chestnut and hazelnut were rare. In

addition to nuts, fleshy fruits were common and included huckleberry,

blackberry, blueberry, sumac, poke and grape.

Cultigens present at Cloudsplitter include squash, sumpweed, goosefoot

and sunflower. The Late Archaic deposits at Cloudsplitter did not contain an

abundance of cultigens, which occurred at a rate of .01 item per liter (Cowan et

al. 1981:71). Additionally, Cowan et al. (1981) concluded that some of these

Late Archaic cultigens may actually represent contamination from Early

Woodland deposits that lie stratigraphically over the Late Archaic deposits.

However, he did not determine the cause of disturbance that led to the mixing of

these two deposits.

The source of seeds and mode of plant deposition at Cloudsplitter

received little consideration. Cowan (1984) concluded that the source of most if

not all of the fruits were attributable to geogenic and biogenic processes rather

than being anthropogenic in nature. This conclusion was based on two factors.

First, evidence of gnawing on blackberry seeds was attributed to rodents.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Second, “the discontinuous distribution of fleshy fruits” suggested that these

remains were “not due to human behavior (Cowan 1984:339)”. Spatially, most of

the fleshy fruits were located in the same areas where nutshell and numerous

cultigens were present (Areas 115 and 16).

Cold Oak shelter represents a second Archaic period site in which

detailed paleoethnobotanical analyses have been conducted (Gremillion 1995a,

1993c; Ison 1988; O’steen et al. 1991). The Terminal Archaic deposits at Cold

Oak were identified within a compact sandy loam with numerous ash lenses.

Shallow basins, hearths and postmolds were excavated (Gremillion 1995a).

This Terminal Archaic deposit was stratigraphically over a yellow sand with small

amounts of cultural material that apparently trickled downward from the upper

cultural deposits (Gremillion 1995a; Ison 1988).

A wide variety of botanical remains was recovered and identified in the

Terminal Archaic deposits at Cold Oak shelter. Nuts dominated the plant

assemblage in which hickory ranked highest in numbers of fragments, followed

by acorn, chestnut and walnut. Seeds of trees, grasses and fleshy fruits were

also present. However, cultigens dominated the seed category. Cultigens

include chenopod, maygrass, sumpweed, and knotweed. The large array of

cultigens combined with other seeds and nuts at Cold Oak arguably makes it the

best example of a Terminal Archaic paleoethnobotanical assemblage in the

region.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The source of seeds and mode of deposition of plant remains at Cold Oak

can only be hypothesized (Gremillion 1995a). Nuts, fleshy fruits and crops were

considered most likely the result of human activities. Tree seeds, such as tulip

poplar, birch, maple, hackberry and black gum, and miscellaneous seeds of

poke, purslane and bedstraw were considered more likely the result of seed rain

or animal activities.

Additional paleoethnobotanical data have been obtained from Hooton

Hollow and Newt Kash rockshelters. However, these sites, which were

excavated in the 1930s, have little published information pertaining to site

stratigraphy or structure. Paleoethnobotanical analyses of paleofeces and

small museum collections show similarities between both Newt Kash and Hooton

Hollow and the assemblages from Cold Oak and Cloudsplitter rockshelters

(Gremillion 1997,1995a). Specifically, nuts appear to have been an important

resource. However, cultigens were present at both sites; crop seeds were

identified in most paleofecal material from both Hooton Hollow and Newt Kash

(Gremillion 1995b). However, the quantity of crop seeds in paleofeces from

these two sites was variable. Gremillion (1995b:62) states that “A variable and

often limited dietary role for domesticates is compatible with the small quantities

of crop seeds that are usually associated with Terminal Archaic habitation refuse

in eastern Kentucky and likely reflects a relatively casual involvement in food

production.”

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3.4.2 Woodland Period Rockshelter Excavations

The Woodland period is characterized by major changes in social

organization and shifts in subsistence and settlement patterns. The Woodland

period is divided into three sub-periods. The Early Woodland, often associated

with the Adena archaeological complex, extends from 1000-200 BC and is

associated with mound building and the first appearance of ceramics, although

mound building is exceedingly rare in eastern Kentucky. The Middle Woodland,

synonymous with the Hopewell culture of the Middle Ohio Valley, extends from

200 BC -AD 400. The Late Woodland period ( AD 400 - AD 900/1000) generally

spans the period following the peak of Hopewellian influence in the region and

terminates with the appearance of maize based agriculture (Lewis 1996).

During the Woodland period, rockshelter occupation and use increased

over the previous Archaic period. During the Late and Terminal Archaic period a

total of 31 sites is documented in the study area; of these, four have been

subjected to paleoethnobotanical analyses. For the Woodland period, six of a

total of 34 rockshelter sites in the study area have yielded paleoethnobotanical

data. These include three Early Woodland sites: Cloudsplitter (15Mf36) (Cowan

1984), Cold Oak (15Le50) (Gremillion 1995a), and Courthouse Rock (15Po322)

(Gremillion 1999) (see Figure 1). Three Late Woodland rockshelter sites have

yielded paleoethnobotanical data: Rock Bridge (15Wo75) (Gremillion 1993e),

Rogers (15Mf26) (Cowan 1979a) and Haystack (15Mf47) (Cowan 1979b)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (Figure 1). In addition, Middle Woodland dates were obtained from Cold Oak

(15Le50) (Gremillion 1995a).

Several trends in plant use and production are evident from Early

Woodland paleoethnobotanical data. First, there is an increase in the

abundance of cultigens and several taxa make their first appearance. A second

trend is the increase in the number and types of features. Specifically, pit

features and caches of plant remains increase during the Early Woodland

period. Finally, although less clear in its significance, there appears to be a

change in nut utilization.

These trends are apparent at both Cloudsplitter and Cold Oak

rockshelters and supported by preliminary paleoethnobotanical data from

Courthouse Rock shelter (Gremillion 1999). Early Woodland deposits at

Cloudsplitter indicate that the presence of cultigens increased dramatically. Late

Archaic deposits contained 0.01 cultigen remains per liter while Early Woodland

cultigens jumped to 14 items per liter (Cowan et al. 1981). Additionally, bottle

gourd was only present in the Early Woodland deposits. Other seeds, such as

honey locust, beggers tick and pawpaw, also increase or make their first

appearance during this period. At Cold Oak, cultigens also increase significantly

during the Early Woodland. This trend is especially true for chenopod.

Ragweed, amaranth and bottle gourd first appear during the Early Woodland

period and knotweed occurs in very large quantities. Courthouse Rock data

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. yielded large quantities of crops, with chenopod and maygrass being the

dominant types of crop seeds (Gremillion 1999).

Numbers of features increased significantly during the Early Woodland

period at both Cloudsplitter and Cold Oak. Cloudsplitter had a total of 38 Early

Woodland features of which many were storage pits and caches of plant

materials. The same scenario exists at Cold Oak, where 63% of all documented

features originate within Early Woodland deposits (Gremillion 1995a). As at

Cloudsplitter, both storage pits and caches of plant remains dominated the

feature assemblage and were notably more common than in the earlier Archaic

period deposits at Cold Oak. The increase in the number of storage features

has been attributed to an increase in the storage of crop plants (Cowan 1984;

Gremillion 1993c).

Trends in nutshell are a bit more difficult to evaluate, as all acorn was

omitted from the Cloudsplitter botanical data set due to the assumption that they

were deposited by rodents. The remainder of the Cloudsplitter nut assemblage

consisted primarily of walnut and hickory but there was a tremendous increase in

the abundance of chestnut and hazelnut in the Early Woodland deposits (Cowan

1984). At Cold Oak, acorn was abundant in the Terminal Archaic deposits, but

decreased significantly during the Early Woodland and was surpassed in

abundance by hickory. Gremillion (1993c) suggests the trend in nutshell

abundance at Cold Oak may be due to the increase use of starchy grains such

as chenopod and maygrass. As starchy grains increased in the diet of Early

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Woodland populations, there was a decline in the use of carbohydrate-rich

acorns. Acorn was the most abundant nut type followed by hickory at

Courthouse Rock; walnut and chestnut occurred in small quantities (Gremillion

1999). At both Cold Oak and Cloudsplitter, there was an increase in chestnut,

although at Cold Oak the increase was only slight. Chestnut was not common

at Courthouse Rock but the size of samples analyzed were small. Hazelnut

increased during the Early Woodland at Cloudsplitter and only occurred in Early

Woodland deposits at Cold Oak. No hazelnut was identified at Courthouse

Rock. Gremillion (1999:46) suggests that the comparison of nutshell remains

from these three rockshelters indicates that there is “some degree of

opportunism in mast exploitation as well as localized patterns of abundance and

inter-annual variation in yields.”

The paleoethnobotanical assemblages at Haystack (15Mf47) shelter and

Rogers shelters (15Mf26) indicate that cultigens continued to be important

constituents of the diet during the Late Woodland period. Cultigens were

especially abundant at Rogers shelter where squash, gourd, sunflower,

sumpweed, chenopod and maygrass were well represented. Smaller quantities

of these taxa were identified at Haystack although sumpweed was especially

abundant (Cowan 1979a, 1979b).

A small quantity of fleshy fruits was recovered from Haystack shelter, of

which sumac was the most common. At Rogers shelter fleshy fruits were

generally abundant, although taxa differed in quantity. Hackberry, persimmon,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. honey locust and pawpaw were present but extremely rare. Other seeds,

especially sumac, blueberry, blackberry and plum, were abundant throughout

the deposits. Cowan (1979a) suggests that the fruits of these plants were

intensively harvested but cautions that each of these plants produces numerous

seeds per fruit or many fruits per plant and thus may be overrepresented at the

site.

Nuts were common at both Haystack and Rogers shelters. Walnut was

the most abundant at both sites followed by hickory. Acorn, chestnut, butternut

and very small quantities of hazelnut were identified. This pattern is similar to

that of the Archaic and Early Woodland plant assemblage at Cloudsplitter.

However, walnut is not common at any other Woodland period rockshelter site in

the region. This may be additional evidence that Gremillion’s (1999) contention

of a wide degree of variation in nut preference and availability throughout the

region and through time is correct. However, to date it is not known if different

processing methods and discard behaviors have affected the preservation

potential of nutshell remains.

Paleoethnobotanical data from Rock Bridge shelter are more difficult to tie

into existing data from Haystack and Rogers shelters. The environmental

conditions of the sediments within the Rock Bridge shelter, which are

considerably wetter than those found in either of the other shelters, and is

presumably the reason small quantities and few taxa of plants were recovered;

most non-carbonized plant material had decayed. However, carbonized nuts

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. were present and dominated by hickory. Walnut, hazelnut, acorn and chestnut

were also present but in small quantities. Seeds consist of tree species and

weedy taxa. Gremillion (1993e) interprets these seeds as incidental and most

likely the result of natural rather than anthropogenic processes. However, the

recovery of a single squash seed hints at the presence and use of cultigens at

Rock Bridge.

3.5 SUMMARY

The preceding survey of paleoethnobotanical research in the study area

is not meant to represent all of the data or interpretations as presented by the

original authors. Rather, its purpose is twofold: 1) to familiarize readers with the

historical context of research in the area and provide basic paleoethnobotanical

data from rockshelters that have been systematically excavated and subjected to

standardized paleoethnobotanical techniques, and 2) to illustrate the need for a

better understanding of human-plant relationships prior to the adoption of

domesticates, plant preservation in rockshelters, and the source and mode of

deposition of plant remains in rockshelter deposits.

Although numerous rockshelters have been documented in the region,

very few systematic evaluations of paleoethnobotanical remains have occurred.

Of a total of 65 rockshelter sites on file with the Kentucky Office of Management

a total of nine shelters has been examined extensively using modem

paleoethnobotanical techniques. Furthermore, only two sites with components

dating to the period before initial domestication and use of cultigens,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Cloudsplitter and Mounded Talus, have been investigated. As noted in the

preceding pages, the Early Archaic deposits at Cloudsplitter only contained

poorly preserved nutshell. Thus, Mounded Talus represents the only site in

which subsistence prior to the adoption of domesticates can be evaluated. The

majority of rockshelter paleoethnobotanical studies have been conducted on

shelter deposits that date to the Late Archaic-Early Woodland transition. These

excavations are extremely important in that they have been instrumental in

establishing that an independent eastern North American agricultural system

was in place in eastern Kentucky, but they are unable to address the question of

what types of plants were used by prehistoric peoples prior to the adoption of

crops.

Second, paleoethnobotanical research at these nine rockshelters has

demonstrated a need for a better understanding of how plant remains preserve.

Although it has been established that many of these shelters contain well-

preserved carbonized and non-carbonized plant remains, it cannot be assumed

that all plant remains preserve equally. What are the patterns of carbonized

plant preservation and non-carbonized plant preservation? Do carbonized plant

remains preserve differently than non-carbonized remains? Is there a

relationship between plant preservation and depth of burial?

Finally, the previous survey of rockshelter paleoethnobotanical data has

clearly demonstrated the need to differentiate between anthropogenically

deposited plant remains and those deposited as a result of geogenic and/or

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. biogenic processes. Although the source of seeds and mode of deposition have

been widely considered by paleoethnobotanists (Dennell 1976; M iller and Smart

1984; Minnis 1981; Pearsall 2000,1988) rockshelter assemblages from the

Cumberland Plateau present the problem of accounting for both carbonized and

non-carbonized plant remains. For instance, acorns at Cloudsplitter were

completely omitted due to concerns that they resulted from packrat activities.

Although seeds at the site also showed evidence o f rodent gnawing, they were

included in the results of the study. Remains from Cold Oak were judged to be

anthropogenic if it was likely that the remains were potentially economic. While

none of the researchers who have conducted these paleoethnobotanical studies

deserve harsh criticism for their decisions regarding what data to include or

their interpretations of the likely source of such data, it does illustrate the need

to systematically evaluate the source of seeds and their mode of deposition

before inter- or intrasite comparisons are made. Furthermore, regional trends in

plant use, such as nut harvesting during the Late Archaic-Early Woodland

periods, can only benefit from a better understanding of processes effecting the

deposition and preservation of plant remains within the shelters.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 4

GEOLOGICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STRATIGRAPHY AND THE MACROBOTANICAL ASSEMBLAGE AT MOUNDED TALUS ROCKSHELTER

Knowledge of the varied and dynamic processes of rockshelter evolution

is necessary in order to understand how archaeological deposits develop and

are subsequently modified through geological, biological and anthropogenic

processes. These processes are dynamic; erosional and sedimentation

processes that form shelters continue long after a shelter has developed and

given time, will ultimately result in the infilling and collapse of the shelter. This

chapter w ill present a generalized description of how rockshelters form in the

study region and discuss the processes of sedimentation involved. Next,

Mounded Talus shelter will be introduced and the archaeological stratigraphy of

the shelter will be discussed. Finally, macrobotanical and other artifactual data

will be presented.

4.1 ROCKSHELTER FORMATION AND SEDIMENTATION

Rockshelters are naturally formed crevices in bedrock where recesses or

ledges occur under bedrock overhangs (Waters 1992). The evolution of

rockshelters can be divided into three stages: 1) initial formation,

2)sedimentation, and 3) collapse. Donahue and Adovasio (1990:249) describe

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. three factors that are essential to the initial development of a sandstone

rockshelter, such as those that are found along the Cumberland Plateau in

eastern Kentucky:

“First, an appreciable thickness of sandstone must be present in the subsurface in order for a cliff face to develop during dovvncutting or erosion of stream valley. Second, basal or intercalated shales must be present in the sandstone sequence so that lateral erosion by streams will result in an overhang in the sandstone cliff. Third, rapid valley incision through the sandstone sequence, a condition that occurred during the late Pleistocene and Holocene times, is necessary for the development of a vertical cliff face within the valley floor.”

All three factors are present within the Cumberland Plateau study region, where

rockshelters form in sandstone cliffs that occur along valley floors. Donahue and

Adovasio (1990:232) state that these shelters “occur where drainage

reorganization and down cutting established the Ohio River during Illinoisan and

Wisconsinan time.” As noted in Chapter 2, the sandstone Lee Formation is

predominantly sandstone that is underlain by interbedded shale. Lateral

erosion, caused by drainages and/or wind, of the less resistant shale occurs,

undercutting the sandstone and forming erosional recesses or overhangs. This

undercutting eventually becomes so deep that the brow becomes unstable and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. rock falls. Each time this process occurs the size of the shelter is reduced.

Eventually, through processes of undercutting, collapse and infilling, a

rockshelter will disappear (Figures 5-6) (Ferrand 2001,1985; Waters 1996).

Rockshelters are effective sediment traps (Farrand 1985). Sediment as

used in this study is any “particulate matter on the surface of the earth that has

been deposited by some process under normal surface conditions (Stein

1985a:6).” There are three primary groups of sediments that occur in

rockshelters along the Cumberland Plateau. The first of these consists of clastic

sediments which are characterized by rock fragments, sand, silt and clay that

are deposited by physical processes (Rapp and Hill 1998:22). Clastic sediments

include archaeological materials such as bone, ceramics, lithics and tools.

Clastic sediments are further characterized according to their particle size (i.e.,

gravel: >2mm; sand: 2-0.0625mm; silt: 0.0625-0.004mm; and clay: 0.004-

0.0002mm), texture and shape (Rapp and Hill 1998). The second group of

sediments that occur in rockshelters is chemical and “consist[s] of minerals that

have been deposited by precipitation from solution (Rapp and Hill 1998:27)”.

Calcite is the most common type of mineral that occurs in chemical deposits, but

is generally limited to rockshelters and caves formed in dolomite or limestone

bedrock. However, other minerals such as phosphates or evaporates (i.e.,

calcium, potassium, nitrate, and sodium) are also constituents of chemical

sediments. For instance, phosphates introduced into a rockshelter as a

byproduct of animal waste constitutes a chemical deposit (Rapp and Hill

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1998:24). The third group of sediments consists of organic sediments.

Preserved and decomposed organic artifacts, such as plant or animal materials

deposited by humans are the primary contributors to organic sediments (Rapp

and Hill 1998).

These types of sediments originate and are deposited in a variety of ways

during the second stage of rockshelter evolution: sedimentation. Processes of

sedimentation in rockshelters are typically categorized into two classes:

endogenous and exogenous. Endogenous, or autochthonous, sediments

develop within a shelter. Exogenous, or allochthonous, sediments refer to

particulate matter deposited within a shelter that originated outside of the shelter

proper (Figure 5) (Dincauze 2000; Laville et al. 1980; Waters 1996).

There are three possible sources of exogenic and endogenic sediments in

rockshelters: 1) geogenic, 2) biogenic, and 3) anthropogenic. Rarely will all

sediments within a shelter derive from a single source. Rather, rockshelter

sediments are usually polygenic (Butzer 1982; Dinacuaze 2000). Differentiation

between sediment sources is necessary to understand the depositional history

and to determine the degree of post-depositional perturbation.

Donahue and Adovasio (1990) define four processes of exogenous and

endogenous geogenic sedimentation for the study region: rockfall, attrition,

sheetwash and flooding (Figure 7). Rockfall results from the “gradual widening

of joints and bedding planes by water movement through openings, fireeze-thaw

or organic activity, especially root growth (Donahue and Adovasio 1990:236-7).”

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. There are three scales of rockfall: 1) slab failure, which causes one or more

large rock fragments to dislodge, 2) rock avalanches, where many small

fragments are released from the shelter wall, ceiling or cliffline and, 3) rockfall

which causes one or two sandstone blocks to fall (Donahue and Adovasio

1990:237). In general, rockfall accumulation is greatest in the basal deposits of

sandstone shelters and represents the initial formation of a shelter.

Attrition is an endogenic weathering process of sandstone surfaces, such

as the shelter roof or walls, and is the predominant mechanism of endogenous

sedimentation in shelters of the study area (Donahue and Adovasio 1990; Laville

et al. 1980). Attrition, also known as granular disintegration, results in sand

sized particles accumulating in a grain-by-grain manner on the shelter floor,

benches or ledges. Attrition, easily identified through particle size analysis,

results in well sorted homogeneous sediments (Courty et al. 1989; Donahue and

Adovasio 1990; Ferrand 2001; Waters 1996). Bioturbation, both anthropogenic

and biogenic, is the predominant agent that results in the reworking of attrition

sediments.

Sheetwash is an exogenous process whereby sediments accumulate as

water transports particles into a shelter. Sheetwash can enter a shelter in

several ways (Figure 5). First, water run-off from the shelter brow is deposited

along the shelter dripline where it either enters the shelter or runs down the

slope or talus apron outside the shelter. Second, sheetwash can enter a shelter

through cracks or crevices along the shelter wall or caprock. Regardless of how

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sheetwash enters a shelter, it results in poorly sorted sediments on a slope

rather than horizontal plane and has distinctive laminar bands (Donahue and

Adovasio 1990). Grain size analysis is the primary means of discerning

sheetwash sediments.

Flooding sediments are exogenous in nature and occur when shelters

are located near water sources, such as streams, and accumulate as horizontal

bedded layers of particulate matter. Flood sediments are identified through

grain size analysis. Sediments that accumulate through flooding episodes

exhibit distinct characteristics; small sized particles of silt and clay dominate

over sand. Furthermore, flooding sediments often have distinct laminar banding

representative of episodic flooding. Mounded Talus is located quite some

distance from both minor intermittent streams and other stream systems; it is

unlikely that flooding deposits will be identified.

Biogenic and anthropogenic activities also result in endogenic and

exogenic sediments. There are two primary sources of biogenic sediments:

plants and nonhuman animals. Plants growing in a shelter will leave detrital

residues. Natural dispersal of leaves, seeds or other plant parts may

accumulate within a shelter through seed rain. These particles may then be

intermixed with geogenic sediments.

Animals are a second source of biogenic sediments. Animals that inhabit

or frequent rockshelters w ill deposit organic and/or inorganic particles, either

intentionally or unintentionally. For instance, an animal’s nesting habits may

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. result in the introduction of various plant materials. Animal waste, including

fecal material, such as raptor pellets with small animal bones, may be deposited

within rockshelters. It is unlikely that these biogenic sources of sediments would

result in the vast majority of sediments within a rockshelter, but they may

become mixed with other types of sediments. Thus, identification of biogenic

processes of sedimentation is an important contribution to the understanding of

the depositional history of rockshelter deposits.

Anthropogenic sediments rarely occur in isolation in rockshelters but are

“almost always mixed with geogenic and commonly with biogenic sediments

(Farrand 2001:542>." Furthermore, human activities can result in variable

accumulations of sediments; small to large quantities of material may be

deposited. Anthropogenic sedimentation may be either intentional or

unintentional. Humans introduce materials, both organic and inorganic, to be

used for the construction of hearths or structures (i.e., wood, rock, plants) or for

leveling or improving the surface of the shelter floor (i.e., ash, sand, silt)

(Ferrand 2001:242). The collection, processing and consumption of animal and

plant foods are also potential sources of anthropogenic sediments. Food

remains or residues may be concentrated in distinct areas (i.e., storage or refuse

features) or may be sparsely dispersed through the shelter. Plants, both charred

and uncharred, rocks, and ash may be introduced to the shelter when fires are

made. Additionally, heat from fires within shelters may also act to increase the

rate of attrition within rockshelter (Waters 1992). Anthropogenic sediments also

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. accumulate through the unintentional introduction of particles to a rockshelter,

such as those adhering to feet, clothing or plants and animals brought into a

shelter.

4.1.1 Summary

Knowledge of the evolution of rockshelters is important for several

reasons. First, understanding how rockshelters initially form in a given

environment permits predictions as to which sediment group will predominate in

shelter deposits. For instance, it is predicted that rockshelters in the

Cumberland Plateau should be made up of primarily clastic sediments since the

overlying parent material is sandstone. Second, because rockshelter formation

is an idiosyncratic yet dynamic process, deposits and their components (i.e.,

artifacts) have been subjected to numerous processes that could modify or erase

their systemic context. In other words, rockshelter formation processes distort

the original spatial organization of anthropogenic deposits that reflect human

behavior. “The spatial reorganization may be partial or complete, depending on

1) the length of exposure of the type and intensity of geomorphic and biological

processes affecting the site surface, and 2) the processes responsible for the

burial of the site” (Waters 1992:103). Thus, analyses of shelter formation and

sedimentation processes are critical to understanding the linkage between

archaeological remains and past human behaviors.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL STRATIGRAPHY OF MOUNDED TALUS SHELTER

Mounded Talus rockshelter is a large open sandstone overhang located

near the head of a narrow V-shaped hollow at an elevation of 1100 feet above

mean sea level. The back wall is nearly vertical with a sandstone brow jutting

toward the southeast approximately 25 meters above the shelter floor. The

ceiling creates a large, open, but sheltered area approximately 40 meters long

and 12 meters at its greatest width (Figure 8).

Portions of the shelter floor are littered with sandstone talus. A large

talus mound, remnants from niter mining and roof fell, in the southern portion of

the shelter covers a large section of the central portion of the shelter floor. In

addition, large sandstone boulders are present across the floor, with a

concentration located along the outer southeastern edge of the shelter below the

dripline of the brow. Outside the dripline, there is a steep colluvial apron.

4.2.1 Previous Archaeological Investigations at Mounded Talus

Mounded Talus shelter was first archaeologically identified during a

cliffline reconnaissance survey by field archaeologists from the Daniel Boone

National Forest. During this survey, shovel tests revealed intact archaeological

deposits and plant remains. Subsequently, test excavations were conducted in

1995 to determine the extent and integrity of the archaeological deposits

(Gremillion and Mickelson 1996). A total of three 1 m x 1 m test excavation units

was excavated during the testing phase of research at Mounded Talus. Column

samples were obtained from each stratigraphic zone of two test units and are

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. used in this study. The descriptions of site stratigraphy and radiocarbon dates

are the result of the 1995 excavations. Due to concerns pertaining to site

formation processes and the integrity of archaeological deposits that arose after

the 1995 excavations, as discussed in Chapter 1, research at Mounded Talus

resumed and is the focus of this research. It was during the most recent period

of research that surface point samples to be used for macrobotanical and

sediment analyses were collected. These samples and the previously collected

column sample are used in the evaluation of 1) site formation processes, 2)

preservation of macrobotanical remains and, 3) Middle Archaic plant exploitation

and use.

4.2.2 Site Stratigraphy

Surface deposits, as noted from both point samples and column samples,

consisted of a silty sand with variable Munsell colors that generally ranged from

black to yellow-brown. Leaf litter was present across much of the surface, and

though highly variable, its density was greatest (ca. 5 cm in thickness) in the

central portion of the shelter between Test Units 1 and 2. Leaf litter was

removed prior to testing. Vegetation growth within the shelter was limited to the

extreme southern portion of the shelter and along a ledge along the rear wall.

As noted above, all stratigraphic descriptions are based on test unit

excavations from 1995 (Gremillion and Mickelson 1996). The presence of

numerous undulating lenses within each excavation unit made strictly controlled

stratigraphic excavation impractical. Accordingly, the three test units were

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. excavated in 5 cm arbitrary levels within major stratigraphic zones. In addition,

variations in sediment characteristics within these zones were noted. Distinct

deposits were assigned feature numbers and excavated separately. Because of

the difficulty of cross-correlating strata, stratigraphic descriptions are given on a

unit-by-unit basis. Similarities between test units can be noted, but a continuous

stratigraphic description across the entirety of the site is not possible.

4.2.2.a Test Unit 1

Seven distinct strata are identified in Test Unit 1. Each stratum was

highly variable in thickness throughout the unit and several lenses were present

within each stratigraphic zone. These lenses were neither uniform across the

test unit nor identified in all portions of the test unit. The column samples used

in this study were taken from the west wall profile (Figure 9).

Stratum I consisted of 5 cm of leaves mixed with very dry, dark greyish-

brown sandy loam. Horse manure and deer pellets were present throughout the

stratum and historic materials were present throughout its upper few

centimeters. Prehistoric materials, including lithic debitage, were present but

sparse near the base of the stratum.

Stratum II consisted of a 10-cm-thick, very dry, loosely compacted dark

greyish-brown sandy loam with sandstone rocks scattered throughout.

Prehistoric materials, consisting of lithic debitage and carbonized and non

carbonized plant remains, were present throughout the stratum.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Stratum III consisted of an 8-cm-thick, very dark brown, extremely

unconsolidated and dry sandy loam with numerous ash and charcoal lenses.

Sandstone rocks were present throughout. Although no features originated

within Stratum III, there was an abundance of large charcoal fragments and

organic/botanical material throughout the matrix. Two small Cucurbita seeds

were recovered from Stratum III, one of which was directly dated to 5080+/- 60

B.P. (two-sigma cal. age range 3985-3735 BC)(Beta 94095) (Table 5).

Stratum IV was a very dry, loosely compacted, mottled brown sand loam

with ash and charcoal lenses throughout. The base of Stratum IV consisted of a

compacted ash zone. Botanical materials were present throughout the sediment

matrix. A hearth (Feature 2) and an indeterminate feature with a heavy

concentration of botanical materials (Feature 3) originated in Stratum IV. The

botanical materials from Feature 3 include a possible bark container and several

whole acorns (Quercus) found in association with small limestone rocks. A

radiocarbon assay on wood charcoal from Feature 2 in Stratum IV yielded a date

of 7320+/-80 BP. A second date of 7390+/-70 BP was obtained from charcoal

found within the general Stratum IV matrix (Table 5).

Stratum V originated in the western portion of the unit and was

approximately 8 cm thick. Stratum V consisted of a dry yellow brown sandy

loam. Very few artifectual remains were observed during excavation.

Stratum VI consisted of a pale yellow loamy sand with a very pale

yellowish lens and was 11 cm thick. This stratum contained small fragments of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sandstone and eroding sandstone, but no features and little cultural material,

such as lithic or plant remains were observed. However, numerous small, non

charred feunal remains were observed. The base of stratum VI was moist, but

not wet.

4.2.2.b Test Unit 2

Test Unit 2 was located along the rear wall, due north of Test Unit 1. A

total of five distinct strata was identified within Test Unit 2. The column samples

used in the present research were taken from the west wall profile (Figure 10).

Stratum I consisted of a thin 2-8 cm thick leaf mat mixed with dark brown

sandy loam and minor quantities of sediment. Deer droppings, sandstone rock

and incidental plant materials were present throughout Stratum I.

Stratum II consisted of a 16-cm-thick, very unconsolidated, very dry

yellowish brown sandy loam containing sandstone rocks and moderate

quantities of botanical material. The lower portion of the stratum contained

numerous ashy lenses.

Stratum III consisted of a homogeneous, very loosely compacted,

yellowish brown sandy loam approximately 5 cm thick. This stratum contained

moderate quantities of charcoal and non-carbonized botanical remains. Feature

5, which contained cordage, matted botanical material and other organic

remains, originated in Stratum III. An ash lens was present at the base of

Stratum III.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Stratum IV consisted of a 16-cm-thick yellowish brown sand containing

abundant eroding sandstone and small animal remains, many of which have

been identified to the rodent family. A large quantity of a silky talc-like mineral,

thought to be niter, was present throughout the stratum. A large pit lined with

plant material resembling moss (Feature 7) originated in Stratum IV.

Stratum V consisted of a 6-cm-thick very dry, unconsolidated yellow

brown loamy sand with minimal quantities of sandstone rock. Compared with

Stratum IV, Stratum V contained more small animal bones and less of the talc

like mineral. No lithic materials were recovered in Stratum V and no botanical

materials were observed during excavation.

4.2.2.C Test Unit 3

Test Unit 3 was located in the northern portion of the shelter and had

considerably less complex stratigraphy as compared to Test Units 1 and 2; ashy

lenses were not observed. No column samples were collected from the test unit;

however, a description of its stratigraphy will aid in subsequent discussions of

intra-site variability.

Stratum I consisted of a 6-cm-thick leaf mat with very little soil matrix.

Sandstone rocks and deer droppings were present throughout the zone. A

comer-notched, expanded base projectile point was recovered from Stratum I.

Stratum II was approximately 12 cm thick with a very dark brown sandy

loam matrix with greater than 60% rock/gravel content. Stratum II originated

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. directly beneath the leaf mat. Charcoal, mussel shell and lithic artifacts were

present throughout Stratum II.

Stratum III consisted of a dark yellowish brown sandy loam with moderate

quantities of sandstone gravel that ranged from 3 to 6 cm in thickness. Charcoal

fragments, lithic artifacts and botanical materials were present throughout the

stratum .

Stratum IV consisted of approximately 20 cm of a moderately compact

yellow brown sandy loam with very high gravel content. Feature 6, a pit feature,

was present at the top of the stratum.

4.2.2.d Cultural Features

Excavations at the Mounded Talus Shelter yielded six features (Features

2-7). Five features (2-6) were excavated completely; Feature 7 was exposed

during profile cleaning and was not excavated.

Feature 2 (Figure 11) was located in Stratum IV of Unit 1 and originated

in Level 4. It appears to have been a shallow hearth containing white ash, black

organic fill, and fire-cracked sandstone. Bark, wood and nutshell were observed

during excavation. A radiocarbon assay on charcoal from the base of Feature 2

yielded a date of 7320+/-80 BP (Table 5). This date places the hearth in the

Middle Archaic period.

Feature 3 (Figure 11) was located in Stratum IV of Unit 1. It first

appeared as an amorphous charcoal and ash stain with a high concentration of

botanical materials and a sandstone rock near the center. A bark cylinder,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. thought to be a container, was located partially beneath the sandstone rock.

Additional materials include concentrations of non-carbonized botanical material,

including a concentration of acorns. Limestone rocks were present in

association with the non-carbonized acorns.

Feature 4 (Figure 12) was located at the top of Stratum II in Unit 2,

directly beneath the leaf overburden. This feature consisted of a black, burned

area with charred leaves and an ash deposit near the center.

Feature 5 (Figure 13) originated in Level 5 of Test Unit 2 in Stratum III.

The feature consisted of a faint dark stain surrounding two sticks bound together

by botanical matting and bark cordage. One stick was completely vertical and

showed signs of having been cut and the top was heavily battered. The second

stick angled inward towards the first and was partially burned but had no cut

marks or other modifications. It is thought that this feature represents an intact

post since the feature was embedded in the compact ash lens, was bound

together with cordage and organic matting, and the top of one stick was heavily

battered.

Feature 6 (Figure 13) was located in Level 4 of Test Unit 3 within Stratum

IV and beneath a crevice along the rockshelter wall. This small, basin-shaped

pit was 10 cm deep and consisted of a single uniform deposit of loosely compact

fill. Bone and lithic artifacts, some of which showed evidence of thermal

alteration, were present in the fill along with sandstone.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Feature 7 was located in Stratum IV of Unit 2. It was exposed while

cleaning the south wall profile. The feature appears to be a pit feature lined with

botanical materials including red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) leaves. The

feature was left intact in the south wall except for a small sample of botanical

materials lining the bottom of the pit, which was collected for analysis.

Two “hominy holes” were situated on a large rock adjacent to Unit 1.

These pecked and ground cylindrical features most likely acted as bedrock

mortars and are usually associated with Late Archaic and Early Woodland

period sites.

4.2.2.e Chronology

Five samples were submitted to Beta Analytic, Inc. for radiometric dating.

Results appear in Table 5. The four samples from prehistoric deposits produced

Middle Archaic and Late Archaic dates, while deer droppings from the surface

are recent.

4.3 MATERIALS RECOVERED FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEPOSITS

A total of 1492.45 g of material was recovered from point and column

samples (Table 6). This material can be broadly categorized as botanical

(48.68g) and non-botanical (1443.77g). Non-botanical materials include

insects, feunal remains, nonhuman animal feces, lithic debitage, and residue

(rocks, sand and plant material smaller than .05mm).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4.3.1 Non-botanical remains

A small quantity of non-botanical remains, namely lithic debitage and

faunal remains, was recovered from point and column samples (Tables 6-7). A

total of 16 lithic debitage remains, from locally available chert, was recovered

from the 21.5 liters sampled. The small quantity of lithic material is consistent

with findings of test excavations at Mounded Talus, where only a small quantity

of lithic debitage (N=124) was recovered and identified from the three test units.

In addition to lithic debitage, a total of seven lithic tools and tool fragments was

recovered from Test Unit 3 excavations at Mounded Talus. These consist of

three biface blanks, one preform with pressure flaking, two drill fragments and a

single projectile point.

A base of a drill made of tan material was recovered in Level 3, Stratum II

of Test Unit 3. A drill tip was recovered in Unit 3 during wall cleaning. The drill

tip is burned and reddish in color. The drill tip and drill base refit to form a single

tool.

A projectile point was recovered from the uppermost stratum of Test Unit

3 and had been burned. The projectile point is comer-notched and has an

expanding stem and a heavily ground base. Its morphological attributes suggest

a Late Archaic to Terminal Archaic temporal placement, which is consistent with

a radiocarbon determination on charcoal recovered from Test Unit 3 (Table 5).

The expanding stem is characteristic of Brewerton Comer Notched points, and is

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. less frequently found in Terminal Archaic barbed forms such as Wade (Justice

1987).

A total of 210 faunal remains was identified from point and column

samples. The vast majority of these represent small mammals and/or rodents.

Several eggshell fragments were identified but could not be distinguished as

either avian or reptilian. Many of the faunal remains in upper deposits and

across the surface deposits were calcined. However, the vast majority of

remains located in the basal deposits of each column sample had no thermal

alteration and were extremely well preserved. The assemblage of faunal

remains is similar to those recovered from previous test unit excavations

(Gremillion and Mickelson 1996). The large number of faunal remains in basal

deposits will be discussed further in Chapter 5.

4.3.2 Organic Artifacts

Organic artifacts, consisting of textiles, plant materials and wooden

artifacts, were recovered during the excavation of the three test units. Two

examples of cordage were recovered from Test Unit 2. One fragment was

extremely small (.9cm by .15cm) and was recovered during the archaeobotanical

analysis of test unit samples. It consists of knotted plant fibers recovered from

the northwest quadrant of Level 1, Stratum I. A second cordage fragment was

recovered from Stratum II, Level 5, Feature 5. This second specimen measures

approximately 2.5 cm by 1.5 cm and consists of a knot of plant fibers. The

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. second cordage fragment was associated with two wooden artifacts and a dense

matted plant material (see Feature 5 in section 3.2.2.d).

In addition to cordage, several wooden artifacts were recovered from test

unit excavations. A charred wooden artifact that is almond-shaped in cross-

section and measuring 1.9 cm long by .7 cm wide was recovered from Test Unit

1, Level 6 within Stratum IV. One end is tapered to a point and the opposite

end is broken off. There are three small grooves across the artifact that appear

to be cut marks. A second wooden artifact was recovered from Unit 2, Stratum II,

and appears to have cut marks. The non-carbonized artifact is triangular in

cross-section and appears to be notched or carved at one end.

Feature 3, described previously, was associated with a possible bark

container or lining. The bark is cylindrical or cup-like in shape with an extension

on one side. The cylinder is 67 cm wide and 123 cm at its maximum height. The

cylinder tapers at the bottom and is filled with an ashy sediment. Plant stems,

loosely interwoven and aligned, surround the outside of the cylinder. A

concentration of plant stems similar to those associated with the possible bark

container, was recovered from adjacent to the bark container in Test Unit 1,

Stratum IV. These plant stems were uniform in size (approximately 14 cm long)

and densely clustered together.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4.3.3 Macrobotanical Remains from Point and Column Samples

Macrobotanical remains were collected from .5 liter surface point and test

unit column samples. In order to evaluate the horizontal and vertical variability

of the sediment geochemistry and macrobotanical remains, two types of samples

had to be collected: 1) samples that represent only the surface deposit and, 2)

samples that are representative of the subsurface stratigraphy. Samples

representative of the surface deposits, referred to as point samples herein, were

collected using a bucket auger. The area where surface point samples could be

collected was limited because of 1) dense rockfall and talus that covered the

shelter floor and, 2) disturbed areas (i.e., shovel tests, excavation units, area

where sediment from previous excavations had been screened, and a modem

hearth). A total of six point samples was collected to a depth of 15 cm below

the surface. After a minimum of one liter of unscreened sediment was collected

at each surface point, moisture readings were taken at each point sample using

a Kelway Moisture Meter. Samples that are representative of subsurface

deposits required the collection of column samples across the site. Due to the

author’s inability to acquire an ARPA permit, column samples that were collected

in 1995, originally designated as bulk soil samples, had to be used. During the

1995 excavations a minimum of one liter of sediment was collected in a column

from each stratigraphic zone for both Test Unit 1 and 2 as observed in the field.

These samples are used to evaluate the vertical variability of macrobotanical

and sediment geochemical attributes at Mounded Talus. Each .5 liter sample

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. was weighed and screened through a series of nine nested geological sieves

ranging from 4 mm to .5 mm. Material collected in each sieve size was weighed

and measured and analyzed separately from all other screen sizes. Material,

both carbonized and non-carbonized, from each screen size was examined with

the aid of a binocular microscope under low magnification (10X to 40X) and

sorted into general categories (non-carbonized wood, carbonized wood, non-

carbonized nutshell, carbonized nutshell, non-carbonized seeds, carbonized

seeds, and carbonized and non-carbonized unknown). With the exception of

carbonized and non-carbonized wood, these groups were examined and placed

into taxonomic categories whenever possible for each screen size down to the .5

mm screen. Material passing through the .5 mm screen consists predominantly

of sand particles and carbon dust and was not systematically examined. This

residue was weighed and recorded.

The Mounded Talus macrobotanical assemblage consists of carbonized

and non-carbonized plant remains and is dominated by wood, nutshell and a

diverse array of seeds (Tables 6-8). A small quantity of CucurbHa (gourd) rind

fragments was identified. The remainder of the macrobotanical assemblage

consists of giant cane stem, unidentified tuber fragments, unidentified

herbaceous stems and unknown plant materials. A detailed analysis of

macrobotanical remains is discussed in Chapter 5, 9 and 10.

Four taxa of nutshell were identified in the Mounded Talus point and

column samples: hickory (Carya sp.), acorn (Quercus sp.), chestnut (Castanea

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. dentata), and walnut (Juglans nigra) (Table 9). Chestnut is the most abundant

by number of fragments, representing 44% of all nutshell remains. Acorns

comprise 32% and hickory comprises 22% of all nutshell identified. Walnut is

represented only by a few fragments and constitutes 2% of nutshell remains.

Non-carbonized nutshell remains (58%) are more numerous than

carbonized remains (42%); however, the percentage of carbonized remains

varies between taxa. Hickory (64%) and walnut (75%) have larger percentages

of carbonized remains than non-carbonized remains, 36% and 25% respectively.

Acorn is represented by more non-carbonized remains (80%) than carbonized

(20%). Percentages of carbonized and non-carbonized chestnut remains are

nearly equitable, 46% and 54% respectively.

Seeds were especially abundant in the Mounded Talus point and column

samples (Tables 6-8) representing 17% of all plant remains recovered by count

and ranking second behind wood. Within the seed category, 427 seeds were

identified to the Family, genus and/or species level and are represented by 32

separate taxa (Table 8). Tree and shrub species clearly dominate the

assemblage representing 82% of all identified seeds. Herbaceous plants, while

well represented, constitute only 17% of the assemblage. Cucurbita,

represented by two seeds from point and column samples, constitutes .5% of the

identified seed assemblage.

A large percentage (71%) of seeds identified to the Family, genus and/or

species level were carbonized while 29% were non-carbonized. The majority of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. seeds from surface samples were non-carbonized (84%). Seeds from column

samples are highly variable in their degree of carbonization but as depth

increases, identified seeds tend to be carbonized. Furthermore, seed counts

decline with increasing depth.

4.4 SUMMARY

The evolution of rockshelters is a complex and dynamic process.

Rockshelters generally develop through geologic processes of erosion and

hydraulic weathering. In the Cumberland Plateau, rockshelters occur as shale,

interbedded with sandstone of the Lee Formation, erodes to create a sandstone

overhang. Rockshelters vary greatly in their size and in the types of sediments

present depending on the parent bedrock, thermal exposure, altitude and

degree of human and animal occupation.

Rockshelters act as sediment traps, yet the sources of rockshelter

sediments are numerous. Sediments can occur endogenously or exogenously

and from geologic, biogenic or anthropogenic sources. Geogenic sources of

sediments along the Cumberland Plateau are primarily attrition and rockfall.

Attrition results in the deposition of sand particles and occurs throughout the life

of a rockshelter. Roof fall can occur at any time, but is generally greatest in the

earliest stages of rockshelter development. Thus, basal deposits within shelters

should be made up primarily of rockfall and overlain by sand. When humans,

plants and animals occupy or frequent rockshelters, they too contribute to the

sedimentation process. Often, these different sediments become intermixed with

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. one another. Thus, a determination of the types and sources of sediments is

paramount to understanding past human activities occurring within rockshelters.

Like other rockshelters in the region, the stratigraphy at Mounded Talus is

extremely complex and includes thick ash deposits interspersed with numerous

ash and charcoal lenses of variable thicknesses. Because of the complexity of

the deposits and distance between test units, stratigraphic zones cannot be

traced, with confidence, across the shelter. However, the stratigraphy of each

of the test units indicates that the basal deposits of all three test units are sandy

and slightly damp. The abundance of sand suggests that the sediment from the

bottom levels were likely the result of attrition. However, Test Units 1 and 2 had

more silt than Test Unit 3, suggesting that cultural deposits are deeper in the

middle and southern portions of the shelter. When one moves up the

stratigraphic profile, human occupation is indicated by the presence of ash, lithic

debitage, and charred plants. These deposits contain considerable ash and silt.

The uppermost deposits are a sandy loam with considerable leaf matting. The

abundance of sand suggests that attrition has continued since the shelter was

occupied.

Numerous artifacts were recovered from each of the excavation units.

However, macrobotanical remains are by far the most abundant type of remains

recovered. Both carbonized and non-carbonized macrobotanical remains were

present throughout the deposits and were clearly concentrated in the upper and

middle strata of Test Units 1 and 2. Plant remains recovered from Mounded

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Talus represent a wide variety of nuts and seeds. Tubers, Cucurbita rind and

seeds and miscellaneous herbaceous stems were also present. Wood, both

carbonized and non-carbonized, was abundant.

These data w ill be used to determine 1) if macrobotanical remains were

deposited through anthropogenic, geogenic or biogenic processes, 2) if there

are patterns in the density and distribution of macrobotanical remains that are

indicative of post-depositional disturbances and, 3) if there is differential

preservation of plant remains due to their size, weight and alteration.

Are these macrobotanical remains truly representative of human actions?

Or, are there geological and biological explanations for their presence? Are

there changes in the density and distribution of macrobotanical remains through

the deposits? If so, what accounts for these differences? These questions are

the focus of Chapter 6.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 5

FORMATION PROCESSES AND THE MACROBOTANICAL ASSEMBLAGE AT MOUNDED TALUS ROCKSHELTER

A deposit is “an aggregate of sedimentary particles” in which the particles

have been transported from one location to another by some mechanism (Stein

1985:339). Artifacts comprise only one segment of an archaeological deposit;

there are also sedimentary, botanical, faunal, and chemical components. There

are numerous cultural and environmental processes that may result in the

deposition, modification, and/or destruction of archaeological deposits. Thus,

archaeological deposits are not snapshots in time o f past human activities.

Rather, they represent a complex amalgamation of geogenic, biogenic and

anthropogenic events. Archaeologists must systematically peel away the

intertwined layers of these events and evaluate how their interactions may have

transformed the physical and chemical properties of the original deposit.

Schiffer (1987:3-4) recognizes the potential for this type of transformation

and distinguishes between systemic and archaeological contexts, while

acknowledging there is fluidity between them. Systemic context ”refers to

artifacts when they are participating in a behavioral system.” Waters

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (1992:103) further reflects on the importance of distinguishing between the

systemic and archaeological contexts (Figure 14):

“The systemic context of an archaeological site is intact for a brief instant after abandonment. Almost immediately, surficial geomorphic and biological processes begin to distort the original spatial relationships among the archaeological residues that reflected human behavior. This spatial reorganization may be partial or complete, depending on the 1) the length of exposure of the archaeological remains at the surface prior to burial, 2) the type and intensity of geomorphic and biological processes affecting the site surface, and 3) the processes responsible for the burial of the site.”

Archaeological context refers to those “materials which have passed through the

cultural system which are now the objects of investigation of archaeologists

(Schiffer 1972:157).”

The systemic role of artifacts and the ancient behaviors associated with

them can only be inferred through patterns of artifact variability in an

archaeological deposit. In the present research, the systemic context of

botanical remains can only be inferred from the macrobotanical remains

recovered and identified. However, before making inferential statements

regarding their economic importance, plants directly associated with human

activities must be distinguished from those present through geological and

biological processes. It is argued here that discerning anthropogenically

deposited remains requires that the mode(s) of deposition and the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. mechanism(s) of preservation of plant remains in a given environment be

determined through a systematic analysis of macrobotanical attributes and the

geochemical characteristics o f the sediments. This chapter will first provide a

general background discussion of site formation processes. Second,

hypotheses on the mode(s) of macrobotanical deposition and mechanism(s) of

preservation w ill be provided. Finally, macrobotanical and sediment

geochemical variables used in the present research to evaluate formation

processes at Mounded Talus will be discussed. The results of formal, spatial

and relational analyses of macroremains are the subject of the next chapter.

5.1 FORMATION PROCESSES OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND MACROBOTANICAL RECORD

Formation processes are those processes which act to create and alter

deposits. Formation processes are generally divided into cultural and non-

cultural or environmental processes. There are numerous cultural and non-

cultural (or environmental processes) that contribute to and transform the

composition of an archaeological deposit. It is not until the effects of these

processes are systematically investigated and methods are found for assessing

their influence that inferences of past human behaviors can be readily evaluated

and accepted (Schiffer 1981:19).

5.1.1 Cultural Formation Processes

Cultural processes are those processes “of human behavior that affect or

transform artifacts after their initial period of use in a given activity (Schiffer

1987:7).” Cultural formation processes fell within two categories: 1) those

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. processes that result in the deposition of archaeological deposits, and 2) those

processes that act to modify, obscure or preserve the original behavioral

signatures (Stein 2001:39). Schiffer (1987) defines four major types of cultural

formation processes: reuse, cultural deposition, reclamation and disturbance

processes.

5.1.1.a Reuse

Reuse is a process that occurs after initial artifact use. The process of

reuse results in maintaining items in the systemic context when they would have

otherwise been discarded. Re-use processes are further divided into 1)

recycling, the rejuvenation and reworking of items so they are used for different

activities; 2) secondary use, in which items are used for purposes other than

which they were originally manufactured without the need for extensive

reworking; and 3) lateral cycling, whereby only the user of an item is changed.

However, the detection of lateral cycling in prehistoric archaeological deposits is

admittedly difficult (Schiffer 1987).

5.1.1 .b Cultural Deposition

Cultural deposition is the process by which artifacts move from a systemic

context to an archaeological context when they are discarded. Artifacts may be

discarded for a variety of reasons. For instance, broken or worn out items may

be deposited in a refuse pit. Items are also discarded unintentionally or

accidently. Accidental loss may account for a large portion of a site’s

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. archaeobotanical assemblage; for example, items being parched over a fire

might fall into it instead and become charred.

Ritual deposition and caching are two additional types of cultural

deposition. Caching is often easily recognized during archaeological

excavations. Pit features filled with seeds, such as those excavated at Cold

Oak shelter (Gremillion1995a), are obvious examples of caching as a type of

cultural deposition.

5.1.1.c Reclamation

The third major type of cultural formation process is reclamation, in which

items or sites already in an archaeological context are returned to the systemic

context. Site reoccupation and scavenging are the most obvious types of

reclamation processes.

5.1.1 .d Disturbance Processes

Disturbance processes are the fourth type of major cultural formation

process described by Schiffer (1987), and include those behaviors that modify

deposits. Numerous behavioral processes are subsumed within disturbance

processes: trampling, plowing, construction and pit/trench digging. Of these four

types of disturbance processes, trampling has a major impact on deposits within

rockshelters. Trampling affects surface sediments and archaeological remains.

The overall effect of trampling depends on 1) the composition of surface

sediments, 2) the composition (number, types and size) of material on the

surface, and 3) the intensity of movement by humans (or animals) across the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. surface (David and Kramer 2001; Giffbrd-Gonzalez et al. 1985; Nielson 1991;

Schiffer 1987; Stockton 1973; Villa 1983; Villa and Courtin 1983). Rockshelters,

unlike open air sites, have defined spatial limits in which movement and walking

are possible. Studies of trampling in environments with loose unconsolidated

sediments have yielded several important observations. First, trampling results

in vertical movement of surficial items. Specifically, Villa and Courtin (1983) and

Stockton (1973) and Applegate (1997) have documented material displacement

from 8-to-10 cm below the surface as the result of trampling. Below this point,

little vertical movement was noted. On the other hand, Giffbrd-Gonzalez (1987),

Nielson (1991) and Schiffer (1987) note that heavy items are more readily

displaced in surface deposits, especially if they are also large. However, small

items tend to be pushed into the substrate when trampled. Vertical displacement

of small lithic debitage was found to occur at the Rock Bridge but not at Cold

Oak shelter (Applegate 1997). In addition, size sorting of materials may occur;

lighter items tend to sort out more than heavier items (Villa and Courtin 1983).

Second, trampling can significantly affect the horizontal distribution of surficial

materials; although horizontal displacement of lithic debitage did not occur at

either Rock Bridge or Cold Oak shelters (Applegate 1997). Horizontal

movement due to trampling tends to be more significant with heavier items

(Nielson 1991). Finally, trampling may result in breakage and fragmentation of

surficial materials. However, in loose unconsolidated sandy sediments

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. breakage is not as significant as it is in compacted sediments and soils (Giffbrd-

Gonzalez et al. 1985; Villa and Courtin 1983).

5.1.2 Environmental Formation Processes

Environmental formation processes are “any and all events or processes

of the natural environment that affect archaeological deposits (Schiffer 1987:7)”

and are generally the result of geological, chemical or biological events and/or

agents. Environmental processes can modify, conceal or preserve original

behavioral signatures (Stein 2001:39). Cultural and environmental formation

processes can occur simultaneously. For instance, geologic sedimentation

processes often occur when a site is being occupied. Thus, environmental

processes should be viewed as occurring in the systemic and archaeological

contexts. Since geologic processes associated with rockshelter formation and

deposition were discussed in the previous chapter, the remainder of this section

will focus on post-depositional formation processes.

Post depositional environmental processes generally focus on agents of

disturbance and modification of deposits. Wood and Johnson (1978) describe in

detail a number of disturbance agents/events that alter the archaeological

context of deposits (Table 10). Of these, faunal, floral and graviturbation are

the most likely agents of post-depositional disturbances in rockshelters.

Faunalturbation, the mixing of sediment by animals, is potentially a source of

great disturbance at Mounded Talus (See Chapter 1). Animals inhabit a shelter

and burrow into the sediments, mixing the deposit. This action may lead to both

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vertical and horizontal displacement of sediments and artifacts and may alter

sediment geochemistry. Faunal disturbances can be readily identified through 1)

examination of stratigraphic profiles and during excavation. Casts develop as

animal burrows are infilled, 2) residues associated with burrowing creatures

such as bones and fecal materials may be left within a deposit, and 3) sediment

geochemical signatures and their concentration through stratigraphic profiles

may be used to identify faunal disturbances. Just as sediment particles become

mixed, chemical properties of sediments become mixed as a result of animal

burrowing activities. A highly variable chemical profile is indicative of a

disturbed stratigraphic profile (Stein1985).

Plant growth, or floralturbation, is a second potential source of

disturbance in rockshelters. Based on observations made during an extensive

cliffline/rockshelter survey in the study area (Gremillion and Mickelson 1997)

vegetation growth is highly variable depending on facing aspect, moisture

content, shelter size and elevation. In general, plant growth within shelters is

limited and consists of herbaceous and vine plants, such as wild geranium,

white-haired Solidago, grape and poison ivy. Moss was frequently observed in

shelters where there was a high moisture content. Floralturbation is most readily

identified by 1) examining stratigraphic profiles for root casts; 2) identification of

plant residues including seeds, leaves or root fibers; and 3) chemical analysis of

sediments, including organic matter content.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Gravitational creep and rock fall are potential sources of post-depositional

modifications of rockshelter deposits. Creep is usually associated with non-level

surfaces and the displacement of surficial remains which may occur rapidly or

gradually depending on surface pitch. Gravitational creep is identified on the

basis of 1) size sorting of materials, and 2) examination of profiles to observe

strata slopes. Rock fall, as described in Chapter 4, may also alter

archaeological context in rockshelters.

5.2 EXPECTATIONS OF MACROBOTANICAL FORMAL, SPATIAL, AND RELATIONAL DIMENSIONS AND HYPOTHESIS STATEMENTS

Two hypotheses pertaining to macrobotanical formation processes guide

this research. The first of these hypotheses posits the mode of deposition:

Macrobotanical remains were deposited anthropogenicaUy. All samples

analyzed come from non-feature context; thus, the source and mode of

deposition can not be assumed to be from human activity. Testing this

hypothesis requires differentiation between geogenic, biogenic and

anthropogenic depositions processes. If past human activities in Mounded

Talus rockshelter are the primary means by which plant remains were deposited

at Mounded Talus shelter, it is expected that:

1) the density and distribution of carbonized plant remains will be good indicators of activity areas identified by independent criteria.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This expectation is based on the premise that carbonized remains from

archaeological sites may be confidently associated with human activities (Minnis

1981) and that anthropogenically deposited plant remains would cluster in areas

of primary human use and decline away from activity areas.

2) Plants deposited biogenically or geogenically will not be carbonized and w ill be distributed across the shelter floor; ‘seed rain’ will not be recovered exclusively in areas where carbonized remains were located.

This second hypothesis is based on the assumption that seed rain has a roughly

equal chance of being deposited across the surface of the shelter and would not

be carbonized unless it was the result of a naturally occurring fire or came into

contact with a prepared fire. Following the same logic, non-carbonized plant

remains only or predominantly recovered in association with carbonized remains

are probably not the result of seed rain.

A second hypothesis addresses the mechanism of preservation: The

presence o f nitrates in the sediment is die primary environmental mechanism of

archaeobotanical preservation. Nitrate, a desiccant and primary ingredient in

black gun powder, is known to occur in sediments of some of the shelters in the

region and many rockshelters were extensively mined for nitrates during the Civil

War. Knowledge of the mode of macrobotanical deposition and sediment

geochemistry are needed to evaluate this second hypothesis. If nitrates are the

primary mechanism of archaeobotanical preservation, the following is expected:

The quantity and/or density of plant remains should be correlated with nitrate concentrations at a statistically significant level.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In other words, plant densities should be greatest in areas where nitrate

concentrations are highest and lowest in areas of lowest nitrate concentrations.

This premise should hold in both the horizontal and vertical dimensions.

5.3 MACROBOTANICAL AND SEDIMENT VARIABLES

Together, cultural and environmental processes act to create biases in

archaeological deposits; variability in macrobotanical assemblages results from

a variety of post-depositional processes. At issue are the cultural and

environmental processes that result in the distribution and condition of artifacts

observed in Mounded Talus rockshelter. Schiffer (1987) advocates the use of

formal, spatial and relational dimensions of variability of artifact attributes and

characteristics of the deposit to identify formation processes.

5.3.1 Macrobotanical Variables

In this study, formal dimensions of the macrobotanical assemblage

include size, weight, and alteration. Criteria used to determine size will be

discussed first, followed by weight and alteration.

5.3.1.a Macrobotanical Size

The size of macrobotanical remains is important to consider for numerous

reasons. Large items may be prone to breakage or lateral displacement while

small remains may be buried when trampled (Dunnell and Stein 1989; Giffbrd-

Gonzalez et al. 1985; Nielson 1991; Schiffer 1987). Large items are also more

readily identified (thus counted as present) despite fragmentation. In other

words, large items - even if fragmented- w ill have a greater chance of being

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. identified than items that are small. Furthermore, Tate (1987) suggests that

fragmented organic remains decay at a tester rate than large remains present in

their entirety since more surface area is exposed and since plant waxes and

lignin are broken apart, creating an ideal environment for microbes. The sizes of

botanical remains tell within a continuum and could conceivably be measured in

a variety of ways. In this study size parameters that are useful for evaluating the

variability of the entire assemblage as a whole, such as classes of plants (i.e.,

nutshell remains and seeds) as well as individual taxa need to be defined.

Paleoethnobotanical analyses generally employ the use of nested

geologic sieves to separate large items (which are more readily identifiable) from

smaller items (such as seeds). Thus, size classes are defined through the use

of nine nested geologic sieves with mesh size of 4 mm, 2.8 mm, 2.36 mm, 2 mm,

1.7 mm, 1.4 mm, 1 mm, .725 mm and .5 mm (Figure 15). However, not all

plant remains are spherical; sieve diameter actually measures the minimum

width of one dimension of an individual plant remain. For instance, an item that

passes through a 2 mm sieve and is captured in a 1.7 mm sieve represents an

item that has at least one dimension that is less than 2 mm enabling the item to

pass through the sieve. However, all dimensions are greater than 1.7 mm and

\ thus do not pass through the corresponding screen. In this example, the size of

the item would be defined as <2 mm - >1.7mm. The Mounded Talus

macrobotanical assemblage is further grouped by size: large (>4, >2.36 mm),

medium (<2.36, >1.4 mm) and small (<1.4 , >.5mm).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5.3.1 .b Macrobotanical Weight

The weight of botanical remains can affect their potential for horizontal

and vertical displacement (Giffbrd-Gonzalez et al. 1985; Nielson 1991).

Variability in taxon weight can influence its potential to fragment, thus affecting

its preservation potential and/or identification. Macrobotanical weight is also

influenced by environmental conditions. Diagenic processes can lead to

substantial gain or loss of plant mass. For instance, evaporates, such as salt

compounds, can lead to dessication and thus weight loss. Chemicals in an

aqueous solution can be absorbed by plant remains, thereby increasing their

weight. Plant weight may also vary depending on the item’s exposure to surface

conditions; exposure to sunlight w ill dry plant remains and may make them more

fragile and susceptible to fragmentation. Plant remains exposed on the surface

would be more susceptible to the absorption of water, especially in humid

climates. The weight of macrobotanical remains from Mounded Talus was

determined by weighing fragments representing each taxon by size class (i.e.,

4mm, 2.8mm, 2.36mm, etc.) using an electronic balance.

5.3.1 .c Macrobotanical Alteration

Botanical alteration, in this study, refers to the presence or absence of

thermal alteration. Thermal alterations of plant remains are due to contact with

fire. Carbonization, which reduces organic matter to inorganic compounds and

elemental carbon (Frink 1992:67), is thought to aid in the preservation of

remains (Minnis 1981; Pearsall 2000; Rossen and Olson 1985). However, it

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. has been demonstrated that sediment environmental conditions (i.e., pH, and

texture) make carbonized organic materials susceptible to decay (Frink 1992).

Charred or partially charred remains may be more friable and easily fragmented

due to changes in the chemical composition and mass of the plant material.

Items with no evidence of thermal alterations are more susceptible to water

absorption, attack from microbial organisms and chemical alteration. Although

there is a continuum of thermal damage of macrobotanical remains in the

Mounded Talus macrobotanical assemblage (i.e., noncarbonized <-►

carbonized), all plant remains are categorized as either carbonized (any

evidence of charring) or non-carbonized (no evidence of thermal alteration).

Alteration was dichotomized to ensure all remains were treated equally, as

partially charred whole seeds are much more difficult to assess than partially

charred wood fragments. Furthermore, due to the sedimentary conditions of

Mounded Talus and other shelters in the region, many botanical remains are

discolored from chemical alterations that gives the appearance of charring.

Thus, once all macrobotanical analysis was completed, a sample of all

carbonized remains was reexamined, broken if necessary, and reassessed for

evidence of heat damage under magnification5. Items were only categorized as

An experiment designed to test for carbonization was attempted but the results were inconclusive. Since carbon is a good conductor, a variety of voltages (i.e.,battery sizes) were passed through carbonized comparative and archaeological specimens of hickory, walnut, hazelnut chestnut, acorn and chenopod and poppy seeds. A multimeter was used to measure the current. However, only carbonized hickory, walnut and hazelnut completed a circuit which is most likely due to the density of the nutshell. Thus, it was decided that carbonization would be determined through visual inspection only.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. carbonized if it was certain they exhibited thermal alteration as determined

through visual inspection only.

5.3.1 .d Spatial Dimensions of the Macrobotanical Assemblage

Spatial dimensions of the macrobotanical assemblage refer to the

horizontal and vertical distribution and density of plant remains. The spatial

distribution of macrobotanical remains is extremely important to understanding

the processes that have affected or altered the formal and relational properties

of the deposits at Mounded Talus. Furthermore, the spatial distribution is

paramount to distinguishing those patterns that are the result of human

behaviors originating in the systemic context from those of the archaeological

context. Horizontal variability is assessed from point samples taken from the

upper 5 cm of sediment. Vertical variability was assessed using samples taken

from discrete strata from two test unit column samples.

5.3.2 Geochemical Variables

Geochemical attributes of the archaeological deposit can provide

important clues to the history of formation processes affecting macrobotanical

remains at Mounded Talus. The analysis of geochemical attributes of

sediments can define the boundaries of archaeological deposits, differentiate

between archaeological deposits, detect archaeological deposits that have left

no trace other than chemical signatures, aid in the understanding of artifact and

macrobotanical preservation, detect surface and subsurface disturbances, and

determine if sediments have been introduced post-depositionally or have been

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. subjected to lateral movement (Canti 1995; Courty et al. 1989; Farrand 1985;

Herzand Garrison 1998; Matthews 1995; Stein 1987:369; Weiner etal. 1993).

Nine geochemical variables were analyzed and include: hydrogen ion

concentration (pH), organic matter content, total phosphate, potassium, calcium,

total nitrate and sodium content, particle size and moisture content (Table 11).

5.3.2.a Hydrogen Ion Concentration (pH)

The hydrogen ion concentration can affect the preservation of organic

materials; non-carbonized organic remains tend to decay while carbonized

remains preserve in acidic sediments. pH levels also affect other attributes,

such as calcium, potassium, and nitrates (Table 11). Sediment pH also

influences microorganism growth. Fungi can tolerate variable pH level but thrive

in acidic sediments while bacteria can only tolerate a narrow range of conditions

at the alkaline end of the continuum (Schiffer 1987). Human and animal urine

and feces, wood ash, and animal remains are the primary contributors to

sediment pH.

5.3.2.b Organic Matter Content (OM)

The organic matter content measures the organic substance(s) that

remain after decomposition and can be useful in determining original organic

substances, delineating refuse and habitation areas, and identifying the mode of

sediment deposition (Courty et al. 1989; Stein 1992,1984). Organic matter is

often associated with increased levels of calcium, nitrates and phosphates.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Plant, and animal remains (both carbonized and non-carbonized) are the primary

contributors to organic matter content.

5.3.2.C Phosphate (P)

Phosphate levels are good indicators of the presence or absence of

animals, have proved useful in isolating areas of human activity and can

influence the preservation of archaeological and macrobotanical remains

(Bjelajac et al. 1996; Herz and Garrison 1998; Schuldenrein 2001; Stein 1987).

Elevated phosphate levels are often associated with high organic matter content

and nitrate levels. Phosphate is water soluble; however, it is stable and

impervious to leaching in alkaline sediments, where it bonds with calcium (Ahler

1973; Woods 1982). Plant and animal tissue, wood ash, human and animal

urine, and faunal remains are the primary contributors of phosphates in

sedim ents.

5.3.2.d Nitrate (Nit) and Sodium (Na)

Nitrates (N03) and sodium (Na) are highly soluble elements that are

rarely detected in archaeological sediments. However, they are known to occur

in rockshelters along the Cumberland Plateau, and are hypothesized to be the

major determinant in the preservation of organic remains, since nitrate is a

desiccant and inhibits microbial activity (Fig and Knudsen 1984; Gremillion and

Mickelson 1996). Nitrates interact with other sediment chemicals (Table 11).

Elevated nitrate levels in rockshelters and caves are often associated with high

levels of potassium or calcium and form either calcium nitrate (CaNo3) or

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. potassium nitrate (KN03), the latter of which is fixed saltpetre. The source of

nitrates has been the subject of debate but is thought to generate from either

bat guano or surface organic matter (Hill and Forti 1997). Bat guano has not

been detected in Mounded Talus or other rockshelters of the region; thus,

surface organic matter is the probable source of nitrates. Leaf litter on ground

surfaces, especially in oak-hickory forest that are present on ridges above

rockshelters in the region, produce large quantities of nitrates in soils which are

then leached via groundwater and deposited, with the assistance of the nitrogen

bacterium Nitrobacter, in either a crystalline or deliquescent state in the shelter

bedrock or sediments (Hill 1981; Hill and Forti 1997). Nitrates can dissolve in

water absorbed from the air and reprecipitate when humidity levels decrease but

in some cases can crystallize in relatively humid conditions (over 90%) (Hill and

Forti 1997:157). Nitrates can also form from decaying organic matter within

rockshelters.

5.3.2.e Calcium (Ca)

Calcium concentrations are good indicators of occupational intensity and

are useful in evaluating how well organic remains, both botanical and faunal are

preserved in anthropogenic deposits (Schuldenrein 2001). Calcium is highly

soluble with moisture; however, as noted above, it becomes very stable in

alkaline environments as it bonds with phosphate. Potential sources of calcium

in sediments include plant remains, wood ash, human and animal feces and

urine, bone, shell, and soft tissues of animals. Geologic parent material, such as

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. limestone, is also a potential source of calcium in sediments. However,

limestone is not present above Mounded Talus rockshelter, within the

rockshelter zone or directly beneath the cliffline, and is not a potential source for

calcium in shelters throughout the region.

5.3.2.f Potassium (K)

Potassium does not in itself aid in the preservation of macrobotanical

remains (unless bonded with N03) (Table 11). However, potassium is a

particularly valuable means to assess the degree and intensity of human activity

at archaeological sites (Schuldenrein 2001). Potassium is soluble in water and

is often associated with organic matter content. Sources for potassium include

wood ash, human and non-human urine, dry plant remains and animal tissues

(Woods 1982).

5.3.2.g Particle Size Analysis

Particle size analysis is used to discern the agents responsible for

rockshelter sediment accumulation and is useful in reconstructing past activities

within shelters, post-depositional alterations and disaggregation of sediments

through anthropogenic, geogenic and biogenic processes (Courty et al. 1989).

Grain size analyses are used to determine the source of sediments, reconstruct

sediment transport agents, and identify post-depositional alterations and mixing

of sediments (Courty et al. 1989; Shipman 1981; Stein 1987,1985).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5.3.2.I) Moisture

Moisture content affects the chemical and biological composition of

sediments (Schiffer 1987; Woods and Johnson 1978) which is based on the

premise that decomposers (i.e., bacteria and fungi) are most prolific in moist

environments and that moisture levels affect the leaching potential of chemical

attributes of sediments (Brady and W eil 1999; Herz and Garrison 1989). The

moisture content of sediments in many shelters along the Cumberland plateau is

quite low based on informal observations. Moisture levels of surface point

samples at Mounded Talus were taken using a Kelway moisture meter. Each

moisture measurement was taken for a 10 minute period at each point sample.

All other geochemical analyses were conducted by the Soil Science Laboratory

at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

5.4 SUMMARY

This discussion has briefly demonstrated why consideration of processes

that introduce variability to archaeological assemblages are important to

consider prior to making inferences about past human activities. Cultural and

environmental agents and events lead to distortions of deposits. By

systematically examining formal, spatial and relational attributes of

macrobotanical assemblage and sediment geochemistry, it is hypothesized that

the mode of macrobotanical deposition and the mechanism of preservation w ill

be determined.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. At Mounded Talus three formal attributes of the macrobotanical

assemblage, size, weight and alteration, were assessed spatially. A total of nine

sediment geochemical attributes were measured at Mounded Talus. In the

following chapters, the results and relationships between these formal and

spatial attributes are assessed.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER6

RESULTS OF MACROBOTANICAL ANALYSIS AT MOUNDED TALUS ROCKSHELTER

This chapter represents the first in a series that discusses the results of

analyses of the macrobotanical assemblage and geochemical analysis of

sediments from the Mounded Talus rockshelter. The analysis of macrobotanical

remains and geochemistry of the sediment were conducted to test three primary

and four secondary hypotheses.

1) that macrobotanical remains were deposited anthropogenically.

Testing this hypothesis requires the evaluation of three working assumptions

pertaining to the deposition, modification and preservation of macrobotanical

remains:

a) that anthropogenically deposited macrobotanical remains w ill be differentiated from those deposited through biogenic and geogenic processes,

b) that anthropogenically modified archaeobotanical remains w ill be differentiated from those modified by biogenic and geogenic processes,

c) that processes resulting in differential preservation of plant remains can be identified and corrected for, if necessary.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2) that the density and distribution o f macrobotanical remains are good indicators o f activity areas, and

3) that nitrates are the primary environmental determinant of plant preservation.

The current chapter summarizes the results of the analysis of formal and

spatial attributes of the macrobotanical assemblage from surface point and

subsurface column samples at Mounded Talus rockshelter. The results of

sediment geochemical analyses are presented in Chapter 7. The results of

analyses of macrobotanical and geochemical attributes are integrated and the

processes affecting the deposits at Mounded Talus are delineated in Chapter 8.

Hypotheses discussed in Chapters 1 and 5 are evaluated in light of the

macrobotanical and sediment geochemistry analyses in Chapter 8. Formation

processes of the archaeobotanical record are evaluated in Chapter 9. Finally,

Middle Archaic plant exploitation based on the archaeobotanical assemblage

from Mounded Talus rockshelter is discussed in Chapter 10.

6.1. FORMAL AND SPATIAL DIMENSIONS OF MACROBOTANICAL REMAINS

Macrobotanical remains from Mounded Talus are separated into mutually

exclusive categories based on formal and spatial variables. As discussed in

Chapter 5, formal attributes, including size, weight, and alteration, were

evaluated for each macrobotanical remain. The spatial dimension of each plant

specimen and grouped categories of plant remains (i.e., wood, nutshell and

seeds) was based on the stratigraphic zone in which plant remains were

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. recovered. Point samples represent surface samples and column samples from

Test Units 1 and 2 represent subsurface samples.

The sizes of macrobotanical remains were categorized in two ways.

First, the relative size of each individual plant specimen was based on sieve

mesh size; nine sieves were used and include: 4mm, 2.8mm, 2.36mm, 2mm,

1.7mm, 1.4mm, 1mm, .725mm and .5mm. Second, size categories were

collapsed into large (>4mm, >2.36mm), medium (<2.36mm, > 1.4mm) and small

(<1.4mm, >.5mm) size groups. As a whole, the Mounded Talus macrobotanical

assemblage was dominated by large plant remains (50%), followed by medium

size remains (40%) and distantly followed by small remains (10%). However,

the distribution of these size classes varies spatially and among plant

categories.

6.2 SIZE AND ALTERATION OF PLANT REMAINS FROM SURFACE SAMPLES

Surface point samples are dominated by large-sized (42%)

macrobotanical remains. Medium-sized remains (40%) rank second followed by

small-sized remains (18%). Within the large size category, wood (79%) is the

most abundant proportionally, followed by nutshell/nutmeat (12%) and seeds

(9%). Wood (58%) also dominates in the medium size category; however, both

seeds (20%) and nutshell/nutmeat (22%) increase in their abundance. The

small size category consists of seeds (99%) and nutshell/nutmeat (1%). No

wood remains were identified in the small size category.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figures 16-24 are schematics of Mounded Talus rockshelter illustrating

the density, distribution and weight of macrobotanical remains from surface point

samples by size and alteration. In viewing these schematics, it is important to

remember that absolute counts of plant remains as well as their proportions and

density are from a single point sample from each six meter block; they do not

represent counts, proportions or densities for the entire surface area of the block

(Figure 16). To reiterate a point made in Chapter 4, the selection of where to

take a point sample was based on four factors: 1) to avoid collecting samples

from backfilled excavation units and shovel tests, 2) avoid the area where

sediment from previous excavations was screened, 3) avoid the area around a

modem hearth, and 4) dense rock covered much of the site, and samples had to

be taken between them (Figure 16A). It is estimated that of the 112 m2 of

rockshelter area north of the talus mound, roughly 62 m2 was not obstructed by

boulders or disturbed deposits. This calculation does not include the numerous

small rocks not shown in the map that covered the surface of the shelter and

would have inhibited auger sampling. Nor does it consider the walking path

used during excavations and sample collection. Thus, it is possible that the

results from surface samples are due to sampling error; however, samples were

taken across the shelter where there were no known prior disturbances and are

thought to represent the best points from which samples could be collected to

evaluate formation processes.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Overall, macrobotanical remains are ubiquitous across the site. The

greatest numbers of macrobotanical remains occur in the central and western

blocks (Blocks 1, 3 and 4) (Figure 17). However, macrobotanical remains are

abundant in the northern (Block 5) and southern (Block 2) portions of the shelter.

When broken down by grouped size categories, plant distributions are highly

variable (Figure 18). Large size plant remains are concentrated in the northern

portion of the rockshelter (Blocks 4 and 5). Medium sized plant remains are

concentrated in the southwest (Block 1) and center portions (Blocks 3 and 4) of

the shelter. The lowest density of medium size macrobotanical remains occurs in

the northern (Block 5) and southern (Block 2) parts of the shelter. Small plant

remains are clearly concentrated in the central and southern portion of the

shelter (Blocks 1-4). No small size plant remains were recovered in the

northernmost point sample (Block 5). The distribution of plant remains by size

indicate that some size sorting has occurred. The processes) responsible for

this distribution, however, cannot be determined by examining the spatial

distribution alone.

The average weight of all plant remains per surface sample was

calculated by dividing all plant remains from each surface sample by the total

number of plant fragments in that sample; the leaf category was excluded since

most were removed prior to the collection of samples. The weight of plant

remains in each block indicates (Figure 19) that the average weight of all plant

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. remains per point sample does not vary significantly across the site. However,

the average weight of all macrobotanical remains is lowest in the southern

portion of the site and increases along the north axis. The greatest average

weight per plant remains is highest in the northern point sample (Block 5). Both

the greatest concentration of large sized plant remains and the highest average

plant weight occurs in the northernmost portion of the site. Thus, it is possible

that large, heavy items are being displaced to a greater extent than small, lighter

plant remains. However, it is unclear at this point as to why this may have

occurred. Has displacement occurred with surface macrobotanical remains? If

so, what categories of plants have been moved and what may account for their

movement?

Macrobotanical remains were grouped into large, medium and small

categories to evaluate the size gradation and possibility they have been

displaced. These categories were further divided into carbonized and non-

carbonized groups since the presence or absence of thermal alteration may

cause differential fragmentation and affect the distribution of plant remains.

Figures 20-22 illustrate the density and distribution of carbonized and non-

carbonized plant remains by size for surface point samples. Large sized plant

remains from surface point samples, when broken down into carbonized and

non-carbonized groups, are not evenly distributed. Large carbonized plant

remains have the highest density (N=228/liter) and percentage (40%) in the

100

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. northernmost part o f the site (Block 5), than any other surface sample. Large

carbonized plant remains decrease sharply to the south where the lowest

density (N=54/liter) and percentage (9%) occur in the southwest sample (Block

1). Non-carbonized large surface plant remains have distinctly different patterns

of distribution than those of carbonized plant remains. Non-carbonized plant

remains are concentrated in the center portion of the site (Blocks 3 and 4) where

the greatest densities (N=272/liter and 112/liter respectively) of large non-

carbonized plant remains occur. The southwestern portion of the site (Block 1)

also has a moderately high density (N=100/liter) of plant remains. The lowest

concentrations of non-carbonized plant remains occur in the northern (Block 5)

(N-60/liter) and southern portions (Block 2) of the site (N - 30/liter).

Medium sized carbonized plant remains from point samples (Figure 21)

are more evenly distributed across the site than large size remains. Nearly equal

densities and percentages are found in the northernmost portion (Block 5) of the

site as in the southern samples (Blocks 1-3). Medium sized non-carbonized

plant remains from surface samples, however, are strongly concentrated in the

central portion and southwestern portion of the site, just as they are with the

large sized non-carbonized point samples. The percentage (4%) and density

(N=18/liter) of plant remains is quite low in the north (Block 5) and in the

southeast (N=54/liter; 9%) (Block 2). Small sized (Figure 22) carbonized and

non-carbonized plant remains from surface samples are nearly evenly

101

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. distributed in the south and central portion of the site (Blocks 1-4).

Neither carbonized nor non-carbonized small size plant remains occur in the

northernmost (Block 5) portion of the rockshelter.

The density and distribution of carbonized and non-carbonized plant

remains from surface samples suggest that large sized plant remains are

ubiquitous across the surface of the site, but that they are more densely

concentrated in the northern portion (Block 5) of the site. Medium and small

items are more concentrated and occur in the highest proportions and densities

in the central and southern portion of the site. Spatial patterns of surface

macrobotanical remains indicate that there is a core area in the center and

southwest blocks (Blocks 1-4) where the greatest quantities of carbonized and

non-carbonized plants occur. This suggests that the core area is the primary

area of human activity, on the basis of the quantity of carbonized remains, since

carbonized plant remains are generally assumed to be anthropogenic (Minnis

1981). However, to substantiate this proposition, the following points need to be

addressed: 1) culturally deposited surface macrobotanical remains need to be

differentiated from non-cultural plant remains, and 2) the vertical density and

distribution of plant remains require evaluation.

There is distinctive patterning in the distribution and density of carbonized

and non-carbonized plant remains of different kinds (Figures 20-24). While

44% of all nutshell and 26% of all seeds from surface samples were carbonized,

102

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the vast majority of carbonized nutshell and seeds (97% and 100% respectively)

occur along the southern rear wall and central portion of the shelter (Blocks 1-4)

and represent the core area of carbonized remains. The only carbonized

remains that occur outside this core area (Blocks 1-4) are wood (N=338/liter),

hickory (N=2/liter), acorn (N=2/liter) and chestnut (N=2/liter). Thus, 98% of all

carbonized remains outside the southwest and central portions of the shelter are

wood. Only three fragments of nutshell, all of which are carbonized, were

recovered in Block 5. Furthermore, the only seeds identified outside of the core

area (Blocks 1-4) are pine (N=6/liter), tulip poplar (N=4/liter), beech (N=4/liter)

and wild cherry (N=4/liter), all of which are non-carbonized. These four taxa of

seeds are interpreted as seed rain because 1) they are the only seeds present

across the surface of the entire shelter, 2) they are the only seeds that are

present in an area where carbonized nuts and seeds are not present (with the

exception of three carbonized nutshell fragments), both of which are assumed to

be anthropogenic because they are carbonized, and 3) several of the tree taxa

(e.g., pine and tulip poplar) were growing adjacent to and upslope of Mounded

Talus rockshelter.

From the composition, density and distribution of macrobotanical remains

from the surface deposits at Mounded Talus the following can be inferred:

1) Large sized carbonized wood is concentrated in the northern portion of the

shelter in an area where no carbonized seeds and scant quantities of nutshell

103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. were recovered. This suggests that carbonized wood, but not other types of

plant remains, has been displaced while other remains have not as the result of

trampling or secondary refuse disposal or that some of the carbonized wood was

not anthropogenically deposited but rather deposited through natural means

such as sheetwash or natural forest fires. The large size of wood fragments

argues against trampling (unless it was “kicked” away), and supports the

contention that natural processes resulted in the deposition of carbonized wood.

Delcourt et al. 1998 suggest that large charcoal fragments are indicative of local

fires.

2) There is a core area in the central and southwestern portions of the

rockshelter where past human activities took place. It is in this core area that

the vast majority of economic plants occur (i.e., seeds and nuts) (Figures 23-24).

Seed taxa identified within the northern portion of the shelter (Block 5), outside

the core area, are the most abundant taxa identified in the control sample, which

is additional support that they were deposited as the result of seed rain. With

the exception of seed rain (i.e., tulip poplar, cherry, beech and maple) those

plants identified within the central and southwestern portion of the rockshelter

were anthropogenically deposited.

3) The discrete area in which nearly all carbonized, non-wood plant remains

were recovered suggests that there is little lateral displacement or disturbance of

these classes of plant remains once deposited. This finding is similar to those of

104

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Applegate (1997) and Gifford-Gonzalez (1987), although lithic debitage was

used in these two trampling studies. W ith the exception of wood, only three

nutshell fragments (all carbonized) and non-carbonized seeds were identified

outside the core area. If displacement and disturbance processes had occurred

there would be more variation in the quantities and types of plant remains across

the surface of the shelter. However, the abundance of small-sized carbonized

plant remains in comparison to small-sized non-carbonized remains suggests

that trampling affects carbonized remains to a greater extent than non-

carbonized remains. This is most likely due to increased friability of plants that

results from the carbonization process. However, most trampling experiments

have been conducted using lithics, ceramics and feunal remains. The Mounded

Talus data indicate that trampling studies using carbonized and non-carbonized

plant remains are needed to properly evaluate the effects of trampling on

carbonized and non-carbonized plant materials.

6.3 SIZE AND ALTERATION OF PLANT REMAINS FROM SUBSURFACE SAMPLES

Column samples from Test Units 1 and 2 are used to evaluate the density

and distribution of botanical remains by size, weight and alteration on a vertical

basis. Realizing that the density and distribution of plant remains by size and

alteration were important factors in understanding the surface deposits at

Mounded Talus rockshelter, I examined these same these variables from the two

105

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. subsurface column samples with specific questions in mind to gain insight on 1)

displacement, and 2) degree of post-depositional disturbance.

1) What patterns of association exist between carbonized and non- carbonized plant remains and depth?

2) Is there evidence of size sorting o f macrobotanical remains as depth increases?

a) If remains have been displaced vertically, it is expected that small size remains would be unevenly distributed throughout the strata, since small size items have a greater tendency to move downward than larger items as indicated by trampling studies (e.g., Applegate 1997; Gifford-Gonzalez et al. 1987; Nielson 1992; Villin and Courti 1983; Schiffer 1987).

b) If post-depositional disturbances have severely impacted macrobotanical remains it is expected that the size of plant remains would be highly variable throughout the deposit. Bioturbation of the sediments would result in the vertical displacement of both carbonized and non-carbonized remains.

The grouped size of macrobotanical remains was determined by following

the same criteria used for surface samples: large (>4mm, >2.36mm), medium

(<2.36mm, >1.4mm), and small (<1.4mm. ,>.5mm). Vertical distribution of

macrobotanical remains was determined by the strata in which a sample was

taken (Figure 25). Strata were also grouped into: Upper strata, Middle strata,

and Lower strata for each test unit column sample (Figure 25). Strata were

grouped as such 1) to gain insight on the general trend of the density and

distribution of macrobotanical remains as depth increased, and 2) because some

106

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. strata had too few macrobotanical remains to allow for statistical analyses if they

were not combined with other samples. The grouping of strata was based on

sediment texture, moisture, and similarity of sediments (i.e., presence of

numerous ashy lenses). For Test Unit 1 and 2, Stratum I refers only to the

surface point samples and plant remains from it are non included in the current

discussion. The Upper Strata of Test Unit 1 consists of Strata II and III, Strata

IVa and IVb make up the Middle Strata, and Strata V, VI and VII are considered

the Lower Strata. The distinct nature of the sediments in Strata IVa and IVb

combined with the fact that they are really a single large stratigraphic zone with

considerable internal lenses, dictated that remains from them be grouped. This

left the upper two strata to be grouped and each had sim ilar sediment color and

texture (refer to Chapter 4 for the discussion of site stratigraphy). The lower

three strata in Test Unit 1 were grouped together because of the color of

sediments; although some variation existed between each of the lower three

strata, all three strata had marked different sediment color than the upper and

middle strata. Each of the lower three strata were yellowish-brown to a pale

yellow brown.

Grouped strata for Test Unit 2 were defined the same method used for

Test Unit 1. The Upper Stratum consists of two samples from Stratum II and the

only sample from Stratum III, the Middle Stratum consists of three samples from

Stratum IV, and the Lower Stratum is made up of two samples from Stratum V

107

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (Figure 25). Strata II and III were combined as the Upper Strata because of the

similarities in sediment color and the presence of numerous undulating ash

lenses. Both the Middle and Lower Strata were defined by a single stratum.

Tables 12-16 present the spatial distribution of macrobotanical remains

by size and plant categories. Analysis of samples from both test unit columns

(Table 12) indicates that large sized plant remains are the most common by

percentage (48%) and density (N-945; 126/liter), followed by medium size

remains (36%; N=712; 94/liter). Small sized plant remains rank last in both

percentage (16%) and density (N-305; 41/liter). Large sized plant remains

(Figure 25A) are dominated by wood (80%). Nutshell/nutmeat (16%) ranks a

distant second while seeds (4%) rank last. Wood also dominates the medium

sized fragments (64%), but nuts (24%) and seeds (12%) both increase in density

within the medium sized plant remain category. Small size plant remains from

column samples are clearly dominated by seeds (71%) followed by wood (20%)

and nutshell (9%).

When they are examined separately, the size of macrobotanical remains

from Test Unit 1 (Tables 13-15) column samples does not defier greatly from

Test Unit 2 (Tables 12-14 and 16). Test Unit 1 column samples indicate that

large plant remains are most abundant (54%) which are followed by medium size

remains (39%) and small size remains (8%). Within the large and medium size

category of identified plant remains for Test Unit 1 column samples, wood

108

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. dominates and is distantly followed by nutshell/nutmeat and seeds (Figure 26).

This trend is reversed within the small plant remain category where seeds are

proportionally more abundant. W ithin the small plant remain category nutshell

ranks second in abundance and wood is the least common small size plant

category.

Size analyses of macrobotanical remains from Test Unit 2 column

samples indicate that wood, nutshell and seed categories follow the same trend

as Test Unit 1 column samples (Figure 26C). W ithin Test Unit 2, large plant

remains (46%) are most abundant, followed by medium size remains (39%), and

small plant remains (15%). Within the large plant category wood is clearly

dominant (83%), followed by nutshell/nutmeat (16%) and seeds (1%). Plant

class composition within the medium size plant remains does not differ

significantly from Test Unit 1 column samples; wood (67%) ranks first, followed

by nutshell/nutmeat (28%), and seeds (5%). Similar to Test Unit 1, seeds (78%)

dominate the small plant category for Test Unit 2. However, unlike both Test Unit

1 and the surface samples, wood ranks second (20%) within the small plant

category while nutshell/nutmeat (2%) ranks a distant third.

The examination of plant size from all subsurface samples indicates that

large plant remains are dominated by wood which decreases proportionally as

size categories become smaller. Nutshell is represented in all size categories

but tends to be proportionally greatest within the medium size category. Seeds

109

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. clearly dominate within the small plant size category. These trends should not

be completely unexpected. The size of plant remains from the archaeological

context is partly a function of the potential size of the plant part from the

systemic context. Wood remains have the potential for larger-sized fragments

than nutshell or seeds since the source of wood can be quite large. Seeds on

the other hand, are generally smaller than wood fragments and rarely have the

potential to be as large as either nutshell or wood. In other words, wood sizes

can be scaled on the order of meters, nutshell in centimeters and seeds are

generally scaled in millimeters. Thus, the size of macrobotanical remains alone

reveals little about the formation processes at Mounded Talus. However,

because the spatial distribution of plant size categories and presence or

absence of thermal alterations varied greatly with surface point samples, these

variables will be used to evaluate subsurface samples.

As presented above, the size of plant remains as grouped into small,

medium and large categories indicates that specific classes of plant remains

tend to be of a certain size category. In order to evaluate this trend further, size

of plant remains will be examined by depth of burial and presence of alterations.

Test Unit 1 and 2 column samples are grouped upper strata (Strata ll-lll),

middle strata (Stratum IV) and lower strata (Strata V -VII) by size class (Figure

27).

110

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 27A illustrates the density of plant remains per liter in the upper,

middle and lower strata by size category. The greatest percentage (53%) and

density of macrobotanical remains pooled from both column samples taken at

Mounded Talus rockshelter were recovered within the upper deposits. Although

the percentage of plants within the middle strata indicates a decrease in

proportion of all plant remains from the column samples (38%), the density

(N=300/liter) remains high. The lower strata, while representing only 9% of all

plant remains with a density of 69/liter, are represented primarily by small

remains although medium and large plant remains are also well represented.

Large and medium size remains are predominantly recovered from the upper

and middle deposits while there is a sharp decline in both size classes in the

lower deposits. Small plant remains, while consistently representing the lowest

percentage of plant remains for all strata, remain relatively constant in density

throughout the stratigraphic profile and are the dominant plant size category in

the lower strata.

6.4 CARBONIZED AND NON-CARBONIZED PLANT REMAINS FROM SUBSURFACE SAMPLES

When the plant remains from column samples are broken down into

carbonized and non-carbonized categories, it becomes apparent that there are

different patterns of representation (Figure 26B.C-28; Tables 12-16). Large and

medium sized carbonized plant remains are dominant in the upper and middle

111

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. strata and decline significantly in the lower strata. However, large carbonized

plant remains increase in density considerably from the upper (N=69/liter) to

middle (N-141/liter) deposits and become exceedingly rare in the lower deposits

(N=3/liter). Large carbonized plant remains consist predominantly of wood

charcoal (89%), followed by nutshell/nutmeat (10%) and seeds (1%). Medium

sized carbonized plant remains, consisting of primarily of wood (75%) and

nutshell/nutmeat (20%) and seeds (5%), are nearly equal in their density in the

upper (N=82/liter) and middle strata (N=90/liter). Similar to large sized

carbonized plant remains, medium-sized macrobotanical remains decline

sharply in the lower strata (N-10/liter). The density of small-sized carbonized

plant remains is nearly equal in the upper (N=24/liter), middle (N-34/liter) and

lower (N=28/liter) strata. Small carbonized remains are slightly more abundant

in the middle and lower strata than in the upper strata and consist primarily of

seeds (76%), followed by wood (17%) and nutshell/nutmeat (7%). A Chi-

squared test of association indicates there is a statistically significant

relationship between carbonized plant size and depth of burial (x2=269;

OC=.05=9.49).

Non-carbonized plant remains from Test Unit 1 and 2 column samples

have distinctly different patterning than that of carbonized remains. Non-

carbonized plant remains have the greatest density per liter for all size classes

in the upper strata (N=240/liter). Large non-carbonized plant remains,

112

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. comprised predominantly of wood (73%) followed by nutshell (26%) and seeds

(1%), clearly dominate the upper deposits (N=139/liter) but then decline

precipitously in the middle (N=17/liter) and lower strata (N=9/!iter). Medium

sized non-carbonized plant remains, although less abundant than large sized

remains, follow the same pattern as large sized remains in that they decline

sharply from the upper (N=76/liter), middle (N=16/liter) and lower (N=11/liter)

strata. The density of small size non-carbonized plant remains from both test

units is low in all strata: upper (N=26/liter), middle (N -3/liter) and lower

(N-7/liter). The medium size category of non-carbonized plant remains in Test

Unit 1 is dominated by wood (57%) and nutshell/nutmeat (37%). Medium size

non-carbonized seeds are not abundant (6%). Test Unit 2 medium sized non-

carbonized macrobotanical remains are rare and nearly all (94%) were in the

upper deposits. Small sized non-carbonized plant remains are consistently the

least abundant of plant sizes in all strata. Small sized non-carbonized plant

remains are limited to a small quantity of nutshell/nutmeat (N=.8/liter) and seeds

(N-35/liter), with over half in Test Unit 2 (66%). A Chi-squared test of

association indicates there is a statistically significant relationship between non-

carbonized plant size and depth of burial (x2=9.96; <*=.05=9.49).

The observed patterning of the density of plant remains per liter by size

group and stratigraphic distribution has several important implications. 1) The

plant distribution suggests that there is little to no post-depositional site

113

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. disturbance by animals through the stratigraphic profile. If post-depositional

disturbances were even moderate, the size and distribution of plant remains

would be highly variable as the sediment was churned up during post-

depositional disturbance processes. On the one hand, non-carbonized remains,

regardless of size, decrease with depth. Carbonized remains, on the other

hand, increase in the middle strata and then decline in abundance thereafter.

However, it is unlikely that only carbonized plant remains would be affected by

post-depositional disturbances. Rather, they more likely represent plants

deposited by prehistoric human occupants of the shelter.

2) The density of macrobotanical remains by grouped strata indicates that there

is little downward movement of plant remains. Large and medium sized plant

remains are abundant in the upper deposits but there is no evidence that these

remains are percolating downward through the profile. Only carbonized

botanical remains increase in their density per liter below the upper strata and

are associated with cultural features. It is unlikely that only carbonized remains

would be subject to downward movement. The feet that small remains are

evenly distributed throughout the stratigraphic profile also supports the

contention that there is little downward movement of plant remains. Some

studies of stratigraphic movement of artifacts (Nielson 1991; Gifford-Gonzalez

1987) suggest that small items tend to move downward in loosely consolidated

sediments, such as those present at Mounded Talus. Yet at Mounded Talus,

114

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. carbonized plant remains are nearly equally distributed in each stratigraphic

zone while non-carbonized remains decline sharply below the upper deposits.

The distribution of non-carbonized plant remains also supports the contention

that there is little downward movement since they decline in abundance as depth

increases. Rather, these data suggest that the trends in plant distribution are

not the result of post-depositional disturbances or mass vertical movement of

plant remains, but rather indicate that there is differential preservation potential

between carbonized and non-carbonized macrobotanical remains as depth

increases and that the density of carbonized plant remains are the result of

different rates of deposition during the occupation of Mounded Talus rockshelter.

3) The average weight of plant remains by grouped stratum was calculated by

dividing the total weight of plant remains (except leaves) per grouped stratum by

the total number of plant remains in each grouped stratum. The average weight

(in grams) of botanical materials plotted by upper, middle and lower stratum

indicate that the weight of plant remains is predictably distributed (Figure 29).

Heavy items are located in the upper strata. The middle stratum are dominated

by medium weight plant remains and those remains weighing the least weight

are in the lower strata. This trend should be somewhat expected since, as noted

above, large items tend to be located in the upper deposits and small items tend

to dominate in the lower deposits. Thus, the distribution of plant weights

parallels their size class. This data is further support for the contention that

115

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. there is little disturbance or downward movement of botanical remains as

discerned through the analysis o f plant densities in their stratigraphic placement.

6.5 SUMMARY

In this chapter the results of the analysis of macrobotanical remains from

the Mounded Talus rockshelter were presented. This portion of analysis was not

undertaken with the goal of making inferences about human use of plants.

Rather, the goal was to describe spatial variation in size, alteration, and quantity

of plant remains from surface and subsurface samples from the shelter. The

amount of variation in the spatial distribution of plant remains has thus far not

been considered in light of the impact of sediment characteristics.

Macrobotanical data will be integrated with the geochemistry of the sediments in

Chapter 8.

The results of this analysis indicate that the sources of plant remains are

varied but can be confidently identified. Seed rain is present across the site but

is limited to select tree taxa. Anthropogenically deposited plant remains are

concentrated in the central and southwestern portions of the site and consist of

carbonized and non-carbonized seeds, nuts and wood. Non-carbonized remains

(regardless of their size) and small carbonized seeds are the best indicators of

loci of human activity as determined by the density and distribution of

macrobotanical remains. Within the core area of the site, trampling appears to

have affected the size of plant remains, specifically carbonized wood.

Carbonized wood is probably more susceptible to fragmentation due to its

116

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. friability as the result of chemical alterations that occur during the carbonization

process and the fact that it is large in size. Unlike small size remains, such as

seeds, which tend to be pushed into the substrate, large items usually remain on

the surface where they are repeatedly subjected to trampling. However,

trampling has not affected the distribution of plant remains on a horizontal scale;

similarly, Applegate (1997) found that lithic remains were not horizontally

displaced at other rockshelters in the region with similar types of sediments.

Analysis of subsurface samples indicates that depth differentially affects

the preservation potential of macrobotanical remains. Non-carbonized plant

remains decrease sharply in their abundance as depth increases while

carbonized remains increase with depth. Since both carbonized and non-

carbonized remains within this area were anthropogenically deposited (once

seed rain taxa, as identified from surface samples, are removed from

consideration) it is unlikely that the abundance of carbonized remains is due to

differential rates of deposition alone. Rather, non-carbonized plant remains may

not preserve as well as carbonized plant remains as depth increases; sediment

analyses may help to determine why there are fewer non-carbonized remains in

the lower deposits.

117

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The density and distribution of macrobotanical remains from both surface

and subsurface samples appear to indicate that the assemblage has not been

greatly impacted by post-depositional disturbances. Furthermore, downward

percolation of plant remains appears to have been minimal and is limited to

carbonized plant remains.

118

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 7

RESULTS OF GEOCHEMICAL ANALYSES AT MOUNDED TALUS ROCKSHELTER

Sediment samples were taken at Mounded Talus rockshelter in order to

1) reconstruct the depositional history of the deposit, including the source of

sediments, their transport and deposition agent(s), and post-depositional

disturbances, and 2) determine the concentration and spatial variation of select

geochemical properties of the sediment. This chapter presents a discussion of

the results of sediment geochemical analyses at Mounded Talus rockshelter.

Sediments across the surface of the rockshelter will be presented first followed

by a discussion of subsurface sediments. Results of the integration of

macrobotanical and geochemistry of the sediment are presented in Chapter 8.

7.1. GEOCHEMICAL ATTRIBUTES OF SURFACE SEDIMENTS

Analyses of the geochemistry of surface sediments at Mounded Talus indicate

that selected attributes are highly variable across the surface of the site (Figure

30; refer to Figure 16). The results of each sediment variable for surface

samples w ill be discussed first and the relationships between these variables will

be discussed in the next section.

119

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7.1.1 Particle Size Analysis

The source, transport agent, and depositional environment of sediments

at Mounded Talus are being assessed through particle size analyses.

Particle size proportions are relatively constant across the surface of Mounded

Talus rockshelter (Figure 30A) and the sediments are well sorted and

homogenous. Sand is the primary constituent of all surface sediment samples,

with silt and clay making up a small proportion of the matrix. The composition

and homogeneity of sediments indicate that Mounded Talus surface sediments

accumulated endogenously, primarily though grain-by-grain attrition. Neither

sheet wash, which produces laminated and poorly sorted sediments with a wide

range of grain sizes, nor flooding, which are usually results in deposits that are

dominated by silts and clay and are often laminated, are indicated as mode of

sediment deposition (Donahue and Adovasio 1990). The slight increases in

clay and silt in the central and southwestern portions (Blocks 1, 3 and 4) of the

site indicate that exogenous processes, either anthropogenic or biogenic, may

have had a small role in sediment deposition across the surface of the site.

However, the sediment particle size analysis clearly indicates that the majority of

surface sediments were the result of endogenous processes and have

effectively “capped” the site.

7.1.2 Moisture

Surface moisture levels (Figure 30B), obtained via a Kelway moisture

meter, were extremely low across the surface deposits. No moisture was

120

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. detected in the southwest and central portions (Blocks 1,3 and 4) of the site.

Moisture levels were barely detectable in the northern and southernmost parts of

the site. Importantly, moisture was only detected in Blocks 2 and 5, yet grain

size analysis indicates that the moisture is not associated with sheet wash or

flooding. Thus, moisture in these areas would have accumulated through

precipitation from the shelter brow or through capillary action from the sandstone

bedrock. However, if water is in fact absorbed via capillary action, the lack of

water in the other three blocks requires explanation. The most parsimonious

explanation is that the slight moisture increases in Blocks 2 and 5 resulted from

drop-by-drop precipitation. Point samples from both blocks are the closest to the

modem drip line and the elevated moisture levels in these areas may indicate

that the dripline has meandered through time.

7.1.3 Hydrogen Ion Concentration (pH)

Overall, the surface hydrogen ion concentrations (pH) of Mounded Talus

sediments, with the exception of the northernmost portion of the shelter, are

significantly more alkaline than that of the of the region, where soils are very

acidic. Surface pH concentrations (Figure 30C) range from very acidic to

moderately alkaline. Three distinct areas of the surface are delineated by pH

levels. Very acidic sediments are concentrated in the northern portion (Block 5)

of the shelter. The southern portions (Blocks 2, 3, and 4) of the site are slightly

acidic to slightly alkaline. Moderately alkaline sediments are limited to the

121

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. southwestern (Block 1) portion of the shelter and are concentrated along the

southern rear wall of the shelter.

7.1.4 Calcium (Ca)

Calcium (Ca) concentrations in the surface samples parallel those of

surface pH (Figure 30D). Calcium levels are extremely elevated in the southern

and western portion (Blocks 1-4) of the shelter and extremely low in the northern

portion (Block 5) of the shelter. This trend is somewhat expected since calcium

tends to become stable in alkaline sediments; however, calcium levels are

exceedingly high in the south-central (Block 3) and western (Block 1) blocks.

Calcium levels in these areas are more three times higher than the control

sample and the northern area (Block 5) and suggest that factors other than pH

are influencing the high calcium concentrations; the presence of plant tissues

and wood ash most likely account for the high calcium levels in these areas.

7.1.5 Potassium (K)

Potassium (K) levels range from extremely low in the northern portion

(Block 5) of the shelter to exceedingly high in the southwestern portion (Block 1)

of the shelter (Figure 30E). In general, potassium levels are very low in the

northern portion of the shelter and steadily increase towards the south and west.

While potassium levels are high in Blocks 3 and 4, they dramatically spike in

Block 1. Similar to calcium, potassium tends to become stable in alkaline

sediments. However, the extreme levels of potassium cannot be explained by

122

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. pH levels alone. Rather, materials introduced to the shelter, such as wood ash

and/or plant and animal remains, are likely affecting potassium levels.

7.1.6 Nitrate (Nit)

Nitrate levels are extremely low in the northern portion of the shelter

(Block 5) and increase significantly towards the south and west with the

exception of Block 2, the southeastern most area of the shelter (Figure 30F).

The fact that nitrate levels are not uniform across the shelter indicates that this

highly soluble mineral is either differentially leaching from sediments or materials

introduced into the shelter are acting to increase nitrate levels in Blocks 1, 3 and

4. In addition, the high nitrate levels in Blocks 1, 3 and 4 indicate that these

areas are not in contact with moisture which would result in the leaching of the

evaporative salt; no moisture was detected in Blocks 1, 3 and 4 (refer above to

section 7.1.2 for the discussion on moisture content).

7.1.7 Phosphate (P)

There are three distinct areas of Mounded Talus shelter as indicated by

phosphate (P) levels (Figure 30G). The northern portion of the shelter, Block 5,

has extremely low levels of phosphates. The north-central (Block 4) and

southeastern (Block 2) portions of the shelter have somewhat elevated

phosphate levels. The south-central portion of the shelter (Block 3) and the

southwest (Block 1) areas have significantly elevated phosphate levels

especially in the southern rear portion of the shelter. The low phosphate levels

in the northern portion of the rockshelter indicate much less biological activity

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. has occurred in these areas. However, the extremely elevated phosphate

levels, especially in Blocks 1 and 3, indicate that biological and/or human

activities were intense in the central and southwestern portion of the shelter.

7.1.8 Organic Matter Content (OM)

Organic matter content (OM) is most elevated in the southwest (Block 1)

of the shelter and remains high in the central portion of the shelter (Block 3 and

4) (Figure 30H). In contrast, organic matter content is extremely low in the north

and south of the shelter (Blocks 5 and 2 respectively). The extremely low levels

of organic matter in the southern and northern (Blocks 2 and 5) indicate that

residues such as plant or animal remains are low; the analysis of macrobotanical

remains indicates that the lowest quantities of plant material for the five blocks

were in Blocks 5 (northern) and 2 (southern). The central and western portions

of the shelter contain large quantities of organic rich sediments.

7.1.9 Sodium (Na)

Although sodium (Na) levels are elevated in all but the northernmost

portion of the shelter, they reach their highest concentration in the south-central

(Block3) and southwestern (Block 1) parts of the shelter (Figure 30I). The high

levels of sodium in the central and western portions of the shelter indicate that 1)

surface moisture is exceeding low in these areas as sodium readily leaches in

the presence of water, and 2) biological and/or human activity is greatest in

these areas.

124

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7.1.10 Geochemistry of the Control Sample

A single control sample (Point sample 6) was taken on the forested slope

outside the shelter; additional control samples were desired, but permits from the

Forest Service could not be obtained. The control sample is used to compare

the geochemistry of non-sheltered soils to sheltered sediment. Geochemical

variables of the control sample are given in Figure 30A-I. Particle size analysis

indicates that the shelter sediments are similar in composition to that of the non

sheltered sediment; the control sample consists of a sandy loam and the shelter

sediments are predominantly a sandy loam to loamy sand. In other words, both

the shelter sediments and the control sample are predominantly sand with a low

percentage o f clay.

A moisture reading indicates that the control sample is wetter than the

sediments within the shelter. This is to be expected since the control sample is

not sheltered. The soil in the control sample is highly acidic. The pH level of the

control sample contrasts greatly with most of the shelter sediments with the

exception of sediments in Block 5 (northern block) which is also highly acidic.

Calcium levels in the control sample are most similar to those for

sediments in Blocks 2 and 4. However, sediments in Blocks 1 and 3 are three

times higher than those from the control sample indicating that the composition

of the sediments is different; materials (i.e., organic matter and ash) within the

shelter are influencing the calcium levels. In addition, the elevated calcium

125

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. levels in Blocks 1 and 3 indicate that calcium is not leaching from these

respective areas.

Potassium in the shelter is extremely elevated in comparison to the

control sample. The extreme difference of potassium levels in the shelter versus

the control sample indicates that materials within the shelter (i.e., ash and plant

remains) are acting to significantly elevate potassium levels and that potassium

is stable within the shelter and not leaching from the sediments.

Nitrate in the shelter is considerably elevated in Blocks 1, 3 and 4 in

comparison to the control sample. Nitrate levels in Block 2 are most similar to

that of the control sample and in Block 5 the nitrate level is considerably lower

than that of the control sample. The low level of nitrate in Blocks 2 and 5

suggest that, although water is barely detectable in these two blocks, it is

significant enough to leach nitrates (refer to section 7.1.2).

With the exception of sediments in Block 5, phosphate levels within the

shelter are exceedingly elevated in the shelter sediments as compared to the

control sample. The neutral to alkaline sediments and low moisture content in

Blocks 1-4 likely contribute to the elevated phosphate levels in these blocks;

phosphate becomes stable and impervious to leaching in alkaline sediments with

low moisture. The low phosphate levels in Block 5 in comparison to the control

sample suggest that there was not much human and/or animal activity in the

area; the results of macrobotanical analysis also suggest that Block 5 is not in

the primary area of human activity.

126

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Comparisons between the organic matter content of the control sample

and shelter sediments show that more organic matter is highest in the open-air

sample and is likely due to the decay of plant material in the acidic soils.

Similar to that of nitrate, sodium is extremely elevated within the shelter

sediment, especially in Blocks 1,3 and 4, in comparison to the non-sheltered

sample. The exceedingly low moisture levels in Blocks 1, 3 and 4 in

comparison to that of the control sample likely account for this difference;

sodium is an evaporate which is easily removed from soils in the presence of

water.

7.2. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SURFACE GEOCHEMICAL ATTRIBUTES

Given the concentration of geochemical attributes of sediments at

Mounded Talus rockshelter, it is apparent that there are dynamic relationships

between sediment variables across the surface. The sediment attributes indicate

that elevated concentrations of all geochemical constituents occur in Blocks 1, 3

and 4. Low geochemical concentrations consistently occur in the northernmost

(Block 5) and southernmost (Block 2) parts of the shelter. pH levels have direct

relationships with all other geochemical variables. Calcium, potassium, nitrates,

and phosphate all tend to have higher concentrations in alkaline sediments.

Alkaline sediments tend to be associated with low moisture levels. Low moisture

levels will result in less water percolation. Thus, areas with low moisture levels

will predictably have less size sorting of sediments and small particles, such as

127

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. clay, w ill be more abundant. Furthermore, in areas where sediments are stable

and not subject to geogenic sorting processes, concentrations of soluble

minerals should be higher. This is the case with nitrates, potassium and

calcium. Thus, although the relationships between geochemical variables are

expected to some degree, the extremely high concentration of geochemical

attributes in the southwest and central portion of the shelter suggests that these

areas have been subjected to different depositional and/or post-depositional

activities. Particle size analyses indicate that post-depositional accumulation of

sediments has been both natural and anthropogenic.

Analysis of the surface geochemistry of Mounded Talus rockshelter

indicates that there are distinct areas where biological and/or human activities

have occurred. The central and western portions of the shelter (Blocks 1, 3 and

4) have witnessed the greatest level of activity. The northern portion of the

shelter does not appear to have been greatly influenced by biogenic and/or

anthropogenic activities. In fact, the northernmost portion of the rockshelter

does not appear to be part of the archaeological deposit. In order to evaluate

the overall depositional history o f Mounded Talus sediments, subsurface

samples from Test Units 1 and 2 column samples are examined.

7.3. SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT GEOCHEMISTRY FROM SUBSURFACE SAMPLES

Test Unit 1 and 2 column samples are examined to assess the vertical

variability of Mounded Talus sediment geochemical attributes (Figures 31-32).

128

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Overall, the composition of both column samples is similar in that geochemical

levels are concentrated in the upper and middle deposits and decline

precipitously in the lower levels below the ash zones.

7.3.1 Particle Size

Particle size analysis of column samples from Test Units 1 and 2

indicates that the sediments are well sorted and homogenous. Sand is the

primary constituent of the sediment matrix; combined, silt and clay constitute

less than 20% of total sediment composition. The composition, size sorting and

homogeneity of the column sample sediments indicate that the sediment sources

are both endogenous grain-by-grain attrition and exogenous, either

anthropogenic or biogenic, in nature. There is no evidence for either sheet

wash or flooding in the Mounded Talus subsurface deposits.

While particle size analysis clearly indicates that grain-by-grain attrition is

a major source of endogenic sediments at Mounded Talus, there are clear

indications of exogenous sources of sediment that are either biogenic or

anthropogenic. Distinguishing between these two potential sources of sediment

requires that the overall composition of sediments and observations of

stratigraphic profiles be made. Clearly, some of the sediments are

anthropogenic since the rockshelter is known to contain prehistoric materials;

human occupation at the rockshelter would result in the deposition of

sedimentary particles. The presence of carbonized plant remains, features,

artifacts and ash lenses are clear indications that humans were a major source

129

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of sediment at Mounded Talus. However, other agents could have potentially

resulted in the deposition of additional materials and must be differentiated from

the anthropogenic sediments. Natural seed rain, as discussed in Chapter 6,

was minimal at Mounded Talus rockshelter and the types of floral remains that

were fortuitously deposited were limited to several tree and shrub taxa such as

pine and tulip poplar. Thus, only biogenic sources for sediment deposition need

to be addressed.

Biogenic agents that may contribute to Mounded Talus sediment

formation include animals nesting, caching and burrowing in the rockshelter.

The fact that particle size remains relatively constant throughout the

stratigraphic profile suggest that the deposits have not witnessed a considerable

amount of disturbance which would result in mixing of sediments (Figures 31-

32) The undisturbed geochemical profiles and well-sorted composition of the

sediments of both column samples through both stratigraphic profiles indicate

that there was minimal post-depositional mixing of Mounded Talus sediments

due to animals. These findings are supported by the sequence of radiocarbon

dates from Test Unit 1 (refer to Table 5) and the observation that neither animal

burrows nor nesting activities in the stratigraphic profiles of both test units were

noted during excavation. Thus, the primary sources of Mounded Talus sediment

are both endogenic grain-by-grain attrition and anthropogenic. Other biogenic

agents such as seed rain or animal activities were minimal and limited to the

very upper deposits. Other geogenic sources, such as sheet wash from the

130

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ridge above or flooding, are not indicated. These findings agree with those from

the surface deposits.

Particle size is also useful for assessing the depositional environment and

the impact of moisture on sediments; fine-grained particles tend to be displaced

in wet environments. At Mounded Talus, clay particles, the smallest of particle

sizes, remain evenly distributed through the stratigraphic column until the lowest

deposits. It is only in the lowest strata that the percentage of clay changes, at

which point it decreases. However, the decline in small size particles at the

base of the stratigraphic column suggests that this portion of the deposit is

moister than the upper deposits, supporting observations made during

excavation.

7.3.2 Moisture

Moisture content of the column sample sediments was not obtained

during excavation and not feasible after excavation. Samples had been stored

for varying lengths of time and have been repeatedly opened and therefore are

considered unreliable for testing total moisture content. Thus, moisture content

of sediments through the stratigraphic profile can only be assessed from

excavation observations and notes. The upper, middle and upper-lower

deposits of both test units were extremely loose, unconsolidated and dry. The

lowermost deposits were moist relative to those above as indicated by slight

binding of sediment particles. However, the lower strata were still moderately

dry and none of the sediments were saturated. The source of water within the

131

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. lower deposits is not, as determined through particle size analyses, the result of

sheet wash or flooding. Observations during excavations at Mounded Talus

indicate that rain water does not blow into the main portion of the shelter, even

on the heaviest and windiest of storms. Thus, water present in the lowest

deposits is not likely the result of wind driven rain. Rather, water likely enters

the shelter via three different pathways: 1) it enters drop-by-drop from the

sandstone caprock along the dripline, 2) it moves downward through the

sandstone bedrock via capillary action, and/or 3) water seeps down along the

back wall of the shelter until it hits the bedrock. Water then can either seep out

of the shelter along the bedrock or percolate upwards in the sandy sediment.

7.3 .3 pH

Subsurface sediment pH levels are variable but all are neutral to strongly

alkaline (Figures 31-32). Test Unit 1 column sample pH values were moderately

to strongly alkaline in the upper and middle strata and neutral at the base of the

stratigraphic profile. Of particular note is the spike in pH values within Stratum

IV and sharp decline thereafter especially below the ash lens at the base of

Stratum IVb. Test Unit 2 column sample pH values are neutral in the upper

deposits and gradually increase with depth. However, pH values of Test Units 1

and 2 column samples remain neutral to moderately alkaline throughout the

stratigraphic profile.

The predominantly alkaline to strongly alkaline sediments of both column

samples greatly contrast with sediments and soils of the region which are acidic

132

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. as confirmed by the control sample. The decrease in acidity of the rockshelter

sediments is most likely the result of human occupation of the shelter. The

presence of wood ash, plant and animal remains, and fecal material would act to

increase the pH levels of the sediments. Given the feet that there is little to no

biogenic sedimentation or post-depositional animal disturbance, the most

parsimonious explanation for the alkaline sediments is the presence of

numerous and sometimes thick lenses of wood ash and dense concentrations of

archaeobotanical remains.

7.3.4 Organic Matter Content (OM), Potassium (P), Nitrate (Nit), and Sodium (Na)

The presence of wood ash and plant remains in the upper and middle

strata of Test Unit 1 and 2 column samples also helps to explain the

concentration of other chemicals of the sediment. Organic matter content is

highest in the upper and middle strata for both column samples. Organic matter

content decreases significantly in the lower deposits. The greatest point of

decline of organic matter content for both column samples is in the deposits just

below the ash lens in the middle strata. The same trend holds for potassium,

nitrates, and sodium, all of which have extremely elevated levels in the upper

and middle deposits that then decline, in some cases dramatically, in the lower

deposits. Wood ash and plant remains (both carbonized and non-carbonized)

would greatly affect levels of potassium, calcium, nitrates, sodium, and

phosphates. Since humans are the primary agents of exogenous sediments, the

133

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. elevated geochemical levels are attributed to the prehistoric occupants of the

rockshelter. Plant and animal remains, human waste and the introduction of

wood ash are the primary contributors to the elevated geochemical levels.

7.3.5 Calcium (Ca)

Calcium does not follow the same pattern as other sediment variables.

Calcium levels are highly elevated throughout the stratigraphic profiles but

increase significantly, especially in the Test Unit 1 column sample, in the lower

levels of the deposit and then sharply decline in the basal deposits. Calcium

levels in the upper and middle strata are likely the result of plant and animal

residues introduced by the prehistoric occupants of the shelter. The increase of

calcium in the slightly moist basal deposits is somewhat perplexing since this

mineral is extremely soluble and prone to leaching. The abundance of small

faunal remains in the basal deposits, as discussed in Chapter 4, may be

influencing the calcium levels (Figure 33A) in Test Unit 1; however the same

cannot be said for Test Unit 2 (Figure 33B) where calcium levels remain

relatively evenly distributed through the profile, even when numerous faunal

remains are present.

7.3.6 Summary of Subsurface Geochemistry

All of the geochemical attributes measured on sediment from Mounded

Talus are susceptible to change as a result of leaching in moist environments.

Given the extremely dry nature of the deposits, especially in the upper and

middle strata, measured geochemical levels have been stable over time and

134

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. have not leached from the sediments. Although extremely low, moisture content

increases to a point where chemical elements leach in an aqueous precipitate.

This reasoning would explain the concurrent and rapid decline with depth in all

measured geochemical variables, except calcium, which increases as all other

attributes decrease.

The geochemical attributes measured on sediments from Mounded Talus

shelter offer a precise indication of post-depositional bioturbation through the

stratigraphic profiles of Test Unit 1 and 2. When geochemical concentration

levels are viewed together (Figure 34), it is apparent that each of the chemicals

is relatively evenly distributed and parallel in profile between stratigraphic levels

indicating that there has been little to no post-depositional animal disturbance in

the subsurface deposits. If post-depositional disturbance, such as rodent

burrows, had occurred, the sediments would have been mixed and geochemical

concentrations would have been highly variable and overlapping.

7.4 SUMMARY OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT GEOCHEMISTRY

In this chapter, results of the geochemistry of sediments at Mounded

Talus rockshelter have been presented. This analysis indicates that there are

both exogenous and endogenous sources of sediment in the rockshelter.

Endogenous sediments have accumulated through grain-by-grain attrition of the

sandstone brow and walls resulting in a fine grain sand matrix. Exogenous

sediments are primarily anthropogenic. Plant and animal matter and ash

135

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. created or transported by humans are the primary constituents of the exogenous

sediments. There is no evidence of sheet wash or flooding within the Mounded

Talus deposit. In addition, the analyses of Mounded Talus sediments indicate

that post-depositional disturbances by animals have not greatly affected the

deposit. Geochemical profiles of the sediment are essentially undisturbed.

Analysis of the surface deposits at Mounded Talus rockshelter indicates

that there is a discrete area in the central and southwestern portions of the

shelter where human activity took place. The northern portion of the shelter

(Block 5) consists primarily of endogenously deposited sand and does not

appear to have been occupied by the prehistoric occupants of the shelter. In

fact, sediments in the northern portion of the shelter most closely resemble those

of the basal deposits as identified through column samples.

Subsurface sediment samples indicate that the basal deposits primarily

consist of sand with little organic sediment and a slight increase in moisture.

Geochemical analyses of these lower strata indicate low values for all

geochemical components, with the exception of calcium. Calcium levels may be

influenced by the presence of numerous small faunal remains. For both Test

Units 1 and 2, there is a precipitous decline in all geochemical values below the

compacted ash lens. Above the ash lens, sediments consist of homogeneous

sand and organic rich sediments, the later of which is primarily anthropogenic

with numerous plant remains. The deposits above the ash lenses are

exceedingly dry and alkaline with highly elevated levels of nitrates, calcium, and

136

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. potassium. These elevated levels are primarily the result of shelter occupation

when organic residues were deposited.

137

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 8

INTEGRATION OF MACROBOTANICAL AND SEDIMENT GEOCHEMISTRY: RESULTS

In this chapter the results of macrobotanical and sediment geochemical

analyses are integrated and w ill be used to evaluate formation processes at

Mounded Talus rockshelter. Specifically, this chapter will 1) address patterns of

rockshelter use and delineate areas intensively utilized by prehistoric inhabitants

of the shelter, and 2) identify the primary environmental determinants) of

macrobotanical preservation.

At this point, it may prove valuable to review some of the findings from the

preceding two chapters before moving into a detailed discussion of the variability

of the samples and the macrobotanical and sediment geochemical data.

1) The integrity of the macrobotanical assemblage was evaluated in

Chapter 6. It was determined that:

a) plants within the rockshelter were deposited through anthropogenic and seed rain processes, but that seed rain was limited to a select few tree taxa.

b) The remainder of the macrobotanical assemblage could be confidently associated with human activity.

138

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2) The distribution of surface macrobotanical remains indicates there is a

discrete concentration of plant remains in the central and southwestern

portions of the rockshelter (Blocks 1, 3 and 4).

3) Analysis of subsurface samples indicates that:

a) macrobotanical remains are concentrated in the upper and middle deposits.

b) there is a precipitous decline in the abundance of plant remains below the ash lens of each column sample.

4) The distribution of small, medium and large size plant remains indicate

that there has been little post-depositional disturbance. Trampling has

affected the size and distribution of plant remains across the surface of

the site, but has had its greatest impact on carbonized remains.

Geochemical analysis of the Mounded Talus deposit indicates that:

1) both endogenic and exogenic sedimentation processes have occurred.

a) endogenic sediments have accumulated through attrition.

b) exogenic sediments are primarily anthropogenic.

2) there are no indications that geogenic or biogenic processes, such as

sheet wash, flooding or animal nesting and caching have contributed

significantly to the deposits of the shelter.

3) Geochemical concentrations of surface sediments delineate two

discrete areas within the shelter.

139

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a) The central and western portions (Blocks 1-4) of the shelter have exceedingly elevated phosphate, organic matter, sodium, calcium, potassium, nitrate and hydrogen ion (pH) levels. The area of these four blocks appears to be the primary activity area of the shelter.

b) The northernmost portion of the rockshelter, Block 5, has acidic sediments with low concentrations of calcium, potassium, nitrate, phosphate, sodium and organic matter content. The geochemical concentrations in this block most closely resemble the non sheltered control sample than any of the other sheltered blocks. The northern block does not appear to be part of the human activity area of the shelter.

6) Geochemical concentrations of subsurface sediments indicate that:

a) significantly elevated levels of potassium, calcium, nitrate, sodium and organic matter occur through the upper and middle deposits in Test Unit 1, and in the upper deposits of Test Unit 2.

b) these geochemical levels, with the exception of calcium, drop dramatically below the ash lens of each test unit.

c) calcium levels remain high and actually increase until the lowermost portions of the basal stratum, when calcium levels decrease significantly.

d) phosphate levels remain high throughout the stratigraphic profile.

e) the distribution and concentration of geochemical levels of the subsurface indicate an undisturbed profile and that post- depositional disturbance processes have not significantly impacted the deposit.

140

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8.1 MOUNDED TALUS DATA: CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSIS

Correspondence analysis is used to explore the nature and strengths of

associations and the variability between the macrobotanical assemblage and

physio-chemical attributes of the sediment at Mounded Talus rockshelter.

Correspondence analysis, a relatively new statistical technique, is the

appropriate method to use as it is flexible, can be used to explore the

similarities and differences between numerous variables with few assumptions

about the distribution of the data, and is intended to reveal features of the data

(Greenacre and Blasius 1994). In correspondence analysis, data is presented

in a contingency table (rows and columns) and the matrix is reduced to a series

of eigenvalue6 solutions that are translated to vectors, called eigenvectors, that

are mapped as points in multidimensional space (Greenacre and Blasius 1994).

In this study, points representing row variables (surface point samples and

column samples) and column variables (macrobotanical and sediment

geochemical quantities) are mapped along two axes: axis one (horizontal) and

axis two (vertical). Each axis is representative of a percentage of the variability

of all data analyzed. The frequency percentage that each row and column

variable contributes to the overall variability of each axis (denoted CRT) is

calculated. For instance, a high CRT frequency percentage for a variable

According to Hair et al. (1995:151), eigenvalues are the latent or characteristic root which is a measure of the amount of variance contained in the correlation matrix.

141

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. indicates that it clearly differentiates a sample from all other samples7. Thus, the

eigenvectors of all surface and column samples and their selected

macrobotanical and sediment geochemical variables are compared to one

another and then graphically displayed. In the graphic “map”, the sediment and

geochemical variables and macrobotanical classes that best differentiate a

sample w ill be mapped closest to that sample and the samples that are most

similar to one another w ill cluster together. The distance between clusters of

samples indicates the degree of dissimilarity between them.

A total of four separate correspondence analyses was calculated for the

Mounded Talus samples. Two test runs were conducted on each of the surface

samples and subsurface samples. Surface samples w ill be discussed first

followed by subsurface samples.

8.1.1 Subsurface Samples

The first correspondence analysis was conducted for surface samples

using absolute counts of plant remains grouped into six categories (carbonized

and non-carbonized wood, nutshell and seeds) for each of the surface samples.

The primary goal of this first run was to determine which of the surface samples

has the most variability and what categories of plant remains (i.e., carbonized

Tables 8.1-8.4 provide the CRT frequency percentage (i.e., .593) that is translated into a percentage in the text. For instance, a CRT of .593 in a table would be written as 59.3% in the text. This CRT value would indicate that 59.3% of all the variability between samples in the given axis comes from this sample.

142

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and non-carbonized wood, seeds and nutshell) account for that variability when

sediment geochemistry is not considered.

Table 17 presents the results of the first correspondence analysis test run

for all surface samples (rows) and six categories of plant remains (columns). In

this first correspondence analysis run for surface samples 45% of all variability is

within the first axis and 45% is within the second axis. Ninety percent of all

variation is accounted for within two axes and 100% in five axes8. Samples from

Block 5 (59.3%) and Control Sample 6 (27.2%) account for most of the variability

in the first axis. Within the second axis, samples from Block 1 (62.6%) and the

control sample (25.6%) are the primary determinants of the variability between

samples. These data indicate that samples from Block 1 and the control sample

represent the greatest variability in quantities of macroremains categories (i.e.,

carbonized and non-carbonized wood, nutshell and seeds) among all of the

samples. However, there is no distinct clustering of samples (Figure 35) and the

macrobotanical characteristics of the samples that account for the differences

between the samples is unknown. Thus, the plant remain categories (i.e.,

carbonized wood and non-carbonized wood) are plotted with each surface

sample to show the similarities and differences between samples and their

defining characteristics (Figure 36). W ithin the first axis, carbonized wood

Correspondence analysis was run with NCSS, which only provides output data for two axes. Tables displaying the output data for each correspondence analysis run only show axis one and axis two. Therefore, detailed discussions are limited to the first two axes. In most cases, nearly all of the variability was contained within two axes.

143

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (59.3%) and non-carbonized wood (27.2%) account for most of the variability

between samples. Carbonized (25.3%) and non-carbonized nutshell (55.2%)

and nutmeat and non-carbonized seeds (15.3%) account for nearly all (95.8%)

of the variability between samples. When only macrobotanical variables are

considered, most of the variability is between samples from Blocks 1 and 5 and

the control sample. Carbonized wood and nutshell and non-carbonized wood,

nutshell and seeds are the primary characteristics of each of these samples that

account for the variability between samples.

As illustrated in Figure 36, there are several distinct delineations between

samples and their primary plant characteristics. One of the most obvious is the

cluster of carbonized and non-carbonized nuts and the sample from Block 1.

The macrobotanical analysis determined that this area was dense with

anthropogenically deposited carbonized and non-carbonized plant remains. The

clear association of all nuts with the Block 1 sample is further support that nuts

were not deposited by animal caching. Second, the sample from Block 1 is

directly adjacent to a large rock with two hominy holes. The strong association

of all nuts in this area suggests that the hominy holes were used in the

processing of nuts. Finally, sample six, the control sample from outside the

rockshelter, falls away from those samples from within the shelter and is best

characterized by non-carbonized seeds and wood, a finding that supports the

macrobotanical analysis.

144

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A second correspondence analysis test run was conducted to determine

the variability between surface samples when both the sediment geochemistry

and macrobotanical remains are considered. The primary goal of this second

run was not to determine which categories of plant remains characterize the

surface samples (this was done with the first run) but rather to assess how the

geochemistry of the sediment in conjunction with macrobotanical remains affects

the eigenvector distributions of the samples. The second correspondence

analysis test of surface samples was run using counts (i.e., ppm) for all

geochemical variables and all carbonized and non-carbonized plant remains.

The eigenvalues (Table 18) for the first run indicate that 77% of all the variability

of the samples is within the first axis; one-hundred percent of the points are

contained within four axes. In order to determine which samples contribute most

of the variability, the contribution of each sample to the first and second axes are

examined (Figure 37). The control sample (sample 6) accounts for most of the

variability between samples (43.7%) within the first axis. However, the samples

from Block 1 and Block 5 account for 20.4% and 20.6% of the variability in the

first axis, respectively. Within axis two, the samples from Block 3 (52.9%),

Block 1 (23.6%) and Block 5 (19.1%) account for nearly all (96.6%) of the

variability between samples. Thus, samples from Block 1, 3 and 5 and Sample

6 are most clearly differentiated from one another. In addition to illustrating

which samples differ most, the eigenvector plots clearly show two distinct

clusters. Cluster one contains samples from Blocks 1 through 4. Cluster two

145

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. contains the sample from Block 5 and the control sample. The degree of

variability between these samples is much clearer when the geochemistry of the

sediment is considered in conjunction with macrobotanical remains than when

only macrobotanical remains analyzed. In addition, this illustrates that the

sediment geochemical variables are correlated with the presence and quantity of

macrobotanical remains.

Sediment geochemical and macrobotanical variables are included in the

second correspondence analysis performed on surface samples (Table 18;

Figure 38) in order to determine what sediment and macrobotanical

characteristics of each sample account for the variability between samples.

Within the first axis, non-carbonized remains (52.3%), potassium (22.3%), and

calcium (15.5%) are the primary defining characteristics that differentiate the

surface samples from one another. The second axis accounts for 13% of the

variability of the samples and phosphate (23.9%), sodium (27.2%), and calcium

(27.7%) are its primary defining characteristics. Thus, non-carbonized plant

remains account for much of the variability between samples and phosphate,

calcium, potassium and sodium are other significant contributing characteristics

that differentiate the surface samples.

Plot maps of the eigenvectors (Figures 37-38) of the second

correspondence analysis run indicate there is distinct clustering of samples on

the basis of sediment composition and macrobotanical remains. In Figure 37 the

variability between surface samples on two axes results in the delineation of two

146

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. distinct clusters; samples from Blocks 1-4 comprise cluster one while samples

from Block 5 and control sample 6 comprise Cluster 2. This clustering indicates

those samples in cluster one are most sim ilar to each another and that cluster

one is radically different from cluster two. Within cluster one, samples from

Blocks 3 and 4 are most closely associated while samples from Blocks 1 and 2

have the greatest amount of variation between them. When compared to the

spatial distribution schematic (Figure 16), cluster one delineates the central and

southern portion of the site. It was in these areas that the sediment geochemical

levels were at their highest and there was a core area of plant remains. The

application of correspondence analysis supports the findings of both the

macrobotanical and sediment analyses in that Blocks 1-4 are the primary areas

of human activity.

The sediment variables that are most characteristic of each surface

cluster are plotted with surface samples in Figure 38. In this test, cluster one is

strongly characterized by potassium, nitrates, phosphate, sodium and calcium

which are the defining characteristics of the two axes. Cluster two is not strongly

associated with any of the sediment geochemical variables. However, non-

carbonized plants are most closely associated with cluster two. The large

quantity of non-carbonized remains in the control sample are ‘pulling” non-

carbonized plants in the direction of Point Sample 6 (the control sample).

Organic matter, pH and carbonized plant remains cluster midway between the

two main surface sample clusters. The close association of these three

147

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. variables and their median placement indicates that they are closely associated.

The clustering of organic matter, pH and carbonized plant remains midway

between surface sample cluster one and two is most likely due to the fact that

cluster one has predominantly alkaline sediments (average pH is 7.1; N=4;

s.d.=.95) while cluster two has very acidic sediments (average pH is 4.5; N=2;

s.d.=. 14). Samples in both clusters contain numerous plant remains, although

their mode of deposition differs. Thus, the position of pH and organic matter

plots is most likely due to an averaging effect of the pH and organic matter

content between the two surface sample clusters.

8.1.2. Subsurface Samples

A total of two correspondence analysis tests was conducted for all

subsurface samples. In the first test only carbonized and non-carbonized plant

remains were used to determine what classes of plant remains account for the

variability between the samples and to assess the variability between samples

when only macrobotanical remains were used. Realizing that the geochemistry

of the sediments used in conjunction with macrobotanical remains resulted in a

better understanding of the variability of surface samples, a second

correspondence analysis test run was conducted using all geochemical

variables and carbonized and non-carbonized plant remains as input data. In

these tests, samples from both column samples were run together in order to

assess the degree of similarity of all samples with depth, as defined by

stratigraphic position, across the site; grouped strata were n o tused.

148

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In the first correspondence analysis test run on subsurface samples

without considering the geochemistry of the sediment, 60% of all the variability

between samples was within the first axis; all variability was accounted for in five

axes but the vast majority was within two axes (Table 19). When only the

samples are evaluated, nearly 80% of all the variability from the first axis is from

four samples: Tu1-3 (28.5%), Tu1-4 (14.4%), Tu2-1 (20.8%), and Tu2-2

(15.9%)(refer to Figure 25 for corresponding stratigraphic units and subsurface

samples). Variability within the second axis is predominantly with four samples,

three in Test Unit 1 and one from Test Unit 2: Tu1-2 (12.3%), Tu1-3 (15.7%),

Tu1-4 (30.5%), and Tu2-7 (14.7%); seventy-three percent of the variability with

the second axis is from these four samples. Overall, the vast majority of all

variability between samples in both the first and second axes is from six samples

(Tu1-2 to Tu1-4 and Tu2-1, Tu2-2 and Tu2-7). The eigenvector plots (Figure

39) of subsurface samples, when only macrobotanical variables are considered,

indicate there is a great deal of variability between the upper and lower strata of

both test units. The upper strata of each column sample are most closely

associated with one another and are denoted as Cluster one. A second cluster

contains the upper portions of the lower deposit of Test Unit 1 and a third cluster

of associated points contain the middle strata of both test units.

In order to determine which categories of plants account for the variability

in the samples, carbonized and non-carbonized nuts, seeds and wood were

analyzed for each sample without considering the geochemical constituents of

149

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the sediment. In this analysis carbonized (39.6%) and non-carbonized (49%)

wood account for the vast majority of variability between samples in the first axis.

In the second axis, carbonized seeds (50.4%), carbonized nuts (34.2%) and

carbonized wood (12.1%) account 96.7% of the variability between samples in

the second axis. Thus, carbonized and non-carbonized wood and carbonized

seeds and nuts account for the vast majority of variability between the

subsurface samples when the geochemical constituents of the sediment are not

considered.

Figure 40 is a map of the eigenvector plots for each subsurface sample

and associated plant categories. Cluster one is defined by non-carbonized plant

remains. Carbonized plant remains are variable across the map, but carbonized

wood is most closely associated with and is the defining characteristic of Cluster

three. These findings do not necessarily indicate that carbonized wood is more

abundant in the middle (cluster two) and lower deposits (cluster three), but

rather indicate that the presence of carbonized wood separates the samples

from all other samples which contain both carbonized and non-carbonized

macrobotanical remains. When the actual abundance of macrobotanical

remains for the samples are considered, it becomes apparent that Figure 40 is

illustrating several important things: 1) the upper and lower strata of both column

samples are quite different from one another in terms of plant composition, and

2) non-carbonized plant remains, regardless of plant category, are the major

defining characteristic that separates the upper strata from the lower strata. As

150

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. noted in Chapter 6, the density of non-carbonized macrobotanical remains

declines significantly from the upper/middle strata to the lower strata. The

correspondence analysis plot is reinforcing this finding. However, the reason for

the differences in the macrobotanical composition of the upper and lower

deposits has yet to be folly explained.

The two most logical options for the variability between the upper and

lower strata are 1) that the lower deposits have not had much in the way of

anthropogenic influences, that few plant remains were deposited and those that

were deposited are strictly from biogenic/geogenic sources such as seed rain.

In other words, the lower deposits are not part of the archaeological site, and 2)

that the lower deposits are subjected to quite different environmental conditions

than the upper and middle deposits and any plant remains in the lower deposit

have subsequently decayed. In order to evaluate these suppositions, a

correspondence analysis test was conducted on the subsurface samples from

both column samples including both carbonized and non-carbonized

macrobotanical remains and geochemical constituents of the sediment. The

geochemical composition of the sediments was included in this test because

it offers the best way to evaluate the variability in the environmental composition

of the matrix from which the macrobotanical remains were obtained.

In the second correspondence analysis test for subsurface samples the

first axis accounts for 75% of the variability of the samples (Table 20). Ninety-

four percent of the variation is contained within two axes and 100% of all

151

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. variation is within seven axes. When only sample variability is evaluated for the

first axis, the vast majority (74%) is between the upper/middle strata (Tu1-1:

18%; Tu1-2:15%; Tu1-3:16%) and the lower strata (Tu1-6: 25%) of Test Unit 1

column samples. Nearly all (82%) of the variability of the second axis is due to

a single sample (Tu1-7:82%) from the basal deposits of Test Unit 1. Clearly,

the depth of burial (relative position in stratigraphic profile) from which each

subsurface sample was obtained is a major contributing factor in the variability

between samples and likely one of the major reasons for the disparity in

carbonized and non-carbonized macrobotanical remains between the

upper/middle strata and the lower strata. Is the geochemical environment of the

sediment the primary reason for the observed differences between the samples?

To gain insight on what environmental variables may be acting in concert

with depth of burial of macroremains, the geochemistry of the samples is

considered. In the first axis, potassium (45.4%), calcium (39.7%) and nitrates

(13.8%) account for nearly 99% of the variability between the samples (Table

20). Phosphate levels of the sediment account for the vast majority (86.7%) of

the variability in the second axis. When the eigenvectors of the samples and are

mapped (Figure 41) the samples form three distinct clusters that contain all but

two of the subsurface samples (Tu1-5 and Tu1-7, the latter of which has

coordinates that places it off the map). This graphic clearly illustrates how the

samples cluster on the basis of the geochemistry of the sediment and

macrobotanical composition. The distance between the clusters represents the

152

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. degree of variability among them. Cluster one represents the upper and middle

strata of Test Unit 1, Cluster two represents the upper strata of Test Unit 2 and

the lower-middle strata of Test Unit 1 and Cluster three represents the lower

deposits of Test Unit 1 and the middle and lower strata of Test Unit 2. We

already know that potassium, calcium, nitrates and phosphates account for the

majority of the variability of these samples but Figure 41 illustrates how these

and the other geochemical constituents of the sediment account for the

variability between and distribution of the subsurface samples. Potassium,

nitrates, carbonized and non-carbonized plant remains account for the similarity

of samples within Cluster one. Organic matter content accounts for the

similarities of Cluster two and calcium characterizes the similarities of samples in

C luster three.

The outcome of the second correspondence analysis test for subsurface

samples is similar to that of the second test for surface samples in that it

provides a much clearer picture of the similarities and differences between

samples than when macrobotanical variables alone were used. Again, this

finding reinforces the fact that the sediment environment is influencing the

macrobotanical composition of the samples. From the second subsurface

correspondence analysis test, in which both sediment geochemistry and

macrobotanical variables are considered, it can be observed that:

1) there are marked dissimilarities between the uppermost samples and the

lowermost samples of both test unit column samples. The primary

153

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. characteristics that define differences are the abundance of macrobotanical

remains and the concentrations of the geochemical attributes of the sediment.

In other words, there appears to be a significantly different environmental

composition of the upper strata as compared to the lower strata and that both

carbonized and non-carbonized macrobotanical remains are better preserved or

at least more abundant in the upper strata than in the lower strata.

2) When the samples are considered within their stratigraphic placement

(Figures 25 and 41), it is noted that Cluster one and Cluster three, as defined in

Figure 40, are separated by or are at the point of the ash lens of both test units.

This ash lens effectively acts as a barrier zone separating the upper deposits

from the lower ones. Macrobotanical and sediment analyses both have clearly

determined that those deposits above the ash zone are influenced by humans;

they are part of an archaeological deposit. From the results of correspondence

analyses, the strata below the ash lens do not appear to be part of the

archaeological deposit. 3) The high levels of potassium nitrate in the upper

deposits, as noted in Chapter 7, which is the most defining geochemical

characteristic of the samples in the upper deposits, are influencing the presence

of macrobotanical remains. Nitrates, a known preservative and hypothesized in

this research to be the primary determinant of plant preservation in rockshelters

of the region, are in fact associated with carbonized and non-carbonized plant

remains.

154

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4) Cluster three illustrates that calcium is dearly the defining characteristic of

those samples collected from the middle or lower strata of both test units, all of

which (with the exception of sample TU2-3) are at the point of or below the ash

lens. Second, Cluster three is also characterized by the absence of

macrobotanical remains.

8.2. DISCUSSION

Three of the four primary goals that have guided this research are to 1)

determine the source of plant remains in the deposits at Mounded Talus

rockshelter, 2) determine if post-depositional disturbances, specifically those

caused by animal activity, have significantly impacted the integrity of the

macrobotanical assemblage, and 3) identify the primary environmental

determinant(s) of macrobotanical preservation in Mounded Talus rockshelter.

Through the analysis of macrobotanical remains, geochemistry of the sediments

and the integration of the results of these analyses, these goals have been

realized.

Plant remains within the shelter have been deposited through both

anthropogenic and biogenic processes. Humans are the primary agents by

which plants were deposited. Secondarily, plant remains have been fortuitously

deposited as the result of naturally occurring seed rain. Plant deposition did not

occur through geogenic processes. By collecting samples across the surface of

the shelter and a control sample outside the shelter and analyzing the density

and distribution of plant remains from these samples, seed rain was determined

155

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to be limited to several tree seed taxa which were deposited across the shelter.

The remainder of plant remains, regardless of the degree of alteration, is

confidently attributed to humans and is concentrated in the central and

southwestern portions of the site, and is referred to as the core area of the site.

To discern what, if any, post-depositional disturbances have impacted the

deposits at Mounded Talus, the density and distribution of carbonized and non-

carbonized plants were evaluated in relation to their micro-environment (the

sediment). From the macrobotanical assemblage it was determined that post-

depositional disturbances have been few and are limited to the surface deposits.

Specifically, it appears that trampling has resulted in the displacement of the

heaviest, large carbonized wood fragments. These items have been displaced

to the northernmost portion of the site. Small sized items appear to be the best

indicators of human activity because they are not displaced laterally; rather,

small-sized items are pushed into the substrate. However, small quantities of

small-sized carbonized plant remains percolated downward through strata. The

undisturbed plant profiles from both test unit column samples indicate there has

been little post-depositional disturbance in the vertical dimension.

Analysis of the sediments also indicates that there has been little post-

depositional disturbance at Mounded Talus shelter. The sediment in the shelter

accumulated through the endogenic process of attrition and through

anthropogenic processes. The primary constituents of the anthropogenic

sediments are wood ash, plant material, and sandstone rocks (associated with

156

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. hearths). Sediment profiles indicate that there has been little, if any post-

depositional disturbance on a vertical scale.

There appear to be several factors that have affected the preservation of

macrobotanical remains in the Mounded Talus deposit. The lack of appreciable

water in the sediments, the oxidation that occurs through the carbonization

process, the presence of potassium nitrate in the sediment, and depth

(stratigraphic position) are all primary contributors to the preservation of the

plants. Based on surface moisture tests, plant densities - regardless of

alteration - are higher in areas where no moisture was detected. Even the 5%

moisture readings in Blocks 2 and 5 (Figure 30b) were enough to affect the

density of plant remains. Carbonized plant remains recovered from below the

surface deposits are more abundant than non-carbonized plant remains. On the

surface, carbonized plant remains are more susceptible to fragmentation, likely

the result of trampling. As depth increases, non-carbonized plant remains

decline precipitously and are not present in the lower portion of the deposit.

Carbonized remains also decline in abundance with depth, but continue to be

present even in the basal strata. The presence of plant remains closely

corresponds to potassium nitrate levels. Where these levels are highest, plant

remains are abundant. When potassium nitrate levels decline, below the ash

lens, so too does the abundance of plant remains. Potassium nitrate, acts to

dessicate plant remains and inhibits microbial activity.

157

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8.3 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This research has demonstrated that there are complex relationships

between macrobotanical remains and their surrounding sedimentary

environment. Furthermore, it has demonstrated that past human occupation can

greatly affect the environment of a deposit. Based on the macrobotanical

assemblage and geochemistry of the sediments it appears that when Mounded

Talus was occupied during the Middle Archaic period that the inhabitants

deposited ash across a portion of the sandy sediment that had accumulated

through attrition. This is the core area of the site (Blocks 1-4). The purpose of

this ash layer is not known for certain; however, based on its similarity to ash

layers in other rockshelters of the region, the compaction of the ash surface and

the presence of what appears to be an intact post, it appears to have been

constructed as a prepared floor, although it could have been deposited to simply

even out the surface. Whatever the reason for its deposition, the ash lens

effectively capped the geologic sediments below it. Above the ash layer humans

occupied the site repeatedly for millennia as is documented through radiocarbon

dates and stratigraphic profiles. The anthropogenic sediments capped the ash

lens. Thus, two distinct environmental zones were created in the core area of the

site: one below the ash zone and one above the ash zone.

Although water is barely detectable in the surface deposits with the use of

a moisture meter, as noted in Chapter 5, the basal strata are slightly more moist

than those in the upper strata. Water enters the shelter via three possible

158

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. pathways: 1) it drops from the sandstone brow and onto the sediments below, 2)

it moves downward through the sandstone bedrock via capillary action, and/or 3)

water trickles down along the back-wall of the shelter until it hits the basal

bedrock (Figure 42). If the moisture in the bottom strata was the result of drop-

by-drop accumulation from the brow, it would have to percolate downward

through the deposit. There are no indications that this has occurred.

Specifically, if water were leaching downward the highly soluble chemicals of the

sediment, such as calcium, nitrate and potassium, would leach out as well.

Furthermore, there should be some evidence of water on the surface of the

shelter of which there is very little; surface moisture was only detected in Blocks

2 and 5 and then it was exceedingly low (5% moisture content). Thus, the

moisture in the lower strata must come through the bedrock or be from water

seeping down the bedrock. At present, there is no good way to determine the

pathway by which water enters the shelter so as to be responsible for the

increased moisture levels in the lower strata. As water enters through one or

both of these pathways, it will eventually hit the basal bedrock and roof fall from

the formation of the shelter. When water hits this the bedrock it can either 1)

seep out of the shelter along the bedrock, or 2) percolate upwards and outwards

into the sandy sediments. It can be inferred from this research that the latter is

occurring at Mounded Talus rockshelter and is responsible for the slight

increase in moisture in the basal strata. Water percolates through the lower

deposits but it does not penetrate the ash lens. Thus, remains above the ash

159

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. deposit are subjected to very different post-depositional environmental

conditions than those below the ash floor. The upper deposits would be the

driest and associated with the highest levels of soluble chemicals. Below the

ash zone, organic remains are subject to fester rates of decay as moisture

levels, while still very low, increase and the soluble chemicals of the sediment

slowly leach out. This is the most parsimonious explanation for the rapid

synchronous decline in all plant materials, the precipitous decline of all non-

carbonized plant material, and the dramatic decrease of levels of soluble

chemicals of the sediment. The high concentration of calcium appears to be the

result of feunal remains, deposited prior to the ash deposit.

The data presented here based on the integration of the macrobotanical

assemblage and the geochemistry of the sediment indicate that 1) seed rain and

nonhuman activities are not the primary agents of plant deposition; rather the

source lies with the Middle Archaic inhabitants of the shelter; 2) prehistoric

utilization of the shelter and the deposition of ash and other plant remains during

occupation resulted in two distinct environmental zones and changes in the

geochemistry of the sediments: specifically, potassium and nitrate levels of the

sediment increased due to the deposition of anthropogenic sediments,

particularly that of wood ash and low moisture content; and 3) these changes in

160

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the geochemistry of the sediment, including the high levels of nitrates and low

moisture content, that were brought on by the occupation of the shelter, are the

primary environmental determinants of the preservation of macrobotanical

remains at Mounded Talus shelter.

161

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER9

ARCHAEOBOTANICAL FORMATION PROCESSES

The primary goals of this chapter are to evaluate archaeobotanical

formation processes at Mounded Talus rockshelter, and illustrate the importance

of considering environmental, cultural, and analytic transformations in the

analysis of archaeobotanical remains from archaeological sites.

9.1 ARCHAEOBOTANICAL FORMATION PROCESSES AT THE MOUNDED TALUS

A generalized overview of the major principles of formation processes of

archaeobotanical assemblages was presented in Chapter 5. In this chapter, I

apply this body of knowledge to the explanation of patterns observed in the data

collected from Mounded Talus. Previous research on archaeobotanical

formation processes has brought valuable insight to the understanding of

transformations that occur with respect to archaeobotanical assemblages

(Lopinot 1984; Miksicek 1987; Minnis 1981). Transformations of the

archaeobotanical assemblage are divided into three categories: environmental,

cultural, and analytical (Miksicek 1987). In this chapter, I discuss how these

different types of processes have shaped the archaeobotanical

assemblage from Mounded Talus rockshelter. Specifically, the following points

will be addressed in this chapter:

162

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1) Knowledge of sediment geochemistry is important for determining the source of plant remains and environmental determinants of plant preservation, but cultural and analytic transformations of archaeobotanical assemblages must be considered apart from sediment characteristics.

2) Processing and preparing plant remains affects the size and preservation potential of different plant taxa.

3) Techniques used in the analysis of archaeobotanical remains can introduce unforeseen biases. I will present a specific example of how analytical techniques introduce biases based on the archaeobotanical assemblage from Mounded Talus and demonstrate how such biases can be avoided.

9.1.1 Environmental Transformations

At Mounded Talus rockshelter, environmental transformations have been

discussed with respect to the effects of the geochemistry of the sediments on

broad categories of plant remains. These findings indicate that the presence of

nitrates combined with low moisture content and alkaline conditions of the

sediment have influenced the preservation of carbonized and non-carbonized

plant remains. However, specific taxa of seeds and nuts are known to differ in

their preservation potential due to differences in size, density, moisture content,

and chemical composition (Munson et al. 1971; Pearsall 2000). A series of

correspondence analysis tests was run to determine if there is an association

between the abundance of nutshell taxa and seed taxa and the geochemical

composition of the sediments. In other words, correspondence analysis tests

163

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. were performed to determine if sediment geochemistry differentially affects plant

taxa. In the first correspondence analysis test (Figure 43; Table 21) 73% of all

the variation in quantities of different nut taxa for each sample is contained

within Axis 1 and 91% is contained within Axes 1 and 2. Within Axis 1 calcium,

potassium and nitrates are the primary contributors to the observed variation

between nutshell taxa. W ithin Axis 2, phosphate is the primary contributor to

the observed variation. The associated correspondence analysis plot (Figure

43) shows the association between nutshell taxa and geochemical components

of the sediment. Acorn and hickory are most closely associated with potassium

and nitrates. However, chestnut and walnut do not fell far from either

geochemical variable (potassium and nitrate), indicating that there is a weak

association between nutshell taxa and the geochemical composition of the

sediments. This analysis does not confidently indicate that some nutshell taxa

are more influenced by sediment geochemistry than others.

9.1.2 Carbonization and Sediment Geochemistry

In order to determine if carbonization may differentially affect the

association of nutshell taxa and sediment geochemistry, a second

correspondence analysis test was run for all carbonized and non-carbonized

hickory, acorn, chestnut and walnut with geochemical variables of the sediment

(Figure 44; Table 22). Within the second correspondence analysis test, 73% of

all the variation between carbonized and non-carbonized nutshell remains and

the geochemistry of the sediment is contained within the first axis and 92%

164

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. within the first two axes. The primary contributors to the variation are the same

as in the first correspondence analysis test: calcium, potassium and nitrates in

Axis 1 and phosphates within Axis 2. The correspondence analysis map of

carbonized and non-carbonized nutshell taxa and sediment geochemical

variables show some clustering of carbonized and non-carbonized nutshell

(Figure 44). Non-carbonized acorn, hickory and chestnut are closely associated

with nitrates and carbonized walnut, acorn and chestnut are closely clustered

with each other.

Similar to the first correspondence analysis performed for nutshell taxa,

the analysis of carbonized and non-carbonized nutshell taxa does not indicate a

clear association between carbonized and non-carbonized nutshell and

sediment geochemistry. In fact, these two correspondence analysis tests

confirm what has already been assessed in Chapter 8: that non-carbonized plant

remains are most closely associated with nitrates. Additional tests further

confirm the fact that correspondence analysis does not adequately assess the

variability of the archaeobotanical assemblage on the genus level for either

seeds or nutshell. Rather, in this study, correspondence analysis of broad

categories of plants (i.e., all carbonized and non-carbonized plant remains)

provides the same level of information as tests performed on plants at the genus

level or with different sizes of plant taxa. Most likely, this is because cultural

factors have also acted to affect the preservation and size of macrobotanical

remains and must be considered apart from sediment characteristics.

165

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9.2 CULTURAL TRANSFORMATIONS OF THE ARCHAEOBOTANICAL ASSEMBLAGE

Processing and preparing plant remains are two types of cultural

transformations that affect the preservation potential of archaeobotanical

remains (Miksicek 1987; Pearsall 2000; Schiffer 1987). Two indicators of

processing and preparing plant remains were examined for the Mounded Talus

archaeobotanical assemblage: 1) carbonization of nutshell and seeds, and 2)

size of nutshell and seed fragments. As previously discussed, remains were

classified as carbonized if there was any evidence of charring and size

categories were determined through the use of nested geological sieves. Size

was further grouped into large (>4->2.3mm), medium (<2.3-> 1.4mm) and small

(<1.4->.5mm) size categories.

9.2.1 Nutshell Remains

Nutshell taxa from column samples are analyzed in terms of the

percentage of carbonized and non-carbonized remains (Figure 45A) and the

size of these remains (Figure 45B). These data are used to evaluate how

processing effects the fragmentation rate and preservation potential of nutshell.

9.2.1 .a Chestnut

Nearly equal percentages of carbonized (46%) and non-carbonized (54%)

chestnut remains were identified in the Mounded Talus archaeobotanical

assemblage from column samples. When the size of carbonized and non-

carbonized remains is examined (Figure 45B) there are slightly more medium

166

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. size remains in both the carbonized (59%) and non-carbonized (57%) categories

than in the large size category for carbonized (41%) and non-carbonized (43%)

chestnut fragments. Although there are no experimental data on the preparation

and processing of chestnuts, they can be peeled and eaten raw or roasted. The

absence of small size chestnut fragments suggests that they were not prepared

through a crack-and-pick method or crack-and-boil method, which would result in

large, medium and small size fragments, as has been experimentally

documented in the processing of hickory and walnut (Talalay et al. 1981).

The abundance of carbonized chestnut fragments indicates that they

came into contact with fire, either through accidental loss during parching or

roasting or that the carbonized shells represent fire fuel waste. The abundance

of non-carbonized chestnut shell remains tends to argue against the former and

the presence of partially charred chestnut shells tends to support the latter.

Gardner (1997) suggests that nuts were an importance source of food and were

stored to be used during the winter and spring months but that the nuts would

need to be parched to kill the embryo and remove mold, fungi or insects

(although insects could add a protein component to the diet). Chestnut shells

from Mounded Talus suggest that at least some of the nuts were parched.

Within the carbonized chestnut shell category, the majority had evidence of

charring only on the outer shell while the interior endocarp and seed coat (thin

papery covering of the nut) did not exhibit any signs of carbonization. Based on

167

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the observation that the exterior of many chestnut shells was carbonized and the

interiors were not suggests that some chestnuts were being parched.

The absence of small size chestnut remains for both the carbonized and

non-carbonized categories suggest that chestnut shells do not fragment into

small sizes as is commonly thought to be the case (Lopinot 1981; Pearsall

2000). Chestnut shells are relatively thin and generally are rare in

archaeological assemblages from open sites in eastern North America (Yamell

and Black 1985). The general consensus among paleoethnobotanists has been

that the thin shells of chestnuts (and acorns) make them prone to fragmentation

(Lopinot 1981). Therefore, chestnuts and acorns are thought to be

underrepresented in archaeobotanical assemblages. Data from Mounded Talus

indicate that chestnut shells do not fragment into small size categories (<1.4-

.5mm) and it is unlikely that they are underrepresented in the nutshell

assemblage based on fragmentation rates. However, with the Mounded Talus

assemblage, nutshell remains from all screen sizes were sorted, rather than only

those greater than 2mm in diameter, which is the standard analytical procedure

(i.e., Pearsall 2000). Chestnut shells from screen sizes below 2mm are included

in the medium size category rather than small size (as contrasted with the

standard paleoethnobotanical protocol) (Pearsall 2000).

9.2.1 .bAcom

The vast majority of acorns from column samples were non-carbonized

(80%) while a small quantity was carbonized (20%) (Figure 45A). Carbonized

168

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. acorn shells are predominantly medium (68%) in size (Figure 45B). Small-sized

carbonized acorn ranks second in terms of percentage (21%) and large-sized

acorn ranks last (10%). In contrast, non-carbonized acorn remains dominate in

the large-size category (69%) which is distantly followed by medium size

remains (29%). Small-sized acorn constitutes only 1% of the non-carbonized

acorn remains.

Experimental and ethnographic data indicate that acorns are often

leached in water to remove tannins and then peeled whole for consumption

(Petruso and Wickens 1981); they are not usually parched or roasted. The

abundance of non-carbonized acorn nutshell and the dominance of large and

medium size acorn nutshell supports these observations. The observed

patterning of the size of carbonized acorn nutshell suggests that acorn is prone

to increased rates of fragmentation when carbonized. This contrasts with thin-

shelled chestnut in the Mounded Talus assemblage, which does not fragment

into small sizes even when carbonized. Acorn shells are thin and it is thought

that the shells tend to be underrepresented in comparison to thick shelled

hickory and walnut (Lopinot 1981; Petruso and Wickens 1981). The proportions

of medium and small size carbonized acorn at Mounded Talus rockshelter

supports the contention that carbonized acorn does fragment into small pieces.

The abundance of large size non-carbonized acorn nutshell indicates that non-

carbonized acorn shell does not fragment into small pieces as carbonized acorn

nutshell does. These data indicate that, on the one hand, carbonized acorn

169

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. does fragment and may be underrepresented in archaeobotanical assemblages.

On the other hand, non-carbonized acorn is not prone to fragmentation and it is

not likely to be underrepresented.

9.2.1 .c Hickory

Hickory nutshell remains are predominantly carbonized (70%) while 30%

are non-carbonized (Figure 45A). Within the non-carbonized hickory nutshell

category, medium-sized remains (50%) and large-sized remains (44%)

dominate; a small percentage of non-carbonized hickory are in the small size

category (6%) (Figure 45B). Medium size remains (62%) also dominate in the

carbonized hickory nutshell category, followed by small size remains (21%) and

large size (10%) remains.

Hickory nuts have a dense shell that protects the nut meat. Experimental

and ethnographic data indicate that the optimal method of processing hickory

nuts is through a crack-and-pick and/or crush-and-boil method (Talalay et al.

1981; Gardner 1997). In the first method, hickory nuts are cracked apart and the

nutmeat is picked out or all fragments, nutmeat and shell, are eaten and the

nutshell is expelled (Gardner 1997). In the second method, hickory nuts are

crushed and boiled, allowing the nutmeat to separate from the shell. The

proportions of large, medium and small sized carbonized and non-carbonized

hickory nutshell remains supports the assertion that hickory nuts are either

crushed or cracked open prior to consumption; medium and small size fragments

are produced when hickory nuts are crushed or cracked. The differences in the

170

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. fragmentation rate between carbonized and non-carbonized hickory nutshell

(Figure 45B) indicates that hickory nutshell is prone to additional fragmentation

when charred as more small sized fragments occur in the carbonized category

than in the non-carbonized category. In addition, more large-sized fragments

occur in the non-carbonized category than in the carbonized category. It is likely

that hickory nutshell residue has been carbonized through accidental loss

(during crush-and-boil processing) or discarded into a fire.

Hickory nutshell is thought to have a high preservation potential in

archaeobotanical assemblages due to the dense nature of the shell and the

likelihood that it will be discarded or accidentally lost in a fire (Lopinot 1981;

Pearsall 2000). The Mounded Talus hickory nutshell assemblage indicates that

non-carbonized hickory nutshell tends to be of a large or medium size although

small size fragments are present. However, carbonized remains tend to have a

higher fragmentation rate than either acorn or chestnut suggesting that

carbonized hickory nutshell may tend to be underrepresented if small screen

sizes are not used during analysis.

9.2.1.d Walnut

All of the walnut shells from Mounded Talus were carbonized and were

large in size. Walnut, like that of hickory, has a dense shell in which the

nutmeat is protected. However, processing experiments using walnut indicate

that it is not effectively processed through the crack-and-boil method; nutshell

and nutmeat are not easily separated when boiled (Talalay et al. 1981). Due to

171

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the extremely small number of walnut fragments recovered from the Mounded

Talus archaeobotanical assemblage, they will not be discussed further in this

section.

9.2.2 Seed Remains

A wide array of seed taxa was identified from the Mounded Talus column

sample deposits. Seeds are grouped into broad functional/ecological categories

and consist of fleshy fruits, grains/greens (plants from which either the seeds or

foliage can be economic) and other (seeds which do not fit in either of the

aforementioned categories) (Table 23). Unlike nutshell remains, seeds are

removed whenever encountered regardless of sieve size during analysis, which

is the standard analytic procedure. Thus, there is not a bias in seed

representation on the basis of size, unless seeds are smaller than .5mm.

However, the presence of carbonized and non-carbonized seeds in the

Mounded Talus archaeobotanical assemblage presents an opportunity to

examine whether or not thermal alterations bias the composition of the

assemblage. In other words, are certain taxa and functional/ecological

categories of seeds carbonized more than others?

Within the seed remain category, fleshy fruits dominate the assemblage

followed by grains/greens and miscellaneous (Figure 46A). Although fleshy

fruits dominate the assemblage relatively few of the seeds are carbonized

(Figure 46B). Grain seeds, however, are predominantly carbonized. If the seed

assemblage from Mounded Talus were present in an open air site, where only

172

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. carbonized plant remains preserve, only 35% of the assemblage would be

present and would be dominated by seeds from the grains/greens category.

The low percentage of carbonized fruit seeds is likely due to a preference

for fresh rather than dried fruits. Yamell (1969) suggests that fleshy fruits were

most likely eaten fresh, especially if they are seasonally abundant in the spring.

However, even if seeds were not consumed fresh, techniques of drying fruits

may not result in carbonization. For instance, only fruits dried over or near a fire

would potentially be carbonized, and then only if cooking accidents resulted in

the loss of fruits.

9.3 ANALYTICAL TRANSFORMATIONS OF THE ARCHAEOBOTANICAL ASSEMBLAGE

Methods used in the analysis of archaeobotanical assemblages are

constantly being reevaluated and improved. Improvement in the methods used

to evaluate plant remains directly affects the interpretations made about the past

use of plants, diet, and paleoenvironments. In this section, I will illustrate how a

small modification in analytical methods results in a significant increase in the

recovery rate of nutshell in the Mounded Talus archaeobotanical assemblage.

Analysis of the Mounded Talus archaeobotanical assemblage generally

followed the standards recommended by Pearsall (2000). However, the screen

size protocol was modified. It is standard practice to screen plant remains

through a series of nested geological sieves. In this study, nine sieves and a

bottom collection pan were used: 4mm, 2.8mm, 2.3mm, 2mm, 1.7mm, 1.4mm,

173

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1mm, .725mm and .5mm. Of these, only the 2mm and .5mm screen must be

used; the remaining sieves are used to facilitate and manage the processing of

samples. The standard protocol is to separate all plant material in and above

the 2mm screen and group them into broad categories (nutshell, wood and

seeds, lithic, etc.) and, with the exception of wood, these groups are examined

and placed into taxonomic categories if possible. All material passing through

the 2mm screen but not through the .5mm screen are scanned; items not noted

in the larger size category or that tend to be under represented in it (i.e., seeds,

acorn or chestnut) are removed. In this study, all plant material from each of the

nine sieves was pulled out and separated into broad categories (nuts, wood,

seeds) and most nuts and seeds were placed into taxonomic categories.

Although this slight modification in the analytical method does not have any

bearing on the number of seeds identified (all seeds are usually removed), it has

greatly enhanced the understanding of how standard methods can significantly

bias the recovery rates of nutshell taxa.

The percentage of nutshell collected from screens 2mm and above

compared to the percentage o f nuthsell from below the 2mm screen (1.7 mm and

below) indicates that a significant portion of the nutshell assemblage would have

been lost had nutshell remains from screen sizes less than 2mm not been

quantified (Figure 47A). Forty-three percent of all hickory nutshell, 26% of

acorn nutshell and 38% of chestnut shell were collected in screens with mesh

174

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. size below the standard 2mm screen size. All walnut was collected from screen

sizes 2mm and above.

When the percentage of each nutshell taxon from screen sizes below

2mm is broken down into carbonized and non-carbonized categories it becomes

apparent that carbonized nutshell would be lost to a greater extent than non-

carbonized nutshell had all screen sizes not been analyzed (Figure 47B). For

hickory nutshell, 48% of all carbonized hickory nutshell and 32% of all non-

carbonized hickory nutshell was collected from screens below 2mm. Within the

acorn category, 68% of all carbonized acorn nutshell and 15% of all non-

carbonized acorn nutshell was collected in screens below 2mm. Finally, 43% of

carbonized chestnut and 34% of non-carbonized chestnut were collected from

screens below 2mm. By not including smaller sizes of nutshell, analysts are

significantly biasing the quantity of nutshell recovered. This is particularly

significant in terms of carbonized nutshell remains, especially acorn.

Figures 48A.B illustrate the distributions of nutshell percentages by taxon

for each of the screen sizes below 2mm. For all nutshell taxa most of the

fragments fall within the 1.7mm screen size. In the case of acorn and chestnut,

the two taxa most often thought to be biased due to increased fragmentation

rates, 75% and 77% respectively were captured in the 1.7mm screen size,

significantly increasing the representation of these two nutshell taxa in the

assemblage. When nutshell taxa are broken down into carbonized and non-

carbonized categories, the vast majority of both carbonized and non-carbonized

175

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. nutshell is captured in the 1.7mm category. Carbonized hickory and carbonized

acorn also have a substantial proportion of fragments that were collected in

screen sizes below the 1.7mm screen size (Figure 48B).

Since collecting nutshell from small screen sizes requires a high labor

investment, the percentage of nutshell types collected in all screen sizes was

evaluated to determine the optimal screen sizes from which nutshell should be

collected based on the Mounded Talus archaeobotanical assemblage (Figure

49A). This graph illustrates that the majority of all nutshell fragments are

captured in screen sizes 2mm and above. However, just by including the 1.7

mm screen size, 23% more nutshell fragments would be included in the

analyzed assemblage. The Mounded Talus nutshell assemblage indicates that

the optimal cut-off point from which nutshell should be collected is the 1.7mm

screen size. Below this point a relatively small proportion of all nutshell is

collected.

However, knowing that different nutshell types have different

fragmentation rates due to processing and preparation, the percentage of

carbonized and non-carbonized nutshell remains collected from each of the

screen sizes was examined for each taxon of nutshell (Figures 49B-50A.B).

Proportionally, the vast majority of non-carbonized hickory remains is collected

from screen sizes o f 1.7mm and above (Figure 49B). However, the percentage

of carbonized hickory remains is relatively constant until the 1mm screen. This

176

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. illustrates again how a significant proportion of carbonized hickory is lost by not

collecting material from below the 2mm screen size.

For acorn, the vast majority of all non-carbonized shell is captured in

screen sizes 2mm and above (Figure 50A). However, more carbonized acorn

nutshell is captured in the 1.7mm screen size than any other screen size from

either above 2mm or below 2mm, indicating that it should be included in

analytical regimes. Chestnut follows the same trend as acorn (Figure 50B);

most of the non-carbonized chestnut shell is captured in screen sizes 2mm and

above, but a significant proportion of carbonized nutshell is lost by not including

the 1.7mm screen size.

Because of its density and the likelihood that hickory nutshell remains will

become carbonized, they are not generally thought to be underrepresented in

archaeobotanical assemblages. Thus, hickory nutshell is not generally collected

below 2mm. Yet, chestnut and acorn are often pulled from screen samples

below 2mm because they are generally thought to be underrepresented due to

their thin shells and the likelihood that they will fragment. Analysis of carbonized

and non-carbonized nutshell from the Mounded Talus assemblage indicates that

chestnut and acorn are present in significant proportions in small screens,

especially the 1.7mm screen. However, these data also indicate that a

significant proportion of all hickory is present in screens below 2mm, especially

carbonized hickory. Thus, by ignoring hickory in smaller screens samples but

pulling acorn and chestnut, analysts may actually be creating a bias against

177

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. hickory nutshell in favor of acorn and chestnut nutshell remains; the introduction

of correction factors can be a source of bias themselves. Rather than correcting

for perceived biases, the Mounded Talus data suggest that all nutshell

fragments should be collected down to and including the 1.7mm screen and that

chestnut and acorn fragments should not be selectively pulled out.

9.4 SUMMARY

In this chapter I have demonstrated that environmental, cultural and

analytic transformations have affected the archaeobotanical assemblage at

Mounded Talus. The geochemistry of sediments is important to consider, but

cultural practices and analytic procedures must also be factored in.

Specifically, it has been demonstrated that:

1) Correspondence analysis of sediment geochemical variables and taxa of nuts

and seeds did not reveal any greater differences than when all carbonized and

non-carbonized plants were grouped together. In other words, correspondence

analysis is best used to define broad patterns of relationships between plant

remains and sediment geochemistry.

2) Processing and preparing plants introduce different types of biases to the

archaeobotanical assemblages. Data from Mounded Talus contradicts the

commonly held assumption that chestnut is underrepresented because it has

thin shells which tend to fragment. However, acorn does tend to fragment into

small sizes, but only when carbonized. Hickory, which is commonly assumed to

178

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. be overrepresented in archaeobotanical assemblages, fragments into small

sizes regardless of whether or not it is carbonized.

3) In this chapter I have demonstrated that analytical procedures can greatly

affect how archaeobotanical assemblages are interpreted. While it was

determined that nutshell fragments into different sizes depending on processing

methods, standard analytical techniques would have failed to adequately assess

these fragmentation rates. Furthermore, a large proportion of nutshell would not

have been considered if small size screens (below 2mm) had not been used.

This was especially true for carbonized nutshell. In open air sites, where

environmental conditions result in the preservation of only carbonized remains, a

potentially significant portion of the archaeobotanical assemblage would not be

recovered using standard analytical techniques.

179

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 10 MIDDLE ARCHAIC PLANT EXPLOITATION AT MOUNDED TALUS ROCKSHELTER

This chapter examines Middle Archaic plant exploitation in light of the

archaeobotanical assemblage from Mounded Talus Rockshelter. Up until this

point this research has been aimed at discerning the integrity of the

macrobotanical assemblage at Mounded Talus rockshelter and determining the

primary agents of their preservation. It has been determined that:

1) the majority of plant remains in the core area of the site were deposited

anthropogenically. 2) human occupation of the shelter resulted in significant

alterations to the geochemistry of the sediments, and 3) these alterations,

especially the deposition of ash, are the principal reasons that macrobotanical

remains are so well preserved. Subsequent to human occupation, few post-

depositional disturbances have occurred, and 4) analysis of a full range of size

categories has ensured the most accurate estimation possible of the actual

deposition patterns of different types of macrobotanical remains.

180

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. It is now appropriate to evaluate the types of plants exploited by

occupants of the shelter. Issues of plant exploitation will cover seasonality,

ecology, and why Mounded Talus was inhabited.

10.1 THE MOUNDED TALUS ARCHAEOBOTANICAL ASSEMBLAGE

The archaeobotanical assemblage, as discussed in this chapter,

specifically refers to those plants that are confidently determined to have been

deposited anthropogenically. Seed rain taxa, as determined in the previous

chapters will not be included in this discussion. Furthermore, plant taxa

discussed herein are inferred to be economically important if not plant food,

based on the feet that the plant remains were deposited by humans and are in

midden context.

10.1.1 Nut Utilization

Nutshell remains are itemized by weight in Table 6 and by number of

fragments in Tables 7 and 9. Nutshell of several types makes up 5.33 g of the

weight of plant remains and is represented by 564 fragments. Within the

nutshell category, chestnut (Castanea dentata) is clearly dominant; acorns

(Quercus sp) rank second and hickory (Carya sp) ranks third. Walnut (Juglans

nigra) ranks a distant fourth and represents only 2% of the entire nutshell

assemblage.

It is interesting that chestnut and acorn rank highest in the Mounded Talus

assemblage since hickory is often cited as the most abundant and important

181

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. plant resource during the Middle Archaic period (Gardner 1997; Yamell and

Black 1985). However, as noted in Chapter 9, Yamell and Black’s assessment

of the importance of hickory may be due to preservation bias against acorn and

chestnut since their data were compiled from open air sites where only

carbonized plant remains were recovered. At Mounded Talus, if only

carbonized remains had preserved, hickory would dominate the assemblage

resulting in observations similar to that discussed by Yamell and Black (1985)

(Figure 51). As noted in the previous chapter, this suggests that differential

processing and preservation can bias the inferred importance of nut taxa and

overemphasize hickory.

As discussed in Chapter 9, the various nut types were processed

differently. To summarize, experimental data (Talalay et al. 1984; Petruso and

Wickens 1984) indicate that hickory can be processed by crushing the nuts and

boiling them to separate the nutshell from nutmeat. Walnuts are best processed

by crushing the shell and picking out the nutmeat. Acorns, most of which have

high levels of bitter tannins, are often soaked in water to leach the tannins and

are then peeled. There are no experimental data for chestnuts. Thus, only

hickory needs to be processed for meat extraction in close proximity to hearths

where accidental loss would result in the carbonization of the shells. However,

the presence of carbonized nutshells for the remaining three taxa (acorn,

chestnut and hickory) indicates that they came into contact with a fire. The

182

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. abundance of partially carbonized chestnuts suggests that at least some of the

nuts were being parched either for storage, immediate consumption, or to make

the shell easier to peel.

Also of interest is the evaluation of the nutritional composition of nuts from

the plant assemblage. Hickory and walnuts are high in fat while chestnut and

acorn have low fat yields but are rich in carbohydrates. It is precisely because

of their high fat yields that hickory nuts have been identified as a favored food

source during the Middle Archaic period (Gardner 1997). Yet, at Mounded

Talus, starchy acorns and chestnut dominate the assemblage. A similar pattern

of an abundance of starchy nuts over oily nuts was noted at Cold Oak

rockshelter where acorn use declined considerably after ca. 1000 BC (Gremillion

1995). However, these patterns were assessed without considering small-sized

nutshell fragments. The patterns of nutshell abundance at Cold Oak might

change when smaller sized nutshell remains are quantified even if nutshell from

the 1.7 mm screen is analyzed.

10.1.2 Seed Resources

A wide array of seed taxa was identified from the Mounded Talus

archaeobotanical assemblage (Table 8; Table 23). Seed taxa were grouped into

ecological and/or functional categories that consist of fleshy fruits, grains/greens

(seeds and/or leaves are economically important) and miscellaneous. Fleshy

fruits rank first in abundance followed by grains/greens (Figure 52A).

183

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Miscellaneous seed taxa comprise only a small percent of the entire identified

seed assemblage. These findings are in concordance with findings by Yamell

and Black (1985) who indicate that fleshy fruits tend to be a high-ranking

resource during the Middle Archaic period. In fact, their research indicates

seeds of fleshy fruits and greens peak during the Middle Archaic period at sites

in the Southeast.

Overall, most seeds are non-carbonized (60%) but a significant proportion

exhibit evidence of charring (40%). Because seeds from the Mounded Talus

archaeobotanical assemblage are from midden contexts it cannot be decisively

determined why some types of seeds were charred while others were not.

However, it is reasonable to assume that they represent accidental loss or waste

byproducts (i.e., seeds from plants in which only greens were utilized). In the

following discussions, the dietary significance of each type and category of seed

will not be discussed. Rather, the seed data w ill be grouped according to

season of availability, spatial distribution, and economic role.

10.1.2.a Season of Availability

Seeds that are available in the spring represent 45% of all identified

seeds. Of these, nearly all (99%) are fleshy fruits. Seeds of grains/greens

represent only a small proportion of the seeds available in the spring. Although

seeds from plants available in the spring rank first in terms of abundance, seed

diversity is low. Only four taxa of spring plants were identified: anemone,

184

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. huckleberry, strawberry and raspberry. Of these, raspberries ranks first followed

by huckleberry and then strawberry. A single anemone seed was identified. A

relatively small proportion (21%) of seeds available in the spring are carbonized

(Figure 52B). This suggests that fleshy fruits available in the spring are eaten

when they become available and a small portion of the spring fruit are accidently

charred such as occurs through drying. This finding is in consonance with

Yamell (1969), who states that fruits (i.e., strawberry) would be eaten as they

became available in the spring rather than stored, since few fresh plant food

resources are available during the winter months.

Seeds from plants that are available during the summer rank second

(36%) behind plants available in the spring and there is a slight increase in the

diversity of seed taxa. Seeds identified from the Mounded Talus assemblage

that are available during the summer include blueberry, elderberry, mulberry,

sumac, bearsfoot and purslane. Ninety-two percent of all seeds available

during the summer are fleshy fruits. The remainder of the seeds represents

grain/greens (3%) and sumac (5%). The percentage of carbonized seeds that

are available during the summer increases compared to the spring data (Figure

52B). In addition to an overall increase in the percent of carbonized seeds, the

number of carbonized fleshy fruit seeds that are available in the summer

increases slightly (26%). Thus, there is either preferential drying of fruits

available in the summer or, most likely, more fruits are dried for storage during

185

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the summer months as plant food resources become increasingly more

abundant.

Although the percent of seeds (19%) from plants available in the fall is

significantly lower than those from spring and summer, the diversity of seeds

increases considerably and consists of grape, greenbrier, persimmon,

chenopod, smartweed, poke, ragweed, marshelder, bedstraw and gourd. In

addition, the ratio of fleshy fruits to grains/greens seeds is reversed from that of

spring and summer. During the fall, fleshy fruits represent only 12% of all seeds

identified while seeds of grains/green (88%) increase significantly. The overall

percentage of carbonized seeds from plants available during the fall increases

significantly from the previous two seasons. In the fleshy fruit category, all of the

grape and persimmon seeds were carbonized and neither of the gourd seeds

was carbonized. Within the grains/greens category, 82% were carbonized.

This is suggestive of an increase in parching (grains/greens) and drying (fleshy

fruits) during the fall months, most likely for storage through the winter.

However, although it is unlikely, the possibility that the seeds were waste

byproducts lost while preparing greens cannot be discounted (Bye 1981).

When the overall proportions of carbonized and non-carbonized fleshy

fruits and grains/greens are examined (Figure 52C) most fleshy fruit seeds are

non-carbonized while most grains/greens seeds are carbonized. To reiterate a

point made in Chapter 9, the patterns of carbonized and non-carbonized seeds

186

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. are not likely due to preservation bias because 1) both carbonized and non-

carbonized plant remains are well preserved due to the environmental conditions

of the shelter, and 2) all plant material >.5mm was systematically examined;

analytical techniques did not result in the loss of seeds unless they were smaller

than .5mm.

The relative proportions of carbonized and non-carbonized fleshy fruits

mirrors that of all spring seeds and all carbonized and non-carbonized

grain/green seeds mirror those of all fall seeds. The fleshy fruits available in the

spring and the grains/greens available in the fall are most informative as to what

types of plants were exploited and subjected to parching and drying.

10.1.2.b Ecology of Plant Exploitation

The percentage of seeds by category was broken down into landform

habitat zones to assess how much of the total landscape was being exploited

and determine which zones were the most important for plant exploitation on a

seasonal basis (Figures 53- 55). Although plants have been placed within a

single landform zone, not all plants assigned to a zone are exclusively found

within that zone. For instance, chenopod, which thrives in disturbed habitats,

could potentially be found on all landform zones. For this study, plants were

assigned to the landform zone with which they are most closely associated on

the basis of modem vegetation studies conducted within the Cumberland

Plateau region (Table 1).

187

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Mounded Talus rockshelter, which is situated between the upslope and

slope zones, is also situated between the two most exploited landforms: the

upland zone and the lowland zone. Seeds from these two landforms account for

76% of all identified seeds from the archaeobotanical assemblage. Although

seeds from the upland and lowland zones were most heavily exploited, seeds

from all landform zones are represented in the assemblage. This indicates that

the Middle Archaic inhabitants of Mounded Talus rockshelter moved across the

landscape on a seasonal basis and that the rockshelter likely provided an

optimal residential base from which plant procurement trips could take place.

The seasonal availability of seeds, as suggested by the Mounded Talus

archaeobotanical assemblage, indicates that the rockshelter was being utilized

on a year-round basis or at least for three seasons: spring, summer and fall.

Few seeds of fleshy fruits available in the spring were carbonized, suggesting

that these early fruits were not dried. Plant resources, especially fleshy fruits,

were most likely collected and consumed when encountered during the spring

when few other fresh plant resources were abundant. During the summer,

fleshy fruits and, to a lesser extent, grains/greens were collected. The increase

in the number of carbonized seeds of fleshy fruits that are available during the

summer suggests some drying of fruits was occurring, perhaps for storage.

Seeds of grains/greens dominate the fell seed assemblage. The vast majority of

188

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. these seeds were carbonized, perhaps indicating seeds were being parched for

use throughout the winter months.

10.2 DISCUSSION OF SELECT SEEDS: CHENOPOD, MARSHELDER AND GOURD

Three types of seeds, chenopod (Chenopodium), marshelder ( Iva) and

gourd (Cucurbita), warrant special consideration since species of these genera

show evidence of domestication by about 3500 BP in eastern North America,

including eastern Kentucky. A total of twelve chenopod seeds was recovered

from Test Unit 1 column samples. With the exception of one seed, all are

charred, small (ranging from .8 -1.2 mm in diameter) and morphologically

consistent w ith Chenopodium missouriense. Although seeds of this species are

virtually indistinguishable from those of C. album, the latter is a Eurasian

introduction. In any case, the archaeological material does not represent the

economically important C. bertandieri, domesticated forms of which are well

represented at dry shelters in the Kentucky and Red River drainages. However,

a single chenopod seed (from sample Tu1-6; Stratum VI) greatly resembles

Chenopodium bertandieri and appears to have an extremely thin seed coat, one

indicator of domesticated status (Smith 1987). However, one thin-testa seed is

not sufficient evidence for a domesticated population; natural polymorphism in

chenopod could result in thick and thin-testa seeds on a single plant.

189

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Two marshelder (Iva sp) seeds were identified from a Test Unit 2 column

sample (Tu2-4; Stratum IV). Both of the seeds were carbonized, small and

somewhat flattened, an indication of immature or weedy seeds. One whole seed

measures 2 mm in length and 1.5 mm wide. A second seed is fragmented and

only the width could be measured (1.5 mm). The sizes of these archaeological

seeds are somewhat smaller than those of other wild archaeological specimens

(Yamell 1994). Although the size of the marshelder seeds does not indicate

they were under the process of domestication, their presence in the Middle

Archaic deposits of Mounded Talus is significant. Although marshelder seeds

are common in Late Archaic and Early Woodland period rockshelter sites in the

region, all are large and considered to represent crop plants. However, to date,

there have been no examples of marshelder from archaeological sites in the

region that could be considered a wild progenitor to the domesticated variety.

A total of two non-carbonized gourd (Cucurbita) seed fragments was

identified from Point Sample 3 and Test Unit 1 (Tu1-2; Stratum III). Two

additional non-carbonized gourd seeds were recovered from Test Unit 1,

Stratum III excavations, one of which was directly dated to 5080+/-60 BP

(Gremillion and Mickelson 1996; Table 5). This date is similar to a directly dated

gourd seed from Cloudsplitter rockshelter in Menifee County (Cowan 1997).

Both gourd seeds from Mounded Talus sample TU1-2 are too fragmentary to

obtain measurements. However, the seeds from earlier Test Unit 1 excavations

190

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. from the same stratum were comparable in size (approximately 8 mm in length

by 5mm in width) to those of free-living Cucurbita gourds (Cowan and Smith

1993; King 1985). The existence of an indigenous eastern North American

Cucurbita lineage dating to the beginning of the Holocene is supported by

geographical and genetic evidence (Decker 1988; Sanjur et al. 2002; Smith and

Cowan 1993). Although the gourd seeds from Mounded Talus may represent an

initial type of plant husbandry, they offer no morphological evidence that they

came from a population of domesticated gourds.

The presence of wild forms of marshelder and gourd in the Middle Archaic

deposits at Mounded Talus may represent the initial stages of the process of

domestication where seeds of marshelder and small, hard-shelled gourds were

collected in their natural habitats in the lowlands to planting and cultivation. In

any case they represent an important role in filling a temporal gap in the record

of the use of wild progenitors of both marshelder and gourd.

10.3 DISCUSSION

Although no archaeobotanical assemblage is representative of all the

plants procured and utilized by past populations, the favorable preservation

conditions at Mounded Talus rockshelter allow for a unique, albeit imperfect,

opportunity to assess the importance of different plant resources during the

Middle Archaic period. If economic importance (not to be confused with dietary

importance) can be inferred from the abundance of plant remains present, the

191

* Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. archaeobotanical assemblage at Mounded Talus indicates that starchy nuts and

fleshy fruits were two of the most economically important plant resources to the

inhabitants of Mounded Talus rockshelter. These are followed by oily nuts and

seeds from grain/green plants. Figure 55 illustrates the seasonal availability of

both seeds and nuts according to landform. Seasons are divided into early (E),

middle (M) and late (L) subcategories. The left-hand portion of the line indicates

the earliest time seeds or nuts of a plant becomes available. The right-hand line

indicates the latest time in a season seeds or nuts of a plant become available

(although seeds may adhere to the plant longer). When a taxon crosses over a

seasonal boundary, they are grouped to the season in which the seeds first

appear. Although this graph does not consider the absolute abundance of each

taxon, it is useful in illustrating which plant resources are available by season

and landform. Only three seed taxa of the uplands were identified: huckleberry,

blueberry and hickory. These three taxa extend from early spring through fall.

Similar to the upland zone, the upslope and slope zones have little

diversity in terms of plant taxa (Figure 55). Acorn and grape fall within the

upslope zone and elderberry, chestnut and greenbrier fall into the slope zone.

Plants from the upslope zone are only available during the fall, while plants from

the slopes are available from midsummer through early winter. Thus, the

upslope and slope zones are best exploited during the fall.

192

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Plant diversity explodes in the slope/lowland zone with numerous taxa of

seeds from fleshy fruits and grains/greens: anemone, strawberry, mulberry,

bearsfoot, sumac, purslane, chenopod, and persimmon. Fleshy fruits would be

available throughout the year in the slope/lowland zone. Plant diversity remains

high in the lowland zone. Within the lowland zone, one nut species (walnut) and

six seed taxa are present and all but raspberry are seasonally available during

the fall months.

When the diversity of taxa (defined here as the number of seed taxa

present, called “richness” in the ecological literature) by season of availability is

examined, fall has the highest diversity. The numerous fall plants exploited are

most densely concentrated in the lowlands while plant diversity is low and nearly

even in the other four landform zones. Plant seeds available in the spring are

concentrated in the upland and slope/lowland and lowlands. There is low

diversity in each of these zones. The diversity of plant remains during the

summer is also low but most plants are concentrated in the slope/lowland zone.

One taxon falls within each of the upland and slope zones.

When the abundance of plant remains for each landform zone is taken into

account (Figure 56; Table 24) the majority of all plant remains represent the

upland, upslope and slope zones. Only 17% of all of the seed and nut taxa

were from the slope/lowland and lowland zones. Although the greatest diversity

193

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of plant remains occurs in the slope/lowland and lowland zones, the greatest

quantities of plant remains actually exploited comes from the slope and uplands.

The Shannon-Weaver index is commonly used in archaeology as a

measure of the number of different taxa present in a sample (the variety

component) and the abundance of each taxon (Lennstrom and Hastorf

1992:211)9. Although problems are associated with the use of the Shannon-

Weaver index, namely that it is greatly influenced by the most abundant taxa, it

is useful for evaluating broad trends (Banning 2000; Popper 1988). When a

diversity index is calculated, a high index value indicates that there are more

taxa present in a sample and/or the abundances of all the taxa in the sample are

similar to each another. Thus, stating that there is a high diversity index means

that there are either 1) many taxa present in the sample, and 2) the abundances

of all the taxa present in the sample are similar, or 3) that there are many taxa

with sim ilar abundances in the sample. A low diversity index indicates there are

few taxa in the sample or that some taxa are more numerous that others.

In the following example, each landform zone is considered a “sample”

and a diversity index (both richness and evenness) was calculated for each

zone. Figures 57A and B show the percentage of plants using absolute counts

exploited by season landform (Figure 57A) and the diversity index (richness and

The Shannon-Weaver index is calculated as: H= -X(ni/N)-log(n,/N), where nt is the total quantity or number of individual fragments of each taxon in a sample. N is the total number of identified fragments in each sample (Lennstrom and Hastorf 1992:210).

194

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. evenness) of the assemblage from each landform zone. Spring, summer and fall

plant resources are all represented in the upland zone (Figure 57B).

Huckleberry is the only spring plant present in the upland zone and it is the least

abundant seed type in the upland zone of all three seasons. Blueberry remains

constitute the only summer upland zone plant deposited within the shelter.

However, given the high percentage of the taxon, it was a seasonally important

item.

Both the upslope and slope zones are dominated by seeds and nuts that

are produced in the fall. Acorn and chestnut account for the majority of the

upslope and slope zone resources although a small quantity of grape and

greenbrier are present in the assemblage. In addition, a small quantity of

summer seeds was exploited in the slope, all of which were elderberries.

Similar to the uplands, the slope/lowland is a three-season zone.

However, unlike all other landform zones, the slope/lowland is the only zone in

which nuts do not occur; only small seeds, greens and fruits are exploited in the

slope/lowland zone. Within the slope/lowland zone, seeds produced in the

spring are the most abundant resources; strawberries dominate. In the summer,

fewer quantities of plants are present but a greater number of taxa are

represented. Fall-producing plants represent the second most important season

for the slope/lowland zone. This category is dominated by chenopod. *

Only two seasons, spring and fall, are represented within the lowland

zone. Raspberry is the only spring resource identified for the lowland zone.

195

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Although plants that produce seeds and nuts in the fall are less abundant in the

lowland zone, there is a high diversity of taxa of which walnut and smartweed

dominate by number of fragments.

A Shannon-Weaver diversity index was calculated for each of the

landform zones (Figure 57B). Although diversity measures do not measure the

abundance of taxa, they do quantify the richness (number of taxa represented in

each landform assemblage), evenness (how taxa are distributed by quantity in

the landform zones), and characterization of each landform zone. The upland

zone has a moderately high diversity index indicating that the abundances of

individual taxa are fairly even but that the diversity of plant taxa is neither high

nor low. The upslope and slopes zones have very low diversity indices which

are indicative that few plant taxa are present from the zones and that the

abundances of the individual taxa are quite uneven. The abundance of acorn in

the upslope zone and chestnut on the slope zone likely accounts for the low

diversity index. The slope/lowland zone has a high diversity index that indicates

the landform is rich in the number of taxa present from the landform and that the

abundances of each taxa are fairly even. The lowland zone has a moderately

high diversity index where the richness of the samples is high but there is some

unevenness in the abundance of taxa. This unevenness is caused by the

abundance of raspberry seeds in the lowland zone.

196

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10.4 SUMMARY

Valuable insight on the plant exploitation routines of the Middle Archaic

inhabitants of Mounded Talus rockshelter has been gained by dividing the

landscape into zones based on the habitat requirements and season of

availability of plants identified from the archaeobotanical assemblage. Plants

were collected from all landform zones on a seasonal basis. During the spring

the lowland zone contains the most important plant resource: raspberries;

however, raspberries are also an edge species and may have been available on

other landform zones. Strawberries in the slope/lowland zone and huckleberries

in the upland zone also provided important plant resources in the spring.

During the summer, blueberries were heavily exploited in the uplands and

elderberries were important along the slopes. In the slope/lowland zone,

mulberry, bearsfoot, sumac and purslane were exploited. During the fall, nuts

were by far the most valued plant resource, especially chestnut, acorn, and

hickory. The high value of nut resources during the fall makes the slope

(chestnut), upslope (acorn) and upland (hickory) zones the most economically

valuable parts of the landscape to exploit. However, small seeds of

grains/greens and select fruits, predominantly from the lowland zone, round out

the group of plants available in the of the fall.

The plant exploitation regime of the Middle Archaic population from

Mounded Talus is best summarized and follows. In the spring, plant collection

rounds would be made between the upland and slope/Iowslope and lowland

197

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. zones. During the summer the foraging routine would be spread out between

the upland, slope and slope/lowland zone. The optimal landform zone to exploit

during the foil would have been the upslope and slope followed by the uplands.

The slope/lowland and lowland zones were also important landforms for plant

collection during the foil, especially for the diversity in the types of plants

collected. Interestingly, Mounded Talus rockshelter is situated between the

upland and lowland zones. The central proximity of the rockshelter would have

enabled the most expedient access to all landforms which would have expedited

the collection of the most valuable plant resources on a seasonal basis. This

pattern of logistical movement across the landscape from the centrally situated

rockshelter would still have enabled the Middle Archaic populations to collect

less ‘important’, but nonetheless valued, seeds encountered along the way to

the major seasonal plant resources.

By dividing the landscape into zones it has been possible to ascertain

1) from which landform zones the Middle Archaic inhabitants of Mounded Talus

rockshelter exploited plant resources, 2) which plants were exploited the most

based on the archaeobotanical assemblage and which landform zones had the

most economic importance based on the archaeobotanical assemblage. By

adding in a seasonality component to the landscape model it has been possible

to discern 1) the seasons in which the Middle Archaic inhabitants exploited plant

resources and, 2) the approximate economic importance of each landform zone

198

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. on a seasonal basis. These data indicate that Mounded Talus was most likely

inhabited due to its central location between seasonal resource zones.

199

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 11

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The methodological approaches used in the evaluation of macrobotanical

remains at the Mounded Talus rockshelter can aid in gaining a better

understanding of subsistence practices of prehistoric peoples along the

Cumberland Plateau. This chapter summarizes the results of this study and

provides an avenue for future research based on the results of this research.

11.1 Formation Processes and Archaeobotanical Assemblages in the Cumberland Plateau Region

This research has demonstrated that the environmental context of

rockshelter environments must be considered to determine 1) the source of plant

remains within rockshelters, 2) the mode of plant deposition, and 3) the

environmental determinants of plant preservation. Second, although cultural

factors, such as those involved in processing and preparing plant remains, add

an additional dimension to preservation biases, many of these biases can be

minimized by simply quantifying remains according to their physical and

chemical properties. Finally, analytical methods used in the quantification of

plant remains should be critically evaluated to make sure that they do not add

additional biases to the interpretation of macrobotanical remains from

rockshelters in the region.

200

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Rockshelters along the Cumberland Plateau are effective sediment traps

and the macrobotanical remains of research interest comprise a portion of the

sediment. By evaluating the depositional history of the sediments, the source of

plant remains, their mode of deposition and environmental context, and the

variables having the most influence on the preservation potential of plants can

be assessed. This research has important implications for research in

rockshelters along the Cumberland Plateau. For instance, Cowan (1979a,

1979b, 1984) eliminated all acorn from consideration in the paleoethnobotanical

analyses he conducted for rockshelters in the region because he was uncertain

about their source; he concluded that rodents were likely responsible for their

presence. Similarly, Cowan (1984) concluded that most seeds in the Late

Archaic deposits at Cloudsplitter rockshelter were either deposited through

rodent activity or were seed rain. A similar problem existed for initial

paleoethnobotanical analyses of Mounded Talus deposits; the source of seeds

and nutshell was called into question. This study illustrates how the source of

sediments can be determined through the analysis of both sediment particle size

and the density and distribution of carbonized and non-carbonized plant

remains. Although imperfect, these methods have determined what plant

remains are associated with human activity, which plants are present as the

result of seed rain, and the degree to which geological processes have

introduced plant material.

201

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Second, the systematic evaluation of sediment geochemical properties

and the density and distribution of macrobotanical remains within Mounded

Talus rockshelter has illustrated that activity areas can be determined and that

the presence of potassium nitrates combined with low moisture content of the

sediments are the primary environmental determinants of plant preservation. By

employing geochemical analyses of the sediments at other rockshelter sites in

the region, environmental processes that result in differential preservation of

macrobotanical remains can be identified.

Another avenue in which this study can aid in future research at

rockshelters in the region is by assessing biases due to cultural and analytical

transformations of the archaeobotanical assemblage. For instance, Gremillion

(1995a, 1998) has suggested that trends in nutshell utilization change between

the Terminal Archaic and Early Woodland periods. Specifically, Gremillion

(1995:26) notes that there is a high hickory to acorn ratio during the Terminal

Archaic period but that the use of carbohydrate rich acorns decrease

significantly during the ensuing Early Woodland period. The decrease in acorn

abundance coincides with the increased importance of domesticated starchy

grains. Thus, Gremillion concludes that starchy grains may have replaced

acorns as a source of carbohydrates. However, as noted in Chapter 9, thin-

shelled acorns are commonly thought to be prone to fragmentation and are thus

underrepresented in archaeological sites, while thick-shelled hickory is less

prone to fragmentation and is thus well represented at archaeological sites.

202

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This research indicates that before diachronic trends in nutshell utilization can

be addressed, preservational biases of nut types need to be systematically

evaluated. For instance, this analysis indicates that:

1) carbonized and non-carbonized nutshell fragments have different fragmentation rates,

2) differential size sorting of nutshell fragments occurs with different nut taxa and,

3) carbonization is a factor in the preservation potential of remains.

Specifically, at Mounded Talus, non-carbonized acorn does not fragment into

small pieces although carbonized acorn is more prone to fragmentation.

Hickory, on the other hand, is more likely to fragment into small pieces,

especially when carbonized. Thus, one must ask if hickory and acorn remains

used in Gremillion’s (1995a) study were carbonized or non-carbonized? If acorn

was non-carbonized while hickory was carbonized, acorn may actually be

overrepresented while hickory is underrepresented. Secondly, since the

Mounded Talus data indicates that the vast majority of small-sized nutshell

remains are captured in 1.7mm screens during analysis, it would be interesting

to see if the trends observed by Gremillion (1995) concerning hickory and acorn

ratios still exist when smaller sizes of acorn and hickory are included.

Finally, methods employed in this research can be used to assess the

degree to which preservation biases have shaped our understanding of the

timing and nature of food production in the region. Because many rockshelters

in the region have yielded numerous well-preserved plant remains, research in

203

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the region has been important to our understanding of domestication of plants.

Radiocarbon dates on plant remains from rockshelters have provided some of

the earliest dates for domesticates, specifically for chenopod and squash. The

question is, are the early dates of domesticates from rockshelters biased by the

fact that plants preserve better in the rockshelters than they do at non-sheltered

sites? In other words, is there a bias against preservation of domesticates in

the open-air environment? Data from Mounded Talus indicate that the size of

plant remains and whether or not they are carbonized or non-carbonized are

important to: 1) the recovery of plant remains, and 2) the preservation of plant

remains. Thus, it would be interesting to examine domesticates from

archaeobotanical assemblages from rockshelter contexts to determine if the vast

majority are carbonized or non-carbonized. If domesticates, such as chenopod

grains, are rarely carbonized in rockshelter deposits and features, it suggests

that there is little likelihood that they were accidentally charred and lost. At an

open air site where preservation conditions dictate that only carbonized plant

remains preserve, it would be unlikely that such cultural processes would be

detected.

11.2 IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATING ARCHAEOBOTANICAL FORMATION PROCESSES

Archaeological sites are made up of sediments and artifacts; features and

archaeobotanical remains are part of the sediment. In order to evaluate

processes affecting archaeological remains, including plants, the depositional

204

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. history of the sediment must be evaluated. Environmental characteristics of the

sediment can have a profound effect on macrobotanical remains. In order to

make robust inferences of past human-plant relationships, paleoethnobotanists

need to understand 1) what agents are responsible for the deposition of plant

remains, 2) whether post-depositional disturbances have altered the

abundances and distribution of plant remains, 3) how environmental conditions

and cultural processes result in differential preservation of plant remains and, 4)

how analytical procedures might have introduced biases in the quantification of

plant remains.

The analysis of macrobotanical remains and geochemistry of sediments

from Mounded Talus rockshelter has important implications for the study of

archaeobotanical formation processes. As was noted in Chapter 9,

environmental and cultural transformations of the archaeobotanical assemblage

greatly affect the presence and preservation of archaeobotanical remains. In

addition, methods of analysis and quantification can seriously affect the overall

outcome of the analysis and thus interpretations of past human-plant

relationships.

This study has shown that the environmental characteristics of the

sediment should be considered when evaluating archaeobotanical assemblages.

It is generally known that pH levels affect the preservation of plant remains, but

other geochemical properties also play a role, such as moisture levels and

potassium nitrate at Mounded Talus. Although nitrates are not a factor at most

205

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. archaeological sites, this study points to the need to consider how the presence

of plant remains corresponds with geochemical variables of the sediment. This

aspect of research is not just important to our understanding of

archaeobotanical preservation; it also has important implications for

understanding how a ll organic artifacts, such as textiles and wooden structural

remains, preserve in a given environment. The results of methods used in this

research can greatly facilitate the conservation of perishable materials at both

rockshelter and cave sites, especially those that are open to the public. For

instance, this research has demonstrated that the presence of nitrates in

sediment significantly increases the preservation potential of organic remains,

such as plants. Capping sediments, such as that which is done to protect

archaeological sites or facilitate public access, may trap moisture, resulting in

the decay of organic remains.

This study also demonstrates how environmental processes that affect

the preservation of plant remains are variable within a deposit both vertically

and horizontally. Understanding how these processes correspond with the

presence of plant remains can greatly reduce biases in the interpretation of past

human plant use and exploitation.

Whether nor not plant remains are carbonized or non-carbonized also

affects the potential for remains to be preserved and the size of plant remains.

In the case of seeds, practices of drying (i.e., fruits) or parching (i.e., grains) may

result in accidental charring of seed remains, but if they are boiled it is less

206

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. probable that remains would be accidentally charred, creating a bias towards

dried and parched fruits and grains. Furthermore, at archaeological sites such

as rockshelters, including Mounded Talus, there is the added effect of

quantifying non-carbonized seed remains. At Mounded Talus fleshy fruit seeds

were mostly non-carbonized while the majority of grain seeds were

predominantly carbonized. In open-air sites this would be taken to indicate that

fleshy fruits were not as important as grains in the diet. This could be one of the

reasons that many or the earliest dates of domesticated plants come from

rockshelters in the study region; domesticated grains are not carbonized and

thus do not preserve in open air sites. However, additional research is needed

to further evaluate this. Sorting of seeds into carbonized and non-carbonized

categories might begin to answer such questions.

As was noted for nutshell in this study, processing and preparing plants

affects their size, but size is also influenced by whether or not remains are

carbonized or non-carbonized. Carbonization tends to increase the

fragmentation rates of plants as compared to non-carbonized remains. In the

case of nutshell, significant quantities of nutshell from all taxa would be lost if

materials under 2mm were not systematically examined and certain taxa may be

underrepresented. The problem of underrepresentation of carbonized versus

non-carbonized nutshell is further escalated when ratios, such as the commonly

used seedrnutshell ratio, are employed; seeds may be over represented

because nutshell remains are under represented. For instance, at Mounded

207

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Talus the seed:nutshell ratio using all seeds and only those nuts recovered from

screens 2mm and above would be 1.16. When nuts from all screen sizes are

used the seedinutshell ratio is .72. When the same ratio is calculated using all

seeds and all nutshell from the 1.7mm screen (seed:nutshell ratio of .82) the

ratio more closely approximates the abundance of seeds relative to all nutshell.

Although these ratios are small, the point is to illustrate how such ratios are

affected by our methods of analysis. At sites where there are larger

archaeobotanical assemblages this could lead to a serious misinterpretation of

the archaeobotanical assemblage.

Although no archaeological site has a perfectly preserved

archaeobotanical assemblage that represents all plants used by past

populations, some sites do have better preservation than others. However, just

because a site has many well preserved, normally perishable plant remains, it

cannot be assumed that all of the plants preserve equally. Thus, careful

consideration must be given to the formation processes that affect the presence

or absence, size, weight, or fragmentation of plant remains. This study uses an

approach to gain a better understanding of formation processes that affect plant

remains.

208

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF REFERENCES

Applegate, Darlene 1995 The Research Potential of Surface-Collected Lithic Assemblages: The Rhondle Lee Collection, Powell County, Kentucky. In Current Archaeological Research in Kentucky, Volume Edited 5. by C harles D. Hockensmith, Kenneth C. Carstens, Charles Stout and Sara Rivers, Kentucky Heritage Council.

Ahler, Stanley 1973a Post-Pleistocene Depositional Change at Rodgers Shelter, Missouri. Plains Anthropologists 18:1-26.

1973b Chemical Analysis of Deposits at Rodgers Shelter, Missouri. Plains Anthropologists 18:116-131.

Avers, Peter E., Jarrell S. Austin and John K. Long 1969 Soil Management Report, Morehead and Stanton Ranger Districts. Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Region 8.

Bjelajac, Victor, Edward M. Luby and Rose Ray 1996 A Validation Test of a Field-Based Phosphate Analysis Technique. Journal o f Archaeological Science 23:243-248.

Brady, Nyle C. and Ray R. Weil 1999 The Nature and Properties o f Soils. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Braun, E. Lucy 1950 Deciduous Forests o f Eastern North America. The Blakiston Company, Philadelphia.

Butzer, K. 1982 Archaeology as Human Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

209

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Bye, Robert A., Jr. 1981 Quelites - Ethnoecology of Edible Greens - Past, Present and Future. Journal o f Ethnobiology 1 (1):109-123.

Campbell, Julian J. N. and William Meijer 1989 The Flora and Vegetation of Jessamine Gorge, Jessamine County, Kentucky: A remarkable Concentration of Rare Species in the Bluegrass Region. Transactions o f the Kentucky Academy Sconce o f 50:27-45.

Canti, Matthew 1995 A Mixed Approach to Geoarchaeological Analysis. In Archaeological Sediments and Soils; Analysis, Interpretation and Management, edited by Anthony J. Barham and Richard I. Macphail. Institute of Archaeology, University College, London, pp. 183 -190.

Carson, M.A. and M.J. Kirkby 1972 H ill Slope Form and Process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Chomko, Steven and Gary W. Crawford, 1978 Plant Husbandry in Prehistoric Eastern North America: New evidence for its Development. American Antiquity43:405-408.

Conard, Nicholas, D.L. Asch, N.B. Asch, D. Elmore, H.E. Gove, M. Rubin, J.A. Brown, M.S. Wiant, K.B. Farnsworth, and T.G. Cook 1984 Accelerator Radiocarbon Dating of Evidence for Prehistoric Horticulture in Illin o is. N ature 308:443-446.

Courty, Marie Agnes, Paul Goldberg and Richard MacPhail 1989 Soils and Micromorphology in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Collins, Robert F. 1975 A history of the Daniel Boone National Forest, 1770-1970. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Atlanta.

Cowan, C. Wesley 1974 Test Excavations in the Proposed Red River Lake, Kentucky: 1974 Season. Report submitted to the National Park Service, Atlanta Georgia. University of Kentucky, Department of Anthropology. Lexington.

1975 An Archaeological Survey and Assessment of the Proposed Red River Reservoir in Powell, Wolfe, and Menifee Counties, Kentucky. Report Submitted to the National Park Sen/ice, Florida.

210

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1976 Test Excavations in the Proposed Red River Lake, Kentucky: 1974 Season. Report submitted to the National Park Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 1979a Excavations at the Haystack Rockshelters, Powell County, Kentucky. Midcontinental Journal o f Archaeology 4:3-33.

1979b Prehistoric Plant Utilization at the Rogers Rockshelter Powell County, Kentucky. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.

1984 From Forager to Incipient Food Production: Subsistence Change and Continuity on die Cumberland Plateau of Eastern Kentucky. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

1996 Evolutionary Changes Associated with the Domestication of Cucurbita pepo: Evidence from Eastern Kentucky. In People, Plants and Landscapes: Studies in Paleoethnobotany, edited by Kristen J. Gremillion. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, pp. 63- 86.

Cowan, C. Wesley, H. Edwin Jackson, Katherine Moore, Andrew Nickelhoff and Tristine L. Smart 1981 The Cloudsplitter Rockshelter, Menifee County, Kentucky: A Preliminary Report. In Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin pp. 60-24, 76.

Cowan, C. W. and B. Smith 1993 New Perspectives on a Wild Gourd in Eastern North America. Journal o f Ethnobiology 13:17-54.

Cowan, C. Wesley and Frederick T. Wilson 1977 An Archaeological Survey of the Red River Gorge Area in Menifee, Powell, and Wolfe Counties, Kentucky. The Kentucky Heritage Commission, Frankfort, Kentucky.

Crites, Gary 1987 Middle and Late Holocene Ethnobotany of the Hayes Site (40ML139): Evidence from Unit 990N918E. Midcontinental Journal o f Archaeology 12:3-32.

1991 Investigations into early Plant Domesticates and Food Production in Middle Tennessee: A Status Report. Tennessee Anthropologist 16:69-87.

211

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Crawford, Gary 1982 Late Archaic Plant Remains from West-central Kentucky: A Summary. Midcontinental Journal o f Archaeology 7(2): 205-224.

Decker, D.S. 1988 Origin(s), Evolution, and Systematics of Cucurbita pepo (Cucurbitaceae). Economic Botany 42:4-15.

Delcourt, Paul A., Hazel R. Delcourt, Cecil Ison, William E. Sharp and Kristen J. G rem illion 1998 Prehistoric Human use of Fire, The Eastern Agricultural Complex and Appalachian Oak-Chestnut Forests: Paleoecology of Cliff Palace Pond, Kentucky. American Antiquity, 63(2), pp. 263-278.

Dennell, R. W . 1976 The Economic Importance of Plant Resources Represented on Archaeological Sites. Journal o f Archaeological Sciences 3:229-247.

Dimbleby, G. W. 1967 Plants and Archaeology. John Baker, Pall Mall, London.

Dincauze, Dena F. 2000 Environmental Archaeology: Principles and Practices. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Donahue, Jack and James M. Adovasio 1990 Evolution of Sandstone Rockshelters in eastern North America: A Geoarchaeological Approach. In Archaeological Geology of North America, Centennial Special Volume The 4. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.

Dunnell, R. C. 1972 The Prehistory of Fishtrap, Kentucky. Yale University Publications in Anthropology. Number Seventy-Five. Department of Anthropology, Yale University.

Dunnell, Robert and Julie Stein 1989 Theoretical Issues in the Interpretation of Microartifacts. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 4(1): 31-42.

212

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ettensohn, Frank R., Charles L Rice, Garland R. Dever, JR., and Donald R. Chesnut 1984 Slade and Paragon Formations- New Stratigraphic Nomenclature for Mississippian Rocks along the Cumberland Escarpment in Kentucky. U.S. Geological Survey bulletin 1605.United States Printing Office, Washington.

Fenneman, Nevin M. 1938 Physiography o f Eastern United States. NcGraw-Hill Book Company, New Y ork.

Farrand, W illiam R. 1985 Rockshelter and Cave Sediments. In Archaeological Sediments in Context, edited by Julie K. Stein and William R. Ferrand. Center for the Study of Early Man, Institute for Quaternary Studies, University of Maine, Orono, Maine, pp. 21-39.

2001 Sediments and Stratigraphy in Rockshelters and Caves: A Personal Perspective on principles and Pragmatics. Geoarchaeology 16:537-557.

Fig, Don and Gary Knudson 1984 Niter Mining: An Incipient Industry of the Red River Gorge, Kentucky. In Proceedings o f the Symposium on Ohio Valley Archaeology, Vol edited II, by Donald Ball and Philip J. DiBlasi. Archaeological Survey, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky.

Ford, Richard I. 1988 Commentary: Little Things Mean a Lot — Quantification and Qualification in Paleoethnobotany. In Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations o f Archaeological Plant Remains, edited by Christine A. Hastorf and Virginia S. Popper. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 245-223.

Frink, Douglas S. 1992 The Chemical Variability of Carbonized Organic Matter Through Time. Archaeology o f Eastern North America 20:67-79.

Funkhouser, W. D and W. S. Webb 1929a The So-Called "Ash Caves" of Lee County, Kentucky. In The University of Kentucky Reports in Archaeology, Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, vol. I (2):37-112.

213

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1929b The So-Called “Hominy-Holes” of Kentucky. American Anthropologist 31: 701-709.

1930 Rock Shelters of Wolfe and Powell Counties, Kentucky. In The University of Kentucky Reports in Archaeology, Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, vol. I (4):240-306.

1932 Archaeological Survey of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky Reports in archaeology and Anthropology. Volume II.

1936 Rock Shelters in Meniffee County, Kentucky. In The University of Kentucky Reports in Archaeology. Vol. Ill:4.

Gardner, Paul 1997 The Ecological Structure and Behavioral Implications of Mast Exploitation Strategies. In People, Plants and Landscapes: Studies in Paleoethnobotany, edited by Kristen J. Gremillion. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, pp. 161 -179.

Gifford-Gonzalez, Diane P., David B. Damrosch, Debra R. Damrosch, John Pryor, and Robert I. Thunen 1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure: An Experiment in Trampling and Vertical Dispersal. American Antiquity 50(4): 803-818.

Gilmore, Melvin R. 1931 Vegetal remains of the Ozark BlufF-Dweller Culture. Michigan Academy of Science Arts and Letters, Vol XIV, Plimpton Press, Norwood, Mass, pp. 83-103.

Greb, Stephan F. 1993 Petrography of Three Archaeological Sites in the Corbin Sandstone for Weathering Analysis. Report to the Daniel Boone National Forest, Winchester Office, Kentucky.

Gremillion, Kristen J. 1993a The Evolution of Seed Morphology in Domesticated Chenopodium: An Archaeological Case Study. Journal o f Ethnobiology 13(2):149-169.

1993b Crop and Weed in Prehistoric Eastern North America: The Chenopodium Example. American A ntiquity 58(3): 496-509.

214

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1993c Plant Husbandry at the Archaic/Woodland Transition: Evidence from the Cold Oak Shelter, Kentucky. Midcontinental Journal o f Archaeology 18(2): 162-189.

1993d Paleoethnobotany. In The Development o f Southeastern Archaeology, edited by J. Johnson, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, pp. 132-159.

1993e Archaeological Investigations at the Rock Bridge Shelter (15W075), W olf County, Kentucky. Report Submitted to Cecil Ison, Forest Archaeologist, Daniel Boone National Forest, Staunton, Kentucky.

1994 Evidence of Plant Domestication from Kentucky Caves and Rockshelters. In Agricultural Origins and Development in the Midcontinent, edited by W illiam Green. Report No. 19, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, pp. 87- 105.

1995a Archaeological and Paleoethnobotanical Investigations at the Cold Oak Shelter, Kentucky. Report submitted to the National Geographical S ociety.

1995b Botanical Contents of Paleofeces from Two Eastern Kentucky Rockshelters. In Current Archaeological Research in Kentucky: Volume Three, edited by John F. Doershuk, Christopher A. Bergman and David Pollack, pp. 52-70.

1996a Early Agricultural Diet in Eastern North America: Evidence from Two Kentucky Rockshelters. American Antiquity 61(3): 520-536.

1996b Diffusion and Adoption of Crops in Evolutionary Perspective. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15:183-204.

1996c The Paleoethnobotanical Record for the Mid-Holocene Southeast. In Archaeology o f the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida, pp. 99-114.

1997 New Perspectives on the Paleoethnobotany of the Newt Kash Shelter. In People, Plants and Landscapes: Studies in Paleoethnobotany. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, pp. 23-42.

215

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1998 3,000 years of Human Activity at the Cold Oak Shelter. In C urrent Archaeological Research in Kentucky, Volume Edited 5. by Charles D. Hockensmith, Kenneth C. Carstens, Charles Stout and Sara Rivers, Kentucky Heritage Council.

1999 National Register Evaluation of the Courthouse Rock Shelter (15P0322), Powell County, Kentucky. Report submitted to the USDA Forest Service, Daniel Boone National forest, Winchester, Kentucky.

2000 The Ecology of Food Production in eastern Kentucky. NSF Grant Proposal.

2002 Ecology of Food Production in eastern Kentucky. Paper Presented at the Annual Society for American Archaeology Meeting, Denver Colorado.

Gremillion, Kristen J. and Katherine R. Mickelson 1996 National Register Evaluation of the Mounded Talus Shelter (15Le77), Lee County, Kentucky. Report Prepared for USDA Forest Sen/ice, Daniel Boone National Forest, Winchester, Kentucky.

1997 Archaeological Survey and Assessment in Portions of the Big Sinking Drainage, Lee County, Kentucky. A report of Investigations conducted by the Ohio State University and supported by a Survey and Planning Grant by the Kentucky Heritage Council.

Gremillion, Kristen J, Katherine R. Mickelson, Andrew M. Mickelson and Anne B. Lee 2000 Rockshelters at the Headwaters: An Archaeological Survey in the Big Sinking Drainage of Eastern Kentucky. In Current Archaeological Research in Kentucky: Volume Six, edited by David Pollack and Kristen J. Gremillion. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort, Kentucky, pp. 76-93.

Greenacre, Michael and Jorg Blasius 1994 Correspondence Analysis in the Social Sciences: Recent Developments and Applications. Academic Press, London.

Guetig, Richard G. and Ronald Jones 1991 The Aceraceae of Kentucky. Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science 52(1-2):1-6.

Haag, William 1939 Description of Pottery Types. Newsletter of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference 1(3).

216

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1974 The Adena Culture. In Archaeological Researches in Retrospect, edited by Gordon R. Willey, pp. 119-145. Winthrop Publishers, Cambridge.

Hair, J., R. Anderson, R. Tatham, W. Black 1995 Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice Hall, New York.

Haney, Donald C. 1976 Geological Map of the Cobhill Quadrangle, East-Central Kentucky. U.S. geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Hansen, Julie 2001 Macroscopic Plant Remains from Mediterranean Caves and Rockshelters: Avenues of Interpretation. Goearchaeology 16:401- 432.

Hill, Carol and Paolo Forti 1997 Cave Minerals o f the World. National Speleological Society, Huntsville, Alabama.

Herz, Norman and Ervan G. Garrison 1998 Geological Methods for Archaeology. Oxford University Press, New York.

Hunt, Charles B. 1974 Natural Regions o f die United States and Canada. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.

Ison, Cecil R. 1988 The Cold Oak Shelter: Providing a Better Understanding of the Terminal Archaic. In Paleoindian and Archaic Research in Kentucky. Edited by, David Hockensmith, David Pollack and Thomas N. Sanders, ed. The Kentucky Heritage Council. Frankfort, pp. 205-221.

Jerreries, R.W. 1988 Archaic Period Research in Kentucky: Past Accomplishments and Future Directions. In Paleoindian and Archaic research in Kentucky, edited by C.D. Hockensmith, D. Pollack, and T.N. Sanders, pp. 86-126. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort, Kentucky.

1996 Hunters and Gatherers after the Ice Age. In Kentucky Archaeology, edited by R. B. Lewis, pp. 39-78. The University of Kentucky Press, Lexington.

217

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Johnson, George, P. 1989 Castanea and Fagus (Fagaceae) in Kentucky. Transactions o f the Kentucky Academy of Science 50(1-2):75-78.

Johnson, George P. and Kenneth A. Nicely 1991 The Laurales of Kentucky. Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science 52(1-2):7-9.

Jones, Ronald L. 1985a The Aquifoliaceae of Kentucky. Transactions o the f Kentucky Academy o f Science 46(3-4): 104-107.

1985b The Buxaceae, Clethraceae, Myricaceae, Sapotaceae and Theaceae of Kentucky. Transactions o f the Kentucky Academy o f Science 46(3-4): 134-137.

Jones, Volney 1936 The Vegetal Remains of Newt Kash Hollow Shelter. In Rockshelters in Menifee County, Kentucky, by W. S. Webb and W. D. Funkhouser. Reports in Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, 3(4): 147-65.

Keepax, Carole 1977 Contamination of Archaeological Deposits by Seeds of Modem O rigins. Journal o f Archaeological Science 4:221-229.

King, F. 1985 Early Cultivated Cucurbits in Eastern North America. In Prehistoric Food Production in North America, edited by R.I. Ford pp. 73-98. Anthropological Papers No.75, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Knudsen, Gary D., Jana Kellar and Scott Simpson 1983 Cultural resource Inventory, Big Sinking Creek Oil Field, Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky. USDA Forest Service, Daniel Boone National Forest, Winchester, Kentucky.

Laville, H., J.P. Rigaud, and J. Sackett 1980 Rock Shelters o f the Perigord: Geological Stratigraphy and Archaeological Succession. Academic Press, New York.

218

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lennstrom, Heidi A., and Christine A. Hastorf 1992 Testing Old Wives’ Tales in Paleoethnobotany: A Comparison of Bulk and Scatter Sampling Schemes from Pancan, Peru. Journal of Archaeological Science 19:205-229.

Linton, R. 1924 The Significance of Certain Traits in North American Maize Culture. American Anthropologist 26:345-359.

Lopinot, Neal 1984 Formation Processes of the Archaeobotanical Record. Unpublished PhD thesis, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois.

Lyon, Edwin 1996 A New Deal for Southeastern Archaeology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Matthews, Wendy 1995 Micromophological Characterization and Interpretation of Occupation Deposits and Microstratigraphic Sequences at Abu Salabikh. In Archaeological Sediments and So//s; Analysis, Interpretation and Management, edited by Anthony J. Barham and Richard I. Macphail. Institute of Archaeology, University College, London, pp. 41 - 76.

Mickelson, Andrew M. 2000 Measuring Facing Aspect of Archaeological Sites: GIS and Traditional Methods Compared. Poster Presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Philadelphia.

2001a Plant Domestication and the Origins of Agriculture in eastern North America: A GIS Perspective of Prehistoric Land Use from the Red River Valley in eastern Kentucky. Poster Presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.

2001b Mitigation of the Upper Portions of the Gladie Creek Site (15Mf410). Red River Gorge Geological Area, Daniel Boone National Forest, Stanton Ranger District, Menifee County, Kentucky.

Mickelson, Katherine R. 2000 Sediment Composition and the Preservation of Macrobotanical Remains at the Mounded Talus Rockshelter (15LE77) Lee County, Kentucky. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 5-9,2000.

219

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2001a Issues in Archaeobotanical Preservation: A Geochemical Approach. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans, La., April 18-22,2001.

2001b The Application of Phytolith Analysis to Archaeology: Eastern Kentucky in Context. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Kentucky Heritage Council, February, 2001.

Mickelson, K. and K. Gremillion 1995 Archaeological Investigations at the Mounded Talus Shelter (15LE77). Paper presented at the Thirteenth Annual Kentucky Heritage Council Archaeological Conference, March 2-3, Louisville, Kentucky.

Miksicek, Charles, H. 1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeobotanical Record. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by Michael Schiffer, Academic Press, San Diego California, vol. 10:211-247.

Minnis, Paul 1994 Paleoethnobotanical Indicators of Prehistoric Environmental Disturbance: A Case Study. In The Nature and Status o f Ethnobotany, edited by Richard I. Ford, Anthropological Papers No 67, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 348-367.

1981 Seeds in Archaeological Sites: Sources and Some Interpretive Problems. Am erican A n tiq u ity46:143-152.

Morrison, Kenneth 1988 Native Americans and the American Revolution. In Indians in American History, edited by Frederick E. Hoxie. Harlan Davidson, Inc., Arlington Heights, Illinois, pp.95-117.

Munson, P., P. Parmalee and R. Yamell 1971 Subsistence ecology of Scovill, A terminal Middle Woodland Village. Am erican A ntiquity 36:410-430.

Nielson, Alex 1991 Trampling the Archaeological record: An Experimental Study. American Antiquity 56(3):483-503.

220

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. O’Steen, Lisa D., Kristen J. Gremillion, and R. Jerald Ledbetter 1991 Archaeological Testing o f Five Sites in the Big Sinking Creek OH Field, Lee County, Kentucky. Report Submitted to Cecil R. Ison, Daniel Boone National Forest, Stanton, Kentucky.

Pearsall, Deborah M. 1988 Interpreting the Meaning of Macroremain Abundance: The Impact of Source and Context. In Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations o f Archaeological Plant Remains, edited by Christine A. Hastorf and Virginia S. Popper- University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 97-119.

2000 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures. Academic Press, New York.

Petruso, Karl M., and Jere M. Wickens 1984 The Acorn in Aboriginal Subsistence in Eastern North America: A Report on Miscellaneous Experiments. In Experiments and Observations on Aboriginal Wild Plant Food Utilization in Eastern North America, edited by Patrick J. Munson, Indiana Historical Society Prehistory Research Series No. Vl(2), Indianapolis, pp. 30-78.

Riley, Thomas J., Gregory R. Walz, Charles J. Bareis, Andrew C. Fortier, and Kathryn E. Parker 1994 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) Pates Confirm Early Zee mays in the Mississippi River Valley. American Antiquity 59:490-98.

Railey, Jimmy A. 1991 The Conley-Greene Rockshelter (15EI4): An Early Woodland Occupation in the Cumberland Plateau of Northeastern Kentucky. In Studies in Kentucky Archaeology, edited by Charles D. Hockensmith, Kentucky Heritage Council, Lexington, Kentucky, pp. 66-100.

Rapp, R, and C. Hill 1998 Geoarchaeology: The Earth-Science Approach to Archaeological Interpretations. Yale University Press, New Haven, Ct.

Rice, Charles and Gordon W. Weir 1984 Sandstone Units of the Lee Formation and Related Strata in Eastern Kentucky. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1151-G. United States Printing Office, Washington.

221

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Rossen, Jack and James Olson 1985 The Controlled Carbonization and Archaeological Analysis of SE U.S. Wood Charcoals. Journal o f Field Archaeology 12:445-456.

Sanjur, Oris 2002 Phylogenetic Relationships among Domesticated and W ild Species of Cucurbita Inferred from a Mitochondrial Gene: Implications for Crop Plant Evolution and Areas of Origins. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 99:535-540.

Schiffer, Michael B. 1972 Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. Am erican A ntiquity 37:156- 165.

1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Schuldenrein, Joseph 2001 Stratigraphy, Sedimentology, and Site Formation at Konispol Cave, Southwest Albania. Geoarchaeology 5:559-602.

Shipman, P. 1981 Life History o f a Fossil. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Smith, Bruce D. 1984 Chenopodium as a Prehistoric Domesticate in Eastern North America: Evidence from Russell Cave, Alabama. Science Vol. 226:165-167.

1985 Chenopodium berlandieri ssp. jonesianum: Evidence for Hopewellian Domesticate from Ash Cave Ohio. Southeastern Archaeology 4(2): 107-133.

1987 The Independent Domestication of Indigenous Seed-Bearing Plants in Eastern North America. In Emergent Horticultural Economies o f the Eastern Woodlands, edited by William F. Keegan. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Occasional Paper No. 7, pp. 3-47.

1989 Origins of Agriculture in Eastern North America. Science 246:1566-1571.

1992 Prehistoric Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America. In The Origins o f Agriculture: An International Perspective, edited by C. Wesley Cowan and Patty Jo Watson. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp. 101-119.

222

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1997 The Initial Domestication of Cucurbits pepo in the Americas 10,000 years Ago. Science 276:932-934.

Smith, Bruce D. and C. Wesley Cowan 1987 Domesticated Chenopodium in Prehistoric Eastern North America: New Accelerator Dates from Eastern Kentucky. American Antiquity, 52(2), pp. 355-357.

Stein, Julie K. 1984 Organic Matter and Carbonates in Archaeological Sites. Journal o f Field Archaeology 11:239 - 246.

1985 Interpreting Sediments in Cultural Settings. In Archaeological Sediments in Context, edited by Julie K. Stein and W illiam R. Fernand. Center for the Study of Early Man, Institute for Quaternary Studies, University of Maine, Orono, Maine, pp. 5-19.

1987 Deposits for Archaeologists. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by Michael Schiffer. Academic Press, New York, vol. 11:337- 395.

1992 Organic Matter in Archaeological Contexts. In Soils in Archaeology: Landscape Evolution and Human Occupation, edited by Vance T. Holliday. Smithsonian Institution, pp. 193 - 216.

2001 A Review o f Site Formation Processes and Their Relevance to Geoarchaeology. In earth Sciences and Archaeology, editede by Paul Goldberg, Vance T. Holliday, and C. Reid Ferring, pp 37-48. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Stockton, E.D. 1973 Shaw’s Creek Shelter: Human Displacement of Artifacts and Its Significance. Mankind 9:112-117.

Struiver, M., A. Long, R. S. Kra and J. Devine 1993 Calibration — Radiocarbon 35.

Talalay, Lourie, Donald R. Keller, and Patrick Munson 1984 Hickory Nuts, Walnuts, Butternuts, and Hazelnuts: Observations and Experiments Relevant to their Aboriginal Exploitation in Eastern North America. In Experiments and Observations on Aboriginal Wild Plant Food Utilization in Eastern North America, edited by Patrick Munson, Prehistory Research Series VI, Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis, pp. 338- 358.

223

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Talma, S.S. and J.C. Vogel 1993 A Simplified Approach to Calibrating 14C dates. Radiocarbon 35: 317-322.

Thompson, Ralph L., Ronald L. Jones, J. Richard Abbott and W. Neal Denton 2000 Botanical Survey of Rock Creek Research Natural Area, Kentucky. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. United States Printing Office, Washington.

Turn bow, C. 1975 An Archaeological Survey of the Red River Gorge Geological Area in Daniel Boone National Forest in Powell, Wolfe, and Menifee Counties, Kentucky. Report submitted by the University of Kentucky Museum of Anthropology to the United States Forest Service, Winchester, Kentucky.

V illa, P. 1982 Conjoinable Pieces and Site Formation Processes. American Antiquity 47:276-290.

Villa, P. and J. Courtin 1983 The Interpretation of Stratified Sites: A View from Underground. Journal of Archaeological Science 10:267-281.

Vogel, J.C., A. Fuls, E. Visser and B. Becker 1993 Pretoria Calibration Curve for Short Lived Samples. Radiocarbon 34:73- 86 .

Waters, R. R. 1992 Principles o f Geoarchaeology: A North American Perspective. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Webb, W. S. Webb and W.D. Funkhouser 1936 Rock Shelters in Menifee County, Kentucky. In The University o f Kentucky Reports in Archaeology, Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, vol. Ill(4):105-167.

Weiner, S. P. Goldberg and O. Bar-Yosef 1993 Bone Preservation In Kebara Cave, Israel, Using on-site Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometry. Journal o f Archaeological Science 20:613 - 27.

224

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Weir, Gordon 1974a Geologic Quadrangle Maps of the United States, Geologic Map of the Stanton Quadrangle, Powell and Estill Counties Kentucky. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston Virginia.

1974b Geologic Quadrangle Maps of the United States, Geologic Map of the Slade Quadrangle, East-Central Kentucky. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston Virginia.

Wood, Raymond W. and Donald Lee Johnson 1978 A Survey of Disturbance Processes in Archaeological Site Formation. In Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by Michael Schiffer, Academic Press, vol. 1:315-381.

Wyss, J.D. and S.K. Wyss 1977 An Archaeological Assessment of Portions of the Red River Gorge Geological Area, Menifee County, Kentucky. Ohio Valley Archaeological Research Associates, Lexington.

Yamell, Richard 1969 Contents of Human Paleofeces. In The Prehistory of Salts Cave, Kentucky, edited by P.J. Watson. Illinois State Museum Reports in Investigations, No. 16.

1978 Domesticated Sunflower and Sumpweed in Eastern North America. In The Nature and Status of Ethnobotany, edited by Richard I. Ford, Anthropological Papers No 67, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp.289-300.

1982 Problems of Interpretation of Archaeological Plant Remains of the Eastern Woodlands. Southeastern Archaeology 1:1-17.

1994 Investigations relevant to the Native Development of Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America: A Brief and Reasonably True Account. In Agricultural Origins and Development in the Midcontinent, Edited by William Green, Report No. 19, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, pp.7-25.

Yamell, Richard and M. Jean Black 1985 Temporal Trends Indicated by a Survey of Archaic and Woodland Plant Food Remains from Southeastern North America. Southeastern Archaeology 4(2): 93-106.

225

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX A:

FIGURES

226

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ^ M e n if e e1" * 1 J

Powell

j 16LE10 Wolfe

Mounded Talus (15LE77)

Kilometers

Figure 1. Map of study area showing select sites discussed in text.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. p -LS-s / s s’ i Escarpment Figure 2. Physiographic map of Kentucky and the study region (rectangle) (Adapted from Rice 1984:G9). 08 08 Mississippi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sandstone Legend: fenl Shale

Figure 3. illustration of the Lee Sandstone formation showing sandstone and interbedded shale (Adapted from Donahue and Adavasio 1990:233).

229

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CULTURAL PERIOD SUBDIVISION TIME A .D . 1500 Late A .D . 1400 Fort Anceint M iddle A .D . 1200 E arly A .D . 1000

Late Late Woodland A .D . 700 Early A .D . 500 Late Middle Woodland A .D . 2 00 Early 2 00 0 B.C. Early Woodland

1000 B.C.

Terminal Archaic

1500 B.C.

Late Archaic

3000 B.C.

Middle Archaic

6 000 B.C.

Early Archaic

8 000 B.C. Late 8500 B.C. Paleoindian M iddle 9 000 B.C. Early 9500 B.C.

Figure 4. Cultural historical periods for eastern Kentucky (After Lewis 1996).

230

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sheetwash from hillside and erosion of brow------

Former position of overhang Sandstone caprock

I J Sediments transported into Dripline Sediment from ceiling and walls shelter (exogenous) (endogenous)

Talus and Large blocHs from CoHuvium celling fall Paleo-dripline

Large blocks from brow collapse

Figure S. Generalized shematic of rockshelter formation and sedimentation (adapted from Waters 1992:241). Figure 6. Schematic of rockshetter evolution (Modified from Laville 1980:50).

232

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

(4 ) FLOOD — DEPOSITS

AND ROCK FALL Slob Failura Roof Tall Causing Major (1) ROCK AVALANCHE ------(3) SHEET WASH

-----

Ridge ZONE ROCK FALL (2) ATTRITION AND Figure 7. Generalized schematic ofa rockshetter cross-section illustrating four sources of geogenic sediments (Adapted from Donahue and Adavasio 1990:235). to IS) CO

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Drip Line ------Legend 2 0 2 4 Meters Test U n i t s Historic Talus Contours (meters) Lee Lee County, Kentucky • Point Samples Modem Hearth Mounded Mounded Talus (1SLE77) C ") C3 Rocks Back Wall I 1 1 1 Figure 8. Planview map of Mounded Talus rockshetter. ro £

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. cm below surface 10 T o - - -J- 50 - - 40 iv/.v NOT EXCAVATED Column sample

eroding 2.SY8/1 wl

Figure 9. Test Unit 1 west wall profile showing strata and location of column sample. column of location and strata showing 9. wall profile Figure west 1 Unit Test Silty aand Silty Silty sand Silty detritus Sltt/ash Silty sand w/leaf sand Silty plant and matting Sit/ash w/Ash weakly Sand, diffuse, moist slightly sandstone, defined boundary defined flacking Key To S trite:Key To S IV: aand 2.5T3/1 SHty N: 2.5Y3/1 N: W/2.SY2.5Y1 ■I: 2.5Y4/1 W/2.SY3/1 IVa: 2.5Y60sand Ashy IVc: 2.5Y3/1 w/2.5Y2.5/1 IVd: 2.5Y3/1 w/2.5Y2.5/1 I: I: 2.5Y3/1 w/2.SY4/2 IVb:2.5Y5.1 silt Sandy interface: IVSV 10YR5/4 V: V: 10YR6/4 VI: 2.5Y6/0 Sand,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. cm below surface 30 40 20 10 O - L SO ------t IVb IVe NOT NOT EXCAVATED IV*

and botanicals w/leaf matting w/charcoal sand SHty Sand w/silkySand tate-Hke danse danse ash mineral 10YR5/4 Sand K a rto tW ; Figure 10. Test Unit 2 west wall profile showing strata and location of column sample. column of location and strata showing profile 10. wall Figure 2 west Unit Test 1:10YR3/2-Stttysand N: 10YR2/2-silty sand N: Ha: Faa. 4Ha: ,5Y2.5/1 IN: 10YR4/4IN: w/ Sand IV: 10YR6/4w/ 2.8Y8/1 IVa:10YR4/3 Sand IVb:10YR5/2 Sand IVc:10YR6/4 Sand IVd:1OYR0/4 Sand IVe: Feature 7 IVM0YR6/4w/ V: V: 10YR6/4-6/8 Sand Va:10YR5/4 Sand

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Feature 2

Shovel Probe

Feature 3 Key: D: D: stem concentration Plant E: E: Rock 2.5Y3/2-2.5Y3/1Feature fill: 2.5Y7/3with sand loamy A: Rock overlying container bark A: Rock overlying material B: Matted botanical C: container Bark Stratum IV 1 1 meter Stratum IV Stratum Feature 2 Key: 2.5YB: to 2.5Y2.5/1 sand silty Ashy A: 2.5Y7/4A: Zone Ash C: sample large charcoal overlying Rock Figure 11. Planview maps of Features 2 and 3. to CO -J

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. West Wall

South W all

1 m eter ------f

Feature 4 Key and Muneell coloia: A: Leaf matting, little to no charred material B: 2.5Y5/1 with 2/5Y3/2 silty ash with burned leaves and wood C: 2.5Y8/2 Ash D: Level 2, Stratum II matrix; 2.5Y4/3 silty sand

Figure 12. Profile of Feature 4, Unit 2, Stratum II.

238

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Feature 5

Feature 5 Key and Munsells: A: Wooden stick with evidence of burning and battering B: Wooden stick with evidence of burning C: Cordage and botanical matting encompassing both Sticks A and B D: Unknown botanical material E: Feature 5 fill: 2.5Y4/3 sand with 5Yr3/2 sand

Stratum IVa

Stratum IVb

Feature 6 (pit feature)

1 meter

Figure 13. Ran view maps of Features 5 (top) and 6 (bottom).

239

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. OF OF SITE OF OF SITE DESTRUCTION DESTRUCTION .DESTRUCTION .DESTRUCTION -*■' t I Context Disturbed Systemic CONTEXT AT TIME OF Undisturbed EXCAVATION Systemic Context Context Systemic Partially or Totally Totally or Partially - x : . . YES \ CONTEXT BURIED -EnOSiON s r - N O — ► PROCESSES MODIFIED BY POST POST BURIAL — — EROSION I Context INITIAL Disturbed Systomic BURIED CONTEXT Undisturbed Systemic Context Context Systemic Partialy or Totaly Partialyor ------YES BURIAL EROSION EROSION DURING MODIFIED CONTEXT t^ - N O — » ------(Geological and Biological Processes) i r _ I Context Systemic Disturbed SURFACE CONTEXT Undisturbed Systemic Context Context Systemic \ I I Context System* \ ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSFORMATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL . Partially or Totallyor Partially YES— TotaSv Partialyor YES— 3 ~ 'W \ YES - NO— ► CONTEXT CONTEXT MODIFIED PROCESSES BY SURFICIAL BY EROSION 1 SYSTEMIC CONTEXT (Behavioral) Abandoned Undisturbed) Site at Surface Archaeological (Systemic Context CULTURAL (Human (Human Activity) TRANSFORMATtONS- Figure 14. A model oftransformations ofan archaeological site context by environmental processes (after Waters 1996:102). I

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ______12 _____ L_ ------Large 2J ------_2 J 4 I 17 1 1 17 2 Medium U l . a s l i | Small K Figure 15 Schematic illustrating sieve sizes and proportions of grouped large, medium and small size classes

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PS-1® 1 Block N It Column 1 ® Column 1 (A) (B) 6 10 Figure 16. Map key for schematics of surface point samples discussed in Chapters 6-11. A planview map of Mounded Talus rockshetterwith a (B). PS-6 represents the control sample from outside the rockshetter. schmatic overlay is presented in (A). An idealized schematic showing point samples (PS) locations within their respective Block is presented in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. N121 E99

N109 E105

6 meters 20

N97 N97 E93 E105

Figure 17. Schematic of Mounded Talus rockshetter showing the percentage of all botanical remains from each surface point sample. Includes all carbonized and non-carbonized large, medium and small sized plant remains.

243

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. N07 E106

N121 609 N97 693 N07 £105 N121 E96 N97 E63 N97 E105 16 26 N121 6 99 > of Large > Plant Remains % of Medium Plant Remains % of Small Plant Remains N fl7 663 Figure 18 Schematic of Mounded Talus rockshelter showing the percentage of all large, medium and small plant remains that were recovered from each surface point sample.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. N121 E99

.02

.01

N109 E105

6 meters .007

.007 .008

N97 N97 E93 E105

Figure 19. Schematic of Mounded Talus rockshetter showing the average weight (N=1854; S.d .44) of botanical remains from surface point samples from Blocks 1-5.

245

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. N121 N121 E99 E99

N109 N109 E105 E105

6 meters 6 meters 20

N97 N97 N97 N97 E105 E93 E105 E93

A) % Carbonized B) % Non-carbonized

Figure 20. Schematic of Mounded Talus rockshelter showing percentage of all large wood, nutshell and seed remains that are A) carbonized and B) non-carbonized from surface point samples from Blocks 1-5.

246

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. N121 E99 E99

N109 N109 E105 E105

6 meters 6 meters

N97 N97 N97 N97 E105 E93 E105 E93

A) % Carbonized B) % Non-carbonized

Figure 21. Schematic of Mounded Talus rockshetter showing percentage of medium wood, nutshell and seed remains that are A) carbonized and B) non-carbonized from surface point samples from Blocks 1-5.

247

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. N121 N121 E99 E99

N109 N109 E105 E105

6 meters 6 meters

N97 N97 N97 N97 E105 E93 E105 E93

A) % Carbonized B) % Non-carbonized

Figure 22. Schematic of Mounded Talus rockshetter showing proportions o f all small wood, nutshell and seed remains that are A) carbonized and B) non-carbonized from surface point samples from Blocks 1-5.

248

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. N121 M l 21 E90 E98

M l 09 £106

N97 NB7 M87 £105 E93 £105

Raspberry/Blackberry Blueberry

N121 N121 £99 £99

M l 09 N109 E105 £106

N97 M97 N97 N97 £90 £106 £93 £106

Huckleberry Strawberry

Figure 23. Schematic of Mounded Talus rockshetter showing the percentage of select taxa of carbonized and non-carbonized seeds from surface samples from Blocks 1-5.

249

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. M l 21

N1O0 N106 E106 E105

N97 N97 N97 6106 E93 E106

Hickory Acorn

N121 N121 ESS

N109 E105 M l 06 £105

N97 N87 E93 E105 N97 M97 ES3 E105

Walnut Chestnut

Figure 24. Schematic of Mounded Talus rockshelter showing the percentage of all carbonized and non-carbonized nutshell taxa for surface point samples from Blocks 1-5.

250

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lower Strata Strata Middle Surlbce Upper Strata

Tu 2-1 Surface Tu 2-7 Tu 2-6 Tu2-B Tu 2-4 Tu 2-5 Tu 2-2 Tu 2-3 — IV __ Unit Number Strata B) Test Unit 2 Column Sample III unexcavated "le a n lane Stratigraphic Sample Grouped

- -- 50 10 40 * a 20 + £ J l o o t ! Strata Surface Lower Strata Grouped Middle Strata Upper Strata Tu1-7 Tu1-6 Tu1-4 Tu1-5 Tu1-1 Tu1-2 Tu1-3 Number Sample Surface ’////Ml VII IV a 1 VI II V Unit aeh lent unexcavated Stratigraphic ///m////////n — IVfc> ---- — Ill A) Test Unit 1 Column Sample 1 ru h M H r 1 A 0 * 5 0 - 3 0 - 1 0 4 0 i 2 0 s E o Figure 25. Stratigraphic profile of Test Units 1 and 2 showing stratigraphic units correlated with sample numbers and grouped strata discussed in Chapters 4-8. VO (If

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. | ■ Wood laNuts {■Seeds

L arg e Medium Small Plant Size

A) Percent of large, medium and small size wood, nuts and seeds from Test Units 1 and 2 combined.

pwood | □Nuts ■Seeds!

Large Medium Small Plant Size

B) Percent of large, medium and small size wood, nuts and from Test Unit 1.

■Wood □Nuts {■Seeds ,

Large Medium Small Plant Size

C) Percent of large, medium and small size wood, nuts and from Test Unit 2.

Figure 26. Percent of large, medium and small size wood, nuts and remains from subsurface samples.

252

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Upper Middle Lower Grouped Strata

A) Plant Density per liter all plant remains

150

Upper Middle Lower Grouped Strata

B) Plant density per liter carbonized remains only

150

Upper Middle Lower Grouped Strata

C) Plant density per liter non-carbonized remains only

Figure 27. Density of plant remain fragments per liter by size group and strata for Test Units 1 and 2 combined. A) Carbonized and non-carbonized plant remains combined, B) carbonized plant remains only, and C) non-carbonized plant remains only.

253

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Stratum □Cart) Plants BNovCart). Plants I

A) Frequency of carbonized and non-carbonized plant remains by sample for Test Unit 1.

250

n q . j = i □_ N C?

□Cart). Plants BNon-Cart>. Plants I

B) Frequency of carbonized and non-carbonized plant remains by sample for Test Unit 2.

Figure 28. Bar graph of all carbonized and non-carbonized plant remains by sample for A) Test Unit 1 and, B) Test Unit 2. Graph shows the sharp decline of plant remains with depth. Sample numbers are illustrated in relation to their stratigraphic place ment in Figure 25. 254

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 0.025

0.02

o £ 0.015

0.005

Test Unit 1 Test Unit 2

Figure 29. Bar graph showing the average weight (N=1924; s.d.=.004) of plant remains for the Upper, Middle and Lower strata for Test Units 1 and 2.

255

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 30. Schematics of Mounded Talus rocksheiter showing results of geochemical analyses for surface sample sediments. Calcium, potassium, nitrate, phosphate, and sodium are measured in parts-per-million (ppm). Readings for each geochemical variable for the control sample are placed to the right of each schematic.

256

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. c §8 Oo » Z u i iS O>

5 (Continued) co CD x Q.

ZUI CM CO

ZUI

1 c S 3 o &S zui o

z u i o

.. o 15 88 OPI s CO CM O a> ^ o n >. o a> CM co « co CO 00 i l co

257

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced

Figure 30 continued I U Z in in in CM CO 00 o> o> 258 88 83 38 Zui I c! p cn oi 00 o o> co co i o

(Continued) Control: 5.3 N109 E105 N97 E105

22 .7 174.2 311.0 703.4 (ppm) N121 E99 I) Sodium (NA) 640.6 N97 E93 Control: N97 E105 N109 E1Q5

8.5 3.6 2.3 6.8 (%) 10.4 H) Organic matter (OM) Control:290.0 N97 E10S

811.7 450.5 474.3 128.8 N121 EM (ppm) 2931.6 G) Phosphate (P) N97 E83 to CJl

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ppm ppm ppm

PPm ppm •and — clay I— till upper aurface IVb aili'lan* unmcavatad iiniiuiiuuh Tmrrn iiniiuiiuuh Or 10 60 Figure 31. Geochemical properties of Test Unit 1. Each tick represents 1000 parts-per-million for Potassium, Calcium, Nitrate, Phosphate and Sodium. Calcium levels spike to 26422 ppm at 39 cm below the surface. to o> o

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

P Na ppm ppm 1 1 3 1 -+ -H 5

ppm Nitrate 1 Ca ppm

K ppm i i M ! I I I I i 4 e •and— •W clay / matter % aize % 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----- 1 pM pM Organic Particle ---- 8 9 10 5 15 10 30 50 70 90 H eurfoce upper lower middle *////////? V IV I II Unit Strata III ' aanlena unexcavated Strettgraphlc Grouped >////////////// 10 50 40 20

8 3 € J30 I Figure 32. Geochemical properties of Test Unit 2. Each tick represents 1000 parts per million fOr Potassium, Calcium, Nitrate, Calcium, Potassium, fOr million per 2. 1000 parts Unit represents Test tick of Each 32. Figure properties Geochemical Sodium. and Phosphate $

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3 ■ 02 i l l 0.1 In In 1 J dl l 1 1 __1—1 III IV VI VII Stratum

I Fauna! (counts) □ Calcium (ppm)

A) Bar graph showing the relative proportions of faunal remain fragments and calcium level for each stratum of Test Unit 1.

Stratum

■ Faunal (counts) □ Calcium (ppm) {

B) Bar graph showing the relative proportions of faunal remain fragments and calcium level for each stratum of Test Unit 2.

Figure 33. Bar graphs of proportions of faunal remain fragments and calcium levels for Test Units 1 (top) and 2 (bottom). The increase in calcium levels in the lower strata of Test Unit 1 may be due to an association with faunal remains.

262

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100000

10000

E 1000 Q. Q. I 5 100

Tu1-1 Tu1-2 Tu1-3 Tu1-4 Tu1-5 Tu1-6 Tu1-7 Sample Number

Ca — K - Q — N a — P —A—OM —O— Nit

A) Line graph of geochemical attributes for Test Unit 1 by sample illustrating the the undisturbed geochemical profile of the sediments.

10000

1000

100

Tu2-1 Tu2-2 Tu2-3 Tu2-4 Tu2-5 Tu2-6 Tu2-7 Tu2-8 Sample Number

— Ca -< -K -O -Na —X—P —A—OM —O—Nit;

B) Line graph of geochemical attributes for Test Unit 2 by sample illustrating the sediments have a reletively undisturbed geochemical profile.

Figure 34. Line graphs of geochemical profiles of the sediments for Test Units 1 and 2 column samples. Graph illustrates the parallel distribution of the sediments with depth indicating that the sediments are reletively undisturbed (Log scale is used in both graphs). 263

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 0.5-

N- j (Nl (0 4

-0 .5 -

-1 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1

Axis 1 (45.1%)

Figure 35. Correspondence analysis plot of surface samples showing the clustering of point samples on the basis of macro botanical composition. Block point samples are noted with their representative numbers.

264

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Non-carb nut»„

Carb. „ nuts ° 1

N; Carb. j o.tH oo M od s CM Carb. o Non-carb «0 wood wood

Non-carb. 6 -0 .5 - seeds

-1 I I i i i i i i r I I I I -1 -0.5 0.0 0.5 Axis 1 (45.1%)

Figure 36. Correspondence analysis plot of surface samples showing the clustering of macrobotanical categories with point samples. Block point samples are noted with their representative numbers.

265

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1

0.5 Cluster 1 0.0 -0 5 Cluster 2 ■1 - 5 . 0 - 0.5 - CM -1.5 -2 1: B lock1 5: Block 5 Key: 3: Block 3 6: control sample Axis 1 (77.3%) 2: Block 2 4: Block 4 Figure 37. Correspondence Analysis Plot of Surface Samples illustrating the clustering of samples when both macrobotanical and sediment variables are plotted. 8

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

0.5 Human activity area KO Nit P o 0.0 c a •0.5 p H Axis 1 Axis 1 (77.3%) C arb . p la n t| -0.5- 0.5 - ( CM CM -1.5 N o n -c a rb . p la n ta

______Non- anthropogenic 1: 1: Block 1 Key: 5: 5: Block 5 3: 3: Block 3 6: 6: control sample 2: Block 2 4: Block 4 Figure 38. Correspondence Analysis Plot of Surface Samples illustrating the clustering of samples andof the each geochemical sample. and macrobotanical attributes that are most characteristic 0> &

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tu Tu 0.5- 2-5 2-3 Clueter 1 Tu1-2 >1-3

Tu1-1 N, Cluster 3 CM 0. 0- Tu2-2 Tu2-1

Tui-6 Tu1-4 Tu1-5 -0.5- Cluster 2

Tu2-4

Tui-7

-1 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1 Axis 1 (60%)

Key:

Tul-1: Uni 1 Level 2 Strat II. 44cmbe Tiil-2: Uni 1 Level 3 Strat III. 8-12 cmbe Tu1-3: Uni t Level 4 Strat IVS, 12-18 cmbe Tul-4: Uni 1 Level 4 Strat IVb, 18-26 cmbe Tul-S: Uni 1 Level 5 Strat V. 26-32 cmbe Tul-6: Uni 1 Level 6 Strat VI. 32-39 cmbe Tut-7: Uni 1 Level 7 Strat VII. 3952 cmbe

Tu2-1: Uni 2 Level 2 Strat II. 5-10 cmbe Tu2-2: Uni 2 Level 4 Strat II. 15-17cmbe Tu2-3: Uni 2 Level 5 Strat III. 17-20 cmbe Tu2-4: Uni 2 Level 6 Strat IV. 20-25 cmbe Tu2-5: Uni 2 Level 7 Strat IV, 25-30 cmbe Tu2-6: Uni 2 Level 8 Strat IV, 30-35 cmbe Tu2-7: Uni 2 Level 9 Strat V. 3549 cmbe Tu2-8: Uni 2 Level 10 Strat V, 3946 cmbe

Figure 39. Correspondence analysis plot of subsurface samples showing clusters of subsurface samples and the composition of plant remains most closely associated with each sample.

268

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. i - i Indicates location of plant categories

-Tu2-8 Cluster 1 Tu Tu 0 .5 - 2-5 2-3

Tu1-2 2-6

carb woodO Tu1' 1 non- o cart), 0.0- Tu O Tu2-1 CM v 2-2 •'on- nuts/ Cluster3 O) X T carb.

u1-6 Tu1-4 Tu1-I -0 .5 - Cluster 2

Tu2-4

T u i-7

-0.5 0.0 0.5

Axis 1 (60%) Key: Tu1-1: Unit 1 Level 2 Strat II. 4-8cmbe Tu1-2: Unit 1 Level 3 Strat III, 8-12 cmbe Tu1-3: Unit 1 Level 4 Strat l\A, 12-18 cmbe Tu1-4: Unit 1 Level 4 Strat IVb, 18-26 cmbe Tu1-5: Unit 1 Level 5 Strat V, 26-32 cmbe Tu1-6: Unit 1 Level 6 Strat VI. 32-38 cmbe Tu1-7: Unit 1 Level 7 Strat VII. 38-52 cmbe

Tu2-1: Unit 2 Level 2 Strat II, 5-10 cmbe Tu2-2: Unit 2 Level 4 Strat II. 15-17cmbe Tu2-3: Unit 2 Level 5 Strat III. 17-20 cmbe Tu2-4: Unit 2 Level 6 Strat IV. 20-25 cmbe Tu2-5: Unit 2 Level 7 Strat IV. 25-30 cmbe Tu2-6: Unit 2 Level 8 Strat IV. 30-35 cmbe Tu2-7: Unit 2 Level 8 Strat V. 35-38 cmbe Tu2-8: Unit 2 Level 10 Strat V, 38-46 cmbe

Figure 40. Correspondence analysis plot showing clusters of subsurface samples and the plant remains most closely associated with each sample.

269

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 0 .5 - N on- carto. plants £ f Tu 2-7 a ™ (O Tu 2-1 CO Tu 2-6 TU2'5 0.0- OM Tu2-2 xx— Tu 2-4 CM \Tu2-3 * o o a * Tu1-4 \ Tu 2-8 3 Carb. plants Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Tu1-5 -0 .5 -

-1 -0.5 0.0 0.5 Axis 1 (75%)

Kay ta strata: Key: Tu1-1:Unit1 Level 2 Strat II. 4-8cmbs Tu1-2: Unit 1 Level 3 Strat III. 8-12 cmbe Ca: calcium Tu1-3: Unit 1 Level 4 Strat l>A, 12-18 cmbe K: potassium Tu1-4:Unit1 Level 4 Strat IVb, 18-26 cmbs P: Phosphate Tu1-5: Unit 1 Level 5 Strat V. 26-32 ctnbs OM: organic matter content Tu1-6: Unit 1 Level 6 Strat VI. 32-39 cmbs Nib nitrate Tu1-7: Unit 1 Level7 Strat VII, 39-52 cmbe

Tu2-1: Unit 2 Level 2 Strat II, 5-10cmbs Tu2-2: Unit 2 Level 4 Strat II. 15-17cmbs Tu2-3: Unit 2 Level 5 Strat III. 17-20 cmbe Tu2-4: Unit 2 Level 6 Strat IV. 20-25 cmbs Tu2-5: Unit 2 Level 7 Strat IV. 2 6 3 0 cmbs Tu2-6: Unit 2 Level 8 Strat IV, 30-35 cmbs Tu2-7: Unit 2 Level 9 Strat V. 35-39 cmbs Tu2-8: Unit 2 Level 10 Strat V, 39-46 cmbs

Figure 41. Correspondence analysis plot illustrating the clustering of Test Unit 1 and 2 subsurface samples based on the abundance of macrobotanical remains and geochemistry of the sediment.

270

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. h 2o

Movement via Capillary Action

DRIPUNE

ASH ’CAP'

SLOPE ZONE OF H20 ACTIVITY

Figure 42 Illustration of the possible pathways in which water can enter Mounded Talus rockshelter.

271

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. +1-1

0.5 —| Walnut X"" Chestnut PH \ X Na OM 0 .0 — K jj Nit C a / X" Hickory Acorn

0 .5 - I

1 I----- I— I— I— I— i— I— I— I— I— I— I— I— I----1— I— I— I— I -1 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1

Key: P: Phosphate K: Potassium Ca: Calcium N a: Sodium Nit: Nitrate OM: Organic matter content pH

Figure 43. Correspondence analysis showing the relationship between nutshell taxa and geochemical properties of the sediment for Test Unit 1 and Test Unit 2 subsurface samples.

272

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. carb. walnut

acorn \ 7 chestnut x—_ non-carb. Om chestnut non-carb

hickory non-carb

Figure44. Correspondence analysis showing the relationships between sediment geochemical properties and carbonized and non-carbonized nutshell taxa for Test Unit 1 and 2 subsurface samples.

273

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100

I Hickory Acorn Chestnut Walnut

□Carb. ■Non-carb.

A) Percentage of carbonized and non-carbonized nutshell for all subsurface samples

Non-carb.

Chestnut Carb.

Non-carb. Hickory Carb.

Non-carb. Acorn Carb.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent

Large ! i Medium Small

B) Percentage of carbonized and non-carbonized nutshell remians for Chestnut, Acorn and Hickory. Walnut is not graphed since all walnut remains were carbonized.

Figure 45. Bar graphs showing A) the percentage of carbonized and non-carbonized nutshell for all subsurface samples, and B) Percentage of carbonized and non- carbonized nutshell.

274

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20

Fleshy Grains Misc. SeedCalBgofy

A) Bar graph showing the density of seed per liter for fleshy fruits, grains/greens and miscellaneous seed remains from the archaeobotanical assemblage.

100

Fleshy Fruits Grains/Greens ■ Cart). □ Non-carb. I

B) Bar graph showing the percent of fleshy fruits and grains/greens that are carbonized and non-carbonized.

Figure 46. Bar graphs showing A) the percentage of seeds by functional/ecological category, and B) the percentage of carbonized and non-carbonized fleshy fruits and grains/greens.

275

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. i 80

Hickory Acom Chestnut □Above2mm ■Below2mm

A) Percentage of carbonized and non-carbonized nutshell fragments of three taxa that were recovered from screen sizes of 2 mm and above and below 2 mm. All walnut was recovered from 2mm and above screen sizes.

Cart). Chestnut

B) Graph illustrating the percentage of carbonized and non-carbonized nutshell that would not have been included in nutshell totals had material recovered from screen mesh below 2 mm not been included.

Figure 47 Graphs illustrating the importance of collecting and analyzing material from below 2mm screen size.

276

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hickory Acorn Chestnut

A) Percentage of nutshell by small screen sizes.

Non-carb. Chestnut

Cart). Chestnut

Non-cart>. Acorn

Cart). Acorn

Non-cart>. Hickory

Carb. Hickory

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 60% 90% 100%

B) Bar graph showing the cumulative percent of nutshell for each taxa by screen size.

Figure 48. Bar graphs showing the proportions of nutshell by small screen size.

277

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4mm 2.8mm 2.36mm 2mm 1.7mm 1.4mm 1mm 0.7mm 0.5mm Mash a te

A) Bar graph showing the percentage of all nutshell fragements recovered from corresponding screen mesh size. The standard cutoff point from which nutshell is collected is 2mm. This study indicates the cutoff point should be 1.7mm.

■ C art), j 20 Hickory i \ 15 DNcn- I cart>. 10 Hickory

0 2.8mm 2.36mm 2mm 1.7mm 1.4mm 1mm

M e d ia te

B) Bar graph showing the percentage of nutshell from corresponding screen mesh size for carbonized and non-carbonized hickory nutshell.

Figure 49. Bar graphs showing the percentage of nutshell by corresponding screen mesh size used to analyze archaeobotanical remains.

278

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ■Cart). Acorn

□ Non- cart) Acorn

4mm 2.8mm 2.36mm 2mm 1.7mm 1.4mm 1mm 0.7mm 0.5mm Mash size

A) Bar graph showing the percentage of carbonized and non-carbonized acorn nutshell by corresponding screen mesh size.

Carb. Chestnut

□ Non-carb Chestnut

2.8mm 2.36mm 2mm 1.7mm 1.4mm Mesh size

B) Bar graph showing the percentage of carbonized and non-carbonized chestnut shell by corresponding screen mesh size.

Figure 50. Bar graph showing percentage of carbonized and non-carbonized acorn and chestnut shell by corresponding screen mesh size.

279

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hickory

A) Percent of carbonized and non-carbonized nutshell for each of the four nut taxa from all samples.

Starchy Nut* Oity Nuts

B) Comparison of the proportions of carbohydrate-rich chestnut and acorn to low carbohydrate, oily hickory and walnut.

Figure 51. Graphs showing A) the percent of carbonized and non-carbonized nutshell by taxa, and 2) com prison of the proportions of starchy to oily nuts.

280

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20

Fleshy Grains Misc. 8 n d Category

A) Bar graph showing the density of seed per literfor fleshy fruits, grains/greens and miscellaneous seed remains from the archaeobotanical assemblage.

i 100 ------

■Cart). □Non-Cart).

B) Bar graph showing the percent of Spring, Summer and Fall seeds that are carbonized and non-carbonized.

| 100

Fleshy Fnrils ■Cart). □Non-cart).

C) Bar graph showing the percent of fleshy fruits and grains/greens that are carbonized and non-carbonized.

Figure 52 Graphs of seed remains from the archaeobotanical assemblage at Mounded Talus rockshelter.

281

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 0 0 Figure Figure 53. Schematic of landfbrm zones.

282

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Upland Upslope Slope Stopatow Lowland Landform !______i

Figure 54. Bar graph showing percent of all identified fruit seeds from the Mounded Talus archaeobotanical assemblage by landform zone.

283

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. M Winter Peralmmon Greenbrier - Chenopod Orape - Bedatraw—| Maygraaa —| M Smartweed H — Poke - Ragweed—| 1 I------Gourd Fall ----- Hickory Acorn I W a ln u t 1 ----- | Chestnut - - Puralane- 1

Elderberry- Blueberry I— Bearafoot —| M Summer I I Mulberry — | Strawberry Raapberry Huckleberry M L Anemone - Sumac Spring Slope Lowland Upland lowland Slope/ Upalope Figure 55. Graphic Illustrating the landform zones and seasonality ofselect plants. W 8

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Upland Upslope Slope Slope/Low Lowland i Landform

Figure 56. Bar graph showing the proportions of all nuts and identified seeds from each landform zone.

285

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent ■Spring □ Summer BFall

A) Cumulative bar graph illustrating the percent of spring, summer and fall plants exploited by landform.

Upland i il Upslope

’S Slope :; _i £ ( Slope/Low

Lowland

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 | Diversity Index j i

B) Diversity index o f plants by landform.

Figure 57. Bar graphs of plant taxa from Mounded Talus rockshelter illustrating A) the seasonality and landform from which plants were exloited and B) the Shannon-Weaver diversity index of each landform based on the number of taxa represented on each landform and the abundance of each taxon per landform.

286

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX B:

TABLES

287

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 1. Modem floral communities in the Cumberland Plateau region.

288

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Pine/Oak-Oak/Pine Foreet Region:Ridge Tops Forest Canopy

Pitch pine12 Pinus rigkto

Short-Leaf pine1-2 P. echinata

Virginia pine2 P. virginiana

Chestnut oak2 Quercus prinus

Black oak2 Q. velutina

White oak1-2 Q. alba

Scarlet oak2 Q. coccinea

Post oak1 Q. stellata

Tulip poplar1 Liriodendmn tulipifara

Red maple 12 Acer rubrum

Sourwood2 Oxydendrum arboreum

Shagbark hickory1 Carya ovata

Mockemut hickory1 C. tomantosa

Pignut hickory2 C. glabra

Blackgum12 Nyssa syfvatica

White Sassafras2 Sassafras albidum Ground Cover/Sub-Canopy Trees and Shrubs

Serviceberry2 Amelanchier arborea

Flowering dogwood2 Comus florida

Maple-leaf vibumum/Arrowwood2 Viburnum acerifolium

Rusty black haw2 Viburnum rufidulum Shrubs

Mountain laurel2 Kalmia latifblia

Rhodendron1 Rhodendron nudiPorum

Sparkleberry2 Vaecinium arboreum

Hillside Bbueberry2 V. pallidum

Deerberry2 V. Stamineum

2 8 9 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 1. continued

Highbush blueberry2 V. corymbosum

Blueberry1 V. vacHlans

Greenbrier1 SmUax glauca

Grape1 Vitisspp.

American holly'3 Ilexopaca

Box huckleberry2 Gaytussacia brachycera

Black huckleberry2 G. baccata

Tea-berry2 Gaultheria procumbens

Trailing arbutus2 Epigaea reports

Ferns/Fern Allies

Ebony spleenwort2 Asplenium platyneuron

Bracken fem2 Pteridium aquUinum var. latiusculum Southern ground-cedar2 Lycopodium digitatum

Wiry ground-cedar2 L tristachyum

Herbaceous Plants

Little bluestem2 Andropogon scoparium

Indian grass2 Sorphastrum nutans

Oat Poverty grass2 Danthonia comprassa

Black-seed needlegrass2 Piptochaetium avenaceum

Tall whipgrass2 Selena triglomerata Christmas fem 1 Potystichum acrostichoides

Mealy bellwort1 Uvularia perfoliata

Cranefly orchid1 Tipularia discolor

Black snakeroot1 Cimicifuga racemosa

M ay-apple1 Podophyllum pedatum Violet wood sorrel1 Oxalis violacea

Wild geranium 1 Geranium maculatum

Little bluestem 1 Andropogon scoparius

290 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 1. continued

N/A A. glomeratus

Indian grass1 Sorghastrum nutans

Southern wood vio let1 Viola hirsuta

Green tickseed sunflower2 Coreopsis major

Cut-leaf goldenrod2 Soiidago arguta

Grass-leaved golden aster2 Chrysopsis graminifolia

Spotted wintergreen2 ChimaphUa maculata

Pink lady’s slipper2 Cypripedium acaule

Mixed Mesophytic Forest Region: Slope and Valley regions Common Name Scientific Name Forest Canopy

Beech1* 6 Fagus grandifoiia

Tulip tree12 Uriodendron tulipifera

Basswood1-2 Tijiaheterophylla; T. heterophylla; T. Horidana; T.

Sugar maple/Silver maple1* 7 Acer saccharum; A. saccharum var. nigrum; A. saccharum var. rugellii

Chestnut1* 6 Castanea dentata

Sweet buckeye12 Aesculus octandra

Red oak1* Quercus borealis

White oak12 Quercus alba Hemlock1-2 Tsuga canadensis Ground Story/Sub Canopy

Dogwood12 Comus Honda

Magnolia(s)12 Magnolia tripetala; M. macrophylla; M. fraseri

Sourwood12 Oxydendrum arboreum

Striped maple12 Acer pennsylvanicum

Strawberry bush2 Euonymus americanus

Redbud12 Cercis canadensis

Ironwood/Blue beech2 Carpinus caroliniana

291 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 1. continued

Hop-horn beam12 Ostrya virginiana

American holly12 3 Ilex opaca

Common winterberry3 Ilex verticMata

Mountain winterberry/Holly3 Ilex montana

W hite sassafras? Sassafras albidum

Serviceberry12 Ameianchier arborea

Shrubs

Spice bush12 8 Lindera benzoin

Witch hazel1-2 Hamamelis virginiana

Pawpaw12 Asimina triloba

Wild hydrangea12 Hydrangea arborescens

Pagoda dogwood2 Comus altemrfolia

Great/Rosebay rhododendron12 Rhododendron maximum

Maple-leaf viburnum12 Viburnum acerifiolium

Wild gooseberry12 Ribes cynosbati

Hillside blueberry2 Vaccinium pallidum

Buffalonut/Oilnut2 Pymlaria pubera N/A2 Stewartia ovata

Elderberry12 Sambucus canadensis

N/A2 Eponymous americanus

N/A2 E atropurpureus

Sweet pepperbush2-4 Clethra acuminata

Cross-vine2 Bignonia capreolata

Canby’s mountain lover/Rat-stripper6 Pachistima canbyi (Rare)

Devil's walking stick12 Aralia spinosa

Other less Common Woody Plants

Virginia creeper12 Parthenocissus quinquefolia

Muscadine/Fox grape2 Vitis mtundifolia; V. vulpina

Bittersweet/Waxwork2 Celastrus scandens

292 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 1. continued

N/A2 Aristokxhia durior

Greenbrier/Catbriar12 SmHax hispida; S, rotundifolia; S. glauca

Herbaceous (Select)

Trillium1,2 TrHlium grandifkxum; T. eractum

Yellow fawn lily/Trout Lily12 Erythronium americanum

Small yellow lady’s slipper12 Cypripedium cafceolus

Violets)1,2 Viola sp

Bloodroot/ Puccoon12 Sanguinaria canadensis

Celandine poppy1,2 Stytophomm diphyllum

Dwarf larkspur12 Delphinium tricorne

Mountain/Wood anemone1,2 Anemone lancifolia; A. quinquefolia

Rue anemone12 Anemonella thalictroides

White bane-berry12 Actaea pachypoda

Blue Cohosh1,2 Caulophyllum thalictroides

Spring beauty/Carolina beauty12 Claytonia virginica; C. caroiiniana

Squirrel com/Dutchman’s breeches12 Dicentra canadensis; D. cucullaria

Purple cress12 Cardamine douglasii

Foam flower/False miterwort12 Tiarella cordifoiia

Barron strawberry6 Waldsteninia fragarioides

Gyandott beauty/Synandra6 Synandra hispidula (rare)

Maidenhair fem12 Adiantum pedatum

Silvery athyrium Athyrium pycnocarpon; A. theiypteroides

A ster12 Aster sp

Golden rod12 Soiidago caesia; A. latifolia

White snakeroot12 Eupatorium rugosum

Indian cucumber2 Medeola virginiana

May-apple2 Podophyllum peltalum

Wild ginger2 Asarum canadense

Fragrant bedstraw2 Galium trifkxum

293 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 1. continued

Sedges1* Carexsp

Fem e

Christmas fem2 Potystichum acrostichoides

Fancy Wood fem2 Dryopteris intermedia

New York/Broad-beech fem2 Thetypteris noveboracensis; T. hexagonoptera

Maidenhair fem2 Adiantum pedatum

Brittle Bladder fem2 Cystopteris pmtrusa

Goldie's Shield fem2 Dryopteris goidiana

Broad Breech fem2 Phegopteris hexagonoptera

Interrupted fem2 Osmunda daytoniana

Rattlesnake fern2 Botrychium virginianum

Shrube and Vines

Wild hydrangea2 Hydrangea arborescens

Poison ivy2 Toxicodendron radicans

Mountain white-alder2 Clethra alba

Cross-vine2 Bignonia capreoiata

Virginia creeper2 Parthenocissus quinquefoiia

Glaucous/Common greenbriar2 Smilax hispida; S, rotundifolia; S. glauca

Witch hazel2 Hamamelis virginiana

American holly 3 llexopaca

Hay-scented fem2 Dennstaedtia punctilobula

Mountain/Maidenhair/Lobed Asplenium montanum; A. trichomanes; A. pinnatifidum spleenwort2

Marginal fem2 Dryopteris marginalis

Fancy wood fem2 Dryopteris sp

Fem/Fem Allies (Rockshelters

Rock Club-moss2 Lycopodium porophilum

Meadow spike moss2 Selaginella apoda

294 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 1. continued

Appalachian filmy fem2 Trichomanes boschianum

Herbaceous

Canada columbine2 Aquilegia canadensis

Small-flowered alum root2 Heuchera parvifkxa

Round-Leaved catchfly2 Silene rotundifolia

Wild stonecrop2 Sedum tematum

Heart-leafed foamflower2 Tiarella cordifolia

Two-leaved miterwort2 Miteila diphyila

Indian turnip2 Arisaema triphyllum

White Snakeroot2 Eupatorium luciae-brauniae

Mountain Meadow-rue2 ThaHctrum mimbile

White wood sorrel2 Oxalis montana

Round leaf yellow violet2 Viola rotundifolia

Forest Canopy

Birch2 Betula nigra

American sycamore2 Platanus ocddentalis

Silver maple2-7 Acersaccharinum Green ash2 Fraxinus pennsytvanica

Boxelder maple27 Acernegundo

Black willow2 Salix nigra

Sweetgum2 Liquidambar styraciflua

Black maple7 Acer nigrum

Red maple7 A. rubrum

Shrubs and Woody Vines

Smooth alder2 Alnus serwlata

Common winterberry7 Ilex verticillata

Buttonbush2 Cephalanthus ocddentalis 2 9 5 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 1. continued

Poison ivy2 Toxicodendron radicans

Muscadine grape2 VUis rotundifolia

Fox grape2 V. vulpina

Trumpet creeper2 Campsis radicans

Cross-vine2 Bignonia capreotata

Common green brier2 Smilax rotundifolia

Wetland species

Sensitive fem2 Onodea sensibilis

Cinnamon fem2 Osmunda cinnamonea

Royal fem2 O. ragalis

Herbaceous Plants: Terraces

River cane/Giant cane2 Arundinana gigantea

Iflm tthM O flfi* U v f T O f V v w U Impatiens pallida

Orange jewelwccd2 1. Capensis

False nettle2 Boehmeria cylindrica Stinging nettle2 Laportea canadensis

Virginia wild rye2 Elymus virginicus

Dear-tongue panicum2 Panicum dandestinum

Cardinal flower2 Lobelia cardinalis

Great blue lobelia2 L siphHitica

Hog peanut2 Amphicarpaea bracteata

Gyandott beauty/Synandra7 Synandra hispidula

Monkey flower2 Mimulus alatus Seedbox2 Ludwigia altemifolia

Yellow-green sedge2 Carex lurida

Leak-green sedge2 C. prasina

Weak sedge2 C. debilis

29 6 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 1 continued

Herbaceous Plants: Sand, Mudflats, Low Terraces (Summer/Fall Plants)

Cocklebui2 Xanthium strumarium

Devil’s beggars tick2 Bidens fmndosa

Smartweed(s)2 Polygonum spp.

Old-witch grass2 Panicum dichotomifkxum

River beadgrass2 Paspalum M ans

Common ragweed2 Ambrosia artemisiifbiia

Giant ragweed2 Ambrosia triMa

1 Braun 1950 and2Thompson et al 2000;3Jones 1985a;4Jones 1985b; 5Campbell and Meijer 1989;6Johnson 1989; 7Gueb'g and Jones 1991; ’Johnson and Nicely 1991.

297

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 2. Paieoethnobotanical data from rocksheiters in the study region by Cultural Period. Habitat based on Table 1.

298

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Early Archaic Common Name Scientific Name Topographic Habitat Forest Canopy

Black Walnut Shell1 Juglans nigra FP

Butternut S hell1 Juglans cinema FP

Hickory Shell 1 Carya sp UL

Chestnut S hell1 Castanea dentata SL

Middle Archaic Common Name Scientific Name Topographic Habitat Forest Canopy

Black Walnut Shell2 Juglans nigm FP

Butternut Shell2 Juglans cinema FP

Hickory Shell2 Carya sp UL

Chestnut Shell2 Castanea dentata SL

Acorn Shell2 Quercus sp SL/UL

Hazelnut Shell2 Corytus americana SL

Black Gum Seed2 Nyssa sytvatica UL

Tulip Poplar Seed/Wing2 Liriodendron tulipifera SL/UL

Pine Seed/Cone/Needles2 Pinus sp UL

Maple Seed2 A cer sp SL/UL

Birch2 Betula sp FP/SL

Beech Shell/Seed2 Fagus grandrfoiia SL Sub- Canopy/ Shrubs

Holly Seed2 Ilex sp SL/UL/RS

Dogwood Seed2 Comus Honda SL/UL

Greenbrier Seed/Stem2 Smilax sp RS/UL/FP/SL

Raspberry/Blackberry Seed 2 Rubus sp UL

Blueberry Seed2 Vaccinium sp UL/(rare)SL

Grape Seed/Stem/Tendril2 Vitis sp SL(rare)/UL/FP

2 9 9 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 2 continued.

Sumac Seed2 Rhus sp Disturbed

Huckleberry S e e d 2 Gayiussacia sp UL

Hawthorn S ee d 2 Crataegus sp FP/open SL

Mulberry2 Morus sp FL/SL

Wild Plum 2 Pwnus sp SL

Persimmon2 Dtospyros virginiana SL/FP

Giant Cane2 Arundinaria gigantea FP/SL

Elderberry Seed2 Sambucus sp SL

Herbaceous

Chenopod Seed2 Chenopodium sp Disturbed

Knotweed/Smartweed Seed2 Polygonum sp FP

Poke Seed2 Phytolacca americana FP

Sumpweed2 Iva annua FP

Strawberry2 Fragaria virginiana FP/SL

Ragweed2 Ambrosia sp FP/SL

Bedstraw2 Galium sp SL/FP

Purslane2 Portulaca oleracea FP/SL

Beggers Lice2 Desmodium sp FP/SL

Anemone2 Anemone sp SL

Beggars Tick Seed/Loment2 Bidenssp FP

Wood Sore! S e e d 2 Oxalis montana SL/UL

Panic Grass2 Panicum sp UL/FP Other

Gourd Seed/rind2 Cucurbita pepo FP/R

Legume Family Seed2 Fabaceae N/A

Grass Family Seed2 Poaceae N/A

3 0 0 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 2 continued.

Late Archaic and Terminal Archaic Common Name Scientific Name Topographic Habitat Foreat Canopy

Black Walnut Shell \ 3-4-5 7 Juglans nigra FP

Butternut Shell '■3 s-7 Juglans cinerea FP

Hickory Shell1-3 4 56 79 Carya sp UL

Hickory Wood Charcoal 14 Carya sp UL

Chestnut Wood Charcoal1 3 Castanea dentata SL

Chestnut Shell1 3 4 5 6 7 Castanea dentata SL

Hazelnut Shell1 3 Corylus americana SL

Acom Nutshell 4 5 67 Quercus sp SL/UL

Acorn Wood Charcoal1 3 4 Quercus rubra; Q. alba SL/UL

Pine Seed1 47 Pinussp UL

Pine Wood Charcoal1 3 Pinus sp UL

Beech Nut Shell7 Fagus grandifolia SL

Beech Wood Charcoal1 3 Fagus grandifolia SL

Blackgum Wood Charcoal1-3 Nyssa sylvatica UL

Blackgum Seed1 7 Nyssa sylvatica UL

Birch S eed 1 4 Betula FP/SL

Tulip Poplar Seed4 5 7 Lihodendron tulipifera SL/UL

Elm Family Wood Charcoal 4 Ulmaceae FP/SL

Maple Wood Charcoal1> 3 A cersp SL/UL

Maple Seed7 A c e r sp SL/UL

Hop Hornbeam7 Ostrya virginiana SL Sub Canopy/Shrubs

Sassafras Wood Charcoal1-3 Sassafras albidum SL

Mountain Laurel Wood Charcoal13 Kalmia latifolia UL

Mulberry Wood Charcoal1-3 Moms sp FP/SL

Huckleberry Seeds1 3 47 Gayiussacia sp UL

301 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 2 continued.

Persimmon Seeds1-3 Diospyros virginiana SL/FP

Sumac Seeds13> 5> 7 Rhus sp FP

Raspberry/Blackberry Seeds ’•3 4 Rubus sp UL 5 ,6 7,

Blueberry Seed1 3 Vaccinium sp UL

Elderberry Seed4 7 Sambucus canadensis SL

Mountain Ash4 Sorbus americana SL

Honey Locust Seeds/Pod1 3-4 5 GledHsia triacanthos FL/SL

Heitiaceoiis

Beggars Tick Seeds/Loment1 3 4 5 Bidens sp FP

Beggars Lice5 7 Desmodium sp FP/SL

PokeSeeds1 36 Phytolacca americana FP/SL

Bluestem 457 Andropogon sp UL

Panic Grass4 7 Panicum sp UL

N/A Paspalum/Setaria FP

Aster Family Seed4-5 6 Asteraceae FP/UL/SL

Spurge Seed4 Euphorbia SL/FP

BedstrawSeed4 Galium FL/SL

Henbit Seed4- Lamium amplexicaule FP/SL (exotic from Europe)

Clematis Seed4 Clematis sp FP

GreenbrierSeed4 5 Smilax sp RS/UL/FP/SL

Grape Seed1 3• 4 7 VUissp SL(rare)/UL/FP

Buttercup Seed5 7 Ranunculus sp FP/SL

Compass Plant Root5 Silphium laciniatum FP/R

Sedge Seed7 Carex sp FP/R/SL

Cutgrass Rice Seed7 Leersia oryzoides FP

Grass Family Seed5 Poaceae N/A

Strawberry Seed5 Fragaria virginiana FP/SL

302 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 2 continued.

C ultigens

Squash Seeds/Rind ’• 3-4 5 7 Cucurbita pepo FP/R Gourd Seeds/Rind13 5 Lagenaria stceraria FP/R Sumpweed/ Marshelder Iva annua var. mactocarpa FP Seeds/Pericarp 1 3 4 5 7 9

Chenopod seeds/stem 1 3 54 7 9 Chenopodium bushianum; Disturbed C. berianderi4 T- Sunflower Seeds/Disk1-3 4 5-6 7 9 Heiianthus annuus FP

Amaranth Seed 4 5 7 Amaranthus FP

Giant Ragweed 4 5,7 9 Ambrosia trifida FP

Maygrass Seed/Glume4 5 7 Phalaris caroliniana FP

Knotweed5 7 Polygonum sp FP

O th er

Bull Rush56 7 Scirpus sp FP/R

Early Woodland Common Name Scientific Name Topographic Habitat Forest Canopy

Black Walnut Shell17 3 Juglans nigra FP

Butternut Shell1 7 3 Juglans cinema FP

Hickory Shell17 8 3 Carya sp UL

Chestnut Shell1 7 3 Castanea dentata SL

Chestnut Wood Charcoal1-3 Castanea dentata SL

Acorn Shell7 8 Quercus sp SL/UL

White Oak Wood Charcoal1 Quercus alba SL/UL

Red Oak Wood Charcoal1-3 Quercus rubra SL

Hazelnut Shell13 Coryius americana SL

Black G um S ee d 13 Nyssa sylvatica UL

Black G um Wood Charcoal1,3 Nyssa sylvatica UL Tulip Poplar Seed/Wing1,3 Uriodendron tulipifera SL/UL

30 3 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 2 continued.

Pine Seed/Cone/Needles ’•3 Pinussp UL

Pine Wood Charcoal-13 Pinus sp UL

Maple Seed '■3 Acersp SL/UL

Beech Shell/Seed7 Fagus grandifolia SL

Beech Wood Charcoal1--3 Fagus grandifolia SL

Buckeye Husk8 Aesculus octandra SL

Juglandaceae Shell-1-3 Juglandaceae FP

Birch Seed-1 3 Betula sp FP/SL Sub Canopy and Shrubs

Sassafras Wood Charcoal13 Sassafras albidum SL

Mountain Laurel Wood Charcoal13 Kalmia latifblia UL

Mountain Laurel Seed1--3 Kalmia latifblia UL

Mulberry Wood Charcoal13 Morus sp FP/SL

Huckleberry Seeds1 7 3 Gaylussacia sp UL

Persimmon Seeds '•73 Diospyros virginiana SL/FP

Sumac Seeds1 7 3 Rhus sp Disturbed

Raspberry/Blackberry Seeds1 7 3 Rubus sp UL

Blueberry Seed1 3 Vacdnium sp UL

Elderberry Seed7 Sambucus canadensis SL

Mountain Ash Sorbus sp FP/SL

Pawpaw Seed13 Asimina triloba SL

Honey Locust Seeds/Pod13 Gleditsia triacanthus FL/SL

Holly Seed-1-3 /fexsp SL/RS Herbaceous

Beggars Tick Seeds/Loment1-3 Bidenssp FP

Beggars Lice7 Desmodium sp FP/SL

Poke S eed 13 Phytolacca americana FP/SL

Bluestem7- Andropogon sp UL

3 0 4 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 2 continued.

Panic Grass7 Panicum sp UL

N /A 7 Paspalum/Setaria FP

Aster Family 7 Asteraceae FP/UL/SL

Spurge Seed7 Euphorbia SL/FP

BedstrawSeed7 Galium SL/FP

Henbit Seed7 Lamium FP/SL (exotic from Europe)

Clematis Seed7 Clematis sp FP

Greenbrier Seed 7 Smilax sp SL/FP

Grape Seed7 3 VHissp UL/SL/FP

Buttercup Seed7 Ranunculus sp FP/SL

Compass Plant Root Silphium laciniatum FP

Sedge7 Canax sp FP/SL

Cutgrass Rice7 Leersia oryzoides FP Cultigefis

Squash Seeds/Rind1 7 3 Cucurbita pepo FP/R

Gourd Seeds/Rind13 Lagenaria siceraria FP/R

Sumpweed/ Marshelder Iva annua var. Macrocarpa FP Seeds/Pericarp1,73

Chenopod seeds/stem 1 7 3 Chenopodium bushianum; SL/FP (disturbed) C. berfanderi4J-

Sunflower S e e d 17 3 Heiianthus annuus FP

Amaranth Seed7 Amaranthus FP

Giant Ragweed13 Ambrosia trifida FP

Maygrass Seed/Glume ’•73 Phalaris camliniana FP/SL?

Knotweed S e e d 137 Polygonum sp FP Other

Bulrush37 Scirpus sp FP/R

305 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 2 continued.

Late Woodland Common Name Scientific Name Topographic Habitat Forest Canopy

Black Walnut Shell101112 Juglans nigra FP

Butternut Shell 10,11-12 Juglans cinema FP

Hickory Shell 101112 Carya sp UL

Mockemut Hickory Shell11 C.tomentosa UL

Shagbark Hickory Shell11 C. ovata UL

Chestnut Shell 101112 Castanea dentata SL

Acorn Shell1012 Quercussp SL/UL

Hazelnut Shell101112 Coryius americana SL

Tulip Poplar Seed/Wing 10 Liriodendmn tulipifera SL/UL

Juglandaceae Shell12 Juglandaceae FP

Sub Canopy and Shrubs

Persimmon Seeds11 Diospyros virginiana SL/FP

Sumac Seeds11-12 Rhus sp FP (disturbed)

Raspberry/Blackberry Seeds10-11'12 Rubus sp UL

Blueberry Seed 1011 Vaccinium sp UL

Pawpaw Seed1112 Asima triloba SL

Honey Locust Seeds/Pod11 Gleditsia triacanthus FL/SL

Hackberry11 Celtis occidentalis FP/SL/RS (edge)

Wild Plum1112 Prunus sp FP/SL

Giant Cane Stalk12 Amndinana gigantea FP/R/SL (colluvium)

Legume Family10 Fabaceae N/A Herbaceous

Grape Seed12 Vrtissp SL (rare)/UL/FP

Purslane10 Portulaca oieracea FP/SL

306 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 2 continued.

CuMgens

Squash Seeds/Rind11-12 Cucurbits pepo FP/R

Gourd Seeds/Rind11-12 Lagenaria siceraria FP/R

Sumpweed/ Marshelder Iva annua var. Macrocarpa FP Seeds/Pericarp11-12

Chenopod seeds/stem10-11 Chenopodium bushianum; Disturbed C. beriandari 47•

Sunflower Seed1112 Hetianthus annuus FP

Maygrass Seed/Glume11-12 Phalans caroliniana FP/SL?

1Cowan 1981:15MF36; Gremillion and Mickelson 1996; Mickelson and Gremillion 1995:15LE77; 3Cowan 1985:15MF36; 4Gremillion 1999:15P0322; Gremillion 1997; Jones 1936; Gremillion 1995:15MF1; Gsteen, Gremillion and Ledbetter 1991:15LE70; Gremillion 1993, Ison 1988; Osteen, Gremillion and Ledbetter15LE50; "Osteen, Gremillion and Ledbetter: 15LE55, Gremillion 1995:15LE10; 10Gremillion 1993b: 15W075; 11 Cowan 1979:15P026 Rogers; 12 Cowan 1979b 15P047Haystack.

KEY: R: RIVER FP: FLOODPLAIN SL MIXED MESOPHYTIC SLOPE RS: ROCKSHELTER UL: PINE-OAK UPLAND N/A: NOT AVAILABLE

307

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 3. Radiocarbon dates from rockshelters of the region All dates conventional (beta-decay method), unless otherwise noted.

308

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Earty Archaic Site Date in Years Context Comments BP (uncalibrated)

CloudeplittBr 11200+/-300 NA1 (15MF36)

10950+/-200 Fee. 13; Wood Charcoal1

12000+/-400 Fea. 11; Wood Charcoal1

9216+/-290 NA1

9620+/-100 NA1

8200+/-225 Lens E; Wood Charcoal1

Middle Archaic Site Date in Years Context Comments BP (uncalibrated)

Mounded 7390+/-70 Stratum IV; Wood Talus (15LE77) Charcoal2

7320+/-80 Fea. 2; Wood Charcoal2

5080+/-60 Cucurbita seed2 AMS Date

Cloudsplitter 5790+/-400 Fea. 59; Wood Author states probable error- (15MF36) Charcoal1 No associated artifacts

5000+/-100 Grey sand with ash, Author states probable Error- wood and charcoal1 No associated artifacts

4700+/-250 Cucurbita seed1 AMSJDate______B

3 0 9 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 3. continued

Late and Terminal Archaic S ite Date in Years I Context 1 Comments BP luncalibrsted)

Cloudsplitter 3620+/-80 Wood Charcoal1 (15M F36)

3550+/-60 Black Walnut and Butternut1

3450+/-150 Chenopodium Seed7 AMS Date

3370+/-100 Wood Charcoal1

3210+/-100 Wood Charcoal1

3060+/-60 Wood Charcoal1

3060+/-135 Wood Charcoal1

2890+/-100 Wood Charcoal1 In Early Woodland Contexts

Newt Kash 3400+/-150 Paleofeces3 AMS Date (15M F1)

3025+/-55 Chenopodium from AMS Date Paleofeces4

Cokl Oak 2930+/-70 W o o d 5 (15LES0)

2930+/-20 Wood Charcoal8

2900+/-100 Cucurbita Rind 5 AMS Date

2840+/-70 W o o d 5

2830+/-60 W o o d 5

Hooton Hollow 3100+/-60 Seeds from Paleofeces3 AMS Date (1M F10)

3090+/-55 Seeds from Paleofeces3 AMS Date

Courthouse 3080+/-80 Uncharred Hickory Rock (Carya) Shell (15P0322)

Mounded Talus 2980+/-60 Wood Charcoal, TU 3 (15LE77) Lev. 3 Strat. Ill

31 0 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 3. continued

Pine Crest 1360 BC* Wood Charcoal8 * Date as given in text I Shelter (15LE70)

2810+/-70 Wood Charcoal8

Woodland I S ite I Date in Years Context Comments I BP I (uncalibrated)

Cold Oak 2760+/-60 Textile from profile, AMS Date (15LE50) depth unknown5

2710+/-60 Wood5

2590+/-90 Chenopodium Seeds5 AMS Date

2490+/-70 Nutshell5

2470+/-90 Wood5

2470+/-60 Wood5

2420+/-60 Nutshell58

2230+/-60 Lagenaria rind5 AMS Date

2210+/-60 Wood58

2190+/-80 Wood5

2170+/-70 Wood5

2060+/-70 Wood5

2060+/-60 Wood5

2014+/-150 Wood7

1910+/-50 Wood5

Courthouse 2650+/-60 Pine Charcoal8 Rock (1SP0322)

2560+/-60 Pine Wood/Bark8

2380+/-60 Wood Charcoal8

Big Turtle 226+/-120 Wood Charcoal8 Associated with E Woodland Shelter artifact; shelter heavily (15LE55) disturbed.

311 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 3. continued

Pine Crest 2390+/-70 Wood Charcoal8 Shatter (15LE70)

2140+/-80 Wood Charcoal8

CtoudsplMar 2710+/-60 Wood Charcoal1 (15MF36)

2710+/-120 Wood Charcoal1

2760+/-100 Wood Charcoal1

2651+/-60 Wood Charcoal1

2590+/-60 Carbonized Walnut and Butternut1

2440+/-80 Wood Charcoal1

2370+/-120 Wood Charcoal1

1945+/-130 Wood Charcoal1

1550+/-80 Wood Charcoal1 Associated with E. Woodland artifacts.

740+/-100 Wood Charcoal1 Associated with E. Woodland artifacts.

Middle Woodland Site Date in Years Context Comments BP (uncaiibretsd)

Little Sinking 1780+/-140 Wood Charcoal, Fea. 38 Cave

Late Woodland Site Date in Years Context Comments BP (uncalibratad)

Rock Bridge 1380+/-50 Wood Charcoal7 (15W Q75)

1350+/-60 Wood Charcoal7

1220+/-70 Wood Charcoal7

312 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 3. continued

Rodgers 1485+/-55 Wood3 Shelter (15P026/27)

1470+/-65 Wood3

Haystack 1485+/-55 Uncharred Black Walnut Shelter Shell9 V (15P047)

1470+/-65 Uncharred Black Walnut Shell9

1415+/-60 Uncharred Black Walnut Shell9

1345+/-60 Uncharred Black Walnut Shell9

ICowan et al.1981; Cowan 1985a; Cowan 1997; 2 Mickelson and Gremillion 1995; Gremillion and Mickelson 1996; 3 Gremillion 1994; 4Gremillion 1997; 5 Gremillion 1998; 6Gremi!lion 1999 7Gremillion 1993e; 8 Osteen, Gremillion and Ledbetter; 9 Cowan 1979b

313

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Site Radiocarbon date (uncalibrated)

Koster, Illinois1 7100 BP

Anderson, Tennessee2 6990 BP

Carlston Annis, Kentucky3 5780 BP

Hayes, Tennessee4 5340 BP

Napoleon Hollow, Illinois1 5050 BP

1Conard et al. 1984; 2Crites 1991; ^Chomko and Crawford 1978; 4Crites 1987.

Table 4. Radiocarbon dates of Middle Archaic sites of the East.

314

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Context Material Sample RCYBP Two-sigma cal age range #

Unit 1, Stratum III, Cucurbita Beta 5080+/-60 3985-3735 B.C. Level 5 (FS17) seed 94095

Unit 1, Stratum IV, wood Beta 7320+/-80 6350-6290 B.C. and Feature 2 (FS48) charcoal 89810 6255-5980 B.C.

Unit 1, Stratum IV, wood Beta 7390+/-70 6380+/-6035 B.C. Level 6 (FS35) charcoal 89809

Unit 3, Level 1 deer Beta 50+/-50 A.D. 1685-1740 and Stratum I (FS 120) droppings 94096 1810+/-1930

Unit 3, Level 3, wood Beta 3980+/-60 1390+1005 B.C. Stratum II (FS133) charcoal 94097

Note: Correction for isotopic fractionation are estimated for FS35 and FS48. Calibrated age ranges provided by Beta Analytic, Inc. (Vogel et al 1993; Talma and Vogel 1993; Struiver et al. 1993)

Table 5. Mounded Talus Radiocarbon dates (adapted from Gremillion and Mickelson 1996).

315

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 08.00 80.07 88.72 80.94 43.64 37.96 33.99 87.77 62J2 68.19 87.36 43.64 66.74 34.96 6096 n a 27.10 122.90 181 JO 181 160.73 141.63 53.49 64.97 57.13 66.95 85.45 69.68 43.59 23.29 52.08 18.43 43.61 26.72 47.84 116.03 150.81 152.32 134.17 — — — — — -- — __ — — 0.26 143946 1841.13 0.04 0.01 0.02 25.65 Lithic Residue Grand Total —... — — 4.29 0.0 6 0.01 0.90 <.005 — 3.10 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.0 4 0.07 0.14 0.06 88.23 0.02 0.18 0.05 49.99 0.180.14 0.450.21 <005 63.05 0.02 0.18 0.05 0.06 0.61 ... — — ... — — 0.64 0.05 0.09 0.12 0.19 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.16 0.05 1.65 0.32 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.79 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.18 <.005 <.005 0.06 0.11 Won-Botanical Material Won-Botanical 0.02 3.36 0.04 3.66 5.12 0.02 3.74 4.06 0.76 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.10 4.13 0.09 3.16 2.68 6.89 2.64 3.66 4.23 Total Plant Insect Faunal Feces — — — — 0.36 40.66 0.01 0.02 0.22 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.02 < 0 0 5 < 0 0 5 <.005 <.005 Unknown ... —— — _ —— _ — — — 0.74 0.01 0.14 0.01 —— —— —— —— 1.30 0.01 1.17 1.03 1.76 0.41 0.02 10.16 < 0 0 5 <•005 ... — ...... ITS 0.06 0.70 0.12 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.09 0.12 1.05 0.42 0.08 0.93 0.23 0.16 0.44 0.04 0.00 0.03 1.03 0.03 0.18 0.96 0.13 0.19 0.21 < 0 0 5 < 0 0 5 <.005 Seeds Leaf Stem — - — — ... — 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.04 <.005 Rind Tuber —... ____ — __ ... ——— — — — —... 0.04 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.05 <.005 Cucurbita — — ... — — _ :: 0 ,» 0.12 0.11 — —... 1.16 0.19 0.14 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.34 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.01 —— ——— ——... —— 0.03 0.15 0.01 0.51 0.02 0.18 0.22 <005 0.01 <.005 —— — 0.01 0.04 0.14 0.01 0.120.52 0.45 0.07 0.51 0.260.17 0.09 0.13 0.07 <.005 <.005 <.005 Nutshell — - — — — — — — I — ------— 0.02 2.36 0.01 26.6 0.01 2.2 1.71 1.41 0.06 2.25 1.06 <005 0.19 0.02 1.06 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.01 2.94 3.61 0.27 3.06 4.16 Wood Cane Hickory Acorn ChestnutWalnut <0.005 Botanical Material Botanical Dashed lines Indicate that no fragments were present. present. were lines fragments that Indicate no AllDashed sizeclasses are presented category. the In residue Table 0. Mounded Talus sample components from surface point samples and column samples (weights In grams). grams). (weights In samples column and from surface pointsamples 0. Table components Talus sample Mounded Tu2-8 Tu2-2 Grand Total Grand T u2-4 T u2-5 T u 2-3 Tu 2-6 Tu2-1 Tu 1-«T u l-7 0.06 Tu1-3 T u2-7 T u 2 C o lu m n T u l-5 B lo c k s 0.97 B lock 2 B lo c k s 2.82 b lo c k 1 C ontrol T U 1 C o lu m+U1-1 n T u 1-2 Tu1-S 3.41 0.01 0.01 0.03 C ontext S u rfa c e S a m o ie s B lock 5 u o >

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 28 29 81 24 83 83 49 148 197 388 220 333 382 344 4 3 9 1 1 78 1 443 1 388 3 381 3 4 248 — — — — — — — — 18 4171 — — — — — 5 3 8 3 7 7 2 4 6 13 14 ------10 48 2 1 6 18 10 12 37 20 9 48 6 8848 11 140 194 332 16 238 324 384 1 337 219 1 343 387 438 4 39 1 1 2 2 2 42 — —— — —— —— — — —— — —— —— 26 19 2 2 9 3 11 16 22 24 58 71 3 1 62 33 20 52 45 10 4 110 2 1 102 2 8 6 743 72 81 3948 210 106 1 3 — — — — — — — — 1 1 1 1 5 3 — —— —— — — 1 7 — — — ——— — - ———— —— —— 1 2 ———— — 21 3 280 12 14 6 1 3 7 96 ———————— ————— ——— —— ------22 3 23 17 181 1 1 6 2 3 1 5 37 11 9 15 49 2 5 14 1 3 2 *— 15 19 11 10 16 3 3 21 51 31 121 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —— 3 14 20 30 89 41 144 324 202 284 254 2483 3 Botanical Material Context ^5cH^Ew!^IIcEo!^!con^l?esGunTOaKu^CcurBJ^TO?TTuEerSee8s?lerTnJnEnowrrT5BrTCnr Faunal Lithic Grand Total Dashed lines indicate that no fragments were present. Table 7. Mounded Talus sample components from surface point samples and column samples (numbers offragments). T u2-7Grand Total 2 T u2-8 12 T u 2 -6 T u2-4T u2-5 18 T u2-3 2 B lo c k s T u1-7 T u1-6 Block 2 105 1 8 2 2 B lock 3 Tu1-2 250 Tu2-1Tu2-2 226 T u 2 C o lu m n B lo ck 4 C ontrol B lock 1 128 Tu1-1 123 Tu1-3 T U 1 C o lu m n Tu1-4T u1-5 192 2 1 Surface Samples

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 8. Number of identified seed fragments. Dashed lines indicate no seed fragments were present “C* indicates carbonized seed fragments. “N C indicates non-carbonized seed fragments. Bold numbers indicate total numbers of fragments for seed taxa, sample totals and grand totals for the site. Unknown and unidentifiable seeds are not included in the table.

318

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ooo OOO _ WOO — OOO 2 1 1 — wo. (continued) 1 1 ooo ooo WOO ooo _ ooo ooo —— ooo ooo ooo 1 1 ooo OOO ooo ooo _ ooo WOO ooo OOO 7 4 1 2 ooo ooo woo —— ooo ooo woo W ~ —• — 7 1 4 2 — —— _ 3 3 _ — _ o— 3 3 •M — _ ■M — — ooo — — — 1 1 3 2 2 0 14 — — 1 1 2 2 3 13 4 — —_ - __ 1 1 — 2 - 6 3 1 3 — 1 - • 0 1 _ S3 - 1 2 2 3 91 — 03 1 6 3 1 3 ■ H — — — 1 1 2 3 0 6 1 • 24 Pin* C TuNp NC TuHp Tulip C Birch NC Birch Birch C MapM NC Maple Mapla C Fabacaaa NC Fahacaaa Fabacaaa C Holly NC Holly Holly C Dogwood 1 pm* 1 1 2 3 S 4 6 23 — 1 1 OOO— — •H — — OOO C. PM* NC Context G rand T otal Tu2*7 Tu2-6 Tu2-1 Tu2-2 Tu2-3 Tu2-6 Tu1-7 Tu2 C olum n Tu2-4 Tu2-5 Tu1-2 Tu1-3 T u M Tu1-6 B locks Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Tu1-5 Block 1 Control T U 1 C olum n T u M CO < 0

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I I I I I I I I I « ! I I I I I I I i I I «

l I l l 1 I I l l I l i i i i i i i i i (continued)

I l I I I I l I « l l i i i i i i i i «

I I i I I 1 I I « I I i i i i i i i i «•

I I t i I I III I I i i i i i i i i i

I I I I 1 I I I « I I i i i i i i i i ~

*>*•111 lil*>!l - I I I I I i i 2

<■» « I I I I I I I I I i i i i i i i i « U l 2 I I I I I I « I I - i i i i i i i ■» Ul o E 3 "II- - I I I - I ~ i i i I i i i - E -II- I I I I - I - i i i i i i i *

- I I I - I I I I I - i i i i i i i «

I - I I I I I I I I i i i i i i i i - 1 £

I - I I I I I I I I i i i i i iii-

I E _g «m 3 1 7wc?T«

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I « £ J! I - (co n tlm w d )

i I « « a I - n IO | m | - | * ; I I I I I ! s

I i • 1 I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I - X8 o • -11-11! 2-11111!

« 2 - S I I <*111111 *-1111 I I

««' I I - I I - I I I I I I I I I

i i i - ii - « I I i i i - i i i i i i i

I I I I I I <*11111 I I I 1 1 111-

I I I - I I - I I I I I I - I I I I I I I «

I I <* I I <* I I I - I I I I I I I I <* I I I I <- 1 I I I i I S§ «? T <9 <9 2 7^c?t“?a?rr<9? ______S 3 C^CMCMCMCMCM

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I I I I - - I I

i I I ! I I (continued)

I ! - ! - - o t I « I

I - I

I - I 0£

1 I I o1 ! I I I ’i

! I I I

r r r

I I -

i I I

I I I 1 C § 0 I i I I I I 1

I g H1 a ^ w n ^ «) V^co^in^r-O 7

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I I - - I I I ! I I I I I I I I « I III-

II- II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - (contkMMd)

I I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I « I I I I K O

I - - I I I ll-llll « - I I I I I I

- II I I I « I I I -ll-lll o55

I I I I I I - I I « • « I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 5

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o 3

I I I I I — | | n e « I I I I I I I I I 2 o o

I I I - I I I I I I • I I I I - I I I IS

111-11 I I I I — — I I I 1 I I I I I *

I I I I I I I I I I « - I I I I - I I I I » h- o I IS i ug“ z v

323

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I I I I - I I - I I I I I llllilll"

i (continued) *

I I I I - I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I "

§ I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1

I I I I I I I I I - I I I llllilll-

I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I - I I I llllilll-

- I I I I I I-l-lll llllilll"

I I I I I I l-l-lll llllilll"

- I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I l l l l i l l l - £ o

l I I l I - l l I I l I l llllilll- ! £ 3 l l l I l - I I l I l I I llllilll- s 1 £

I r * N « «

.3 .3 -3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 CD CD CD flO CD

324

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (continuad) C Anakna NC Anaima Anaima C Wood Sorral C Graanbriar NC Graanbriar Graanbriar 1 1 •— _ AAA _ «- _ _ _ Panic Gi Panic ---- ... — —— — —— 1 1 «. M. _ 2 1 1 —— —— —— — — AAA _— A. — —— POKMS C Panic Grass NC Panic Grass Panic Grass NC POKMS Panic C — — — — — A— — _ — AM — —_ — — AAA NCPoacaaa 1 2 mmm — —M. AM — — •» ———— _ —— o m m i Table 8Table continued C P C Context Grand Total Tu2-8 Tu2-5 Tu2-6 Tu2-7 Tu2-1 Tu2-3 Tu2-4 T u M Tu1-7 Tu2-2 1 Blocks 4 Block Tu1-3 Block 5 Block T U 1 Column TU1-1 Tu1-5 Tul-6 Tu2Column Block 1 Block Block 2 Block Control SurfaceSamples U l COto Tu1-2

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0 0 8 — — 11 11 21 41 21 39 42 S3 98

2 0 10 28 25 303 427 1 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 640 30 17 0 38 3 11S0 14 3 0 4 7 4 8 10 a0 45 96 0 7 7 14 11 4 IS 14 i t 28 13 124 Cart>. Total NC Total G rand T o ta l Table 8Table continued

Context Context 4 Grand Total Tu2-7 Tu2-6 Tu2-8 Tu2-4 Tu2-S Tu2-3 Tu2-2 Tu2Column Tu2-1 Tu1-4 Tu1-7 Tu1-1 Tu1-2 Tu1-3 Tu1-5 Tu1-6 Block 1 Block Block 2 Block Bk>ck3 Block Blocks T U 1 Column Control Surface Samples

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. T o ta l# % #C arb . % Carb. # Non-carfa. % Non-carb. Hickory 121 22 77 64 44 36 Acorn 181 32 37 20 144 80 Chestnut 250 44 116 46 134 54 Walnut 12 2 12 100 0 0 Total 564 100 242 43 322 57

Table 9 Percentages of nutshell from Mounded Talus samples.

327

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Disturbance Processes

P rocess Agent of Disturbance

Faunalturbation Animals: burrowing and nesting Floralturbation Plants: growth, death, dispersal of parts Graviturbation Creep: mass wasting Cryoturbation Freezing and thawing Argilliturbation Swelling and shrinking of clays Aeroturbation Gas, air, wind Aquaturbation W ater Crystaltrubation Growth and wasting of salts Seismiturbation Earthquakes

Table 10. Processes and agents of post-depositional disturbance that alter the archaeological context of deposits (Adapted from Wood and Johnson 1978:318).

328

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

I I I Contributor Limestone, faces, 1 Urine, faces, wood Urine, dry leafim srdecay, plant remains in | Faunal remains,urine, plant/animal 1 rem ains, w ood a sh animal remains bone animal soft Eollan, sheatwash, plant/animalw tissue, ood ash Surface, forestfloor sh e lte r I F resh p la n t and re m 1 ains 1 tissue, plant ash, plantand Varies: Exogenic: Endogenic; roc*oranularfall, attrition biogenic and animal remains,carbonized plant tissues, wood ash 1 anthropogenic II II M o is tu re H M ^ o r Na and Nitrates Ca readily soluble high pH associated highlysoluble leach and from can sediments Stable in alkalinesedim ents evenhigh w ith moisture; Increasing Ca,P K,and removal o fsilt and except in alkalinesediment wherebonds Ca withP K highly soluble,leaches as moistureincreases Low pH associated with low moisture otherwise leachesfrom sadiments Moisture candecay increaseof OM thereby Moisture can lead to homogenizing with high moisture; clay particles, thus, sed im ents If sandysediment due low ph; depends on Ifsandy sediment due N itra te s m ay loach Pleachesfrom sediment except in Ifsandy sediment due towater transport percolation, or Ca leaches Sandy sediments most sou rce o f sedim ent No direct relationship to water transportpe rcolatio or n N a and from sediments alkaline sedimentswhere P is stable to watertransport percolation or K laaches often associated with I I Particle S U e incre ases N o d ire c t Ca often associated moisture and this P Increases and O M relationship Nitrates canfrom form plant remainsIn sh e lte r K often associated with Om; Asdecays, OM Ca Increases Relationshipdepends on decomposition with OM; As Omdecays, K increases I (O M ) Phoaphate (P) I Organic Matter Pleaches from P Increases and Relationship C a bonds w ithin P alkaline sediment exceptin alkaline sedim ents wP here is s ta b le Nitrates tendbe to high whenhigh P is sedim ents pH increasesbonds P with Caand becomessta b le OM Increases sou rce o f P depends on Sodium (NayNttratee Nitratea can form from If sandy sediment due Nitratestend to be high plant remains in shelter percolation NNa itra and te s m ay leach K bonds with nitrates Ca with nitrates can High nitrates in alkaline when P is high tow a te r tra n s p o rt o r from sediments form C a N 0 3 Na tends to developalkaline in sediments; sedim ents corrode/decayremains plant Increasinga n d K Ca forming KN03 — n itra te s K often Increases Ifsandy sed im ent due loaches K bonds with Relationshipdepends on source ofP tow ate r transportor percolation K with OM; As com m on source(a) K increases associated Om decays, K forming KN03 pH increases (C a t U (K ! Calcium R Potaeelum If sandy sedim ents nX rataacan Caincreaaaa sed im ent dueto w ate r percolation, C a la a c h e s C a bonds w ith P in alka lin e tra n s p o rt o r aaaociated Share Increaseas pHlncraaaea with Om; As O M decaya, C a w tth form C aN O S com m on aourca(a) Ca tend* to (OM) Ca often to (C «) Share W a S b a P a itle l NX. (N a y pH Table 11. Correlation matrix of sediment geo-chemical variables

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Test Unit 1: Numbers of Carbonized Plant Remains by Depth and Plant Category Wood Nutshell Seeds Total Upper 208 18 37 263 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 451 79 79 609 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 28 8 23 59 (Strata V-VII)

Total 687 105 139 931

Test Unit 1: Numbers of Non-Carbonized Plant Remains by Depth and Plant Category Wood Nutshell Seeds Total Upper 165 90 24 279 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 25 54 6 85 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 46 1 10 57 (Strata V-VII)

Total 236 145 40 421

Test Unit 2: Numbers of Carbonized Plant Remains by Depth and Plant Category Wood Nutshell Seeds Total Upper 106 43 28 177 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 49 3 20 72 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 14 2 2 18 (Strata V-VII)

Total 169 48 50 267

Test Unit 2: Numbers of Non-Carbonized Plant Remains by Depth and Plant Category Wood Nutshell Seeds Total Upper 210 52 58 320 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 3 0 2 5 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 0 0 0 0 (Strata V-VII)

Total 210 52 60 325

Table 12. Number of plant remains by plant category and depth for Test Units 1 and 2 column samples.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 13. Counts and density of seeds per liter of sediment grouped by upper, middle and lower strata for Test Units 1 and 2 column samples. Includes all carbonized and non-carbonized seeds.

331

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Context Samples # Seeds #Carb % Carb # Non-carb Non-carfa Density/liter*

Surface Block 1 344 152 44 192 56 138 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5

Surface/control 6 110 2 2 108 98 220

Upper Strata TU1 Tu1-1 61 37 61 24 39 61 (Strata ll-lll) Tu1-2

Middle Strata Tu1-3 86 75 87 11 13 86 (Strata. IVa - IVb Tu1-4

Lower Strata. Tu1-5 33 23 70 10 30 22 (Strata V-VII) Tu1-6 Tu1-7

Upper Strata TU2 Tu2-1 86 28 33 58 67 57 (Strata ll-lll) Tu2-2 Tu2-3

Middle Strata Tu2-4 22 20 91 2 9 15 (Strata IV) Tu2-5 Tu2-6

Lower Strata. Tu2-7 2 2 100 0 0 2 (Strata V) Tu2-8

Upper Strata. Tu1-1 147 65 44 82 56 59 TU 1 and 2 Tu1-2 (Strata, ll-lll) Tu2-1 Tu2-2 Tu2-3

Middle Strata Tu1-3 108 95 88 13 7 43 (Strata IV) Tu1-4 Tu2-4 Tu2-5 Tu2-6

Lower Strata. Tu1-5 35 25 71 10 29 14 (Strata V-VII) Tu1-6 Tu1-7 Tu2-7 Tu2-8

Total 743 343 46 400 54 71

332

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Upper Strata ______Middle Strata ______Lower Strata Common Neme *% « c % c 4NC %NC *% • c %C View %NC• % « c %C «NC %NC Aneime 1 4 1 100 0 0 Been Family 3 6 3 100 0 0 O e e n fo o t 1 2 1 100 0 0 Bedstraw 1 2 1 100 0 0 2 9 2 100 0 0 Bircti — — —— — — 1 2 1 100 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 100 Blueberry 3 13 1 33 2 67 1 2 1 100 0 0 — ——— — — Chenopod 1 4 1 100 0 0 3 6 3 100 0 0 8 35 6 75 2 25 Elderberry 3 6 3 100 0 0 Grape 1 4 1 100 0 0 1 2 1 100 0 0 Grass Family 1 2 1 100 0 0 Greenbnar 1 4 1 100 0 0 9 18 9 100 0 0 HoNy 1 4 1 100 0 0 Huckleberry 1 4 1 100 0 0 11 22 11 100 0 0 Muberry 2 4 2 100 0 0 Persimmon — — ———— 2 4 2 100 0 0 Pine 2 8 0 0 2 100 Plum/Cherry 1 4 1 100 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 100 Blackberry 8 33 3 37 5 63 2 4 0 0 2 100 1 4 0 0 1 100 Smartweed 8 35 3 37 5 63 Squash/Gourd 1 4 0 0 1 100 Strawberry — ——— — — 3 6 3 67 0 0 Sumac 3 13 1 33 2 67 Tick trefoil 1 4 0 0 1 100 1 2 0 0 1 100

Tulip Poplar 1 4 0 0 1 100 5 10 3 60 2 40 ——— — — — Total 24 100 10 42 14 88 50 100 48 •0 5 10 23 100 13 57 10 43

Upper Strata ______Middle Strata ______Lower Strata Common Name » % #C %C SNC %NC » % *C %C «NC %NC # % *C %C «NC %NC Blueberry 15 26 6 38 9 62 Elderberry 1 2 1 100 0 0 Grass Family 1 2 1 100 0 0 Huckleberry 6 10 2 0 4 100 4 37 2 50 2 50 Marshelder 2 18 2 100 0 0 Pine 2 4 0 0 2 100 Plum/Cherry 2 4 1 50 1 50 Ragweed 3 27 3 100 0 0 Blackberry 25 43 0 0 25 100 1 100 1 100 0 0 Smartweed 1 9 1 100 0 0 Strawberry 3 5 2 67 1 33 1 9 1 100 0 0 Sumac 1 2 1 100 0 0 TuHp Poplar 1 2 1 100 0 0 Total 57 100 15 27 42 73 11 100 0 82 2 18 1 100 1 100 0 0

Table 14. Seed taxa by grouped strata for Test Unit 1 (Top) and Test Unit 2 (Bottom) column samples.

333

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 15. Size of all carbonized and non-carbonized wood, hickory, acorn, chestnut and walnut remains by grouped strata for Test Unit 1.

334

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Large Medium Sm all Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1.4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 217 156 0 373 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 321 155 0 476 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 29 34 11 74 (Strata V-VII)

Total 567 345 11 923

All Carbonized Wood Fragments

Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1 4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 117 91 0 208 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 307 144 0 451 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 6 11 11 28 (Strata V-VII)

Total 430 246 11 687

All Non-Carbonized Wood Fragments

Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1 4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 100 65 0 165 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 14 11 0 25 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 23 23 0 46 (Strata V-VII)

Total 137 99 0 236

3 3 5 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 15 continued:

All Carbonized and Non-carbonized Nutshell Remains Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1.4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 60 45 3 108 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 55 74 4 133 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 0 2 7 9 (Strata V-VII)

Total 115 121 14 250

All Carbonized and Non-carbonized Hickory Nutshell Remains Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1.4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 6 11 3 20 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 1 13 3 17 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 0 0 3 3 (Strata V-VII)

Total 7 24 9 40

Carbonized Hickory Nutshell Remains Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1,4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 3 6 3 12 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 1 10 2 13 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 0 0 3 3 (Strata V-VII)

Total 4 16 8 28

Non-carbonized Hickory Nutshell Remains Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1,4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 3 5 0 8 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 0 3 1 4 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 0 0 0 0 (Strata V-VII)

Total 3 8 1 12

336 (continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 6.4 continued:

All Carbonized and Non-carbonized Chestnut Shell Remains Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1.4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 11 17 0 28 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 47 52 0 99 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 0 2 0 2 (Strata V-VII)

Total 58 71 0 129

All Carbonized Chestnut Shell Remains Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1.4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 2 1 0 3 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 20 31 0 51 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 0 2 0 2 (Strata V-VII)

Total 22 34 0 56

All Non-carbonized Chestnut Shell Remains Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1.4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 9 16 0 25 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 27 21 0 48 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 0 0 0 0 (Strata V-VII)

Total 36 37 0 73

All Carbonized and Non-carbonized Walnut Shell Remains Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1.4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 0 0 0 0 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 7* 0 0 7* (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 0 0 0 0 (Strata V-VII) (Continued)

337

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 6.4 continued:

Total 7* 0 0 7* * AH carbonized All Carbonized and Non-carbonized Acorn Nutshell Remains Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1.4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 43 17 0 60 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 0 9 1 10 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 0 0 4 4 (Strata V-VII)

Total 43 26 5 74

All Carbonized Acorn Nutshell Remains Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1.4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 1 2 0 3 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 0 7 1 8 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 0 0 3 3 (Strata V-VII)

Total 1 9 4 14

All Non-carbonized Acorn Nutshell Remains Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1,4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 42 15 0 57 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 0 2 0 2 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 0 0 1 1 (Strata V-VII)

Total 42 17 1 60

338

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 16. Size of all carbonized and non-carbonized wood, hickory, acorn, chestnut and walnut remains by grouped strata for Test Unit 2

339

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. All Carbonized and Non-Carbonized Wood Fragments Combined

Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1.4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 197 119 0 316 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 15 20 17 52 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 1 4 14 (Strata V-VII)

Total 213 143 26 382

All Carbonized Wood Fragments

Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1.4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 31 75 0 106 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 15 17 17 49 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 1 4 9 14 (Strata V-VII)

Total 47 96 26 169

All Non-Carbonized Wood Fragments

Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1.4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 166 44 0 210 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 0 3 0 3 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 0 0 0 0 (Strata V-VII)

Total 166 47 0 213

3 4 0 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 16. continued

All Carbonized and Non-carbonized Nutshell Remains Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1.4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 41 54 0 95 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 0 3 0 3 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 1 3 2 6 (Strata V-VII)

Total 42 60 2 104

All Carbonized and Non-carbonized Hickory Nutshell Remains Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1.4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 6 5 0 11 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 0 3 0 3 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 1 3 2 6 (Strata V-VII)

Total 7 11 2 20

Carbonized Hickory Nutshell Remains Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1.4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 1 4 0 5 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 0 3 0 3 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 1 3 2 6 (Strata V-VII)

Total 2 10 2 14 Non-carbonized Hickory Nutshell Remains Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1.4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 5 1 0 6 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 0 0 0 0 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 0 0 0 0 (Strata V-VII)

Total 5 1 0 6

341 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 16. continued All Carbonized and Non-carbonized Chestnut Shell Remains Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1.4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 23 40 0 63 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 0 0 0 0 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 0 0 0 0 (Strata V-VII)

Total 23 40 0 63

Carbonized Chestnut Shell Remains Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1.4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 14 18 0 32 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 0 0 0 0 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 0 0 0 0 (Strata V-VII) 14 18 0 32 Total

Non-carbonized Chestnut Shell Remains Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1.4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 9 22 0 31 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 0 0 0 0 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 0 0 0 0 (Strata V-VII) 9 22 0 31 Total

All Carbonized and Non-carbonized Walnut Shell Remains Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1,4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 1* 0 0 1* (Strata ll-lll) Middle 0 0 0 0 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 0 0 0 0 (Strata V-VII)

Total 1* 0 0 1* ’Carbonized

342 (Continued)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 16. continued

All Carbonized and Non-carbonized Acorn Shell Remains Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1.4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 11 9 0 20 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 0 0 0 0 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 0 0 0 0 (Strata V-VII) 11 9 0 20 Total

Carbonized Acorn Shell Remains Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1.4mm) (<1.4-.5mm)

Upper 1 4 0 5 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 0 0 0 0 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 0 0 0 0 (Strata V-VII) 1 4 0 5 Total

Non-carbonized Acorn Shell Remains Large Medium Small Total (>4-2.36mm) (<2.36-1,4mm) (<1.4-. 5mm)

Upper 10 5 0 15 (Strata ll-lll) Middle 0 0 0 0 (Strata IVa-IVb) Lower 0 0 0 0 (Strata V-VII)

Total 10 5 0 15

343

Plot Section for SamDies Axis 1 Axis 2 Factor COR CTR Factor COR CTR Sample 1 (Block 1) .104 .012 .008 .939 .956 .626 Sample 2 (Block 2) -.344 .536 .070 .193 .168 .022 Sample 3 (Block 3) -.065 .028 .003 .264 .451 .051 Sample 4 (Block 4) .238 403 .055 .016 .002 .000 Sample 5 (Block 5) -.912 .906 .593 -.251 .069 .045 Sample 6 (Control) .456 .505 .272 -.440 .470 .256

Plot Section for Plant Categories Axis 1 Axis 2 Factor COR CTR Factor COR CTR Carb. Nuts -.046 .002 .008 .949 .861 .253 Non-carb. Nuts .191 .023 .070 1.239 .957 .552 Carb. Seeds -.573 .453 .003 -.0 3 6 .002 .000 Non-carb. Seeds .180 .087 .023 -.466 .582 .153 Carb. Wood -.637 .967 .593 -.088 .018 .011 Non-carb. Wood .397 .851 .272 -.119 .076 .030

Table 17. Correspondence analysis data for surface samples and macrobotanical categories. See text for details.

344

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Eigenvalue section factor number Eigenvalue Individual % Cumulative % 1 .142633 77.30 77.30 2 .023002 12.47 89.77 3 .013223 7.17 96.93 4 .005642 3.06 99.99 5 .000017 0.01 100 Total .184517

Plot Section for Sam Dies A xisl Axis 2 Factor COR CTR Factor COR CTR Sample 1 (Block 1) .248 .823 .204 •107 .154 .236 Sample 2 (Block 2) -.414 .856 .110 .082 .033 .027 Sample 3 (Block 3) -.009 .002 .000 .228 .977 .529 Sample 4 (Block 4) .093 .188 .007 .028 .017 .004 Sample 5 (Block 5) -1.239 .733 .206 -.478 .109 .191 Sample 6 (Control) -1.043 .927 .473 -.069 .004 .013

Plot Section for Plant and Sediment Variables Categories

Axis 1 Axis 2 Factor COR CTR Factor COR CTR Ca -.2 7 8 .757 .155 .149 .218 .277 K .323 .969 .223 -.029 .008 .011 Na .108 .057 .004 .367 .656 .272 P .055 .056 .003 -.208 .801 .239 OM -.957 .712 .007 -.117 .011 .001 Nitrate .134 .405 .024 -.061 .085 .031 pH -.738 .684 .004 -.151 .028 .001 Carb. Plants -.680 .412 .052 -.356 .113 .089 Non-carb. Plants -1.717 .975 . 528 -.268 .024 .079

Table 18. Correspondence analysis data of macrobotanical and sediment geochemical variable for surface samples. See text for details.

345

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Eigenvalue section Eiaenvalue Individual % Cumulative % factor number 1 .279279 60.04 60.04 2 .111639 24.00 84.05 3 .048306 10.39 94.43 4 .022523 4.84 99.27 5 .003377 0.73 100.00 Total .465123

Plot Section for Samoles Axis 1 Axis 2 Factor COR CTR Factor COR CTR Tu1-1 -.464 .625 .092 .106 .033 .011 Tu1-2 -.049 .024 .001 .282 .800 .123 Tu1-3 .680 .787 .285 .319 .173 .157 Tu1-4 .464 .485 .144 .426 .410 .305 Tu1-5 -.356 .181 .015 -.476 .323 .067 Tu1-6 -.420 .351 .014 -.323 .207 .020 Tu1-7 .739 .175 .005 -.990 .314 .024 Tu2-1 -.563 Q g ft .208 .009 .000 .000 Tu2-2 -.786 .902 .159 -.010 .000 .000 Tu2-3 927 .735 .003 .513 .225 .003 Tu2-4 .448 .134 .012 -.789 .417 .094 Tu2-5 .811 .680 .026 .505 .264 .025 Tu2-6 .876 .814 .022 .346 .127 .009 Tu2-7 .369 .033 .003 ■1.739 .740 .147 Tu2-8 .927 .735 .020 .513 .225 .015

Plot Section for Plant Cateaories Axis 1 Axis 2 Factor COR CTR Factor COR CTR Carb. Nuts .081 .010. 002 -.664 .702 .342 Non-carb. Nuts -.225 .175 .025 .018 .001 .000 Carb. Seeds .242 .038 .010 -1.084 .770 504 Non-carb. Seeds -.683 .073 .077 -.036 .002 .001 Carb. Wood .490 .884 .396 .171 .108 .121 Non-carb. Wood -.737 .954 .490 .120 .025 .032

Table 19. Correspondence analysis data for macrobotanical variables for Test Units 1 and 2 column samples. See text for details.

346

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Eigenvalue section Eigenvalue Individual % Cumulative % factor number 1 .425675 75.03 75.03 2 .105745 18.64 96.65 3 .029403 5.18 98.95 4 .004454 0.78 99.63 5 .001465 .26 99.89 6 .0000592 .10 99.99 7 .000029 .10 99.99 Total .443446 .01 100.00

Plot Section for Samoles Axis 1 Axis 2 Factor COR CTR Factor COR CTR Tu1-1 -.809 .953 .193 .096 .013 .010 Tu1-2 -.749 .976 .148 .083 .012 .007 Tu1-3 .842 .842 .064 .040 .002 .001 Tu1-4 -.286 .582 .015 -.134 .127 .013 Tu1-5 .439 .576 .024 -.374 .418 .069 Tu1-6 .794 .936 .252 .191 .054 .059 Tu1-7 .148 .006 .001 -1.916 .992 .822 Tu2-1 -.311 .404 .014 .057 .013 .002 Tu2-2 .095 .088 .001 .086 .072 .004 Tu2-3 .505 .975 .030 .020 .002 .000 Tu2-4 .575 .995 .041 .024 .002 .000 Tu2-5 .662 .978 .042 .090 .018 .003 Tu2-6 .615 .979 .028 .033 .003 .000 Tu2-7 .686 .934 .037 .151 .045 .007 Tu2-8 .610 .909 .020 -.077 .014 .001 Plot Section for Plant Categories Axis 1 Axis 2 Factor COR CTR Factor COR CTR Depth .501 .196 .001 -.721 .405 .012 Ca .563 .960 .397 .114 .039 .066 K -.927 .947 .454 .126 .018 .034 P -.038 .002 .000 -.898 .998 .869 Om -.420 .356 .000 -.014 .000 .000 Nitrate -.719 .747 .138 .130 .024 .018 pH .194 .100 .000 -.284 .215 .001 Carb. Plants -.631 .383 .006 -.019 .000 .000 Non-carb plants -.587 .239 .004 .133 .012 .001

Table 20. Correspondence analysis data for macrobotanical and sediment variables for Test Units 1 and 2 column samples. See text for details.

347

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Eigenvalue section Eigenvalue Individual % Cumulative % factor number 1 .409873 73.28 73.28 2 .100602 17.99 91.26 3 .024910 4.45 95.72 4 .019671 3.52 99.23 5 .003829 0.68 99.92 6 .000259 0.05 99.97 7 .000124 0.02 99.99 AA AA 8 .000033 0.01 99.99 AA AA 9 .000030 0.01 99.09 10 .000006 0.00 100.00 Total .559335 100.00

Plot Section for Plant and Sediment Categories Axis 1 Axis 2 Factor COR CTR Factor COR CTR Ca .554 .953 .385 -.117 .043 .071 K -.939 .947 .467 -.132 .019 .038 Na .132 .040 .002 .124 .035 .007 P -.051 .003 .001 .889 .992 .865 Om -.429 .364 .000 .016 .000 .000 Nitrate -.731 .750 .143 -.132 .024 .019 pH .174 .092 .000 .294 .262 .001 hickory -.628 .383 .000 -.232 .052 .000 walnut -.361 .014 .000 .338 .012 .000 acorn -.875 .518 .001 -.162 .018 .000 chestnut -.518 .077 .001 .120 .004 .000

Table 21. Correspondence analysis data for macrobotanical and sediment variables for Test Units 1 and 2 column samples. See text for details.

348

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Eigenvalue section Eigenvalue Individual % Cumulative % factor number 1 .409942 73.19 73.19 2 .100624 17.96 91.15 3 .025018 4.47 95.62 4 .019691 3.52 99.14 5 .004107 0.73 99.87 6 .000326 0.06 99.93 7 .000175 0.03 99.96 8 .000089 0.02 99.97 AA AA 9 .000075 0.01 99.99 10 .000052 0.01 100.00 11 .000014 0.00 100.00 12 .000003 0.00 100.00 Total .560116 100.00

Plot Section for Plant and Sediment Categories Axis 1 Axis 2 Factor COR CTR Factor COR CTR Ca -.554 .953 .385 -.117 .043 .071 K .939 .947 .467 -.132 .019 .038 Na -.132 .040 .002 .124 .035 .007 P .050 .003 .001 .889 .992 .864 Om .429 .364 .000 .016 .000 .000 Nitrate .731 .750 .143 -.132 .024 .019 pH -.174 .092 .000 .294 .262 .001 Carb. hickory .469 .202 .000 -.233 .050 .000 Non-carb. hickory .902 .358 .000 -.207 .018 .000 Carb. walnut .016 .000 .422 .015 .003 .000 Carb. acorn .385 .088 .000 .200 .024 .000 Non-carb. acorn 1.024 .476 .001 -.249 .028 .000 Carb. chestnut .393 .033 .000 .187 .007 .000 Non-carb. chestnut .622 .146 .001 .060 .001 .000

Table 22. Correspondence analysis data for macrobotanical and sediment variables for Test Units 1 and 2 column samples. See text for details.

349

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Number o f Percent Density Season Seeds fragments per liter available Fleshy Fruits 203 79 19.0 Elderberry 10 5 1.0 Summer Mulberry 2 1 0.2 Summer Persimmon 2 1 0.2 Fall Huckleberry 31 15 3.0 Spring Blueberry 74 37 7.0 Summer Raspberry 63 31 6.0 Spring Strawberry 17 8 1.6 Spring Grape 2 1 0.2 Fall Squash 2 1 0.2 Fall Grains/Greens 45 18 4.3 Smartweed 10 22 1.0 Fall Chenopod 12 27 1.2 Fall Ragweed 5 11 0.5 Fall Marsheider 2 4 0.2 Fall Poke 3 7 0.3 Fall Purslane 2 4 0.2 Summer Greenbrier 9 21 1.0 Fall Aneime 1 2 0.01 Spring Bearsfoot 1 2 0.01 Summer Miscellaneous 8 3 0.8 Sumac 5 63 0.5 Summer Bedstraw 3 37 0.3 Fall

Table 23. Seed taxa grouped by ecological/functional categories. Density per liter calculated by dividing the total number of seeds by sediment volume.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Abundance Total Percent (number of fragments) (per landform) (per landform) Upland 226 27 Huckleberry 31 Blueberry 74 Hickory 121 Upslope 183 23 Acorn 181 Grape 2 Slope 269 33 Elderberry 10 Chestnut 250 Greengriar 9 Slope/Lowland 41 5 Anemone 1 Strawberry 17 Mulbeny 2 Bearsfoot 1 Sumac 5 Purslane 2 Persimmon 2 Chenopod 12 Lowland 100 12 Raspberry 63 Walnut 12 Smartweed 10 Poke 3 Ragweed 5 Marshelder 2 Bedstraw 3 Squash 2 Grand Total 819 166

Table 24 Abundance of plant remains per landform. See text for discussion.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.