University of Nevada, Reno
Starch Residue Analysis from Two High Altitude Village Locations: High Rise Village,
Wyoming and the White Mountain Village Sites, California
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Anthropology
by
Amanda M. Rankin
Dr. Christopher T. Morgan/Thesis Advisor
August, 2016
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
We recommend that the thesis prepared under our supervision by
AMANDA M. RANKIN
Entitled
Starch Residue Analysis from Two High Altitude Village Locations: High Rise Village, Wyoming and the White Mountain Village Sites, California
be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Dr. Christopher T. Morgan, Advisor
Dr. Dave Rhode, Committee Member
Dr Robert Watters, Graduate School Representative
David W. Zeh, Ph.D., Dean, Graduate School
August, 2016
i
Abstract
Starch residue analysis, ground stone, and use-wear analysis on milling equipment from High Rise Village and the White Mountain Village sites reveals a subsistence system that included geophyte processing at high elevation. High altitude residential use is little understood in North America and has often been thought to relate to intensive pine nut exploitation. This research indicates that this is not the case, and that geophytes were a targeted resource at high elevation.
A closer look at the archaeological record in the two regions reveals that root processing was a common occurrence in nearby lowland regions and that high altitude villages may fit into this broader regional pattern of geophyte processing, a fact that has been overlooked by archaeologists and ethnographers alike, and something starch residue analysis is well suited to demonstrate.
ii
Dedication
To my family who have always supported me, and most of all to my mother who was my
greatest support, editor, and cheerleader. I wish you were here to see me finish.
iii
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the Nevada Archaeological Association for the 2014 Student
Research Grant to conduct my research, the UNR Department of Anthropology for the
2014 William Self award, Dr. Dave Rhode at Desert Research Institute for teaching me the process of starch residue extraction and analysis and for letting me use the facilities,
Dr. Christopher Morgan for allowing me to use the High Rise Village assemblage, and
Dr. Robert Bettinger for allowing me access to the White Mountain collections, and for the tour of the White Mountain Village sites. Thank you to Shaun Richey for all the love and support as well as help with editing. Finally, thank you to my graduate cohort for all fun amid the stress. Portions of this project were funded by the U.S. National Science
Foundation (Grant No. BCS-1302054); the continued support of the American public for scientific archaeological research is greatly appreciated.
iv
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ...... I
DEDICATION ...... II
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... III
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... IV
LIST OF TABLES ...... VIII
LIST OF FIGURES ...... X
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1
CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH CONTEXT ...... 5
HIGH RISE VILLAGE ...... 5
SITE CONTEXT ...... 5
Flaked Stone Tools...... 7
Subsistence Remains ...... 9
Chronology ...... 9
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT ...... 10
Western Wyoming Paleoenvironmental Record...... 11
WESTERN WYOMING CULTURE HISTORY...... 13
The Early Archaic ...... 15
The Middle Archaic ...... 15
The Late Archaic ...... 16
The Late Prehistoric Period...... 16
Historic Period ...... 17
WHITE MOUNTAIN VILLAGE SITES ...... 18
SITE CONTEXT ...... 18
Archaeological Findings ...... 19
CA-MNO-2198: Rancho Deluxe ...... 20 v
CA-MNO-2191: Crooked Forks ...... 21
CA-MNO-2194: Corral Camp South ...... 21
Gate Meadows ...... 21
CA-MON-2193: Raven Camp ...... 22
CA-MNO-2196: Midway Village ...... 22
Chronology of the White Mountain Sites ...... 22
Subsistence Remains: ...... 24
Interpretation ...... 26
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT ...... 26
Great Basin and Owens Valley Paleoenvironmental Record ...... 28
WHITE MOUNTAINS AND OWENS VALLEY CULTURE HISTORY ...... 29
Western Great Basin: Newberry (4000 B.P.-1500 B.P.) ...... 31
Western Great Basin: Haiwee Period (ca. 1500-600 B.P.) ...... 31
Western Great Basin: Marana Period (600 B.P.-historic) ...... 32
Historic Period ...... 32
Environmental and Culture History Comparisons ...... 34
CHAPTER 3 THEORY AND EXPECTATIONS ...... 38
HIGH ALTITUDE ARCHAEOLOGY ...... 38
High Altitude Land Use in North America ...... 38
The “Pull” Hypothesis...... 42
The “Push” Hypothesis ...... 45
MODELING MOUNTAIN PLANT-BASED SUBSISTENCE...... 46
PREDICTIONS ...... 54
CHAPTER 4 METHODS ...... 55
SAMPLING STRATEGY ...... 55
GROUND STONE ANALYSIS ...... 56 vi
Life History ...... 56
Form and Function ...... 57
Morphology...... 58
Occupation Strategy ...... 58
GROUND STONE ANALYSIS METHODS ...... 59
USE-WEAR ANALYSIS ...... 60
CHARACTERISTICS AND DEFINITIONS ...... 60
Granularity and Durability ...... 60
Topography ...... 61
Types of Wear ...... 61
Direction of Use ...... 63
Rock Hardness ...... 63
STARCH RESIDUE ANALYSIS ...... 64
STARCH RESIDUE ANALYSIS METHODS ...... 66
Extraction ...... 66
Aqueous Sediment Reduction ...... 67
LST Flotation ...... 67
LST Dilution...... 68
Microscope Analysis ...... 68
Starch Identification Methods ...... 69
CHAPTER 5 RESULTS ...... 73
GROUND STONE ANALYSIS ...... 73
High Rise Village ...... 73
White Mountains ...... 74
USE-WEAR ...... 75
High Rise Village ...... 75
White Mountains ...... 77 vii
STARCH RESIDUE ANALYSIS ...... 80
Modern Starch Identifications ...... 80
Modern Starch Identification Summary ...... 98
Archaeological Starch Identifications ...... 101
Starch Analysis from High Rise Village ...... 106
Starch Analysis from the White Mountain Village Sites ...... 112
COMPARISON OF THE HIGH RISE VILLAGE AND WHITE MOUNTAINS STARCH ASSEMBLAGES ...... 124
Diversity and Evenness ...... 125
Summary of Results ...... 127
CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...... 129
Discussion of Results ...... 129
Return Rates...... 130
Overall Utility ...... 132
Culture History and the Ethnographic Record ...... 134
Why Were Roots Overlooked? ...... 137
Interpretation ...... 139
CONCLUSION ...... 140
REFERENCES CITED ...... 143
APPENDIX A ...... 159
APPENDIX B ...... 164
APPENDIX C ...... 168
APPENDIX D ...... 170
APPENDIX E ...... 174
APPENDIX F ...... 179
viii
List of Tables
Table 2.1. Calibrated Radiocarbon Dates from High Rise Village. Adapted from Morgan et al. 2016 ...... 10
Table 2.2. Northwestern Plains and Wyoming Basin Chronologies ...... 14
Table 2.3. Calibrated Radiocarbon Dates from The White Mountain Village Sites
Adapted from Bettinger 1991 ...... 24
Table 2.4. Western Great Basin and Owens Valley Chronologies ...... 30
Table 3.1. Return Rates for Rocky Mountain and Great Basin Resources ...... 48
Table 3.2. Relevant Front and Back-loading Data: Pine Nuts versus Roots ...... 50
Table 4.1. Ground Stone Sample ...... 55
Table 4.2. Starch Grain Attributes ...... 65
Table 4.3. Starch References ...... 70
Table 5.1. High Rise Village Ground Stone Analysis Assemblage ...... 74
Table 5.2. White Mountain Ground Stone Millingslab Analysis Assemblage ...... 75
Table 5.3. High Rise Village Micro Use-Wear Analysis...... 78
Table 5.4. White Mountain Macro Use-Ware Analysis ...... 79
Table 5.5. Summary of Attributes used in Modern Taxonomic Identifications ...... 99
Table 5.6. Comparison of Typologies and Possible Taxonomic Identifications ...... 101
Table 5.7. High Rise Village Ground Stone Containing Starches ...... 107
Table 5.8. High Rise Village Starches by Type ...... 108
Table 5.9. High Rise Village Starch Frequency by Type ...... 110
Table 5.10. White Mountain Village Ground Stone Containing Starches ...... 113 ix
Table 5.11. White Mountain Village Sites Quantity of Starches by Type ...... 114
Table 5.12. Rancho Deluxe Quantity of Starches by Type ...... 116
Table 5.13. Corral Camp South Quantity of Starches by Type ...... 118
Table 5.14. Midway Villages Quantity of Starches by Type ...... 120
Table 5.15 Shannon Diversity and Evenness Index Comparison Between High Rise
Village and the White Mountain Village Sites ...... 126
Table 5.16. Simpson’s Diversity and Evenness Index Comparison Between High Rise
Village and the White Mountain Village Sites ...... 126
Table 6.1. Return Rates on Several Pine and Geophytes Species ...... 132
x
List of Figures
Figure 2.1. Location of High Rise Village ...... 6
Figure 2.2. Location of Lodges at High Rise Village (Morgan et al. 2012a) ...... 7
Figure 2.3. White Mountain Village Sites ...... 20
Figure 5.1. FR5891-15199 Use-Wear Illustrating Abrasion and Sheen ...... 76
Figure 5.2. FR5891-2099 Use-Wear Illustrating Frosting and Fatigue Wear ...... 76
Figure 5.3. 382-12317 and 382-2045 Illustrating Pecking and Use-Wear Abrasion...... 77
Figure 5.4. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Lomatium roseanum ...... 80
Figure 5.5. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Lewisia rediviva ...... 82
Figure 5.6. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Perideridia bolanderi ...... 84
Figure 5.7. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Calochortus leichtlinii ...... 85
Figure 5.8. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Typha latifolia ...... 87
Figure 5.9. Polarized Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Schoenoplectus acutus Root and Seed ...... 88
Figure 5.10. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Cyperus esculantis...... 89 xi
Figure 5.11. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Pinus monophylla ...... 90
Figure 5.12. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Pinus albicaulis ...... 92
Figure 5.13. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of
Achnatherum hymenoides ...... 93
Figure 5.14. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Eleocharis quinqueflora ...... 94
Figure 5.15. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Allenrolfea occidentalis ...... 95
Figure 5.16. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of
Chenopodium fremontii ...... 96
Figure 5.17. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Leymus cinereus ...... 97
Figure 5.18. Comparison of Starch Type G2 with Lewisia rediviva ...... 109
Figure 5.19. Percent of Starches by Type at High Rise Village; blue bars indicate geophytes and yellow bars indicate grasses and other small seeded plants. Deformed, broken and otherwise unidentifiable taxa are in grey...... 111
Figure 5.20. Percent of White Mountain Village Starch Grain Types; blue bars indicate geophytes and yellow bars indicate grasses and other small seeded plants. Deformed, broken and otherwise unidentifiable taxa are in grey...... 115 xii
Figure 5.21. Rancho Deluxe Percent of Starches by Type; blue bars indicate geophytes and yellow bars indicate grasses and other small seeded plants. Deformed, broken and otherwise unidentifiable taxa are in grey...... 117
Figure 5.22. Corral Camp South Percent of Starches by Type; blue bars indicate geophytes and yellow bars indicate grasses and other small seeded plants. Deformed, broken and otherwise unidentifiable taxa are in grey...... 119
Figure 5.23. Midway Village Percent of Starches by Type; blue bars indicate geophytes and deformed, broken and otherwise unidentifiable taxa are in grey...... 121
Figure 5.24. Comparison of Starch Type G5 with Calochortus leichtlinii ...... 121
Figure 5.25. Comparison of Starch Type G4 with Perideridia bolanderi ...... 122
Figure 5.26. Comparison of Starch Type S2 with Achnatherum hymenoides Indian Rice
Grass ...... 122
Figure 5.27. Comparison of Type S3 with Leymus cinereus Great Basin Rye ...... 123
Figure 5.28. Comparison of the Percentage of Starches by Taxon at each Location: blue bars are High Rise Village and orange bars are White Mountain Village Sites ...... 124 1
Chapter 1 Introduction
This thesis presents the results of ground stone starch residue analysis from two of only three known alpine village localities in western North America: The High Rise
Village site in the Wind River Range of western Wyoming and six of the 12 village sites in the White Mountains of eastern California. These analyses were undertaken in order to reconstruct the subsistence behaviors affiliated with high altitude residential use in
North America, which despite decades of faunal and floral analyses (Grayson 1991;
Rhode 2015; Scharf 2009) remain poorly understood.
Reconstructing high altitude subsistence is not only important to our understanding of past human lifeways but is also essential to understanding the various forces driving high altitude land use both regionally and globally. Results of this study suggest that roots were a subsistence focus at these high altitude sites. This may indicate that widening diet breadth and decreased foraging efficiency marked by a reliance on low-return geophytes (but not the even lower-return pine nuts found in the subalpine zone) played an important role in the shift from short-term hunting focused occupations to more long-term residential use of the alpine zone.
Throughout the world, intensive residential use of the high altitudes is rare. High altitudes are defined as areas more than 2500 meters above sea level; they are characterized by decreased biotic productivity, less atmospheric oxygen, a shortened growing season, and a lack of summer water when compared to lowland settings
(Aldenderfer 2006). 2
In North America, intensive high altitude residential use occurs only in the very
Late Holocene and is found in three areas, two within the Great Basin: Alta Toquima in central Nevada, with the village pattern dating to perhaps 1500 B.P. (Thomas 1994) and the White Mountains of California, with the village pattern dating to after 600 B.P. As well as a similar but less intensive pattern found in the Wind River Range of Wyoming dating between 2300 and 850 cal B.P. (Adams 2010; Koening 2010; Losey 2013; Morgan et al. 2012a; 2016; Trout 2015). For these sites, the shift to residential use of the high altitude zone is accompanied by shifts in subsistence strategies marked by more intensive plant collecting and processing.
At each of the North American high altitude village localities, intensive residential use is indicated by well-developed middens, rock ring or cut and fill lodge structures, and large amounts of ground stone. This indicates either a shift in focus from hunting to plant processing or an expansion of previously hunting-based diets to include plant resources. Because of this, many researchers have sought to explain the scarcity of high altitude sites in North America by their relationship to pine nut processing arguing that pine nuts may have been a determining factor in high altitude occupation (Adams
2010; Hildebrandt 2013; Stirn 2014; Rhode 2010, Thomas 1983). Two of these locations are the focus of this study. The White Mountain village sites located in southeastern
California include 12 residential sites in the alpine zone, with rock-ringed structures, well developed middens, and large quantities of ground stone (Bettinger 1991). The other location, High Rise Village, is located in the Wind River Range of western Wyoming at an elevation of 3273 meters and contains large quantities of ground stone and cut and fill residential features (Adams 2010; Morgan et al. 2012a; 2016). 3
This thesis focuses on answering subsistence related questions, specifically what plants were being processed with the large quantities of ground stone at these sites. To answer this question ground stone analysis, use-wear analysis, and starch residue analysis was conducted on fifteen millingslabs from six of the White Mountain Village sites and eleven millingslabs and ten handstone fragments from High Rise Village. Results of this study indicate that geophytes were the resources being processed at these sites.
Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 provide an introduction to this study and an overview of the High Rise Village (HRV) and White Mountain Village Pattern (WMVP) site contexts as well as the environmental and cultural histories of the two regions.
Chapter 3 outlines the theoretical framework of this thesis, in regards to high altitude archaeology in North America, and human behavioral ecological models in general. Presented in this chapter is a comparison of pine nut resources and geophyte resources and the overall utility of the two. Given this information, an expectation is proposed for the results of the starch residue analysis.
Chapter 4 addresses the methods employed in ground stone analysis, use-wear analysis, and starch residue analysis. Each analysis is discussed in depth in regards to methods applied to the field of archaeology as a whole and methods used in this study.
Chapter 5 presents the results of the ground stone, use-wear, and starch analysis.
The results include a discussion of form, function, and degree of use of the ground stone tools as well as a description of starch granule characteristics for all 20 of the plants used as reference materials for this study. Following this, a description of the nine starch types created for the archaeological samples is outlined and results of starch analysis for the 4 two locations is tabulated by type and most likely taxonomic identification. Finally, diversity and evenness are considered between the two locations.
Chapter 6 concludes the study with a discussion of the results presented in
Chapter 5 and examines the relationship between the newly generated data on root processing and the evidence for root processing in the two regions throughout prehistory and into the ethnographic record. The study concludes with a discussion of starch residue analysis and its application to the field of archaeology.
5
Chapter 2 Research Context
Two high elevation locations are the focus of this study; High Rise Village in
Wyoming’s Wind River Range, and the village sites of the White Mountains in southeastern California. In both of these locations village sites are located above 3000 meters AMSL (9800 ft) and residential features, midden soils, large quantities of artifacts, particularly ground stone characterize these sites. Following is a discussion of the archaeological, cultural, and environmental context of each location.
High Rise Village
Site Context
High Rise Village is located in the Wind River Range of western Wyoming at an elevation of 3320-3325 m AMSL (10,820-10,908 ft) (Figure 2.1) (Morgan et al. 2012a).
The sites straddles modern treeline, with roughly 1/3 of the site in the alpine ecozone and the remaining 2/3 in a Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) dominated subalpine forest. A semi-permanent spring is on site and a mountain sheep migration corridor passes near the site (Morgan et al 2012a). The site measures 440 by 220 m, and contains 52 cut-and-fill residential foundations which, during initial recording were referred to as “lodges”
(Figure 2.2). Lodges are features constructed by cutting into the site’s steep (23 degree) south facing slope and filling the down slope area with the resulting excavated material, with some of the lodge features ringed by one or more courses of stacked rock. The features represent house structure foundations that may have supported cribbed timber 6 supper structure with three of the features containing possible remnants of the cribbed timber supper structure (Adams 2010; Morgan et al. 2012a).
Figure 2.1. Location of High Rise Village
7
Figure 2.2. Location of Lodges at High Rise Village (Morgan et al. 2012a)
Twenty-nine of the lodge features were excavated between 2008 and 2012
(Adams 2010; Koening 2010; Morgan et al. 2012a; Morgan et al. 2016). Based on these excavations, it appears the most intensive occupation of the site ranges from 2300 to 850 cal B.P. (Morgan et al. 2016). Excavations produced an assemblage indicative of tool manufacture and plant processing: diagnostic projectile points, bifacial tools, debitage, 52 ground stone pieces, 200 ceramic sherds, and very few fragmentary animal bones.
Flaked Stone Tools
Stone tools and debitage were analyzed from Lodge 10, 13, 16, 19, 21, 22, 26, 28,
49, SS, and W (Figure 2.2) (Losey 2013; Trout 2015). The low density and diversity of tools suggest that hunting and animal processing occurred but was not a focal activity at the site. Debitage analysis revealed that both expedient core reduction and biface reduction occurred in nearly equal proportion at the site, both dominated by very late stage reduction and retouch. Retouch flakes average about 45 percent of the total 8 debitage. Over 95 percent of the debitage is made from locally available chert with the remaining five percent made of quartzite and extralocal obsidian and basalt (Trout 2015).
Edge modified flakes (n=61) all exhibit evidence of use for scraping. Bifaces and edge modified flakes are mostly late stage reduction and show minimal variability in material type or function, with over 86 percent made on local chert (Trout 2015).
Of the 69 bifaces, two are drills, one is a graver and 47 are stage four or five bifaces (per Andrefsky 2005:187-188). Of the late stage bifaces 22 are diagnostic projectile points, either Rosegate or corner-notched points dating roughly to the Medieval
Climatic Anomaly (MCA) or side-notched or tri-notched points dating to the Little Ice
Age (LIA) (Losey 2013, Trout 2015). All lodges contain bifaces with the exception of
Lodge 28. The bifaces are predominantly made from local chert and 91 percent are broken. Only two expedient cores were recovered from the site. The lack of cores and quantity of late stage core reduction debitage indicates that core reduction rarely took place on-site (Trout 2015).
The majority of obsidian artifacts from the site were retouch and pressure flakes indicating that most of the obsidian found on site arrived as finished tools. Obsidian hydration and XRF sourcing of a 137 obsidian artifacts from the site demonstrate that the majority (62 percent) of the obsidian found on site came from the Jackson Hole region
(Teton Pass and Crescent H) with distant but high quality obsidian from Obsidian Cliff compromising 24 percent of the total assemblage (Morgan et al. 2016). 9
Subsistence Remains
The ground stone found on the site is made from either local quartzite or non- local basalt. Handstones tend to be well formed and made from the non-local basalt while millingslabs show less formal shaping and use and are made from the local quartzite found throughout the area. Each lodge contains at least one ground stone artifact if not more, indicating grinding was an important activity at High Rise Village.
Flotation samples were taken from several of the hearth features within the lodges; however, no plant remains were recovered (Losey 2013; Morgan et al. 2012a). The failure to identify any plant remains left determining the use of the ground stone tools all the more problematic. Faunal remains are scarce and highly fragmented possibly due to taphonomic issues. The few identifiable fragments likely represent artiodactyls like mountain sheep (Ovis canadensis) and marmot (Marmota flaviventris). The small number of animal bones, formal tools and finished bifaces may indicate animal processing and even hunting was not a primary focus at the site (Losey 2013).
Chronology
Twenty five radiocarbon dates were obtained for HRV (Adams 2010; Morgan et al. 2012a; 2016) (Table 2.1) with date ranges from 4010 ± 25 to 130 ± 40 rcy B.P. The most recent dates have been rejected due to issues with context and the earliest dates are in question because they may represent an old wood problem (sensu Schiffer 1986).
Dendrochronological assays from the vicinity of the site indicate that downed wood can survive in the area more than seven centuries and thus wood burned in campfires on site could have been much older than when the campfire was actually constructed. Lacking 10 in the subsurface site deposit at HRV are any diagnostic points from the Middle Archaic and the lodge that produced the oldest dates, Lodge 16, only contains Rosegate projectile points which date from 1500 to 900 cal B.P. on the Plains (Kornfeld et al. 2010) and 1500 to 600 cal B.P. in the mountains (Larson and Kornfeld 1994). Because of this, it seems likely that the oldest dates are outliers and have thus been rejected. The remaining dates indicate sporadic use between 2800 to 850 cal B.P. with the most intensive use between
2300 and 850 cal B.P. (Morgan et al. 2016).
Table 2.1. Calibrated Radiocarbon Dates from High Rise Village. Adapted from Morgan et al. 2016
Lab Radiocarbon Calibrated Lab Material Context Provenience a Number age Date b Charcoal UGAMS 13690 Charcoal Lodge 8 1460 ± 20 1360 ± 30 Lens UGAMS 13689 Charcoal Hearth Lodge 13 3990 ± 25 4470 ± 40 UGAMS 13681 Charcoal Hearth Lodge 13 1380 ± 25 1310 ± 20 UGAMS 3 9756 Charcoal Hearth Lodge 16 4010 ± 25 4480 ± 40 Charcoal UGAMS 13688 Charcoal Lodge 19 1590 ± 20 1480 ± 40 Smear Charcoal UGAMS 13683 Charcoal Lodge 19 1150 ± 20 1070 ± 50 Smear UGAMS 3 8380 Charcoal Hearth Lodge 26 1480 ± 25 1380 ± 30 UGAMS 3 8382 Charcoal Hearth Lodge 26 1210 ± 25 1150 ± 50 a) Table only includes the lodges discussed in this study (see Morgan et al. 2016). b) Dates calibrated using CalPal 2007 (Weninger et al. 2015) and the Hulu calibration curve (Weninger and Jöris 2008).
Environmental Context
High Rise Village is located in the Wind River Mountain Range of western
Wyoming (Figure 2.1) between 3320 and 3325 meters AMSL (10,560-10,880 ft) on a 23 11 degree, south facing slope (Morgan et al. 2012a). The core of the mountain range is plutonic in origin with meta-sedimentary rocks ringing the core with quartzite making up the majority of the rock found on site (Morgan et al. 2014a). The site is located at the edge of the sub-alpine ecotone and the alpine tundra ecotone. These two ecotones are characterized by numerous edible plants species specifically: whitebark pine, huckleberry
(Vaccinium scoparium), currants (Ribes spp.), sego lily (Calochortus spp.), biscuitroot
(Lomatium spp.) bitterroot (Lewisia rediviva), and chenopods (Chenopodium spp.)
(Adams 2010; Reed 1976). Animals found in this ecotone are several mammal species traditionally targeted by the regions hunter-gatherers: bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), elk (Cervus elephas), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), yellow-bellied marmot
(Marmota flaviventris), and snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) (Frison 2004; Kornfeld et al. 2010; Reed 1976).
Analysis of remnant tree snags and stumps above modern treeline in the vicinity of High Rise Village revealed that during the main occupation of the site (2300-850 cal
B.P.) the whitebark treeline was over 100 meters higher than at present, completely encompassing the site boundaries within the subalpine whitebark pine zone (Losey 2013;
Morgan et al. 2012a; Morgan et al. 2014a).
Western Wyoming Paleoenvironmental Record
In the Late Holocene there were three main fluctuations in temperature and moisture regimes throughout the Great Basin and Rocky Mountain regions: the Late
Holocene Dry Period 2800-1850 B.P. (Mensing et al. 2013), the Medieval Climatic
Anomaly (MCA) 1150-550 B.P. (Hughes and Diaz 1994; LaMarche 1974), and the Little 12
Ice Age (LIA) 550-100 B.P. (Mann 2002; LaMarche 1974). These three main fluctuations however, are marked by considerable geographic and temporal variability.
In the Rocky Mountain Region pollen records indicate cooler and wetter conditions after 5200 B.P with lowered treeline followed by an advance to modern treeline and climate after 3000 B.P. (Mensing et al. 2012). In the Wyoming Region before 4500 B.P. conditions were dry, treelines were lower, dune activity increased, and drought tolerant species such as juniper moved into the area (Whitlock et al. 2002). After
4500 B.P. conditions cooled and precipitation increased. Glaciers became active in the highest elevations, tree-lines moved upwards, dunes stabilized and juniper expansion stopped (Eckerle 1997). This episode of cool and wet was followed by another dry period starting around 1800 B.P. when dune activity increased, glaciers receded or disappeared, and forest fire frequency increased. However, alpine treelines expanded and stabilized due to warmer and longer alpine growing seasons (Losey 2013). This corresponds with the tail end of the Late Holocene Dry Period, which was the longest persistent dry period during the late Holocene in the Great Basin and Bonneville Basin, though it is as-yet unclear the extent and expression of this phenomenon across the region
(Mensing et al. 2013).
Between 1100-650 B.P. multidecadal climatic variability took place in the Rocky
Mountain Region during the MCA (Whitlock et al. 2002). Increased temperature and arguably increased moisture at higher elevations led to a whitebark treeline advance on
Union Peak in the Wind River Range between 1800 and 800 B.P., during the main period of occupation at HRV (Morgan et al. 2014a). The death of the trees came about 200 years before the LIA, and may have been caused by a regional ‘mega drought’ at the end 13 of the MCA, 820-780 B.P. (Cook et al. 2010; Morgan et al. 2014a). Temperatures were higher and precipitation was more stable and predictable (relative to the succeeding Little
Ice Age) during this interval which may have resulted in more predictable resource productivity at high altitudes, in contrast to drier less favorable low-elevation settings
(Losey 2013).
Around 550-100 B.P., during the LIA, conditions became cooler and wetter though also more variable than the preceding MCA. This cooling resulted in shortened growing seasons and cooler summers. In the alpine zone, cooler summers meant resource depletion. Tree ring evidence also points to severe winters during this time period. Frequent changes in precipitation and temperature would have had an adverse effect on pine nut production, and would have arguably made predictable pine nut harvests less likely (Campell and McAndrews 1993; Mann 2002).
Western Wyoming Culture History
For the Late Holocene (i.e., after 5000 cal B.P.) Metcalfe (1987), denotes six cultural phases spanning the Early Archaic through the Late Prehistoric for the Wyoming
Basin: (1) the Green River Phase, (2) the McKean Technocomplex, (3) the Pine Spring
Phase, (4) the Deadman Wash Phase, (5) Uinta Phase, and the (6) Firehole Phase.
Kornfeld et al. (2010) distinguish between the Early, Middle and Late Archaic, Late
Prehistoric, and the Protohistoric Periods for the northwestern Plains and Rocky
Mountains. These two chronologies are applied to the Wind River Range and are summarized in Table 2.2. 14
Table 2.2. Northwestern Plains and Wyoming Basin Chronologies
Years Northwestern Plains Wyoming Basin Phases B.P. (Kornfeld et al. 2010) (Metcalfe 1987)
Historic Firehole
1000 Late Prehistoric Late Prehistoric Uinta
2000 Late Plains Archaic
Deadman 3000 Wash Late Archaic
4000 Pine Spring
Middle Plains Archaic 5000
6000 Green River
7000
Early Archaic 8000
Early Plains Archaic
Great Divide
15
The Early Archaic
The Green River Phase dates between 5800-4300 years before present. This phase is characterized by medium sized triangular side-notched points and a spike in radiocarbon date frequencies indicating an increase in population density followed by a short decline in populations (Kelly et al. 2013; Metcalfe 1987). In the nearby Wyoming
Basin, this time period marks a shift to a more diverse diet with an emphasis on plant resources and specifically root processing. During this phase housepits are widely used with slab lined storage features and small roasting pits and sites appear to be intensively used and repeatedly used (Metcalfe 1987; Smith and McNees 2011).
The Middle Archaic
The beginning of the Middle Archaic is marked by the McKean Technocomplex
(5000-3000 B.P.). This complex is more common on the Plains and not as common in the Wyoming Basin, which accounts in part for the overlap in dating terminology and timespans between the Early, Middle and Late Archaic. The McKean Complex is marked by three styles of long lanceolate points with either concave bases or high side notches. Around 4500 B.P. there was a peak in population accompanied by wetter climatic conditions (Kelly et al. 2013). This period marks a return to a focus on large game hunting, specifically of bison, as well as a continued reliance on plant processing evidenced by an increase in roasting features in the archaeological record (Bender and
Wright 1988; Metcalfe 1987). There is evidence in the Wyoming Basin of an increase in habitation features containing slab lined storage and roasting pits indicating long-term, repeated use of the area by hunter-gatherers that represents ties particular patches of 16 resources, specifically roots (Francis 2000; Smith and McNees 1999). This occurred between about 5000-2800 B.P. with the peak of use of these sites around 4000-3500 B.P. as populations were diminishing due to a period of increased aridity (Kelly et al. 2013;
Smith and McNees 1999).
The Late Archaic
The Late Archaic is divided into two phases. The first, the Pine Spring Phase dates from 4600-2800 cal B.P., and is characterized by low populations, sporadic occupation and a narrowing of the diet to mountain sheep and small game and a decreased reliance on plant resources (Kelly et al. 2013; Metcalfe 1987; Smith and
McNees 2011). Medium sized dart points, either stemmed or corner notched, similar to
Elko series dart points from the Great Basin, become more common during this phase.
The second phase is known as the Deadman Wash Phase from 2800 to 1800 cal B.P.
(Metcalfe 1987), and is marked by a continued decline in radiocarbon date frequency followed by a small increase around 2600 cal B.P. (Kelly et al. 2013).
The Late Prehistoric Period
This period is marked by a dramatic increase in radiocarbon date frequencies corresponding with the introduction of the bow and arrow as well as pottery into the region between 1500 and 1200 B.P. followed by a dramatic decline starting around 1000
B.P. (Kornfeld et al. 2010; Metcalfe 1987). The Late Prehistoric Period is subdivided into the Uinta Phase from 1800 to 900 cal B.P. and the Firehole Phase from 1000 cal B.P. to 250 cal B.P. In the Uinta Phase, Rose Spring points dominate tool assemblages and 17 ground stone and pottery are increasingly more common. However, bison and prong horn kill sites are found dating to this phase as well, indicating a continued emphasis on large game procurement (Metcalfe 1987). During this time in the Wind River Basin there is an increase in house-pit construction and pit-oven construction indicating a broadening of the diet to include plant, and specifically bulb resources (Smith et al 2001). The
Firehole Phase is marked by a steep decline in radiocarbon dates and the Rose Spring points are replaced by small side-notched and tri-notched points (Metcalfe 1987). During the Firehole Phase there is an increased focus on game and a shift away from plant recourses. The end of this phase is marked by contact and trade of Euromerican goods such as horses and firearms.
Historic Period
The Eastern Shoshone are thought to have inhabited western Wyoming since at least 500 B.P. and possibly much earlier (Shimkin 1986). Initially Eastern Shoshone lifeways reflected those of their Great Basin counterparts with the exception of the adoption of bison hunting on the High-Plains and the introduction of the horse. The
Eastern Shoshone had a population between 1500-3000 people with three to five bands dispersing in the winter months and early spring. Their diet was dominated by buffalo which was hunted for short time periods in both the spring and fall. For plant species the forests and high plans were important harvesting grounds for both berry and root resources, with seeds playing a minor role in group subsistence. Berries were eaten raw or pounded with meat to make pemmican, and roots were roasted in ovens for immediate consumption and storage for winter (Shimkin 1986). 18
Within the Eastern Shoshone, the Shoshone of the Rocky Mountain region were a band known as the Tukudeka or “Sheepeater” Shoshone (Shimkin 1999). The Sheepeater
Shoshone inhabited the Wind River Mountains and the mountains of northwestern
Wyoming and spent the summers in the Green River Basin as well as in the Yellowstone
National Park region. This group of Shoshone never adopted the horse and focused part of their subsistence activities in the alpine environments. They moved in small family groups following game animals and plants through the high alpine pastures throughout the summer season (Shimkin 1999).
White Mountain Village Sites
Site Context
The White Mountain Village sites are located in the White Mountains of southeastern California between 3150 m and 3854 m AMSL (10,350 ft-12,645 ft)
(Figure 2.3) (Bettinger 1991). Rock ringed structural foundations, considerable midden development, and large quantities of ground stone and flaked stone tools indicate diverse plant and animal processing and long-term residential occupations. These village sites contrast with more typical high mountain sites, features, and isolates found in the range which consist of hunting blinds, projectile points, and lithic scatters. 19
Archaeological Findings
Extensive survey of the alpine zone identified village sites, hunting blinds, and sparse lithic scatters. Village sites, recognized by the presence of large multi-course stone ring foundations of pole-and thatch houses, were the focus of excavations
(Bettinger 1991). In total, 12 village sites were excavated. Deposits within structures and middens located outside of structures were sampled in 11 of the 12 sites. Village sites contain a wide diversity of tools: bifaces and projectile points, plant processing tools such as millingslabs and handstones, as well as battered cobbles, drills, cores, and expedient flake tool debris (Bettinger 1991).
Hunting blinds occur in high frequencies within the alpine zone, some of which are found within the boundaries of the village sites. Bettinger (1991) determined through radiocarbon dating of features and lichenometry on rock ring structures that the two types of features were not related and differ significantly in age and occupational intensity, with hunting blinds used earlier in time and villages used later in time (Bettinger and
Oglesby 1985). Faunal analysis from the village sites indicates a focus on large mammals, primarily artiodactyls in pre village times with a shift to a focus on marmot and a continued use of large mammals during village times (Grayson 1991).
Ground stone from six of the White Mountain Village sites was analyzed for this study; Rancho Deluxe, Crooked Forks, Corral Camp South, Gate Meadows, Raven
Camp, and Midway Village. Summary and site descriptions follow below.
20
Figure 2.3. White Mountain Village Sites
CA-MNO-2198: Rancho Deluxe
This site is located at 3571 m AMSL (11,715 ft) on a small ridgeline that faces south. The site contains eight rock ringed structures with well-developed midden soils and large quantities of ground stone (over 200 collected during excavation), with several large millingslab features. Artifacts collected during excavation include more than 300 battered cobbles, almost 1000 projectile points, over 1300 bifaces, and 21 pieces of worked bone (Bettinger 1991). Six radiocarbon dates were obtained from two of the rock 21 ring features and midden deposits with a date range between 1430-200 cal B.P. (Bettinger
1991).
CA-MNO-2191: Crooked Forks
The Crooked Forks village site is located at 3150 m AMSL (10,335 ft) along the southeast side of Crooked Creek. The site contains three rock ring structures.
Excavations recovered 140 ground stone pieces, 600 battered cobbles, 1700 projectile points, 1600 bifaces, and 134 pieces of worked bone. Six dates were obtained from two of the rock ring features ranging between 1690-170 cal B.P. (Bettinger 1991).
CA-MNO-2194: Corral Camp South
This site is located at an elevation of 3364 m AMSL (11,036 ft) on the south side of Cottonwood Creek. The site contains ten rock ring structures and midden soils.
Excavations resulted in the collection of 130 ground stone pieces, 68 battered cobbles,
280 projectile points, 260 bifaces, and 45 pieces of worked bone. Three dates were obtained, all from structure five, they range from 1130-410 cal B.P. (Bettinger 1991).
Gate Meadows
Gate Meadows is a dispersed lithic scatter containing several ground stone millingslabs and no rock ring features. The site is located on a saddle at an elevation of
3556 m AMSL (11,690 ft) just to the west of Rancho Deluxe in a low meadow of bitterroot plants. The site was not excavated but surface collections include one ground stone piece tested for this study. 22
CA-MON-2193: Raven Camp
Raven Camp is a small village site located up the drainage (to the south) of Corral
Camp South at an elevation of 3468 m AMSL (11,377 ft). The site contains one large rock ring structure. Excavations of the site recovered 30 ground stone pieces, 45 battered cobbles, 320 projectile points, 400 bifaces and 55 worked pieces of bone. Three radiocarbon dates were obtained from the site. They range from 2610-280 cal B.P.
(Bettinger 1991).
CA-MNO-2196: Midway Village
Midway Village is the largest of the White Mountain Village sites. The site is on the south side of Cottonwood Creek between Rancho Deluxe and Corral Camp North and
South. The site is located at an elevation of 3437 m AMSL (11,276 ft). The site has ten rock ring structures and well developed midden soils. Excavations uncovered 150 pieces of ground stone, 100 battered cobbles, 1700 projectile points, 2200 bifaces, 36 cores, and
22 pieces of worked bone. Six radiocarbon dates were obtained from two of the features and from the midden soils ranging between 2430-310 cal B.P. (Bettinger 1991).
Chronology of the White Mountain Sites
Thirty-six radiocarbon assays were obtained from rock-ring features, 20 of which were deemed reliable (Table 2.3). The dates cluster at 525-500 B.P., 460 B.P., and 310-
285 B.P. (Bettinger 1991). Lichenometric dating was also used to date rock-rings foundations, all of which appear to postdate 1350 B.P. (Bettinger and Oglesby 1985).
Village sites contain primarily Rosegate points, dated from 1350 to 700 B.P., and Desert 23
Side-notched and Cottonwood points, dated from 700 B.P. to historic times (Garfinkel
2010; Thomas 1981). This contrasts with the hunting features which primarily contain
Little Lake and Elko series projectile points, which have been dated at other Great Basin sites to 3200-1400 B.P. and 1350-700 B.P. (Thomas 1981). These differences suggest that while both hunting features and villages may have been utilized throughout the period between 3200 and 700 B.P., village sites were utilized more intensively after 700
B.P. while hunting blinds were used more intensively prior to 700 B.P. (Bettinger 1991).
24
Table 2.3. Calibrated Radiocarbon Dates from The White Mountain Village Sites Adapted from Bettinger 1991
Lab Number Material Context Provenience a Radiocarbon age Calibrated Date b UCR-2290 Artemisia Structure 5 Rancho Deluxe 210 ± 50 200 ±120 UCR-2192 Artemisia Structure 3 Rancho Deluxe 350 ± 60 410 ± 70 UCR-2193 Artemisia Structure 3 Rancho Deluxe 330 ± 80 400 ± 80 UCR-2348 Artemisia Rancho Deluxe 870 ± 70 820 ± 80 UCR-2289 Artemisia Structure 5 Rancho Deluxe 760 ± 60 720 ± 40 UCR-2351 Artemisia Rancho Deluxe 1510 ± 60 1430 ±70 UCR-2173 Artemisia Structure 2 Crooked Forks 160 ± 60 170 ±110 UCR-2178 Artemisia Structure 3 Crooked Forks 250 ± 60 290 ± 130 UCR-2180 Pinus Structure 3 Crooked Forks 490 ± 100 510 ± 110 UCR-2176 Artemisia Structure 2 Crooked Forks 490 ± 70 540 ± 70 UCR-2179 Artemisia Structure 3 Crooked Forks 1780 ± 60 1720 ± 80 UCR-2363 Artemisia Crooked Forks 1755 ± 100 1690 ± 120 UCR-2352 Artemisia Structure 5 Corral Camp South 360 ± 100 410 ± 90 UCR-2187 Pinus Corral Camp South 830 ± 60 790 ± 70 UCR-2278 Artemisia Corral Camp South 1190 ± 70 1130 ± 90 UCR-2358 Artemisia Raven Camp 2530 ± 60 2610 ± 110 UCR-2276 Artemisia Structure 2 Raven Camp 250 ± 100 280 ± 160 UCR-2195 Pinus Raven Camp 1240 ± 60 1180 ± 80 UCR-2283 Artemisia Structure 8 Midway Village 260 ± 50 310 ± 120 UCR-2285 Artemisia Structure 5 Midway Village 270 ± 70 310 ± 130 UCR-2287 Artemisia Structure 5 Midway Village 300 ± 60 390 ± 70 UCR-2182 Artemisia Midway Village 450 ± 100 470 ± 100 UCR-2356 Artemisia Midway Village 2350 ± 100 2430 ± 180 UCR-2354 Artemisia Midway Village 2350 ± 120 2430 ± 200 a) Table only includes the sites discussed in this study (see Bettinger 1991). b) Dates calibrated using CalPal 2007 (Weninger et al. 2015) and the Hulu calibration curve (Weninger and Jöris 2008)
Subsistence Remains:
Faunal Assemblage: Over 700,000 highly fragmented mammal bones were
collected from the excavated village sites and roughly 6000 could be identified to species.
By far the most abundant species identified was marmot (Marmota flaviventris) with over 25
2800 NISP, followed by mountain sheep (Ovis canadensis), squirrel (Spermophilus sp.)(most likely some bones are not cultural in origin), and cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.) (Grayson 1991). The difference between pre-village and village-aged deposits show an increase in species diversity through time; however, Grayson believes that this increase is due to higher bone fragmentation in the pre village sites leading to less taxonomic identification (Grayson 1991). The most notable change in taxa representation is a 50 percent increase in marmot bones from pre-village to village times (Grayson
1991). Grayson notes that cut marks on the marmot bones suggest that the fur of the animals was being removed. Grayson interprets the faunal data as representing a continuum of large mammal exploitation with a widening diet breadth that incorporates more small mammals, particularly marmot, and intensive plant processing into the diet through time.
Botanical remains: Flotation samples taken from Midway Village, the largest and longest occupied village in the White Mountains, were analyzed by Scharf (2009).
Pinyon (Pinus monophylla), goosefoot (Chenepodium spp.), and ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides) were the most common taxa in both the village (N= 649) and pre-village assemblages (N= 49). Pre-village sites and village sites have no significant difference in taxonomic richness or diversity. Village samples contained more seeds overall than do pre-village samples, and large seeds are overrepresented in the later contexts (with pinyon driving that trend). Pinyon and ricegrass grow at elevations well below 3100 m, the average elevation for the alpine sites, suggesting that groups transported lower- elevation resources to higher elevations, likely in small quantities. Also, limber pine grows in abundance at the elevation of the alpine sites but it appears it was not harvested 26
(Scharf 2009). According to this analysis, at least at the Midway Village site alpine plants were not used to any great extent (Scharf 2009).
Interpretation
Bettinger (1991) argues that the pre-village White Mountain sites represent typical alpine land use by hunter-gatherers in the Great Basin: logistical hunting parties passed through the area to procure large game and left behind few tools and scant residential features. In contrast, the village sites represent a shift in subsistence practices with a focus on low-ranked alpine resource processing where whole families moved to the alpine zone from early summer to fall to hunt marmot and collect some alpine plants, while using low elevation resources to supplement their diet.
Environmental Context
The White Mountain village sites are located in the White-Inyo Mountains of southeastern California. The White-Inyo Mountains are the western most range within the
Basin and Range physiographic province. The range is an uplifted, east-tilted block with a large steep escarpment on both its western and eastern sides (Nelson et al. 1991). The mountain range is quite high, between 3000 m AMSL (9800 ft) to over 4342 m AMSL
(14,245 ft) at White Mountain Peak (Spira 1991), with the village sites located between
3130 m and 3854 m AMSL (10,269 ft and 12,614 ft) (Bettinger 1991). The vegetation of the White Mountains covers four major vegetation zones: the desert scrub zone found below treeline (1219-1981 m, or 4000-6500 ft) which is dominated by shadscale (Artiplex sp.), rabbit brush (Chysothamus latifolius), and sage brush (Artemisia tridentata); the 27 pinyon-juniper woodland (1981-2896 m or 6500-9500 ft) which is characterized by pinyon pine (Pinus monophylla); the subalpine forest (2896-3505 m or 9500-11,500 ft) characterized by both bristle cone pine (Pinus longaeva), and limber pine (Pinus flexilis); and the above-treeline alpine tundra zone (3505-4342 m or 11,500-14,246 ft) (Spira
1991).
The village sites are all located within the alpine tundra zone. Plant growth in this zone is sparse, with plant cover averaging about 10 percent of the total ground cover
(Lloyd and Mitchell 1973). Common plant species are dwarf sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscular), fell-field buckwheat (Eriogonum ovalifolium), Cushion phlox (Phlox condensata) blue flax (Linum lewisii), Mono clover (Trifolium monoens), fleabane
(Erigeron vagus), bitterroot (Lewisis pygmaea), and Labrador tea (Ledum sp.) (Lloyd and
Mitchell 1973; Spira 1991). A common characteristic of these alpine plants is that they have more of their biomass stored underground than above ground in a well-developed root and rhizome systems allowing them to store energy through the cold winter and are thus a good source of nutrients for hunter-gatherers (Spira 1991). Common animal species hunted by prehistoric groups in the White Mountain alpine zone include yellow- bellied marmot (Marmota flaviventris), pika (Ochotona princeps) and mountain sheep
(Ovis canadensis) (Carey and Wehausen 1991).
Also of importance to the alpine villages of the White Mountains are the plants and animals of the subalpine forest. Common edible plants found in this zone are three species of pine that produce edible nuts: pinyon, limber, and bristlecone, as well as grasses such as Indian rice-grass (Achnatherum hymenoides) and wild-rye (Elymus cinereus) (Spira 1991). Sub-alpine zone mammals include mule deer (Odocoileus 28 hemionus) jack rabbit (Lepus californicus) and white-tailed hare (Lepus townsendii)
(Carey and Wehausen 1991).
Great Basin and Owens Valley Paleoenvironmental Record
Though its expression towards the south is as-yet somewhat unclear, in the Great
Basin the Late Holocene Dry Period (2800 to 1850 cal B.P.) was the longest persistent dry period within the Holocene (Mensing et al. 2013). In the western Great Basin,
Pyramid Lake, Walker Lake, and Mono Lake all experienced significantly lowered levels beginning around 2000 B.P. Increases in cheno-am pollen around these lakes indicate dry conditions with significantly lower shorelines allowing for colonization by saltbrush
(Grayson 2011; Mensing et al. 2004). In the Sierra Nevada, Fallen Leaf Lake also shows evidence for shoreline retreat between 2320-1620 B.P. (Mensing et al. 2013). In the
White Mountains tree-line moved as much as 30 meters downslope between 2800 and
2500 B.P. which indicates warmer and dryer temperatures (LaMarche 1974; Mensing et al. 2013). In the central Great Basin an interval of alluvial fan building took place between 2600 and 1850 B.P. triggered by increased run off from shifts in vegetation in upland areas due to drought (Mensing et al. 2013). In the east, Lake Bonneville may have experienced a high stand sometime around 3400 B.P. and then began to drop from
2600 to 1850 or possibly even as late as 1600 B.P. (Mensing et al. 2013). The Snake
Range experienced an upward advance of the treeline between 4400 and 2200 B.P. which indicates a drier and warmer period in that region (Grayson 2011; Mensing et al. 2013).
The next effective period of climatic variability was the Medieval Climatic
Anomaly 1150-550 B.P. In the Great Basin this period was marked by warmer, arid 29 conditions that affected lake levels and treelines in the alpine setting. In the White
Mountains, between 1076-701 B.P. occurred one of eight most intensive droughts in the last 8000 year record in the region punctuated by a significant wet interval (Grayson
2011). In the southern Sierra Nevada range near Owens Valley, trees thrived between
1185 and 650 B.P. due to an annual maximum temperatures of five degrees Fahrenheit higher than at present (Grayson 2011). In the central and northern Sierra Nevada, now- submerged tree stumps indicate substantial droughts ca. 800 and 600 cal B.P. (Kleppe et al. 2011; Lindström 1990; Morgan and Pomerleau 2012; Stine 1994).
White Mountains and Owens Valley Culture History
Bettinger and Taylor (1974) delineate five cultural time periods for the desert region of California and the western Great Basin: the Mojave, Little Lake, Newberry,
Haiwaee, and Marana periods. Alternatively, Warren and Crabtree (1972) delineate five periods with different names; Lake Mojave, Pinto, Gypsum, Saratoga Springs, and
Shoshonean. A similar sequence was developed by Bettinger (1976) specifically for
Owen’s Valley divided into the Klondike, Baker, Cowhorn, and Clyde phases. Of importance to the cultural history of the White Mountain Village sites are only the last three periods which will be discussed below and are summarized in Table 2.4 using
Bettinger and Taylor’s (1974) general chronology.
30
Table 2.4. Western Great Basin and Owens Valley Chronologies
California Desert Western Great Basin Owens Valley Years B.P. (Bettinger and Taylor 1974) (Warren and Crabtree Bettinger (1976) 1972) Historic Historic Historic
200 Marana Period Shoshonean Period V Klondike Phase 400
600
800 Baker Phase 1000 Haiwee Period Saratoga Springs Period IV 1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400 Cowhorn Phase 2800 Newberry Period Gypsum Period III 3000
3200
3400
3600
31
Western Great Basin: Newberry (4000 B.P.-1500 B.P.)
The Newberry Period is characterized by highly mobile hunter-gatherers who moved in a north to south annual round focusing on large game hunting using atlatls. It is also marked by a shift in plant exploitation from the riverine ecotone to plants in the desert scrub ecotone (Bettinger 1977; Bettinger and Taylor 1974; Warren 1984). This period is marked by the presence of Humboldt concave base, Elko eared, Elko corner- notched, and Gypsum projectile points. Millingslab use was common and mortars and pestles begin to appear in assemblages during this time period. Olivella and abalone beads are first traded into the region from the coast. During the Late Newberry Period
(ca. 2000-1500 B.P.) split twig figurines depicting large mammals as well as an increase in rock art depicting mountain sheep, deer, and rabbit appear to indicate an increase in the importance of ritual based around hunting (Warren 1984). This time period also saw a large increase in the use of obsidian (Bettinger 1980).
Western Great Basin: Haiwee Period (ca. 1500-600 B.P.)
This time period was marked by cultural continuity in artifact types, such as the use of millingslabs and mortar and pestles, as well as continuity in rock art depictions and trade goods. This time period corresponds with the Basketmaker III period in the
Southwest and influences and trade were felt along the edges of the southwestern Great
Basin (Warren 1984). Two important shifts took place in this time period: one was a technological shift from large dart points to Rose Spring and Eastgate arrow points (or
Rosegate per Thomas 1981); the other was pinyon pine nut exploitation marked by the appearance of pinyon camps in the archaeological record and a decrease in the importance of large game hunting after 2000 B.P. (Bettinger 1977). 32
Western Great Basin: Marana Period (600 B.P.-historic)
This time period is characterized by Desert Side-notched and Cottonwood triangular projectile points as well as Shoshonean or brown ware pottery (Eerkens 2003;
Warren 1984). This time period saw a decrease in mobility with semi-sedentary villages and an increased focus on plant food production, especially small seed processing using ground stone and pottery.
This time period, some would argue (Bettinger and Baumhoff 1982), marks a cultural shift from the proceeding Haiwee period with the spread of Numic language speaking populations northward and westward into the Great Basin and Rocky Mountain region (Lamb 1958; Sutton 1994). Bettinger and Baumhoff (1982) suggest that shifts in rock art styles from animals to geometric shapes, the advent of intensive green cone pinyon exploitation, and the use of alpine villages, indicate a cultural shift occurring during the Marana Period attributed to Numic-speaking groups entering the region
(Bettinger 1977; Delacort 1995).
Historic Period
By historic times much of the western and southern Great Basin region was occupied by Numic speaking groups. In the Owens Valley several Paiute bands lived in sedentary villages on the valley floor. Large permanent villages were occupied year- round in Owens Valley, though logistical hunting and gathering trips and the yearly pinyon harvest also occurred. There was a small degree of territoriality, with villages or several villages organized into districts that controlled land, seed crops, irrigation ditches and hunting and fishing grounds (Steward 1933). Population was estimated to be roughly 33
2.5 persons per square mile based on early Indian Service survey records and Steward’s own estimations (Steward 1933).
The settlement patterns of the Owens Valley Piute were restricted to a 15 to 20- mile radius from their villages on the valley floor, with foot hill and mountain foraging areas for pinyon and seed harvesting, as well as hunting and fishing grounds (Steward
1933). Summer was spent on the valley floor and seed gathering and fishing were the primary activities. In the fall, people would gather for communal rabbit drives and feasting, and in the winter groups would disperse to winter camps in the mountains to harvest pine nuts which they brought to villages in the valley in the spring. According to
Steward’s (1933; 1938) accounts, pinyon nuts and small seeds were the most important plant species, however, the Owens Valley Paiute cultivated several wild species: spike rush (Eleocharis), a type of lily (Brodiaea), a type of sunflower (Helianthus), and goosefoot (Chenopodium) with crude irrigation ditches constructed on the alluvial fans debouching from the sierra Nevada (Lawton et al. 1976; Steward 1933). This small scale irrigation of wild plants is believed to predate Euro-American contact but it is unclear when it actual began (Bouey 1979; Lawton et al. 1976). This small scale irrigation of several root and seed bearing species indicates that roots were also included in the diet even if Steward does not place much emphasis on these resources in his ethnographic accounts. 34
Environmental and Culture History Comparisons
The cultural and environmental history of the Late Holocene in the Intermountain
West has undergone several reorganizations, both in demography, technologic shifts, and reactions to changing environmental conditions
In the Wyoming Basin and the Rocky Mountain region the Middle Archaic saw relatively low population densities, marked by low radiocarbon date frequencies with mobile groups who constructed pit houses and slab lined storage pit and roasting features
(Francis 2000; Smith and McNees 1999). These sites show evidence of repeated and long term use indicating that hunter-gatherers may have had strong ties to the landscape and particular patches of resources, specifically roots (Smith and McNees 1999). There is also evidence in the archaeological record of a broad diet and an intensive use of small game and plant resources, possibly indicating resource depression (Kornfeld et al. 2010).
This pattern of site use peaked around 4000-3500 B.P. During this time, conditions were initially dry and warm with lower treelines and increased expansion of drought tolerant species such as juniper, yet after 4500 B.P. climate conditions cooled and precipitation increased causing treelines to reach near modern levels by 3000 B.P. (Mensing et al.
2012; Whitlock et al. 2002).
In the Great Basin the picture is slightly different. Population densities were arguably lower than the Late Archaic, with highly mobile hunter-gatherer groups moving throughout the region. Evidence for plant processing and an expansion of the diet is indicated by the presence of milling technologies at archaeological sites, however an emphasis on large game hunting persisted (Byers and Broughton 2004; McGuire and 35
Hildebrandt 2005). After about 2500 B.P. residential sites with storage features become more frequent across the Great Basin, marked by an increase in the frequency of rock ring pinyon caches and pinyon camps (Bettinger 1999). Important to this study, a similar pattern is seen in Owens Valley after 1,400 B.P. with large low-land village sites associated with intentional irrigation of root fields, and pinyon caches in the mountain zone, all indicating territorial circumscription, residential tethering, and long-term site use (Bettinger 1977). This residential pattern corresponds with the Late Holocene Dry
Period (2800-1850 B.P.), the longest persistent dry period within the Holocene were lake levels were significantly lower, treelines moved down slope, and drought tolerant species dominated (Mensing et al. 2013).
During the Late Holocene, in both the Great Basin and Rocky Mountain region population began to increase. In the Wyoming and Rocky Mountain region there is a noticeable increase in radiocarbon dates between 1500 and 1200 B.P. followed by a dramatic decline starting around 1000 B.P. (Kelly et al. 2013; Kornfeld et al. 2010;
Metcalfe 1987). For High Rise Village this timing is significant because intensive occupation of the site occurred between 2300-850 cal B.P. at the peak of the population boom and subsequently site use declined at the same time radiocarbon dates drop off in the region (Losey 2013).
Across the Great Basin projectile point frequencies indicate a peak in population after 1500 B.P. (Bettinger 1999). For the White Mountain villages, Owens Valley saw a steady increase in population starting at 4000 B.P., reaching a high point around 1400 -
1000 B.P. This was accompanied by a reorganization of village settlements on the valley 36 floor (Bettinger 1991). This population increase corresponds with the beginning of intensive alpine use in the White Mountains.
Increased temperatures had a positive effect on mountain tree populations leading to expansion of treelines in several regions, particularly in the Wind River Range, at the same time that High Rise Village was being used. This time of warmer and more stable conditions (when compared to the last 600 or so years) would have favored higher elevation species with longer growing seasons. Conversely, in the lowlands, resources may have been adversely affected, causing streams and marshes to dry. This may have stressed plant and animal populations, making low-land habitation and resource exploitation more difficult. For example, more arid conditions stunted grass growth at low elevations, which may have had an adverse effect on the ungulate populations hunted by prehistoric groups (Lubinski 2000; Wigand and Rhode 2002). Across the archaeological record there is widespread evidence of foragers broadening their diets to include lower-ranked resources, and evidence for technological innovations for the intensive procurement and processing of specific resources. This reflects a greater trend during the Late Holocene that may be in response to the dryer and warmer climate conditions that mark this time period (Bettinger 1999).
This increase in frequency in the number of archaeological sites, radiocarbon dates, and projectile points, corresponds with changes in technology, specifically the introduction of the bow and arrow, resource intensification, specifically of pinyon in the
Great Basin, and possible demographic shifts from the expansion of Numic speaking groups across the Great Basin (Bettinger and Baumhoff 1982). The bow and arrow may have had profound effects on social organization because single hunters could take down 37 large bodied prey without the assistance of hunting parties (Bettinger 1999). In the Great
Basin ceramic use becomes widespread, with Fremont and Puebloan influence from the south, and the later introduction of Numic wares into the region (Bettinger 1999).
Ceramics are often cited as an indication of the importance of seed processing and cooking (Bright et al. 2002; Eerkens 2004) and therefore, their increased frequency after this time may indicate an importance in seeds and other low-ranked resources. Other seed and plant harvesting and processing tools become more sophisticated and strategically designed as well at this time; winnowing trays, basketry, and strategically designed grinding slabs, all of which were present in the archaeological record throughout the Holocene but increase dramatically in quantity during the Middle and Late
Archaic (Grayson 2011).
This evidence indicates a reorganization of technology to a more intensive exploitation regime during the Late Holocene including the intensified use of the alpine zone (Bettinger 1999). The question remains, if there was a general trend across the
Intermountain West towards intensification of both resources and site use, why is alpine intensification only seen in a few locations and not a general pattern across the region?
This question will be addressed in the following chapters.
38
Chapter 3 Theory and Expectations
High Altitude Archaeology
The high altitude zone is defined as the area above 2500 meters AMSL (8200 ft) and is characterized by a decrease in biotic productivity and an increase in human metabolic requirements. Decreased biotic productivity results from a shortened growing season, reduced effective temperature and oftentimes a lack of summer water (Benedict
2007). Increased metabolic demands are due mainly to less atmospheric oxygen (but also cold) which causes basic metabolic rates to increase causing the body to work harder to preform basic functions (Makinen 2007). Throughout the world, intensive and permanent or semi-permanent human use of the alpine zone is rare and is generally restricted to logistical hunting or stone tool procurement. Such use however, is documented on the Tibetan Plateau, in the Andes Mountains, as well in the Sierra
Nevada, Great Basin, and central Rocky Mountain regions of North America
(Aldenderfer and Zhang 2004; Neme 2016).
High Altitude Land Use in North America
In North America, residential upland use was extremely rare (Canaday 1997) and use of high altitudes was characterized mainly by large-game hunting, marked by sites with hunting blinds, game drive features, and small hunting camps that date to as early as the Early Holocene (Benedict 1992; Frison 2004). Evidence for alpine use in the Great
Basin is found in several mountain ranges and like elsewhere is mostly restricted to game drives and logistical hunting (McGuire and Hatoff 1991; Canaday 1997). In the Sierra 39
Nevada, there is also evidence for logistical hunting at high altitudes during the Middle and Late Holocene (Morgan 2006; Stevens 2005). Although alpine hunting is found in the central Rocky Mountain region at the Lookingbill Site as early as 12,270 B.P., consistent upland use in the form of logistical hunting, game drives, and potential ritual use is common only after about 5000 B.P. (Kornfeld et al. 2001; Benedict 1992).
In the Absaroka Range, alpine and subalpine residential use has also been documented (Scheiber and Finley 2010). In Utah there is some evidence of high altitude residential use in the Uinta Mountains (Knoll 2003; Nash 2012; Watkins 2000) the
Pahvant Range (Morgan et al. 2012b) and the Fishlake Plateau (Janetski 2010). These sites appear to be seasonal residential camps occupied during the Formative Period, and likely related to Fremont agricultural intensification.
In the Sierra Nevada there is evidence for several high altitude occupation sites.
One site located in the south central Sierra at an elevation of 2895 m AMSL (9793 ft) contains nine rock-ringed structural foundations, a well-developed midden, and 41 bedrock mortars. While the site has not yet been excavated, the presence of Owens
Valley Brownware may indicate that the site is contemporaneous with the White
Mountain Village pattern dating from 600- 150 B.P. (Morgan 2006). The Southern Sierra
Nevada also may contain several additional high altitude residential sites. Stevens (2005) identified at least five sites with rock ring structures, well-developed midden deposits and ground stone, all at elevations between 3200 and 3300 m AMSL (10,498 and 10,826 ft).
Using obsidian hydration readings Stevens determined that these sites were in use after
1500 B.P. This pattern is also similar to the White Mountain Village pattern, but with 40 less intense residential use as seen by lower artifact density and slightly earlier dates
(Stevens 2005).
The two most substantial locations for alpine residential use are both found in the
Great Basin: the White Mountains village sites in California (a focus of this study) and
Alta Toquima Village in the Toquima Range of central Nevada.
At these sites, use of the alpine zone shifted over time. Small logistical groups began using these areas primarily for bighorn sheep hunting with little long-term residential stays. However, after 1500 B.P. in the Toquima Range and after 600 B.P. in the White Mountains, a dramatic shift to intensive residential use replaced the previous pattern. The Village pattern at the White Mountain sites is characterized by rock ring structures, well developed midden soils, a wide range of flaked stone and ground stone tools, and large quantities of mammal bone, in particular marmot bone (Bettinger 1991;
Grayson 1991). The Alta Toquima Village contains 30 rock-ringed structures, well developed midden, over 500 ceramic sherds, 50 ground stone fragments, and over 225 diagnostic projectile points (Thomas 1982). Thomas (1994) reports 23 radiocarbon dates for Alta Toquima Village that range from 180 to 1,750 B.P. The site is as a semi- permanent residential site in a larger foraging system used during times of increased aridity while the nearby Gatecliff Shelter was occupied in more mesic times (Thomas
2015). Alta Toquima has been interpreted as a camp located close enough to the limber and pinyon forest to harvest nuts during arid times in the valleys below (Hildebrandt
2013).
A similar but less intensive residential pattern dating to between 2,300 and 850 cal B.P. is found in the Wind River Range of Wyoming. This is marked most notably at 41
High Rise Village (also a focus of this study) and several other documented, yet untested village sites. (Adams 2010; Koenig 2010; Losey 2013; Morgan et al. 2012a; Trout 2015).
High Rise Village contains 52 lodge features, large quantities of ground stone, and low quantities of flaked stone (primarily tool maintenance debris), weak midden soils, scant faunal remains and no macrobotanical remains (Morgan et al. 2012a). This site has been interpreted as a short term residential base for small forager groups working within a larger alpine and subalpine foraging system (Trout 2015). Plant resources, specifically whitebark pine are thought to be the resources driving this system (Adams 2010; Stirn
2014).
Integral to the discussion of high altitude occupation at these locations is which plant resources were being targeted by their occupants. Because of the large quantities of ground stone at each of these sites, it has been proposed (Adams 2010; Scharf 2009; Stirn
2014) that plant processing, specifically pine nut processing, was a key aspect of site use at these alpine villages. In the White Mountains it has been suggested that transported pinyon pine nuts were used to subsidize alpine villages (Scharf 2009; see also Watkins
2000 for a similar argument concerning maize from Utah’s Uinta Range). Flotation samples from Midway Village confirmed this theory, containing more pine nut hulls than any other alpine or sub-alpine resource (Scharf 2009).
In the Wind River Range researchers have for some time thought that alpine villages were specifically occupied to target whitebark pine in the late summer to early fall (Adams 2010; Stirn 2014), a hypotheses that on the surface seemed plausible given that the main residential occupations of High Rise Village corresponded with an upward advance of the whitebark treeline by over 100 m (Morgan et al. 2014a). To test this 42 hypothesis Stirn (2014) developed a predictive model for known village locations in the
Wind River Range and large whitebark pine stands and found a correlation. He then ground-truthed his model and found 13 more small residential sites. This led him to conclude that Wind River “village locations were targeted specifically for the optimal procurement of pine nuts” (Stirn 2014:523).
A similar model was developed by Hildebrandt (2013) in the Toquima and
Toiyabe Ranges of central Nevada. He found that alpine villages in these ranges occur only in areas where limber and pinyon pine groves have a large enough extent and are easily accessible from the alpine zone. He argues that this explains the lack of village sites in the Toiyabe Range and the presence of Alta Toquima in the Toquima Range because at Alta Toquima large limber pine stands are near enough to subsidize its occupants (but see Morgan et al. 2015).
While rare, this shift from low intensity logistical to intensive residential high altitude occupation in North America may represent a shift in low land demography, necessitating a more intensive use of the alpine zone. In this vein, there are those
(Benedict 1992; Black 1991; Walsh 2005; Wright et al. 1980) who see high altitude resources as productive, “pulling” hunter-gatherers to the high altitude in summer and early fall, and those (Bettinger 1991) whose see them as marginal, producing low-ranked, high cost resources that are only exploited if “pushed” by external factors.
The “Pull” Hypothesis
To varying degrees, some researchers working in the Rocky Mountain region hypothesize a “pull” toward the use of high altitude resources, and various terms have 43 been proposed for this cycle, including “high country adaptation” (Wright et al. 1980,
Bender and Wright 1988), the “mountain tradition” (Black 1991), and “seasonal transhumance systems” (Benedict 1992). In general, however, these models are mostly descriptive and argue more for how mountain environments were used as opposed to why.
Each of these models are characterized by people exploiting different elevation ranges over the course of the year based on the variability, distribution, and abundance of resources (Wright et al. 1980). Different elevation zones are biotically productive at different times, a pattern termed “periodicity” by Wright et al. (1980). This variability leads to a concentration of resources into specific altitude zones in single, short temporal intervals, which results in small, concentrated and highly productive ecozones.
Productive elevation zones move up the mountain as the season progresses and the snowpack recedes; thus, when the lowlands are dry in mid-summer the high elevations are becoming productive and continue to be so throughout mid-autumn (Wright et al.
1980; Benedict 1992). Periodicity should lead to specific behavioral adaptations, leading whole groups to sequentially exploit different elevation zones in order to maximize returns. Thus, some form of residential mobility would be required, but may include logistical forays from mountain base camps (Bender and Wright 1988).
Black’s (1991) model contrasts this idea slightly by viewing the mountainous areas as a comprehensive resource system. In this way the “mountain tradition” is differentiated from the lowland tradition. Groups will occupy the high country for the whole year, moving between the high altitude zone in the summer and fall and the foothill or inter-mountain valleys to overwinter, relying on stored foods from the summer harvest (Black 1991). Black sees this system in contrast to the groups who exploit 44 lowland resources and use the uplands logistically in the summer. This model would also require residential settlements at high altitude.
Benedict (1992) points to two separate transhumance systems, one occurring during the Early Archaic around 5000 B.P. This was marked by seasonal movement from lower elevations to Colorado’s Front Range in the early spring and then to spending most of the summer and fall in the high country hunting game and collecting various plant species. The other system was a more complex “circuit” of movement covering over 400 km from winter camps in the Hogback region northward to the Front Range and to North Park for gathering spring plants, and then on to the Continental Dived from the west and back to the Front range in the fall from the east for communal hunting drives.
This patter is a Late Prehistoric phenomenon dating between 1400 and 750 B.P.
(Benedict 1992).
Bender and Wright (1988) see evidence for the high country adaptation persisting in the Jackson Hole area of Wyoming. Black’s Mountain Tradition (1999) is seen in the southern Rocky Mountains and Frison (1991) sees a similar pattern in western Wyoming.
Adams (2010) and more recently Morgan et al. (2016) recognize a similar mountain pattern operating between High Rise Village, the Yellowstone Plateau and Jackson Hole, while Benedict (1992) sees a Late Prehistoric rotary transhumance system in the
Colorado Front Range. Each model presented here may differ in the placement of alpine resources in the settlement system, yet each argues that time-compressed and pronounced seasonal montane and alpine biotic productivity was critical to conditioning prehistoric transhumance and mobility patterns 45
The “Push” Hypothesis
Alternatively, some researchers view the high altitude zone as a marginal and demanding environment. This is based on the idea that at high altitude the body has to work harder and requires more calories to perform basic functions due to a decrease in atmospheric oxygen (Aldenderfer 2006). High altitude alpine environments are seen as less productive than lowland ones. Alpine environments also have greater resource variability and unpredictability; in that snow often limits access to areas and water is scarce (Morgan et al. 2012a). If alpine environments are as marginal as proposed, what would draw hunter-gatherers to the uplands to exploit such marginal resources? Many researchers (Aldenderfer 2006; Bettinger 1991; Brantingham and Xing 2006) have put forward the idea of a “push” factor that led humans to intensively exploit high altitude settings.
Environmental Degradation. One potential explanation along these lines is that a change in climate led to a degradation of lowland resources “pushing” hunter-gatherers to intensively exploit marginal areas such as the alpine zone (Bettinger 1991). The Late
Holocene is marked by paleoclimatic variability like the Late Holocene Dry Period 2800-
1850 cal B.P.(Mensing et al 2012; 2013), and the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (MCA)
1150-550 B.P., the latter corresponds with intensified use of alpine zones after 1000 B.P. but does not account for the residential use of the White Mountains during the Little Ice
Age (550-150 B.P. ), a cooler and wetter time (LaMarche 1974), nor does it account for the intensive residential use of the Wind River Range 2300-1150 B.P. Conversely, an increase in temperature and moisture may have favored resources of the alpine zone, 46 causing treelines to rise and allowing longer growing seasons for plants to mature which may be the case at High Rise Village (Stirn 2014; Morgan et al. 2014a).
Population Pressure. Bettinger (1991) hypothesizes that population pressure from immigrating groups may have caused some hunter-gatherers to intensify high altitude use of the White Mountains. If hunter-gatherer populations were large and resources were at carrying capacity, hunter-gatherers may have adopted new and perhaps more costly behaviors, such as alpine intensification, to weather lowland resource shortfalls. If this shift allowed populations to continue to grow it may have become incorporated into the groups’ overall seasonal procurement strategies and persisted thereafter (Bettinger 1991).
In the various iterations of both the push and the pull scenarios, resource procurement strategies and resource productivity are critical: the former entails behaviors with measurable procurement and handling costs and the latter entails resources with measurable caloric returns. Thus, evaluating push versus pull hypotheses necessitates a basic understanding of the costs and benefits of resource procurement.
Modeling Mountain Plant-Based Subsistence
To properly understand and predict forager decisions regarding alpine plant exploitation, specifically the choice between pine nuts or other plant resources such as geophytes, the following factors must be considered: return rates for individual species, storage decisions, availability, seasonality, predictability, and cultivation potential.
The diet breadth model is a basic microeconomic decision-making model used to determine what resources should be included in the diet (MacArthur and Pianka 1966). 47
It works under the assumption that when confronted with an array of dietary choices, a forager will select the combination of food types that maximizes energy intake per search and handling time, the latter comprised of pursuit and processing time (Bettinger et al.
2015). This food combination is based on ranks, where the highest ranked item delivers the most calories per handling (but not search) time with the highest ranked food always selected upon encounter. Lower ranked foods are only added to the diet upon encounter when search times for higher-ranked items (which would still have to be searched for) increase to the point that taking the lower ranked item results in return rates that are equal to or better than those of higher-ranked items. What this means is that it is the abundance of higher-ranked items that determines whether or not the lower-ranked ones are taken upon encounter (Bettinger et al. 2015).
The calculated return rates of the alpine nut species differ (Table 3.1). If we assume that limber, pinyon, and whitebark pine nuts require a similar effort to process for consumption and deliver similar nutritional benefit we can average their return rates and get an average of 1100 kcal/hr for tree nuts. If we also average the various root species available at high altitude, we get an average return rate of 1395 kcal/ hr. Given these return rates, roots on average outrank nuts and would be the plant resource always taken upon encounter. It must be noted, however, that return rates for nuts versus roots overlap when taking into account the range of variability in these rates, meaning resource ranking alone may not be enough to predict which resources ought to be taken in high elevation settings. To gain a clearer picture of the actual value of the two types of resources we need to also consider several other characteristics of these two types of resources as a factor of their overall utility. Following in part Lepofsky and Peacock (2004) the 48 following assesses the storage potential, availability and abundance, seasonality, predictability, and the cultivation potential of these two types of resources.
Table 3.1. Return Rates for Rocky Mountain and Great Basin Resources
Low High Average Resource Return Rate Return Rate Return Rate References (Kcal/hr) (kcal/hr) (kcal/hr) Mtn. Sheep (Ovis 17,971 31,450 24,711 Simms 1987 canadensis) Marmot (Marmot 15,725 17,971 16,848 Losey 2013 flaviventris) Pinyon Pine (Pinus Simms 1987, Barlow and 841 1,404 1125 monophylla) Metcalfe 1996 Whitebark Pine 1941 (un processed) Adams 2010 (Pinus albicaulis) Limber Pine (Pinus 178 hulled (5,387 un Rhode and Rhode 2015 flexilis) hulled) Biscuit root (Cyompterus 1054 1867 1461 Smith and McNees 2005 bulbosus) Biscuit root (Lomatium 3831 Couture et al. 1986 hendersonii) Biscuit root 1219 Couture et al. 1986 (Lomatium cous) Bitterroot (Lewisia 1374 Couture et al. 1986 rediviva) Sunflower 467 504 486 Simms 1987 (Helianthus anus) Pickle weed Simms 1987, Barlow and 402 (Chenopodium) Metcalfe 1996
Storage Potential. Many researches have pointed to the value of pine nuts and geophytes for their storability and as use as a resources for winter survival (Ames and
Marshall 1980; Steward 1938; Thoms 1989; Wandsnider and Chung 2003). It may be that the value of pine nuts compared to geophytes can be determined by the overall return rate delivered from caching and later consumption. To do this we would use a front-back loading model (Bettinger 2009). This model is based on the idea that some resources 49 were stored for future use, that the cached resources vary in the amount of time required to store, and that the resources vary in the amount of time required to process for consumption. Resources that are easy to store but require large time investments for consumption are called back-loaded resources, while resources that require large time investment up front for storage preparation but require little time for consumption are labeled front-loaded resources (Bettinger 2009). The decision to store one resource over the other depends on the amount of time required in storage and consumption of each resource as well as the probability the cache will in fact be used (Bettinger 2009).
Pine nut harvesting requires investment in cone collecting and the construction of storage cairns, however, the bulk of the effort is in the separation of the nuts from the cones and the removal of the hull prior to consumption, and the roasting and or milling of the nuts (Bettinger 2009). Geophytes on the other hand require effort to harvest but require a large amount of preparation time for storage including the drying or roasting of the roots (which could take several days) and pounding or grinding of the roots either to facilitate drying or to create root cakes to package and store or transport (Couture et al.
1986). Consequently, in this dichotomy pine nuts would be considered a back-loaded resource and geophytes would be considered a front-loaded resource. To then determine which resource should be exploited we must determine the storage time (z) and the culinary time (c) for each resource and the probability (q) that the cache will be used
(Bettinger 2009) (Table 3.2).
50
Table 3.2. Relevant Front and Back-loading Data: Pine Nuts versus Roots
Pine Roots (Barlow and Metcalf 1996) (Couture et al. 1986) 2 hours to procure 3000 kcal root + 1 hour to pound roots and 1.18 hours to procure 3000 kcal lay in sun to dry Storage Time (z) + 0.5 hour to rotate roots throughout the next two days = 3.5
z1 z2
5.4 hours to separate nuts from 1 min or 0.016hr Culinary Time (c) cone, clean, parch, and hull nuts
c1 c2 Overall handling 6.58 3.51 time
Using data generated from Barlow and Metcalf (1996) on pinyon harvesting and processing culinary time (c) was calculated at 5.4 hours for 3000 kcal of energy. For root species, culinary time (c) was calculated as 3.5 hours to dig, pound, and dry roots to obtain 3000 kcal of energy based on Couture et al.’s (1986) study on ethnographic root processing by the Burns Valley Paiute. Using these data, it is clear that the back loaded resource (pine) appears to have an advantage because the initial investment in caching is cheap, while the front loaded resource (roots) is cheaper overall (3.51 hr vs 6.58 hr).
However, we must also factor the probability (q) the catch will be used, determined by the following equation solved using Table 3.2:
q=z2-z1/c1-c2: q=3.5-1.8/5.4-0.016; q=.430936
The probability switching point (q1↔2) between each resource is derived from the same equation (with q1↔2 substituting for q). With 0 < q1↔2 <1 the resources are in a 51 classic front to back loaded relationship. In this situation, the resource with the lower storage time (nuts) is initially favored. But when more than 43.09% (q1↔2) of the stored resources end up being used (the probability switching point also stipulates the proportion of use switching point), the resource with the lower overall handling time (roots) is favored. In short, if more than about 43% of the resources end up being used, it is more efficient to target roots instead of nuts. This means that if reliance on stored foods is relatively high, then roots are a better option than nuts because their lower overall handling costs eventually compensate for their greater up-front storage costs as stored resources are accessed, processed, and consumed (see Bettinger 2009:50-52).
Availability and Abundance. The availability of a resource refers to its spatial and temporal distribution. For example, whitebark pine is restricted to the subalpine forest and only produces nuts in the fall. Roots on the other hand are found in multiple ecozones and can be harvested throughout the spring and oftentimes into mid-summer
(Lepofsky and Peacock 2004). The abundance of a resource is a measure of its density.
Generally, the plants with higher density are more profitable to harvest due mainly to decreased travel times between productive patches or plants (Lepofsky and Peacock
2004). In one related study, Lepofsky and Peacock (2004) found that root species compared to pine nut species were generally more abundant on the landscape. In general, this points to the greater utility of root species compared to nut species due to the fact that they are generally more abundant and widely distributed across many western North
American landscapes (except of course the southern and central Great Basin, where pinyon pine is widely distributed and thus pine nuts are generally more favored than roots as a subsistence resource [Steward 1938]). 52
Seasonality. It is also important to consider the seasonality of the two types of resources. Pine becomes ripe in the fall. At high elevations this time would be marked by unpredictable weather with an increased threat of snow as well as a lack of water in alpine springs and streams. Geophytes on the other hand, ripen in the early spring and summer when snow is melting at high elevations. At this time alpine springs and streams would be full and the threat of long stretches of inclement weather would be lower. If seasonality is indeed a deciding factor in resource procurement decisions, then geophyte harvesting would likely be the most favorable option.
Predictability. Predictability and stability of resources is paramount to hunter- gather survival. During the Holocene large scale fluctuations in temperature and effective moisture have greatly reordered the biotic landscape of the Intermountain
Region (Grayson 2011). Certain plant and animal species are more susceptible to variability in climate. Artiodactyls and small mammals both respond negatively to fluctuations in temperature. For example, increased winter precipitation and dry summers decrease artiodactyl reproductive success (Broughton et al. 2008). Researchers have also found that changes in moisture and temperature at key points in the development of pine cones can cause fluctuations in masting years and no development of seeds in some instances (Mutke et al. 2005). Specifically, high temperatures during cone growing season have the most significant effect and trees located in higher generally cooler elevations are the most susceptible to not setting seeds (Redmond et al. 2012).
Geophytes however, show evidence of a high resiliency or orthoselectivity (Prouty 1995).
By definition, geophytes are plants with underground storage organs (USO) that contain high amounts of carbohydrates and polysaccharides used for survival during winter 53 dormancy. The nature of these USOs allow them to be well adapted to variations in temperature and moisture (Smith and McNees 2005). This means that during large scale fluctuations in weather, geophytes are able to remain in place without substantial changes in distribution and production (Prouty 1995). If hunter-gatherers sought to avoid risk though targeting predictable resources, then geophytes would likely be selected over pine nuts.
Cultivation Potential. Many researchers (Lepofsky and Peacock 2004; Prouty
1995; Smith and McNees 2005; Thoms 1989; Wandsnider and Chung 2003) argue that geophytes were an important resource because of their positive response to simple management techniques which can greatly increase yields of certain root crops. For example, the simple act of digging up and harvesting the roots results in soil aeration which could encourage growth, a practice used by indigenous groups in the Pacific
Northwest (Thoms 1989). Intentional irrigation can greatly increase yields, a practice in
Owens Valley dating back to prehistoric times (Steward 1938). There is also evidence that burning of meadows after root harvesting can increase growth the following year by adding potassium to the soil and eliminating weeds. Periodic burning was practiced by indigenous groups in the Pacific Northwest as well as selective breeding of particularly large camas bulbs (Thoms 1989). The ability to minimally manage root crops to increase yields may have added to their desirability by foragers.
It is important to consider that both pine nuts and geophytes were important resources to hunter-gatherers in the Great Basin and Rocky Mountain region throughout most of the Holocene (Simms 2008). These two resources can occur in high densities, require considerable time investment to processes and store, and if stored can deliver 54 valuable nutrition during the winter months. While evidence for root processing is not as common in the archaeological record, particularly where pinyon is the dominant ecozone, it is likely that both resources were sought after for winter stores, if available.
Predictions
Given the considerations of the overall utility of both geophyte species and pine nut species as a factor of return rates, storage decisions, availability, seasonality, predictability, and cultivation potential, geophytes score higher in all categories. It is therefore predicted that starch residue on ground stone from both High Rise Village and six of the White Mountain Village sites should be dominated by geophyte starch grains, indicating geophyte processing was occurring at these sites.
55
Chapter 4 Methods
This chapter presents the methods of ground stone analysis, use-wear and starch residue analysis on artifacts from High Rise Village and the White Mountain Village sites. Sixteen millingslabs were analyzed from six of the White Mountain Village Sites:
Rancho Deluxe, Crooked Forks, Corral Camp South, Gate Meadows, Raven Camp, and
Midway Village. Ten manos and eleven millingslabs were analyzed from High Rise
Village.
Sampling Strategy
Ground stone sample size was small for High Rise Village and the White
Mountain Village sites (Table 4.1). Sampling was based on choosing the pieces of ground stone that came from dated contexts and were larger or more complete in size, and would thus potentially yield more data.
Table 4.1. Ground Stone Sample
Date Site Sample (cal B.P.) High Rise Village 2300-850 11 millingslabs 5 manos Rancho Deluxe 1421-180 8 millingslabs Crooked Forks 1670-150 1 millingslab Corral Camp South 800-410 3 millingslabs Gate Meadows 1 millingslab Raven Camp 2550-1155 1 millingslab Midway Village 2440-300 1 millingslab
56
Ground Stone Analysis
The study of grinding technology is a study of behavioral choices, knowledge, and ideas about how to alter, reduce, or process substances with stone (Adams 2002).
Detailed ground stone analysis includes defining the form and function of the tool as well as its morphology, life history, and use-wear. The term ground stone refers to tools that are either made by or made through mechanisms of pecking, pounding, grinding, abrasion, or polish (Adams 2002; Dubreuil and Savage 2014). Common ground/grinding tools include grinding implements such as: slabs, metates, manos or handstones; pounding implements that include mortars and pestles; cutting implements including axes and adzes; and percussive implements such as hammerstones and anvils; as well as abraders, and polishers (Dubreuil and Savage 2014). For this study millingslab and handstone implements used in grinding and pounding are considered.
Life History
Understanding the use of a ground stone implement begins with an understanding of the five stages of the life history of the tool: (1) manufacture; (2) the primary function the artifact was designed for; (3) the secondary use of the artifact (this can be single reuse, where the tool is used for another function without alteration, or multi-use, where the tool has several uses on differing surfaces of the same tool); (4) recycling, where the tool is used for another purpose such as in a wall of a structure or as a hearth or boiling rock (this is contrasted to a redesigned tool where the tool is reshaped to serve another function); and (5) discard, which could be due to breakage, exhaustion, loss, interment or deliberate discard of the tool (Adams 2002; Schiffer 1987). 57
Form and Function
There are two basic distinctions made linking shape to ground stone function: mortars and pestles used for pounding and handstones and metates (or netherstone) used for grinding or pulverizing. Metates are further divided into flat metates, concave metates, basin metates, and trough metates. A handstone can be classified as an abrader, polisher, mano (for grinding) or a pestle. Each form is different because of style of strokes used in grinding as well as the type of processing being employed: i.e., dried grain or fresh grain, root, seed, animal flesh or hide. Both Adams (1999) and Dubreuil
(2004) found that differences in ground stone form were linked to different processing techniques such as fresh meal or dried flour for storage, demonstrating that the type of processing may be more important to the form of the ground stone than what type of food is being processed.
Per Adams (2002) manos are classified by size and shape. Shapes may include: wedge shaped, triangular, round, and whether there are one or multiple ground surfaces.
Metates are classified as: basin, flat concave, flat, and trough. Basin metates have a circular or elliptical shape with a deep trough due to use with a small mano using circular strokes. Flat metates result from use with a mano that is as long as the metate is wide using reciprocal strokes. Flat concave metates have shallow concavities and are most often used with large manos and reciprocal strokes. Trough metates are intentionally manufactured prior to use to have a deep trough in the center to hold grain and can only be used with reciprocal strokes (Adams 2002). 58
Morphology
Morphology is determined by intensity of tool use, type of seed or plant being processed, and the desired outcome (e.g., fine flour, meal, or mush) (Adams 1999).
Intensive tool use occurs when the tool is used for a long period in one sitting. Extensive use of a tool occurs when a tool is used for a short period of time and perhaps many short periods of time. Both may result in heavy wear and thus the difference can only be morphologically differentiated through design features. For example, it is possible that a manufacturer will invest more time into making a tool when the tool is intended for intensive use. Alternatively, if a tool was made expediently, it may have been intended for extensive use (Adams 2002).
Occupation Strategy
Ground stone tools can be used to gauge the intensity of a site’s occupation based on the degree of strategic manufacture of a ground stone tool, the degree of use of the tool (extensive versus intensive), and the degree of versatility of the tool. Expediently made grinding slabs will have one grinding surface and no other design while a strategically designed slab will have simple modifications for stability or will be intentionally shaped. Expediently made handstones have one or two grinding surfaces and no other design functions. Strategically designed handstones are intentionally shaped. At short-term occupation sites, a higher percentage of expediently made, single use or extensive use ground stone tools are expected. Conversely, at long-term occupation sites, a higher percentage of ground stone tools that are strategically designed, 59 associated with a greater variety of activities (versatile), and displaying heavy wear or intensive use are expected (Adams 2002).
Ground Stone Analysis Methods
Analyzing ground stone is a four stage process (Adams 2002) with several subsidiary questions and steps defining each stage. In Stage 1 the life history of the ground stone implement is assessed by asking the following questions: (1) was the tool used for the primary function it was designed for?; (2) was the tool used for multiple tasks?; (3) was the tool recycled and then used for a task different than the one it was made for?; and (4) was the tool discarded because it was broken or exhausted? In Stage
2, morphology, type, and basic use of the artifact is described by determining answers to the following questions: (1) handstone or metate (netherstone)?; (2) flat, basin, trough, bowl?; (3) pestle or mano?; and (4) used for grinding, pulverizing, abrading, polishing, or pounding? In Stage 3, use intensity is determined: (1) Intensive use: contains design features for comfort and longevity such as intentionally manufactured features like hand holds, troughs, ledges or feet or (2) Extensive use: worn from use and not intentionally shaped. In Stage 4, occupational strategy is assessed by grading under three main categories: (1) strategic manufacture of the tool: design features versus expediently made tools; (2) degree of use: extensive versus intensive use; and (3) degree of versatility: associated with a variety of tasks. 60
Use-wear Analysis
Use-wear analysis is the “examination of an item for macroscopic and microscopic evidence that allows us to understand how it was altered through use.”
(Adams 2002:27). Use-wear of abrading and grinding implements relies on tribology
(the study of wear) with wear defined as “the progressive loss of substance from the surface as a result of the relative motion between it and another contact surface”(Adams
2014:129). Progressive loss can be recorded on archaeological tools used for abrading and grinding. Four types of wear are identified: adhesive, abrasive, fatigue, and tribochemical. These four types of wear are not mutually exclusive but interact depending on the contact surface, the nature of the intermediate substance (such as a food item being ground), and which form of wear is dominant. Each will generate distinctive wear patterns that can be attributed to specific tasks (Adams 2014).
Characteristics and Definitions
Granularity and Durability
Granularity of a rock is measured in degree from coarse to fine grained.
Durability is a materials’ ability to withstand wear (Adams 2002:20). Durability of the ground stone implement is important for tool function. For example, in food processing it is necessary to have a durable rock that will not weather into the meal being processed; conversely, if a tool is needed for abrading, high granularity of the stone is important
(Adams 2002). 61
Topography
Topography is defined as the differential relief of the surface of the stone (Adams
2002). Surface topography can be analyzed first as macrotopography (the natural roughness and angles of the surface of the rock) and then as microtopography (the topography of the individual grains and interstices between grains). Macrotopography and microtopography are important to understanding the formation of use-wear and in determining the extent of and morphology of contact surfaces. If the contact surface is rigid or hard, then only the high points on the surface of the ground stone will make contact; conversely, if the contact surface is pliable, then wear will reach into the low- lying interstices between high points (Adams 1995, 2002). Understanding how far the wear extends into the interstices can shed light on the texture or material type of the opposing surface (Adams 2002).
Types of Wear
Tribologists define wear as “the progressive loss of substance” (Adams 2014:1) and this progressive loss can be quantified and recorded on tools used for abrading and grinding.
A. Adhesive wear occurs when two surfaces come into contact with one another
creating frictional heat that can loosen rock grains (Adams 2002). This will leave
pits on the surface of the stone, deform the individual grains of the stone, and
leave wear particles from both grinding and ground surfaces (Adams 1989).
B. Abrasive wear occurs when a more aspirate surface abrades a softer, less aspirate
surface. This displaces the softer materials leaving abrasive scratches in the 62
direction of movement, referred to as striations, with deeper ones being gouges,
both referred to as abrasion (Adams 1993, 2014). Abrasive wear can also result
from dislodged particles that remain between surfaces and act as abrasive agents
(Adams 1993).
C. Fatigue wear occurs when pressure or stress is applied to the contact surfaces and
the topographic highs are crushed from bearing the majority of the load pressure.
This results in crushing, cracks, step fractures and pits on the grains (Adams
1995).
Abrasive and fatigue wear are the result of reductive processes where as tribochemical wear and adhesive wear are additive. As surfaces move against each other adhesive, abrasive, and surface fatigue mechanisms create cracks that generate frictional heat. This heat and the object being ground create the environment for the tribochemical interactions to take place.
D. Tribochemical wear is caused by bond formation and destruction as well as the
friction released due to abrasive, fatigue, and adhesive wear. This creates a
chemical interaction that produces a build-up on the surface, called sheen or
polish.
Each of these wear patterns can be present on a given grinding surface and the dominant wear pattern must be identified (Adams 2002). 63
Direction of Use
The direction of use and type of stroke can be determined through identification of the direction and type of striations on the ground surface. Direction of use distinguishes from the active implement (upper tool) and the passive implement (lower tool). Direction of use can be classified in three ways: (1) how the force was applied to the tool such as direct percussion, indirect percussion, thrusting percussion, or abrasion;
(2) the direction of forces, either oblique, parallel, or perpendicular, or a combination of both; and (3) the type of contact from the active implement, either linear for a sharp edge, punctiform for a point, or diffused for a level surface (Dubreuil and Savage 2014). Direct percussion tools such as hammerstones and anvils show impact marks concentrated on the impact zone resulting in fractures and cupules. There is also a microscopic similarity between abrasive and percussive use-wear, evident in the development of beveled surface facets and a smoothing of micro-relief (Dubreuil and Savage 2014).
Researchers have identified common wear patterns associated with certain strokes and certain materials. For example, Adams (1999) found that reciprocal, flat strokes are most efficient for grinding oily nuts, such as pinyon or acorn.
Rock Hardness
Rock hardness is an important factor in the way use-wear develops. The hardness of the rock, cohesion of the matrix of the rock, and mineral content are all important to the asperity, durability, and type of wear the rock can produce and receive (Adams 2002).
Lerner et al. (2007) found that differences in raw material hardness and surface roughness have differential effects on use-wear accrual and encourage including this information in 64 assessing use-wear. In experimental studies, Dubreuil et al. (2014) also found differing wear patterns on sandstone and basalt when preforming the same function for the same amount of time.
Starch Residue Analysis
Residue analysis uses chemical extraction and chemical and biomolecular analysis to identify organic residue from archaeological contexts that cannot otherwise be identified (Evershed 2008). It is founded on the idea that organic materials used by humans have chemical and biomolecular structure that can survive in archaeological deposits. This biomolecular structure serves as a “fingerprint” that can be identified, either through chemical or optical analysis long after the actual organic material has decomposed (Evershed 2008).
Starch is a carbohydrate molecule that serves as a plant’s stored energy. These energy stores are formed by chloroplasts and amyloplasts that convert glucose, formed during photosynthesis, into compact, insoluble high-energy starch granules. When a plant is in need of the starch for energy it is converted back into glucose. Each starch grain forms from an origin point or hilum and grows as annular layers are formed around its origin. The reserve starch granules are mostly found in the storage organs of the plants: e.g, roots, tubers, seeds, and fruits. Some starches are located in other parts of the plants tissue such as leaves, shoots, stems, and pollen grains (Torrence and Barton 2006).
Starch grains enter the archaeological record through human consumption and processing of roots, tubers, seeds, nuts, wood, and fibers. The microcrystalline structure of starch grains makes them resistant to organic decay; they can therefore be recovered 65 long after the plant that produced them has decayed (Herzog 2014). Starch grains have defining characteristics that can easily distinguish them from other organic substances and that can serve as markers for specific taxon or species of plants (Torrence and Barton
2006). Such characteristics include: susceptibility to staining a dark blue color by iodine, birefringence due to the highly ordered molecular structure of the grain, location of the area of initial growth (hilum) within the grain, the size and shape of the grain (circular, ovate, polyhedral), the morphology of the extinction cross (dark cross in polarized light) and length of the arms and the angle at which they meet, and presence or absence of lamellae or growth rings, fissures, or depressions (Table 4.2 and Appendix A) (Herzog
2014; Perry 2010; Rumold 2010; Torrence and Barton 2006).
Table 4.2. Starch Grain Attributes
Attribute Characteristics/ Comments Grain type Simple, compound, aggregate Size in microns Length and width 2-dimensional shape Circular, ovate, semicircular, polygonal, faceted 3-dimensional form Spherical, lenticular, pyriform, hemispherical, polyhedral Hilum type Closed or open (with small or large vacuole) Hilum position Centric, eccentric, very eccentric, unknown Lamellae Faint or distinct, concentric or eccentric, coarse or fine Presence/absence. Forms; longitudinal or transverse from the Fissures long axis of the grain, stellate, branching -Surface: smooth, rough, knobby Surface -Projections, compression facets, depressions -Granularity -Degree of polarization or birefringence (weak, medium, strong) Extinction cross -Form of cross arms (straight, curved, multiple) -Angle of cross: symmetric or asymmetric -Form of margins: expanding, non-expanding, contracting (after Rumold 2010 and ISCN 2011) See Appendix A for definitions
66
Starch residue analysis has been conducted for over a century (Wittmack 1905) but it has only been in the last two decades that starch analysis has been employed in archaeological analysis to any great extent. Starch residue analysis thus far has been concentrated in areas such as Australia and Papa New Guinea (Balme et al. 2014; Veth et al. 2013), South America (Henry et al. 2009; Piperno 2009; Rumold 2010), Europe and the Middle East (Henry et al. 2009; Hogberg et al. 2009). In North America starch residue analysis is not common. Particularly in the Great Basin and Intermountain West, the area of focus for this thesis, only a few studies using starch analysis to date. Herzog
(2014), for example, looked at starches from ground stone found in Surprise Valley
California. There is also a master’s thesis that analyzed ground stone from three locations in northeastern California (Scholze 2011), an examination of starches on grinding implements from North Creek Shelter, Utah (Louderback 2014), and analyses contained in a few contract archaeology reports (e.g., Rhode 2014; Rhode et al. 2011).
Starch Residue Analysis Methods
Extraction
Before starch extraction occurred the working area in the lab as well as all tools used in residue extraction and processing were washed with distilled water and a mild soap (Sensifoam). This soap was tested for industrial starches and contained none. The ground stone was air brushed to remove excess dirt from the surface, and then rinsed with distilled water. Per Perry (2010), starches were then extracted by washing the ground 67 surface of the tool using a sonic toothbrush and more distilled water. All water and accompanying residue was collected with pipettes.
Aqueous Sediment Reduction
The sediment water mix from each ground stone sample often filled several tubes, which were consolidated into a single sample tube for further processing. To do this the tubes containing sediment from the ground stone sample were placed in a centrifuge for eight minutes at 5000 revolutions per minute (rpm). The sediment settled to the bottom of the tube and the clean water was then decanted. The samples were then combined and reduced again. This process took about four rounds in the centrifuge to consolidate the sample into one tube, depending on the size of the ground stone sample.
LST Flotation
After consolidation of the sediment sample a heavy liquid, composed of
Lithiumheteropolytungstate (LST) mixed with water to a specific gravity weight of 2.0 g/cc is added to the tube. Silt and sand have a specific gravity weight of about 2.2 g/cc, starches and pollen have a specific gravity weight of 1.7 g/cc, and distilled water has a specific weight of 1 g/cc. Using LST results in a floatation of the starches and pollen grains in the sample from the heavier silts so that the lighter fraction can be easily removed by pipetting. LST was added to the sample and then the samples were thoroughly mixed, and centrifuged for eight minutes at 5000 rmp. The light fraction
(starch residue and pollen) were then pipetted from the surface of the solution and placed in a new tube (Perry 2010). 68
LST Dilution
The sample was then washed several times with distilled water to eliminate the remaining LST from the sample and concentrate the starches in the tube. The sample tube was filled with distilled water and again centrifuged for eight minutes. The water was decanted from the sample, more distilled water was added, and the process was repeated several times until all of the LST had been eliminated from the sample (Perry
2010). Once all of the LST was removed from the solution the sample was transferred to a 2 ml microtube, a drop of ethanol was added to protect the sample from microbial decay and the sample was stored for later examination.
Microscope Analysis
To conduct microscopic starch analysis a small sample was pipetted from the microtube and one drop was placed on a microscope slide with a drop of glycerol and then covered with a slide cover slip (Perry 2010). To ensure that no contamination was occurring in the lab a control slide was also prepared at the same time using the method described above but with only glycerol and distilled water. Both slides were then analyzed using an Olympus BX51optical transmitted light microscope equipped with a polarizing filter. The control slide was scanned first. The entirety of the slide was scanned or transected using 400x magnification. When no starches were noted on the control slide the sample was considered free of modern contaminants. The entirety of the sample slide was then scanned at 400x using the darkfield illumination and a cross polarized filter to illuminate the extinction cross on the starch grains making them stand out compared to the other debris on the microscope slide. When a starch grain was 69 found, the morphology, size, and characteristics of the grain were noted and photographed using an Infinity 2 Lumenera Camera in both polarized light and brightfield light at 600x magnification. The grain was then rotated and photographed again in both polarized and brightfield light to gain a three-dimensional perspective of the grain shape.
Starch Identification Methods
Once photographed, starch grains were described using ten attributes listed in table 4.2 and measured using Infinity Analyze software (Lumenera 2015) and all information was stored in a Microsoft Access database. The photos were then compared to reference photos of known plant species from the two study areas. The reference samples are listed in (Table 4.3).
70
Table 4.3. Starch References
Type of Resource Species Name Common Name Geophyte Calochortus leichtlinii Mariposa Lily Lomatium roseanum Biscuitroot, Adobe Parsley Lewisia rediviva Bitterroot Lewisia pygmaea Dwarf Bitterroot Typha latifolia Cattail (rhizome) Perideridia bolanderi Yampa Cyperus esculentus Nut Sedge Schoenoplectus acutus Bulrush rhizome Tree Nut Pinus monophylla Singleleaf Pinyon Pine Pinus flexilis Limber Pine Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine Quercus lobata Valley White Oak Eleocharis quinqueflora Few Flowered Spike Rush Seed Allenrolfea occidentalis Iodine bush Chenopodium fremontii Goosefoot Leymus cinereus Wild Rye Cyperus esculentus Nut Sedge Achnatherum hymenoides Indian Rice grass Schoenoplectus acutus Bulrush Contaminate Zea mays Corn starch Sensifoam Soap Enmotion Soap
Reference slides were prepared and analyzed in the same manner as the sample slides. A small amount of the reference sample was placed on a slide with a drop of glycerol and a slide cover, and the slides were then analyzed using the BX51 microscope using a cross polarized filter and brightfield/darkfield light at 600x magnification. Five pairs of both brightfield and cross polarized light photos were taken using the Infinity 2
Lumenera camera at five random locations on the slide. These grains were measured and the ten attributes listed in Table 4.3 were recorded. Select grains were also rotated and photographed to capture the three-dimensional shape of the reference grains. 71
Trait-sets for the reference grains were compared to the sample starch grains.
When possible, each sample starch grain was classified based on attribute and size overlap with reference grains. Grains that could not be classified were noted as non- diagnostic. Grains that were too misshapen or deformed were classified as broken.
Damage or features related to the physical wear of the grain was also noted. This included cracks on the center of the grain or along the edges, a misshaped or deformed hilum, and an enlarged or broken vacuole.
To address contamination issues in both the lab and the field, three separate controls were preformed: testing of soil found at each site, testing of basic materials found in the lab for industrial starches, and the use of a test or control slide for each sample. In addition, hands and work areas were cleaned with soap and distilled water before each use.
Sediment contamination: To be sure contamination was not occurring from starches naturally occurring in the soil one sediment sample was tested from Midway
Village, Corral Camp South, Crooked Forks, and Rancho Deluxe of the White Mountain sites, and two from High Rise Village: Lodge 26 and Lodge 49. This was done following the ISCN starch protocol for sampling sediments (Perry 2010).
First the sediments were dried and screened using a 250 micron mesh screen.
Then the sediments were deflocculated to separate and disperse the individual sediment particles from one and other. This was done using a solution of 25 grams of
Hexametaphosphate in one liter of distilled water. Fifty milliliters of this solution was then added to ten grams of sediment from each of the samples and agitated several times over a 72 hour period. After 72 hours the samples were centrifuged for 8 minutes at 5000 72 rpm to separate the solution from the sample, and then the solution was discarded. The samples were then processed using the same LST flotation and LST dilution process as well as the microscope analysis used on the ground stone samples. No starches were found in any of the sediment samples.
Lab contamination: To be sure contamination was not occurring in the lab both types of commercial soap, En Motion and Sensiforam Soft Soap, were tested by placing a small sample on a microscope slide and analyzing it under cross polarized light to identify if the soap itself contained industrial starches. Both soaps contained no starches.
The paper towels in the lab were also tested by rubbing the towel on a microscope slide and adding a drop of glycerol. This was also analyzed using cross polarized light and no starches were detected. Finally, a microscope slide was prepared using one drop of glycerol and left to sit out in the lab for one hour to test if there were industrial starches in the air. This too, was analyzed using the cross polarized filter on the microscope and no starches were detected.
As a final control against contamination concerns each archaeological sample slide was prepared in conjunction with a blank test slide in exactly the same manner (the sample slide only received a drop of glycerol and not a drop of sample) and was then scanned using the cross polarized filter on the microscope before scanning the archaeological sample. When no starches were found it was determined that the archaeological sample was free of modern contaminates. Only once did one starch grain appear on a test slide and the sample was re-prepared and analyzed; no additional contaminate starches were noted.
73
Chapter 5 Results
This chapter discusses the results of ground stone analysis, micro- and macro- use- wear analysis, and starch residue analysis from High Rise Village and six of the twelve
White Mountains village sites.
Ground Stone Analysis
High Rise Village
Ground stone analysis on sixteen ground stone pieces from High Rise Village
(HRV) revealed an assemblage of expedient millingslabs made from quartzite found directly on site and well-used handstones made from extralocal basalt and quartzite
(Table 5.1). All of the handstones are complete, while all but one of the millingslabs are fragmented. Only one of the ground stone pieces appears to have been intentionally shaped for specific design features or intensive use; their feature characteristics come from minimal shaping through extensive use. All of the millingslabs are flat and unformed. All of the handstones are ovoid with a single flat, ground surface save Artifact
1788 which is 13cm long and has a narrow wedge shape. This handstone has one ground surface and one pecked surface. The tip of Artifact 1788 appears to have been intentionally shaped into a pestle tip via pecking. All ground stone tools appear to have been used for their primary use, grinding, and there is no indication of reuse or use for other tasks such as for cooking (as in the case of hot rock cookery). During excavation, however, abundant FCR, some of which appears to have been ground, was identified, suggesting some ground stone at the site was also used as cooking stones. 74
Table 5.1. High Rise Village Ground Stone Analysis Assemblage
Accession Material Length Width Thickness Lodge Complete Form Number Type cm cm cm FR5891-1923 19 Fragment Quartzite Millingslab 21 12 3.5 FR5891-1954 19 Fragment Quartzite Millingslab 21 12 3.5 FR5891-1562 26 Complete Basalt Handstone 10 8 5.5 FR5891-2273 8 Fragment Quartzite Millingslab 15 6.5 4 FR5891-15199 26 Complete Basalt Handstone 19 15 5 FR5891-1996 10 Fragment Quartzite Millingslab 19 11 5 FR5891-1762 16 Fragment Quartzite Millingslab 8 6 4 FR5891-1990 10 Fragment Quartzite Handstone 18 19 2 FR5891-2147 13 Fragment Quartzite Millingslab 15 13 3 FR5891-2157 13 Complete Quartzite Millingslab 17 6 3 FR5891-1788 16 Complete Granitic Handstone 9 8 3.5 FR5891-2171 3 Fragment Quartzite Millingslab 8 5.5 3 FR5891-2077 7 Fragment Quartzite Millingslab 13 4.5 3.5 FR5891-2099 7 Fragment Quartzite Millingslab 6 5 3.5 FR5891-2266 8 Fragment Quartzite Millingslab 6.5 4 2.5 FR5891-2276 8 Fragment Quartzite Handstone 13 9 3.5
White Mountains
The fifteen White Mountains ground stone millingslabs show extensive use and little intentional shaping (Table 5.2). The millingslabs are all of a flat concave design, with the concavities resulting mainly from heavy use. Six of the tools exhibit pecking of the grinding surface: 12317, 14161, 14698, 11269, 1056, and 15801. The tools appear to have only been used for their primary use of grinding foodstuffs with no evidence that the tools were re-used or discarded due to exhaustion. The material types vary more than those seen at HRV, but reflect locally available rocks found in the vicinity of the sites.
75
Table 5.2. White Mountain Ground Stone Millingslab Analysis Assemblage
Accession Material Length Width Thickness Site Complete Number Type cm cm cm Corral Camp 382-1628 Complete Quartzite 37 17 11 South Corral Camp 382-2045 Complete Quartzite 38 20 9 South Corral Camp 382-14698 Fragment Quartzite 15 11 5 South Crooked Forks 382-14161 Fragment Granitic 36 27 9 Gate Meadows 382-10155 Complete Granitic 54 52 5 Meta- Midway Village 382-1056 Fragment 36 29 9 sedimentary Rancho Deluxe 382-11269 Fragment FGV 25 14 10
Rancho Deluxe 382-9218 Fragment FGV 31 15 8 Rancho Deluxe 382-9275 Fragment FGV 17 12 6.5 Rancho Deluxe 382-9430 Complete Granitic 38 29 10 Rancho Deluxe 382-12317 Fragment Granitic 25 20 9 Rancho Deluxe 382-11271 Complete Granitic 39 19 19 Rancho Deluxe 382-16347 Fragment Granitic 39 20 12 Rancho Deluxe 382-11270 Fragment Granitic 58 39 12 Raven Camp 382-14801 Complete Limestone 54 28 10
Use-wear
High Rise Village
Microscopic use-wear analysis on the sixteen tools from High Rise Village indicate varying degrees of use (Table 5.3 and Appendix B). The texture of all of the rocks sampled is coarse-grained. The basalt is vesicular and quartzite is poorly metamorphosed and granular. Three pieces display low levels of wear: 2147, 2171,
2273, with only the surface of individual grains showing fatigue wear. Seven pieces are heavily worn. These include five millingslabs (Artifacts 2077, 1954, 2099, 2157, and
2266) and two handstones (Artifacts 2276 and 15199). Four ground stone pieces show 76 abrasion indicative of reciprocal strokes (Figure 5.1). These include one handstone
(Artifact 15199) and three millingslabs (Artifacts 1923, 2157, and 2099). Five ground stone pieces have areas of frosted grains which is a result of abrasive wear (Figure 5.2).
These include handstones (Artifacts 1562 and 15199) and millingslabs (Artifacts 2077,
2099, and 17620). Seven pieces show signs of sheen (Artifacts 1562, 1954, 2077, and
2276) while Artifacts 1923, 1990, and 1996 have sheen and wear on their highest points.
Surface sheen can be caused by oily substances. These oils create tribochemical reactions with the stone resulting in sheen build up (Adams 2002).
Figure 5.1. FR5891-15199 Use-Wear Illustrating Abrasion and Sheen
Figure 5.2. FR5891-2099 Use-Wear Illustrating Frosting and Fatigue Wear 77
White Mountains
Macroscopic use-wear analysis of the fifteen millingslabs from the White
Mountain village sites indicate heavy abrasive and tribochemical wear (Table 5.4). All of the pieces exhibit varying degrees of sheen caused by tribochemical wear. Abrasive ware is indicated by the large, smooth patches on the grinding surface, many of which have been pecked to regain surface texture (Figure 5.3). In general, ground stone and use-wear analysis indicate extensive and heavy use of these tools with constant re-roughening.
Microscopic use-wear analysis was not conducted on the White Mountain ground stone.
Figure 5.3. 382-12317 and 382-2045 Illustrating Pecking and Use-Wear Abrasion
78
Table 5.3. High Rise Village Micro Use-Wear Analysis
Accession Ground Form Wear Level Wear Type Stroke Number Surface 5891-1923 Millingslab 1 High points only Abrasion and sheen Reciprocal 5891-1954 Millingslab 1 Very smooth in center Sheen Indefinite 5891-1562 Handstone 1 Smooth spots on highs Crushing of grains and sheen Indefinite 5891-2273 Millingslab 1 Highs only Some crushing or fatigue Indefinite 5891-1996 Millingslab 1 Highs only Rounded grains and some sheen Reciprocal 5891-1762 Millingslab 1 Highs only Rounded surface of grains Indefinite 5891-1990 Handstone 1 Highs only Some sheen and crushing Indefinite 5891-2147 Millingslab 1 Highs only with sheen Rounded grains and fatigue wear Indefinite 5891-2157 Millingslab 1 Smooth on highs only Abrasion and sheen Indefinite 5891-1788 Handstone 3 Light with sheen Battered at tip Indefinite 5891-2171 Millingslab 1 Light and only on highs Fatigue on some grains, light Indefinite 5891-2077 Millingslab 1 Highs and lows crushing Large areas of sheen Indefinite Side 1: flattened and Abrasion and large areas of 5891-2099 Millingslab 2 crushed grains side 2: highs Reciprocal sheen only Side 1: highs only side 2: 5891-2266 Millingslab 2 Rounded grains with sheen Indefinite smooth 5891-2276 Handstone 1 Smooth spots highs only Some crushing and sheen Indefinite 5891-15199 Handstone 2 Sheen on highs and lows Abrasion and flattened grains Reciprocal See Appendix B for full analysis table
79
Table 5.4. White Mountain Macro Use-Ware Analysis
Accession Ground Surface Surface Site Complete Material type Surface Texture Number Surfaces Coverage Configuration Side 1: concave side Smooth with pecking and sheen in Crooked Forks 382-14161 Fragment Granitic 1 Complete 2: flat center Corral Camp South 382-2045 Complete Quartzite 1 Complete Flat Smooth on high point Only in Corral Camp South 382-1628 Complete Quartzite 1 Concave Smooth on high points only center Side 1: concave side Corral Camp South 382-14698 Fragment Quartzite 1 Complete Smooth with pecking 2: flat Gate Meadows 382-10155 Complete Granitic 1 Complete Flat and slanted Smooth on highs only Only in Side 1: sheen and pecking side 2: on Midway Village 382-1056 Fragment Meta-sedimentary 2 Concave center small spot of sheen Only in Rancho Deluxe 382-9218 Fragment FGV 1 Concave Smooth on highs only center Only in Rancho Deluxe 382-9275 Fragment FGV 1 Concave Only ground at high points center Only in Rancho Deluxe 382-9430 Complete Granitic 1 Slanted Medium sheen center Rancho Deluxe 382-12317 Fragment Granitic 2 Complete Slightly concave Smooth with pecking with sheen Only in Rancho Deluxe 382-11269 Fragment FGV 2 Concave and slanted Smooth with pecking center Rancho Deluxe 382-11271 Complete Granitic 1 Complete Flat Smooth at high points Rancho Deluxe 382-16347 Fragment Granitic 1 Complete Flat/sloped Smooth on high points with pecking Rancho Deluxe 382-11270 Fragment Granitic 1 Complete Slanted Smooth on highs only 1 On one Flat and concave in Raven Camp 382-14801 Complete Limestone Course with pecking corner one place See Appendix C for full analysis table
80
Starch Residue Analysis
Modern Starch Identifications
Modern starch identifications were conducted in order to provide reference material for comparison to prehistoric specimens. Modern starch references were analyzed using the same 10 characteristics as the prehistoric starch grains. Below is a description of the reference starch grains by species. This is used as a comparison to the typologies created for the prehistoric starches found in this study. The reference starch descriptions are described first and the typologies are described second. The prehistoric starch grains were assigned typologies as a conservative identification based on size, morphology, and a comparison to modern specimens.
Geophytes
Biscuitroot (Lomatium roseanum, Apiaceae)
Figure 5.4. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Lomatium roseanum
81
Commonly referred to as biscuitroot, members of the Apiaceae or carrot family, have long thick taproots, umbel flower clusters, and fern leaves that protrude from the base of the stem (Smith and McNees 2005). They are perennial plants that are dormant for most of the year and blossom in the early spring. When the flower dies in early summer the tubers are at their greatest size, between 3 and 10 g (Prouty 1995). Members of the Lomatium genus include Lomatium roseanum, cous, and hendersonii. These are found throughout Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming at elevation from 1200 to
3000 m AMSL (4000 to 10,000 ft) (plants.usda.gov). Calorie and protein content ranges from 189 to 127 calories per 100 g and 2.5- 1 g of protein depending on the species
(Couture et al. 1986). Lomatium hendersonii has the highest calorie content and thus return rate of all the geophytes studied to date: 3831 kcal/hr (Couture et al. 1986).
However, this species is found mainly in Oregon and to a lesser extent in California and
Nevada. For consumption roots were dried in the sun and then ground down to meal for storage, or they were cooked in roasting pits, or earth ovens (Couture et al. 1985).
Lomatium grains range in size from 8 to 18 µ in length and width and can be as small as 5 µ. Average length is 11.85 µ and average width is 11.75 µ. Lomatium grains often stick together as a compound grain, causing faceting or making the grain appear oblong. Biscuitroot starch grains are similar in many ways to Perideridia starch grains because they are both part of the Apiaceae family. They both have a circular or semicircular shape with one to three facets, though Lomatium grains are more often round than faceted. Both Lomatium and Perideridia have branching or longitudinal fissures at the hilum. What distinguishes Lomatium grains from other geophyte grains is the presence of a large vacuole at the hilum and the extinction cross arms. These are 82 symmetrical, orthogonally crossed, and straight-armed. Arms may expand at the margins to form a Maltese cross.
Bitterroot (Lewisia rediviva and pygmaea, Portulacaceae)
Figure 5.5. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Lewisia rediviva
Bitterroot (a member of the Portulacaceae or Purslane family) is commonly found in rocky soils at many elevations with pygmaea found in higher elevations (Prouty 1995).
Bitterroot plants can be found ranging from British Columbia to Arizona, and from
California to Colorado. Bitterroot is a succulent, low growing plant, with small pink- white flowers and narrow cylindrical succulent leaves of dark green (Prouty 1995). The plant blossoms in the early spring, losing its flowers quickly but maintaining distinctive leaves throughout the summer. The tap root is 10-15 cm long, though some have been found as long as 30-60 cm (Prouty 1995). The nutritional value of Lewisia rediviva is
98.76 calories per 100 grams and 2.48 grams of protein (Couture et al. 1986). As with
Lomatium, roots were dried in the sun and then ground down to meal for storage, or they were cooked in roasting pits or earth ovens (Couture et al. 1985). 83
Lewisia starch grains range in size from 6 to 12 µ in length and width and can be as large as 17µ. Average length for the grains is 10.39 µ and average width is 10.63 µ.
The grains are very similar to other geophyte starch grains, specifically Lomatium and
Perideridia. The grain shape is semicircular, with one to three facets resembling a bell shape. The grains frequently are compound with two granules growing together; the hemispherical shape occurs when a two-compound granule splits and results a flattened facet on each. The grains are spherical with a distinct facet on each grain visible when the grain is flipped, which contrasts with Lomatium and Perideridia in three dimensional view. The hilum is centric, open, and contains a vacuole, yet the vacuole is smaller and not as distinct as in the Lomatium grains. The surface characteristics of the grains are also similar to other geophyte species, with longitudinal and transverse fissures and longitudinal or round depressions at the location of the hilum. Lewisia grains have faintly visible concentric lamellae that are concentric (these are not found on Lomatium nor Perideridia). The extinction cross is centric and symmetrical, frequently with straight arms similar to Lomatium, occasionally slightly ragged, and generally lacking the
Maltese cross appearance at the margins.
84
Yampa (Perideridia bolanderi, Apiaceae)
Figure 5.6. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Perideridia bolanderi
Commonly known as Yampa, another member of the Apiaceae family, this tuber has umbel flowers and fern like leaves with a large taproot. Yampa has a wide range, from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific and into Canada (Adams 2010). This root contains on average 20.5 grams of carbohydrates, 13 grams of protein and 635 calories per 100 grams (Adams 2010). Plant density varies but tends to be around six plants per square meter. Ethnographically (Couture et al. 1986; Gleason 2001), Yampa has been documented as a staple in both subsistence and trade for groups in northern California,
Oregon and Idaho. Because of the roots’ thin skin, minimal processing was need prior to consumption. Roots were washed and peeled, and then dried in the sun or roasted in pit ovens. Yampa does not require long exposure to heat (Gleason 2001) and were often boiled and mashed into cakes, and then dried and stored for winter use.
Perideridia starch granules have several characteristics that make them distinguishable from other root species. Grain sizes range from 6 to 12 µ in length with an average of 9.12 µ. Grain width ranges from 5 to 11 µ with an average of 9.06 µ. 85
Perideridia starch grain shape is semicircular to circular, having one to three facets which makes them polygonal in two dimensions. In three dimensions the grain is lenticular to polyhedral in shape. The hilum position is centric and closed. Surface characteristics of the grains are very distinct with longitudinal depressions along the axis of the grain and a branching or longitudinal fissures present on some of the grains. The extinction cross is centric and elongate (the cross is not orthogonal but slightly diagonal) with curved arms.
Sego Lily (Calochortus leichtlinii, Liliaceae)
Figure 5.7. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Calochortus leichtlinii
Calochortus spp., known as either mariposa or sego lily, has nearly 60 species in
North America (Cronquist et al. 1977). The plant is part of the Liliaceae family as is the onion. The bulb is layered like an onion and averages from 3 to 4 cm in diameter. In general, the plant grows in sandy soils and dry areas at a range of elevations. The plant flowers May through July. Density of the plant is relatively low with 4 to six plants per square meter (Smith et al. 2001). The root contains 21 percent carbohydrates, 76 percent 86 moisture, 1.75 percent protein, less than 1 percent fat, and 92 calories per 100 grams
(Smith et al. 2001).
Surprise Valley Piaute collected sego lily in the spring and it was eaten fresh after being skinned. The Piaute of western Nevada harvested sego in May and June and peeled and roasted it in heated sand pit ovens, or ate it raw (Kelly 1932).
Calochortus starch granules have several characteristics that distinguish its grains from other root species. The grains are large, ranging from 8 to 30 microns (µ) long with and average length of 17.13 µ; they are 7 to 21 µ wide with an average width of 13.62 µ.
The grains have an ovate or pyriform shape that is lenticular in three dimensions. The hilum is closed and very eccentric. Surface characteristics of the grain include the presence of consecutive lamellae and transverse fissures at the hilum. The arms of the extinction cross are strongly polarized, are slight ragged and expand at the margin of the grain.
87
Cat Tail Rhizome (Typha latifolia, Typhaceae)
Figure 5.8. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Typha latifolia
Cattail is a perennial plant native to North and South America, Eurasia and
Africa. It is a wetland species that grows in many climates and at elevations ranging from sea level to 2300 m AMSL (7200 ft) (Gucker 2008). Rhizomes and stalks were harvested in the early spring and eaten fresh. Rhizomes were also harvested in the fall and dried for latter consumption. The roots were often roasted. Dried rhizome was ground for flour and made into mush or cakes. Cattail pollen was also harvested for food in the early summer (Fowler 1992).
Typha rhizome starch grains are similar to other geophyte starch grains. The grains range in length and width from 9 and 15 µ with only a few large than 18 µ. The average length of a Typha grain is 13.36 µ and the average width is 13.01µ. The grains are mostly circular with some having one to three facets. The grains are spherical in three dimensions. The presence of a vacuole at the hilum is less common than with
Lewisia and Lomatium grains. The surface of the grain appears to be rough unlike the smooth surface of both Lewisia and Lomatium grains. Fissures are uncommon. 88
However, round large depressions or branching depressions are present at the center of the hilum. The extinction cross is centric and has slightly elongate or asymmetrical arms that do not always meet.
Bulrush Root and Seed (Schoenoplectus acutus, Cyperaceae)
Figure 5.9. Polarized Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Schoenoplectus acutus Root and Seed
Bulrush or tule is a perennial plant in the Sedge family (Cyperaceae), that grows in wetland environments between elevations ranging from sea level to 2300 m AMSL
(7200 ft) (Tilley 2012). Ethnographic use of tule was primarily for making baskets and cordage, thought roots and shoots were eaten raw in the early spring, roasted or boiled, and stored for later consumption. Seeds from some bulrush plants were also collected in the fall and parched and ground to make mush or stored for later use (Fowler 1992).
Schoenoplectus contains both an edible seed and an edible root and thus both were sampled for starch characteristics. Schoenoplectus root starch grains are sparse in the reference materials. The average size of the grain is 10.65 µ long and 9.59 µ wide.
The grains are round and very spherical. The hilum is centric and the extinction cross has 89 symmetrical and straight arms. The surface of the grain has a circular or longitudinal depression. The starch grains of the Schoenoplectus seed are compound. They range in size from 3 to 10 µ with an average length of 6.72 µ and a width of 6.65 µ. They are polygonal in shape with a rough surface texture. The hilum is centric and there is a stellate depression or fissure at the center of most of the grains.
Nut Sedge (Cyperus esculentus, Cyperaceae)
Figure 5.10. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Cyperus esculantis
Nut sedge, or yellow nut sedge is a perennial plant that grows in moist soils, generally at marsh margins below 1500 m AMSL (5000 ft) (Horak et al. 1987). The plant produces nut-like tubers that grow on root hairs. These tubers were harvested directly or harvested from rodent caches. The tubers were often stored after drying and were rehydrated through boiling for consumption (Fowler 1992). Nut sedge plants were one of the plants that the Owens Valley Paiute managed through irrigation (Lawton et al.
1976). 90
Cyperus starch grains have several characteristics that differentiate them from other grass and root starch grains investigated here. The grains range in size from 7 to 20
µ with an average size of 13.57 µ in length and 13.36 µ in width. The grains are ovate yet slightly irregular in shape with a mostly polyhedral three dimensional form. The hilum is centric and long and some appear to have an open vacuole. The surface of the grain is very rough and knobby, with longitudinal depressions and large round depressions covering most of the surface that give the margin of the grain ring or collar.
Tree Nut
Singleleaf Pinyon Pine (Pinus monophylla, Pinaceae)
Figure 5.11. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Pinus monophylla
Commonly known as pinyon pine or single leaf pinyon, this is a type of pine whose range extends from the Great Basin states of Nevada, Utah, and California, into
New Mexico, Arizona, and as far south as Baja, California. Pinyon is found between
1200 m to 2800 m AMSL (4000 to 9500 ft) and one of the key components of the
Pinyon-Juniper woodland plant community (Steward 1938). Pinyon pine nuts were an 91 important resource to Great Basin foragers from the Middle Holocene and on into historic times (Simms 1987). Pine cones could be harvested early, when the cones were still green and closed in the late summer, and then stored for later use or roasted to open up cones and access the pine nuts (Eerkens et al. 2004). They were more often harvested in the fall when cones were open and nuts could be shaken out easily. Pine nuts were eaten raw, roasted, parched, or ground and made into meal (Steward 1933; Steward 1938).
P. monophylla starch grains have certain attributes that distinguish them from other starch grains (Scholze 2011). P. monophylla starch grains are much smaller than geophyte starch grains: they range in length from 4 to10 µ, with an average length of 8.84
µ and an average width of 8.38 µ. P. monophylla grains are circular to ovate and spherical in three dimensions. The grains have a centric hilum with a large vacuole.
These vacuoles are much larger, covering more than half the surface of the grains, than that of the Lomatium grain. The P. monophylla grains have a rough surface with a large lip around the margin of the grain as well as longitudinal depressions and branching fissures. Because of the size of the vacuole, the extinction cross appears to be off-center and the arms are short and curved, sometimes appearing to not cross at all but rather bend outward from the central vacuole toward the margins. These starch granules are distinct form other root and seed granules because of their small size range, the surface characteristics, and the large vacuole.
92
Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis, Pinaceae)
Figure 5.12. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Pinus albicaulis
Whitebark pine is a subalpine species of pine found throughout western North
America. This species is a timberline tree generally found at elevations above 2400 m
AMSL (8000 ft) (Grayson 2011). Though not heavily utilized by Great Basin and Rocky
Mountain groups there is some ethnographic indication that they were a subsistence resource (Rhode and Madsen 1998; Steward 1938). Steward (1938) mentions the possibility of whitebark and limber pine use by aboriginal groups but does not stress their importance. The first evidence of pine use found in the Great Basin is of limber pine hulls found at Danger Cave (Rhode and Madsen 1998); therefore the resource was exploited but the degree of importance to the diet is unclear.
Whitebark starch grains are much smaller than singleleaf pinyon grains with an average length of 5.32 µ and an average width of 4.76 µ. The grains are circular to ovate in two dimensions and lenticular in three dimensions. The hilum is centric and open, with a smaller vacuole than in pinyon starch granules. The extinction cross is asymmetrical and has curved arms at the margin of the grains. There appear to be fewer 93 starch granules in the sample than for the pinyon sample. This could be because whitebark pine has a higher oil content than pinyon and perhaps a lower carbohydrate content (Adams 2010; Rhode and Rhode 2015). The starch grains appear mostly in clumps composed of large circular granules that do not exhibit birefringence, it is possible that these granules are oil.
Seeds
Indian Rice Grass (Achnatherum hymenoides, Poaceae)
Figure 5.13. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Achnatherum hymenoides
Indian ricegrass is a bunch grass that grows 30-50 cm tall in the salt desert shrub, sagebrush steppe, and in the pinyon-juniper forest communities up to 3000 m AMSL
(10,000 ft) (Ogle et al. 2013). The small seeds were gathered in the late spring and early summer and were often stored for later use, or ground and made into flour (Steward
1938).
Achnatherum starch grains are compound grains found in very large aggregates
(45 µ long or more). Individual grain characteristics are very small and difficult to 94 discern. The extinction cross is strongly expressed under polarized light and the cross arms are curved. The hilum appears to be centric and the grains appear to be polygonal due to the compound nature of the grains. The margins of each individual grain, however, are not easily distinguished. The large aggregates have a rough, wrinkled texture due to the membrane holding them together.
Spike Rush (Eleocharis quinqueflora, Cyperaceae)
Figure 5.14. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Eleocharis quinqueflora
Spike-rush is a perennial marsh or wet meadow plant with a rhizome, found in
North America, Asia, Europe, and North Africa (plants.usda.gov). Steward (1933; 1938) mentions that the seeds of the spike-rush plant were eaten by the Owens Valley Paiute but preparation of the seed for consumption as well as mention of the consumption of the rhizome was not recorded.
Eleocharis grains are very small compared to other root and nut starch grains analyzed for this study. Eleocharis grains are less than 8 µ in length with an average of length of 6.98 µ and an average width of 6.62 µ. The grains are circular, smooth and 95 spherical. The hilum is centric and open with a small vacuole and the extinction cross has curved and asymmetrical arms. The surface of the grain is generally smooth with some depressions at the hilum.
Iodine Bush (Allenrolfea occidentalis, Chenopodiaceae)
Figure 5.15. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Allenrolfea occidentalis
Iodine bush or pickleweed is found in sandy soils and in salt flats in the Great
Basin and California (Barlow and Metcalfe 1996). The plant is a perennial shrub in the
Goosefoot family containing small seeds (0.4-0.9mm) that may have been processed by
Great Basin foragers (Metcalfe and Barlow 1992).
Allenrolfea starch grains are very small, less than 8 µ in length and are found in aggregates or clumps. Some of the grains are so small that only iodine staining reveals that they are in fact starch grains (see Torrance and Barton 2006 for description of methods). The larger grains are irregular, exhibiting circular, triangular, or faceted shapes. They include a centric hilum and an extinction cross with very curved arms that do not meet in the center of the grain. The surface of some grains appear to have 96 transverse depressions. When individual grains are free of the aggregates they appear to be smooth. The aggregates appear to have a rough texture due to some sort of membrane holding the starches together.
Goosefoot (Chenopodium fremontii, Chenopodiaceae)
Figure 5.16. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Chenopodium fremontii
Goosefoot is an annual plant that is also a member of the Goosefoot family, native to western North America. The plant grows in both desert habitats as well as the pinyon- juniper community, with a range of 700 to 3100 m AMSL (2300-10,200 ft)
(plants.usda.gov). Seeds and greens were eaten by forgers across North America
(Steward 1938).
Chenopodium starch grains appear to be aggregates; grains formed from one amyloplast (Perry 2010). This sample contained very few starch grains and a representative sample of Chenopodium characteristics was difficult to obtain. The average size of an individual grain is very small: 4.22 µ long and 4.73 µ wide. Grains appear to be small, circular and smooth with a centric hilum and straight, symmetrical 97 extinction cross arms. The compound grains were in groups of four, giving each grain two facets.
Wild Rye (Leymus cinereus, Poaceae)
Figure 5.17. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Leymus cinereus
Great Basin wild rye is a perennial bunch grass that can grow up to one to two meters tall with seed heads of 10 cm or more in length (Ogle et al. 2012). The plant is native to the Intermountain West and grows in the sagebrush and pinyon-juniper zones, with a range of 600 to 3000 m AMSL (1900-9800 ft). The fresh new growth of a stalk was eaten raw in the early spring and the seeds were gathered and stored or milled
(Steward 1933).
Leymus grains have several characteristics that differentiate them from other grass seed starch grains. The starch grains range in size from 4 to 26 µ in length, they average
15.59 µ long and 16.01 µ wide. The grains are circular to ovate in shape and flat or lenticular in three dimensions. The hilum is elongate and centric and the arms of the extinction cross are wide. The surface of the grain is relatively smooth and has large, 98 round or longitudinal depressions that are wide and cover most of the surface of the grain.
There are either one or two concentric lamellae on the margins of most of the grains.
Leymus granules are dimorphic, with some grains occurring in aggregates of both large and very small grains.
Modern Starch Identification Summary
With the modern starch samples, it is clear that there are certain characteristics that can distinguish geophyte starch grains from tree nut and seed starch grains that are summarized in Table 5.5. Geophyte grains are generally large, over 10 µ, are round in two dimensions and spherical in three dimensions with one or more facets, and have a depression at the hilum. Lomatium and Lewisia starch grains have very similar characteristics making it difficult to distinguish the two. The presence of a Maltese Cross on Lomatium granules and the distinct facet as well as the presence of lamellae on
Lewisia granules can distinguish them from each other. Compared to root starch grains, seed starch grains are small, are found in smaller quantities, are often found in aggregates, and more often than not have asymmetrical extinction cross arms.
Both P. monophylla starch grains and Calochortus spp. starch grains are individually distinct and can be identified to genus. While not all starch grains contain diagnostic characteristics that can differentiate them at the genus or species level we can be confident in certain characteristics that can separate them into larger categories such as geophytes, seeds, or tree nuts.
99
Table 5.5. Summary of Attributes used in Modern Taxonomic Identifications
Av. Av. Extinction Distinguishing Taxon Length Width Shape Vacuole Hilum Cross Characteristics. µ µ Centric 1 to 3 facets but Lomatium Symmetrical 11.85 11.75 Semi circular Yes Branching more often round roseanum Maltese cross Fissures Semicircular Centric 1 to 3 facets Lewisia rediviva 10.39 10.63 3D: bell Yes Depression Symmetrical Concentric shaped at hilum lamellae Semicircular 1 to 3 facets Perideridia Elongate with 9.12 9.06 3D: No Centric Longitudinal bolanderi curved arms polyhedral fissures Eccentric Polarized and Calochortus Ovate Concentric 17.13 13.62 No Transverse expanding at leichtlinii 3D: lenticular lamellae fissure margins
Roots Centric Circular/semi 1 to 3 facets Yes round Elongate and Typha latifolia 13.36 13.01 circular Rough surface sometimes depression asymmetrical 3D: spherical texture at hilum Schoenoplectus Circular or Round Symmetrical acutus 10.65 9.59 No Centric longitudinal 3D: spherical and straight depression Rough knobby Ovate Elongate and Cyperus Yes texture 13.57 13.36 3D: Centric curved at esculentus sometimes longitudinal and polyhedral margins round depressions 100
Av. Av. Extinction Distinguishing Taxon Length Width Shape Vacuole Hilum Cross Characteristics. µ µ Large round Elongate and
Pinus Circular/ovate depression and 8.84 8.38 Large Centric curved at monophylla 3D: spherical rough surface margin texture Asymmetrical Tree Nuts Tree Ovate Very few starch Pinus albicaulis 5.32 4.76 Small Centric and curved at 3D: lenticular grains in sample margins Centric Shoenoplectus Compound Elongate and Rough surface 6.72 6.65 No Stellate acutus Polygonal asymmetrical texture depression Achnatherum Large Strongly 45 40 No Centric Rough texture hymenoides aggregate polarized Asymmetrical Eleocharis Circular 6.98 6.62 Small Centric and curved at smooth quinqueflora 3D: spherical margin Irregular: Aggregates and Allenrolfea Less Less Curved and Seeds triangular or No Centric individual grains, occidentalis than 8 than 8 do not cross circular some very small Compound: 3 Chenopodium 4.22 4.73 Circular No Centric Symmetrical facets fremontii smooth Circular Elongate 1 or 2 concentric Leymus cinereus 15.59 16.01 3D: flat or No Centric Wide arms lamellae lenticular 101
Archaeological Starch Identifications
For the purpose of identification, archaeological starch grain typologies were established and archaeological starches were then assigned one of nine types developed specially for this study. Some of the types share characteristics with modern samples described in the preceding subsection and are classified as such when possible (Table
5.6). The assignment of archaeological samples to a type listed below are the most likely taxonomic identifications given the starch grain morphology and size. In general, the typologies constructed for this study fall into three groups: geophyte starches represented by Types G1-5; seed starches represented by Types S1-3; deformed starches represented by Type Z.
Table 5.6. Comparison of Typologies and Possible Taxonomic Identifications
Starch Type Most Likely Taxonomic ID Common Name G1 Lomatium spp. Biscuitroot G2 Lewisia spp. Bitterroot G1/G2 Lomatium or Lewisia Biscuitroot or Bitterroot G3 Geophyte No ID G4 Apiaceae Parsley Family G5 Calochortus spp. Mariposa Lily S1 Cyperaceae Sedge Family S2 Achnatherum hymenoides Indian Ricegrass S3 Leymus cinereus Wild Rye Z Deformed or altered Broken or deformed starches
102
Type G1
Characteristics of Type G1 starches are that they are generally large, ranging from
8 to 20 µ in length and width, with an average length of 13.57 µ and an average width of
13.8 µ. They are circular in cross section, spherical in three dimensions, with one facet that is often only visible when the starch is flipped. The hilum is centric and is open, indicating a vacuole. The arms of the extinction cross are generally straight and symmetrical, with slight curves at the margin. Many of the grains have a depression at the hilum or a transverse fissure. This type shares characteristics with biscuitroot
(Lomatium spp.). In several instances, Type G1 appears nearly indistinguishable from
Type G2; in these cases the specimen is assigned to Type G1/G2, which subsumes the two types and their likely taxonomic identification (Lomatium spp. or Lewisia spp.)
Type G2
This starch category is similar to Type G1. The grains range in size from 8 to 25
µ in length with an average length of 13.13 µ and an average width of 12.43 µ. The grains are circular or semicircular resembling a bell shape with one flat faceted side. In three dimensions the grain appears to be spherical making it elongate and hemispherical.
The hilum is centric and open, indicating a vacuole. The surface of the grain is generally smooth with a deep depression at the hilum and or a transverse fissure. The extinction cross arms are straight and symmetrical. This type shares characteristics with Bitterroot
(Lewisia). In several instances, Type G2 appears nearly indistinguishable from Type G1; in these cases the specimen is assigned to Type G1/G2, which subsumes the two types and their likely taxonomic identification (Lomatium spp. or Lewisia spp.). 103
Type G3
Type G3 is characterized by an oblong and lenticular shape, with an eccentric hilum. The average length of the grains is 12.38 µ and the average width is 8.09 µ. The arms of the extinction cross are asymmetrical and the arms are often ragged or curved at the margins of the grain. The grains are smooth and the hilum is closed and occasionally has a longitudinal depression. Some of these grains resemble Type G4. However, the eccentric hilum and the long lenticular shape exclude them from being classified as Type
G4. It is possible that these grains are two grains stuck together and thus give the appearance of a lenticular grain with ragged extinction cross arms. This can be a common occurrence with Lomatium and Lewisia starch grains and it is possible that this type could be Lewisia or Lomatium grains stuck together but it is hard to be sure.
Type G4
Type G4 has a wide range of sizes, but share certain diagnostic characteristics.
The grains range in size between 7 and 19 µ in length with an average of 8.24 µ and an average width of 9.9 µ. The most diagnostic characteristic is the polyhedral shape in three dimensions and an ovate or triangular shape in two dimensions. An additional diagnostic characteristic is the longitudinal depression that runs more than half the length of the long axis of the grain. Many have elongated hilums causing them to appear to be eccentric. The arms of the extinction cross are curved at the margins and often meet in the middle of the grain at asymmetric angles. The surface of the grains is generally smooth and occasionally has no depressions at all. Type G4 grains include characteristics similar to Perideridia and other geophyte species in the Apiaceae family. It can be 104 reasonably included among the geophytes, though the specific taxon represented remains somewhat uncertain.
Type G5 Calochortus spp.
Type G5 includes several characteristics that indicate Type G5 represents a species of Calochortus. These characteristics include: an ovate and pyriform shape, dark concentric lamellae, eccentric hilum, transvers fissures at the hilum, and an extinction cross with curved and sometimes ragged arms. The grains are all over 15 µ in length with an average length of 23.13 µ and an average width of 20.74 µ.
Type S1
Type S1 is characterized by grains smaller than 10 µ, with an average length of
7.75 µ and an average width of 7.54 µ. This type includes a rounded shape and a smooth texture. The grains are often circular if not slightly ovate, and appear spherical in three dimensions. The surface of the grain is smooth possibly with a very small depression at the hilum. The hilum is centric and the extinction cross is symmetrical and straight. This type shares characteristics with Eleocharis, but the characteristics are not diagnostic and cannot be positively identified as Eleocharis and is thus classified as Cyperaceae.
Type S2
Type S2 is a compound starch category. Large aggregates of starch granules make individual grain characteristics difficult to determine. The extinction cross under polarized light is strong and the hilum is centric. There appears to be a depression at the 105 hilum of each grain and a film that is rough in texture, binding the starches together. The arms of the extinction cross are asymmetrical and straight. Individual grains appear faceted. This compound tiny-granule category shares characteristics with both
Achnatherum hymenoides and to a lesser extent Allenrolfea occidentalis. The other starch sampled that contains compound granules is Chenopodium fremontii, but type S2 does not share any other characteristics with this species.
Type S3
This category is characterized by large circular grains that range in size between 9 and 21 µ. The average length of the grains is 17.32 µ and the average width is 17.04 µ.
The grains are reniform or spherical when flipped. The extinction cross arms generally do not meet in the middle and are v-shaped. The grains have concentric lamellae and no surface features. Type S3 shares characteristics with Leymus cinereus.
Type Z
Type Z is a category for starch granules that exhibit some form of deformation possibly due to heating or milling. The average length of the grains is 12.5 µ and the average width is 11.9 µ. The starches have sharp or angular edges and a polyhedral shape. The extinction cross has ragged or broken arms and there are stellate fissures at the hilum and on the margins of the grain. Due to the deformation of this grain type, no taxonomic identification is possible. 106
Starch Analysis from High Rise Village
Sixteen ground stone pieces from High Rise Village were processed for starch residue. Of these, nine contained starch granules (Table 5.6 and Appendix D). On the nine ground stone pieces containing starches, eighteen total starch granules were found that represent three starch types (Table 5.7). Type G1 (Lomatium spp.) and G2 (Lewisia spp.) are the most common with a total of eight complete starch granules and three broken but possible Type G1 and G2 starches (Table 5.8; Figure 5.17). There were five starches classified as Type Z which represent starch grains that have deformed characteristics that could be indicative of milling or processing. The shape of the individual grains, however, is not conducive to identification to a specific species. One starch grain was classified as Type S3, a seed grain similar to Leymus cinereus.
107
Table 5.7. High Rise Village Ground Stone Containing Starches
Quantity of Lodge Accession Number Artifact Type Starches 19 FR5891-1923 Millingslab 0 19 FR5891-1954 Millingslab 1 26 FR5891-1562 Handstone 2 26 FR5891-15199 Handstone 2 8 FR5891-2273 Millingslab 2 8 FR5891-2266 Millingslab 0 8 FR5891-2276 Handstone 1 10 FR5891-1996 Millingslab 0 10 FR5891-1990 Handstone 0 13 FR5891-2147 Millingslab 0 13 FR5891-2157 Millingslab 0 16 FR5891-1762 Millingslab 2 16 FR5891-1788 Handstone 4 3 FR5891-2171 Millingslab 0 7 FR5891-2077 Millingslab 2 7 FR5891-2099 Millingslab 2 Total 18 See Appendix D for detailed information of starch characteristics and measurements
108
Table 5.8. High Rise Village Starches by Type
Accession Specimen Most Likely Lodge Group Type Number Number Taxonomic ID 19 FR5891-1954 01 Type Z 26 FR5891-1562 01 Type Z 26 FR5891-1562 02 Type Z 26 FR5891-15199 01 Type S3 Leymus cinereus 26 FR5891-15199 01 Type Z 8 FR5891-2273 01 Type G2 Lewisia 8 FR5891-2273 02 Type G2 Lewisia Broken Type 16 FR5891-1762 01 Lomatium/Lewisia G1/G2 Broken Type 16 FR5891-1762 02 Lomatium/Lewisia G1/G2 16 FR5891-1788 04 Type G2 Lewisia 16 FR5891-1788 01 Type G1/2 Lomatium/Lewisia 16 FR5891-1788 02 Type G1/2 Lomatium/Lewisia 16 FR5891-1788 03 Type G1/2 Lomatium/Lewisia 7 FR5891-2077 01 Type G1/2 Lomatium/Lewisia 7 FR5891-2077 02 Type G1 Lomatium 7 FR5891-2099 01 Type Z Broken Type 7 FR5891-2099 02 Lomatium/Lewisia G1/G2 8 FR5891-2276 01 Broken Broken See Appendix D for detailed information of starch characteristics and measurements
109
Figure 5.18. Comparison of Starch Type G2 with Lewisia rediviva
110
Table 5.9. High Rise Village Starch Frequency by Type
Group Most Likely ID Common Name Number (n) Percent Type Type Lomatium spp. Biscuitroot 1 5.56% G1 Type Lewisia spp. Bitterroot 3 16.67% G2 Type Lomatium/Lewisia Bitterroot/Biscuitroot 7 38.89% G1/G2 Type No ID 0 0.00% G3 Type Apiaceae Parsley Family 0 0.00% G4 Type Calochortus spp. Sego Lily 0 0.00% G5 Type Cyperaceae Sedge Family 0 0.00% S1 Type Achnatherum Indian Ricegrass 0 0.00% S2 hymenoides Type Great Basin Wild Leymus cinereus 1 5.56% S3 Rye Type Z Deformed 5 27.78% Broken 1 5.56% Total 18 100%
111
45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00%
Figure 5.19. Percent of Starches by Type at High Rise Village; blue bars indicate geophytes and yellow bars indicate grasses and other small seeded plants. Deformed, broken and otherwise unidentifiable taxa are in grey.
At High Rise Village all artifacts tested have geophyte starch grains except for the artifacts from Lodge 26 which have the only grass seed starch grains for the site. Both ground stone pieces, 1562 and 15199, are basalt handstones exhibiting sheen and extensive levels of wear. Lodge 16 has the most starch grains, eight in total, from two ground stone pieces. Artifact 1788 from Level 2, is a basalt handstone of wedge shape with a battered type. This piece has the most starch grains at the site, all Type G1 or G2 indicating Lomatium or Lewisia. The other piece from Lodge 16, is a quartzite millingslab, artifact 1762, from Level 4. This piece has two starch grains from Type G1 or G2 as well. This lodge contains the oldest dates of the site (Table 2.1), 4480 ±40 cal
B.P., however, this date has been argued to represent an old wood problem. Two 112 temporally diagnostic corner notched points which date to ca. 900 B.P. were found in this lodge, suggesting that the AMS dates were indeed on old wood (Metcalfe 1987).
Starch Analysis from the White Mountain Village Sites
Fifteen millingslabs were processed for starch residue analysis. All but two contained starch granules and a total of 179 starch granules were identified in total (Table
5.9 and Appendices E and F). The most common type of starch grains all fell into the geophyte category: Type G4 (Apiaceae) with 60 grains in total, followed by Type G1 and
G2 (Lomatium spp. and/or Lewisia spp.) combined with 24 grains, and Type G5
(Calochortus spp) with 22 grains (Table 5.10). There were also several grains that fell into the grass grain category: Type S1, S2, and S3 (Cyperaceae, Achnatherum hymenoides and Leymus cinereus, respectively).
113
Table 5.10. White Mountain Village Ground Stone Containing Starches
Quantity of Site Accession Number Starches Corral Camp South 382-1628 3 Corral Camp South 382-2045 32 Corral Camp South 382-14698 0 Crooked Forks 382-14161 1 Gate Meadows 382-10155 0 Midway Village 382-1056 9 Rancho Deluxe 382-12317 2 Rancho Deluxe 382-11270 72 Rancho Deluxe 382-16347 35 Rancho Deluxe 382-11271 6 Rancho Deluxe 382-9430 8 Rancho Deluxe 382-9275 6 Rancho Deluxe 382-9218 1 Rancho Deluxe 382-11269 1 Raven Camp 382-14801 3 Total 179
114
Table 5.11. White Mountain Village Sites Quantity of Starches by Type
Group Most Likely ID Common Name Number (n) Percent Type Type Lomatium spp. Biscuitroot 12 6.70% G1 Type Lewisia spp. Bitterroot 5 2.79% G2 Type Lomatium/Lewisia Bitterroot/Biscuitroot 5 2.79% G1/G2 Type No ID 17 9.50% G3 Type Apiaceae Parsley Family 60 33.52% G4 Type Calochortus spp. Sego Lily 23 12.85% G5 Type Cyperaceae Sedge Family 21 11.73% S1 Type Achnatherum Indian Ricegrass 1 0.56% S2 hymenoides Type Great Basin Wild Leymus cinereus 8 4.47% S3 Rye Type Z Deformed 6 3.35% Broken 11 6.15% Poor 10 5.59% Photo Total 179 100%
115
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Figure 5.20. Percent of White Mountain Village Starch Grain Types; blue bars indicate geophytes and yellow bars indicate grasses and other small seeded plants. Deformed, broken and otherwise unidentifiable taxa are in grey.
The Rancho Deluxe site had the most starch grains; 128 in total were observed from eight millingslabs. The most common starch grain was Type G4 (Apiaceae) with
42 grains, followed by Type G1 (Lomatium spp.) and G2 (Lewisia spp.) with 17 grains
(Table 5.11). The seed types; S1-3, have 24 grains in total. Type G5 (Calochortus spp.), had 11 starch grains with 8 of them coming from one millingslab, 382-16347.
Millingslab 382-11270 had the majority of starch grains from the site with 72 grains in total but only one Type G5 grain.
116
Table 5.12. Rancho Deluxe Quantity of Starches by Type
Group Most Likely ID Common Name Number (n) Percent Type Type Lomatium spp. Biscuitroot 9 6.87% G1 Type Lewisia spp. Bitterroot 6 4.58% G2 Type Lomatium/Lewisia Bitterroot/Biscuitroot 2 1.53% G1/G2 Type No ID 15 11.45% G3 Type Apiaceae Parsley Family 42 32.06% G4 Type Calochortus spp. Sego Lily 11 8.40% G5 Type Cyperaceae Sedge Family 16 12.21% S1 Type Achnatherum Indian Ricegrass 1 0.76% S2 hymenoides Type Great Basin Wild Leymus cinereus 7 5.34% S3 Rye Type Z Deformed 5 3.82% Broken 10 7.63% Poor 7 5.34% Photo Total 131 100%
117
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Figure 5.21. Rancho Deluxe Percent of Starches by Type; blue bars indicate geophytes and yellow bars indicate grasses and other small seeded plants. Deformed, broken and otherwise unidentifiable taxa are in grey.
Corral Camp South is the second largest sample (in terms of recovery) with 35 starch grains in total from two ground stone millingslabs. Thirty-two starch grains came from one millingslab, 382-2045, with 9 of the Type G5 (Calochortus spp.) grains 13 of type G4 (Apiaceae) (Table 5.13).
118
Table 5.13. Corral Camp South Quantity of Starches by Type
Group Most Likely ID Common Name Number (n) Percent Type Type Lomatium spp. Biscuitroot 2 5.71% G1 Type Lewisia spp. Bitterroot 0 0.00% G2 Type No ID 2 5.71% G3 Type Apiaceae Parsley Family 14 40.00% G4 Type Calochortus spp. Sego Lily 10 28.57% G5 Type Cyperaceae Sedge Family 4 11.43% S1 Type Achnatherum Indian Ricegrass 0 0.00% S2 hymenoides Type Great Basin Wild Leymus cinereus 1 2.86% S3 Rye Type Z Deformed 1 2.86% Broken 1 2.86% Total 35 100%
119
45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00%
Figure 5.22. Corral Camp South Percent of Starches by Type; blue bars indicate geophytes and yellow bars indicate grasses and other small seeded plants. Deformed, broken and otherwise unidentifiable taxa are in grey.
Midway Village had 9 starch grains from one millingslab. The grain types all fall into the geophyte category but one (Table 5.13). One millingslab was tested from Raven
Camp and contain 3 starch grains, two of Type G4 (Apiaceae) and one of Type S1
(Cyperaceae). Crooked Forks had one millingslab tested with one starch grain of Type
G4 (Apiaceae).
120
Table 5.14. Midway Villages Quantity of Starches by Type
Group Most Likely ID Common Name Number (n) Percent Type Type Lomatium spp. Biscuitroot 1 11.11% G1 Type Lewisia spp. Bitterroot 0 0.00% G2 Type Biscuitroot or Lomatium/Lewisia 3 33.33% G1/2 Bitterroot Type No ID 1 11.11% G3 Type Apiaceae Parsley Family 1 11.11% G4 Type Calochortus spp. Sego Lily 2 22.22% G5 Type Cyperaceae Sedge Family 0 0.00% S1 Type Achnatherum Indian Ricegrass 0 0.00% S2 hymenoides Type Great Basin Leymus cinereus 0 0.00% S3 Wild Rye Type Z Deformed 0 0.00% Broken 1 11.11% Total 9 100%
121
35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00%
Figure 5.23. Midway Village Percent of Starches by Type; blue bars indicate geophytes and deformed, broken and otherwise unidentifiable taxa are in grey.
Figure 5.24. Comparison of Starch Type G5 with Calochortus leichtlinii 122
Figure 5.25. Comparison of Starch Type G4 with Perideridia bolanderi
Figure 5.26. Comparison of Starch Type S2 with Achnatherum hymenoides Indian Rice Grass 123
Figure 5.27. Comparison of Type S3 with Leymus cinereus Great Basin Rye
To summarize, in the White Mountain assemblage, the Rancho Deluxe site has the largest number of starch grains with 129 in total. Type G5 Calochortus, has 11 starch grains with 8 of them coming from one millingslab, 16347. Millingslab 11270 has the majority of starch grains from the site with 72 grains in total but only one Type G5 grain.
Interestingly, millingslab 16347 has only 6 of the 26 grass species starches and 31 starches from various geophyte species. Corral Camp South has 35 starch grains from two millingslabs all of them in the geophyte categories with 9 being Calochortus grains.
One ground stone from Midway Village was tested and contains nine starch grains all but one in the geophyte category. Raven Camp and Crooked Forks each have one millingslab with geophyte starch grains and one grass starch grain.
124
Comparison of the High Rise Village and White Mountains Starch Assemblages
In comparing both the White Mountain and the High Rise Village starch analysis results, it is clear that both assemblages are dominated by geophytes with a greater diversity of geophytes represented in the White Mountain assemblage (Figure 5.28).
Seed starch granules are present at both sites but with a higher diversity and quantity at the White Mountain sites.
45.00% Geophytes Grasses & No ID 40.00% Other Small Seeds 35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
High Rise Village White Mountain Village Sites
Figure 5.28. Comparison of the Percentage of Starches by Taxon at each Location: blue bars are High Rise Village and orange bars are White Mountain Village Sites 125
Diversity and Evenness
The preceding suggests substantial differences between the High Rise Village and
White Mountains starch assemblages; these are explored in more depth using Shannon’s diversity (H) and evenness (EH) index and Simpson’s diversity (D) and evenness (ED) index (Beals et al. 2000). Diversity refers to the number of types in the sample and evenness refers to the proportional representation of typologies in the sample. For the
Shannon Index the larger the value of H the more diverse the sample. For the Simpson’s
Index the closer D is to 0 the higher the diversity. Evenness is a ratio between the observed diversity and the maximum diversity possible in the sample, the closer to 1 the more even the sample.
The results of these indices are tabulated in Table 5.14 and Table 5.15. For High
Rise Village, H= 1.07 and D= 2.4 and for the White Mountains, H=1.66 and D= 4.5 illustrating that the White Mountains assemblage is slightly more diverse than that of the
High Rise Village assemblage. If we reduce the number of species by combining Type
G1, G2 and Type G1/G2 which all represent either Lomatium or Lewisia (the “lumped” data in the figures below) the diversity changes for HRV (H=0.2 and D=1.18) meaning there is very little diversity in the HRV starch assemblage. Evenness is similar at both locations with HRV EH=0.77 and ED=0.6. For the White Mountains EH=0.75 and
ED=0.5. However, if we lump Type G1-G3 together the evenness changes with HRV becoming less even (EH=0.41 and ED=0.59) and with the White Mountains remaining even (EH=0.84 and ED=0.61). 126
In general, the White Mountain Village site assemblage shows more diversity in plants being processed, with more evenness of species processed compared to HRV, but still substantial evidence for geophyte processing. HRV shows little diversity and evenness with only geophyte processing occurring on site.
Table 5.15 Shannon Diversity and Evenness Index Comparison Between High Rise Village and the White Mountain Village Sites
Equation HRV White Mountains Shannon Diversity Index (H) 1.08 1.66 Shannon Evenness index 0.78 0.76 (EH) Total Number of Species (N) 4 9 Lumped Shannon Diversity Index (H) 0.29 1.64 Shannon Evenness index 0.41 0.84 (EH) Total Number of Species (N) 2 7
Table 5.16. Simpson’s Diversity and Evenness Index Comparison Between High Rise Village and the White Mountain Village Sites
Equation HRV White Mountains Simpson’s Diversity Index (D) 2.4 4.51 Simpson’s Evenness Index 0.6 0.50 (ED) Total Number of Species (N) 4 9 Lumped Simpson’s Diversity Index (D) 1.18 4.27 Simpson’s Evenness Index 0.59 0.61 (ED) Total Number of Species (N) 2 7
127
Summary of Results
The ground stone assemblage from High Rise Village indicates use of expedient technology where quartzite slabs were used as millingslabs with no shaping or modifications. The millingslabs all exhibit abrasive use-wear. Abrasive wear is the first level of wear that will occur on a ground surface after minimal use. More extended use will produce tribochemical wear, specifically the buildup of sheen. Five millingslabs have patches of sheen with wear extending only to the surface of the grains. This indicates that the ground stone was not used intensively in order to build up additional levels of wear. Also of note is that none of the millingslabs show evidence of pecking, which indicates the ground surfaces never reached a point of exhaustion where the surfaces need to be re-roughened. The handstones exhibit higher levels of wear. Only one of the handstones exhibits intentional shaping and is well worn. Four of the five have patches of sheen on the grinding surface. The one handstone with no sheen appears to have been shaped into a wedge with a battered tip, which indicates some degree of intentional design. According to Adams (2002), ground stone with expedient design, one ground surface and low levels of sheen indicate shorter use and therefore possibly shorter occupations (which corresponds to Trout’s [2015] interpretation of the site’s flaked stone assemblage and Morgan et al.’ [2016] general interpretation of the site’s occupational history).
In contrast, the millingslabs from the White Mountain sites exhibit extensive use but more concentrated levels of wear. The ground stone shows few signs of intentional shaping but do show higher levels of use indicated by concave grinding surfaces, surface 128 pecking, smooth grinding surfaces, and patches of sheen. Seven pieces have evidence of pecking and four have patches of sheen visible macroscopically. The White Mountain ground stone assemblage appears more heavily used than the High Rise Village ground stone which is not surprising because residential use is believed to have been more intensive at the White Mountain sites (compare Bettinger [1991] to Morgan et al. [2016]).
As with the ground stone analysis, starch residue analysis indicates more starches, and perhaps more use of the White Mountain millingslabs than at High Rise Village. At both of these localities, however, geophytes are the dominate resource being processed on the ground stone recovered from these sites. At High Rise Village, 85 percent of the starch grains fall into the geophyte category (excluding broken starch grains from the typologies). At the White Mountain sites, 80 percent of the starch grains fall into the geophyte category (excluding broken starch grains from the typologies) and 16 percent fall into the grass seed categories.
In sum, starch residue analysis from both locations indicates a focus on geophyte processing. High Rise Village ground stone was almost exclusively used to process roots compared to the White Mountain sample which indicated a wider range of processed plants with a dominance of geophytes. These findings fit well with the two interpretations of the sites; High Rise Village as single family short term base camp, and the White Mountain Sites are multi-use, long term summer villages.
129
Chapter 6 Discussion and Conclusion
The shift to high altitude residential use at High Rise Village and the White
Mountain Village sites is poorly understood. What is clear is that plant and especially root processing took place during the intensive residential use of these sites. With no macrobotanical remains recovered from High Rise Village (Losey 2013); and low quantities recovered from the White Mountain Village sites (Scharf 2009), the specific plant resources being processed at these sites was not clear. My aim in conducting starch residue analysis was to identify the specific resources being targeted at these high altitude village sites. My expectations in conducting residue analysis were that geophytes were the object of processing at these locations. Starch residue analysis confirmed this prediction.
Discussion of Results
Starch analysis from both High Rise Village and the White Mountain Village sites indicates geophyte species were the focus of plant processing at all of these high altitude locations. HRV was dominated by two geophyte species Lomatium spp. (biscuitroot) and
Lewisia spp. (bitterroot). The White Mountain ground stone had more diversity in the amount of geophyte species represented: Lomatium spp., Lewisia spp., Calochortus spp.
(Mariposa Lily), and two unknown types that look similar to Perideridia (Yampa) and possibly compound Lomatium or Lewisia grains (Type G3) but could not be positively identified as such. There are also 33 seed starch grains in the White Mountain sample but the grass grains lack diagnostic characteristics to positively identify them to a species. 130
None of the starch grains exhibited characteristics of either whitebark or limber pine and one starch grain cluster shares characteristics with pinyon pine starch grains but could not be positively identified as such due to a lack of diagnostic attributes.
The results of this study contradict previous researchers’ assertions (Adams 2010,
Scharf 2009, Stirn 2014, Rhode 2010; Thomas 1983) who have pointed to the use of pine species as the most likely plant resource being processed at these sites. I argue that if one considers the return rates of pine species and geophyte species, as well as the availability, predictability, storage potential, and seasonality of these two types of resources, geophytes appear to be the better choice overall. Further, if one considers the archaeological record of the two study areas, there is widespread evidence for root consumption, processing and storage in the valleys adjacent to the ranges containing high altitude village locales.
It seems that the reason many researchers failed to recognize the importance of geophytes to high altitude settlement and subsistence intensification is the lack of direct evidence for root processing and consumption. This is due to the lack of preservation of root harvesting tools, the lack of disposable or inedible parts of roots prior to consumption, and the general use of ground stone for diverse food processing tasks. I explore each of these points in more depth in the discussion that follows.
Return Rates
Very limited research has been done on return rates for root species (Adams 2010,
Couture et al. 1986, Simms 1987, Smith and McNees 2005), with some consideration of yields of root grounds (Prouty 1995, Thoms 1989, Wandsneider and Chung 2003), as 131 well as yields of root cooking features (Francis 2000, Smith 2001). With these limited data, the average return rates for both pine and root species fall nearly within the same range, with root species having consistently higher returns despite some overlap (because of the difference in return rates for un-hulled compared to processed limber pine nuts, the average return rate for pine as a category is skewed) (Table 6.1). If we solely consider pinyon return rates compared to the average geophyte return rate, geophytes are still higher ranked and all geophyte species individually have a higher return rate than pinyon with the exception of C. constancei. Given the lack of adequate data for calculating return rates on these two types of resources, the small difference in return rates alone may not fully explain the selection of root harvesting over pine harvesting at these locations.
If we then consider several other characteristics of these two types of resources as a factor of their overall utility, we gain a clearer picture of the total value of each type of resources and which ones would likely be included in the diet of prehistoric foragers in these two regions.
132
Table 6.1. Return Rates on Several Pine and Geophytes Species
Resource Return Rate (kcal/hr) References
Pine Simms 1987, Barlow 1,125 Pinus monophylla and Metcalfe 1996 Pinus albicaulis 1,941 (un processed) Adams 2010 178 (hulled) Rhode and Rhode 2015 Pinus flexilis 5,387 (un hulled) 2,157 (un processed/hulled) Average 651 (processed) Geophytes Cyompterus bulbosus 1,461 Smith and McNees 2005 Lomatium hendersonii 3,831 Couture et al. 1986 Lomatium cous 1,219 Couture et al. 1986 Cyompterus constancei 306 Adams 1010 Lewisia rediviva 1,374 Couture et al. 1986 Average 1,638
Overall Utility
In considering pine resources in comparison to geophyte resources, return rates alone may not fully account for the utility of the two types of resources. Using six additional characteristics such as availability, abundance, seasonality, predictability, cultivation potential, and storage potential, the utility of each type of resources is much clearer, particularly at high altitude, with geophytes scoring higher in all categories. The first quality is the availability and abundance of a resource, which refers to the spatial distribution, resource density, and the frequency in which a resource is encountered on the landscape. Lepofsky and Peacock (2004) ranked resources in the Pacific Northwest based on their availability and abundance and root species out ranked tree nut species in every case. Whitebark pine is a good example, it is only found in restricted habitats at 133 high elevations while species such as bitterroot and biscuitroot are found in many habitats and elevation zones. In the two study areas, Whitebark pine is found in the Wind River
Mountains at the location of High Rise Village so availability of Whitebark pine compared to geophytes may be negligible at this site. Although pinyon pine has a less restricted range than that of whitebark pine, it was not included in their study because pinyon does not grow in the Pacific Northwest. Overall, their study indicates that root species may be encountered more frequently and in higher abundance than some pine species. These criteria indicate that geophytes are a more favorable resource.
If we then consider the seasonality of the two types of resources, specifically at high elevation, geophytes are favored over pine. Pine nuts ripen in the late summer and early fall when weather in the high altitude would be less predictable, the threat of snow would be greater, and water would be scarce. Geophytes ripen in the late spring and early summer when snow is melting at high elevation thus making water more available, weather is increasingly predictable, and the threat of snow is reduced. It is also the period of time when artiodactyls move back into the high country to graze on newly productive alpine meadow flora.
The predictability of these two resources categories also favors geophytes over nuts. The nature of a geophyte is its ability to survive winter dormancy by living of carbohydrate and polysaccharides stores in an underground storage organ. This feature allows geophytes to be highly resilient to fluctuations in climate and moisture (Prouty
1995). Conversely, researchers (Mutke et al. 2005; Redmond et al. 2012) have found that pinyon pine is susceptible to fluctuations in moisture and temperature during periods of cone growth. This causes greater instability in the frequency of masting years. 134
Many researchers have shown that geophytes also have high cultivation potential
(Lepofsky and Peacock 2004; Prouty 1995; Smith and McNees 2005; Thoms 1989;
Wandsnider and Chung 2003). Minimal management techniques such as aerating the soil through harvesting, periodic burning, and irrigation, can greatly increase yields of root crops which is not the case with pinyon and whitebark pine trees. The ability to minimally manage geophyte grounds may have made geophytes are more desirable resources. Pine might be favored only when considering the effort needed to prepare the two resources for storage. If we consider pine as a back-loaded resources and geophytes as a front-loaded resource it is clear that roots will be favored when reliance on stored foodstuffs is high (see Chapter 3).
When ranking geophyte and pine nut species based on multiple qualities, not just on the caloric returns, geophytes are higher ranked in five out of six categories. This information supports my findings that geophytes were the targeted resources harvested at the White Mountain Village sites and at High Rise Village.
Culture History and the Ethnographic Record
If we consider the culture history of the lower elevations before and during occupation of both High Rise Village and the White Mountain Village sites, there appears to be a consistent pattern of root processing, housepit construction, and use of ‘persistent places’ (Smith and McNees 2011; Smith and McNees 1999).
In the Yellowstone and Jackson Hole region, Bender and Wright (1988) and
Wright et al. (1980), have identified a ‘high country adaptation’ focused on plant procurement between 1800 and 2400 m AMSL (6000 and 8000 ft) and possibly higher. 135
This adaptation is based on the periodicity of certain alpine plant resources, specifically blue camas and other geophytes available in the spring and summer. Hunter-gatherers of the region moved their settlements up to the high altitude during these seasons for optimal procurement of geophytes. This pattern holds constant for nearly 10,000 years.
Bender and Wright (1988) see evidence for this adaptation persisting in the Jackson Hole area of Wyoming while Frison (1991) and Adams (2010) see this pattern in western
Wyoming, and Benedict (1992) in the Colorado Front Range.
A similar pattern for geophyte procurement, processing, and storage is found in the Green River Basin, Washakie Basin, and the Great Basin Divide just south and east of the Wind River Mountains. Thousands of rock lined hearths, slab lined pits, fire cracked rock features, and housepit features have been recorded dating from 6500 to 3100 B.P.
(Smith and McNees 1999). The archaeological record suggests that long-term intensive root procurement was an integral part of prehistoric food-ways during the Middle
Holocene in Wyoming. Roots were an import food source that were harvested both for immediate consumption and on a large scale for storage (Francis 2000; Smith and
McNees 1999). These root crops were stable and predictable and this pattern of root processing holds constant for more than 4000 years (Smith and McNees 1999, Smith et al. 2001). Following this, around 1800 to 1000 B.P. in north-central Wyoming there is evidence for a broadening of the diet to include sego lily and other bulbs, evidenced by deep bell-shaped pits at many sites within the Big Horn and Wind River basins (Smith et al. 2001). This period is characterized by pit-oven construction and a broadening of the diet in the Wyoming Basin corresponds with the most intensive occupation of High Rise
Village. 136
Ethnographic accounts of the Rocky Mountain or Tukudeka Shoshone appear to fit this high country adaptation pattern. The Tukudeka inhabited the high mountain zones throughout the spring and fall to forage for roots and seeds and to hunt mountain sheep moving down to the Green River Basin in the winter following game (Shimkin 1999).
Given the evidence for ‘persistent places’ in the Green River Basin and adjacent areas, and evidence from Yellowstone and the Jackson Hole regions, it appears that the same foraging strategies were applied in high elevation settings as in low elevation settings, a pattern which persisted for over four millennia. Both of these models base settlement and subsistence practices on the predictability, cultivation potential, and availability of geophyte species as the reasons for the settlement patterns observed in the archaeological record. If the dominant resource processed at High Rise Village consisted of geophytes, as my research suggests, perhaps High Rise Village conforms to this high country adaptation model (Wright et al. 1980).
Similarly, the archaeological record during the Marana period throughout the
White Mountain, Owens Valley, and Mojave share many similar characteristics. Large permanent villages were occupied year-round in Owens Valley and share similarities with village sites found in the White Mountains in regards to artifact types, floral and faunal remains, hearths, rock ringed structures, and well developed midden soils
(Bettinger 1982). In the archaeological record there is also some evidence of root processing in this region. In the Northern Mojave, just south of Owens Valley, Eerkens
(2002) found that pit features used to roast roots and seeds were common in the Haiwee and Marana Periods (1500 cal B.P. to historic). Shallow pit hearths varying in size from
1.50-.07 meters in diameter and 7-25 cm deep with large fire cracked rock toss zones are 137 interpreted as root roasting features. These features in the Northern Mojave date to as early as 1730 ± 90 B.P. but most date between 930 to 290 B.P. Interestingly, a shift from pit hearths to smaller hearths with seed remains takes place around 270 B.P. Eerkens attributes this to the introduction of pottery technology in cooking which may have made seeds a more favorable resource over roots (Eerkens 2002). The widespread us of pit hearths in the Haiwee and especially Marana periods corresponds with the timing for occupation of the White Mountain Village sites (Bettinger 1991).
It appears that these high altitude sites are at odds with the ethnographic record as
Bettinger (1991) and Morgan et al. (2014b) argue. In his ethnographic accounts Steward places such an importance on pinyon harvesting and to a lesser extent summer seed harvesting that the use of the high altitude was overlooked as well as the importance of root use in the native diets. Steward’s work with the Shoshone and Paiute showed that valley and foothill resources dominated subsistence patterns with high altitude resources playing only a minor role for hunting (Steward 1933). Given the fact that several wild root and seed species were cultivated, including: spike rush (Eleocharis), a type of lily
(Brodiaea), a type of sunflower (Helianthus), and goosefoot (Chenopodium) with irrigation ditches constructed on the alluvial fans debouching from the Sierra Nevada
(Steward 1933), roots and seeds appear to have been an important part of the subsistence regime in the region during ethnohistoric times.
Why Were Roots Overlooked?
In considering the overall utility of these two resources, geophyte use by prehistoric foragers is not surprising. Why is it that some researchers have overlooked 138 geophyte use? I argue that this is due to a bias in the archaeological and ethnographic record. Evidence for root procurement in the archaeological record is scarce due to the lack of preservation of root remains, their lack of inedible parts in need of disposal prior to consumption, and the minimal amount of processing tools required for root procurement, the most important of which, the digging stick, does not preserve well in archaeological contexts (Smith and McNees 2005).
Prehistoric root use has been documented in the ethnographic record as having varying importance in hunter-gatherer diets in the western United States (Smith and
McNees 2005). In the Pacific Northwest, root procurement was an integral part of forager diets, with some researchers (Ames and Marshall 1995; Prouty 1995; Thoms
1989) concluding that root use provided a stable, storable resource that allowed for a seasonal sedentary settlement pattern. Ethnographic work has demonstrated that for
Northwestern groups, root procurement was an important social and subsistence activity in the late spring and early summer (Couture et al. 1986). This importance of roots in the diets of the Pacific Northwest groups may be due, in part to the lack of pine nut resources available in those regions. In the Great Basin however, Steward (1933 and 1938) does not emphasize root procurement as integral to the diets of the Shoshone and Paiute, though he recognizes their importance to Numic-speaking groups, especially in the northern parts of the Great Basin. His research focused on pinyon nut harvesting and to a lesser extent on seed harvesting. Several root species are mentioned as food but no mention of their importance is noted. Another place that is lacking in the ethnographic accounts of the Great Basin groups is a use of the high altitude. Morgan et al. (2014b) hypothesize that this omission may be due to an emphasis on low and middle elevation 139 pursuits as well as a possible deliberate omission on the part of Steward’s informants.
The question is then, did Great Basin people not focus on these resources and locations or did their use not get recorded in the ethnographic record? I would argue that because of this lack of focus on root harvesting, many archaeologists have overlooked their potential as a valuable resource worth investigating.
The appearance of ground stone in archaeological sites indicates some sort of plant processing but cannot indicate specific plants. Because of the biased archaeological record towards preservation of small hard seeds and nuts, as well as the biased ethnographic record towards a focus on pinyon, archaeologist have overlooked the potential of geophyte use at Great Basin sites in particular and at high altitude sites in general. I would argue that starch residue analysis can help ameliorate this bias because it is well suited to answers questions of which, if any, plants were being processed at archaeological sites.
Interpretation
Given the archaeological data of the two regions analyzed for this study, and the new information on a geophyte processing focus at these sites, a new interpretation is in order. With a focus on geophyte processing in the Wind River Range and adjacent areas, it appears that HRV fits into an existing pattern of transhumance from the valley to alpine zone in a yearly foraging cycle, with HRV serving as a short term root harvesting camp, before moving on to other root pastures or mountain sheep hunting grounds. Given the ethnographic record in the Pacific Northwest of root camps and patch use, HRV was likely occupied by several families for a few weeks every two to five years to target 140 specific root fields within the vicinity of the site (Couture et al. 1986; Morgan et al.
2016).
For the White Mountain sites, the picture is somewhat different. Steward (1933) states that the Owens Valley Piute did not use the high altitude for plant gathering or for living but the archaeological record indicates otherwise. The White Mountain sites are upland villages that are markedly similar to the villages in Owens Valley (Bettinger
1989). Tool assemblages, house construction, and a broad based plant and animal diet all conform to the valley pattern. The only confounding part of this pattern is the dramatic shift in land use of the alpine zone from logistical hunting to residential living in order to hunt marmot and large mammals as well as to process roots. The large amounts of ground stone at each of these sites, as well as the degree of wear on these tools indicates extensive plant processing. However, the diversity of artifacts particularly the large quantity of flaked stone tools, implies that the White Mountain sites were not specialized root camps as in the Wind River Range, but were in fact residential villages geared towards a wide variety of tasks (Bettinger 1991).
Conclusion
Starch analysis, ground stone, and use-wear analysis was conducted on milling equipment from High Rise Village and six of the White Mountain Village sites to answer the question of which resources were the focus of intensive processing at these locations.
Starch residue analysis indicates that geophytes were the main focus of this intensive processing. 141
At high altitude, researchers have thought that pine nuts (Scharf 2009, Stirn 2014;
Thomas 1983) and to a lesser extent roots (Adams 2010) were the target of intensive processing. In considering the archaeological record of the two regions root processing appears to have been part of a broad based subsistence pattern. Archaeologically, evidence for root consumption does not preserve well, specifically tools used in procurement and a lack of inedible parts removed prior to consumption.
Ethnographically root consumption in the Great Basin and Wyoming regions was not considered an important activity and thus archaeologist are slow to consider the possibility that ground stone may have been used to process geophytes. Starch residue analysis is well suited to fill this gap in the archaeological and ethnographic record.
While analysis for this study was unable to positively identify starches to the species level with the exception of sego lily starch grains, the analysis was able to point to the use of roots as well as seeds in a context that was otherwise lacking that data, specifically at
High Rise Village where no floral remains were uncovered. It is for this reason that starch analysis should be considered in further investigations of high altitude residential locations.
It has long been assumed that alpine environments were mainly used to procure high-ranked animal resources. In the Great Basin and the Rocky Mountain region, however, there is evidence of high altitude residential sites in both the White Mountains of eastern California and the Wind River Range of western Wyoming. These sites appear to be anomalous in that they contradict previously held ideas about hunter-gatherer adaptive choices, specifically that groups will intensively utilize plant resources in lieu of hunting (Bettinger 1991). Starch residue analysis from two high altitude village locations 142 shows that hunter-gatherers were intensively processing roots. This may indicate that root processing was a contributing factor mitigating the shift toward residential use of the alpine zone in western North America.
143
References Cited
Adams, Jenny L. 1989 Experimental Replication of the Use of Ground Stone Tools. Kiva 54(3):261-271.
2002 Ground Stone Analysis: A Technological Approach. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
2014 Ground Stone Use-Wear Analysis: A Review of Terminology and Experimental Methods. Journal of Archaeological Science 48:1-10.
Adams, Richard 2010 Archaeology with Altitude: Late Prehistoric Settlement and Subsitence in the Northern Wind River Range, Wyoming. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming.
Aldenderfer, Mark 2006 Modelling Plateau Peoples: The Early Human Use of the World’s High Plateaux. World Archaeology 38(3):357-370.
Aldenderfer, Mark, and Yinong Zhang 2004 The Prehistory of the Tibetan Plateau the Seventh Century A.D.: Perspectives from China and the West Since 1950. Journal of World Prehistory 19:1-55.
Ames, Kenneth M., and Alan G. Marshall 1980 Villages, Demography and Subsistence Intensification on the Southern Columbia Plateau. North American Archaeologist 2(1):25-52.
Andrefsky, William Jr. 2005 Lithics: Macroscopice Approaches to Analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Babot, P. 2003. Starch Grain Damage as an Indicator of Food Processing. In Phytolith and Starch Research in the Australian-Pacific-Asian Regions: The State of the Art, edited by Hart, D.M. and Wallis, L.A. Terra Australis 19, Pandanus Books, Canberra, pp. 69-81.
Barlow, Renee K., and Michael D. Metcalfe 1996 Plant Utility Indices: Two Great Basin Examples. Journal of Archaeological Science 23(August 1994):351-371.
144
Beals, Monica, Louis Gross, and Susan Harrell. 2000 Diversity Indices: Shannon's H and E. The Institute for Environmental Modelling (TIEM), University of Tennessee.
Bender, Susan J., and Gary A. Wright 1988 High-Altitude Occupations, Cultural Process, and High Plains Prehistory: Retrospect and Prospect. American Anthropologist 90(3):619-639.
Benedict, James B. 1992 Footprints in the Snow : Cultural Ecology of the Colorado Front Range, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research 24(1):1-16.
2007 Effects of Climate on Plant-Food Availability at High Altitude in the Colorado Front Range, U.S.A. Journal of Ethnobiology 27(2):143-173.
Bettinger, Robert L, and Robert Oglesby 1985 Lichen Dating of Alpine Villages in the White Mountains, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 7(2):202-224.
Bettinger, Robert L. 1977 Aboriginal Human Ecology in Owens Valley: Prehistoric Change in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 42(1):3-17.
1989 The Archaeology of Pinyon House, Two Eagles, and Crater Middens: Three Residential Sites in Owens Valley, Eastern California. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History No. 67. American Museum of Natural History, New York.
1980 Obsidian Hydration Dates for Owens Valley Settlement Categories. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 2(2):286-292.
1991 Aboriginal Occupation at High Altitude: Alpine Villages in the White Mountains of Eastern California. American Anthropologist 93(3):656-679.
1999 What Happened in the Medithermal. In Models for the Millenium: Great Basin Anthropology Today, edited by Charlotte Beck. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.
2009 Hunter-Gatherer Foraging: Five Simple Models. Eliot Werner Publications Inc., New York.
Bettinger, Robert L., and Martin A. Baumhoff 1982 The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures in Competition. American Antiquity 47(3):485-503.
145
Bettinger, Robert L., Raven Garvey, and Shannon Tushingham 2015 Hunter-Gatherers: Archaeological and Evolutionary Theory. Second Ed. Springer, New York.
Bettinger, Robert L., and R.E. Taylor 1974 Suggested Revisions in Archaeological Sequences in the Great Basin and Interior Southern California. Nevada Archaeological Survey Research Papers 5:1-26.
Black, Kevin D. 1991 Archaic Continuity in the Colorado Rockies : The Mountain Tradition. Plains Anthropologist 36(133):1-29.
Bouey, Paul 1979 Population Pressure and Agriculture in Owens Valley. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 1(1):162-170.
Brantingham, P. Jeffrey, and Gao Xing 2006 Peopling of the Northern Tibetan Plateau. World Archaeology 38(3):387- 414.
Bright, Jason, Andrew Ugan, and Lori Hunsaker 2002 The Effect of Handling Time on Subsistence Technology. World Archaeology 34(1):164-181.
Broughton, Jack M., David A. Byers, Reid A. Bryson, William Eckerle, and David B. Madsen 2008 Did Climatic Seasonality Control Late Quaternary Artiodactyl Densities in Western North America? Quaternary Science Reviews 27(19-20):1916-1937.
Byers, David A, and Jack M. Broughton 2004 Holocene Environmental Change, Artiodactyl Abundances, and Human Hunting Strategies in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 69(2):235-255.
Campell, Ian D., and John H. McAndrews 1993 Forest Disequilibrium Casued by Rapid Little Ice Age Cooling. Nature 366:336-388.
Canaday, Timothy W. 1997 Prehistoric Alpine Hunting Patterns in the Great Basin. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington.
146
Carey, Hannah V., and John D. Wehausen 1991 Mammals. In Natural History of the White-Inyo Range: Eastern California, edited by Clarence A. Hall, Jr. pp. 438-461. University of California Press, Berkley and Los Angeles.
Cook, Edward R., Richard Seager, Richard R. Heim, Russel S. Vose, Celine Herweijer, and Connie A. Woodhouse 2010 Megadroughts in North America: Placing the IPCC Projects of Hydroclimatic Change in a Long-Term Paleoclimate Context. Journal of Quaternary Science 25(1):48-61.
Couture, Marilyn D., Mary F. Ricks, and Lucile Housley 1986 Foraging Behavior of a Contemporary Northern Great Basin Population. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 8(2):150-160.
Cronquist, A., A. H. Holmgren, N. H. Holmgren, J.L. Reaveal, and P.K. Holmgren 1977 Intermnountain Flora: Volume 6, the Monocotyledons. The New York Botanical Garden, New York.
Delacort, Michael G. 1995 Desert Side-Notched Points as a Numic Population Marker in the West- Central Great Basin. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology. Eureka, California.
Dubreuil, Laure, and Daniel Savage 2014 Ground Stones: a Synthesis of the Use-Wear Approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 48:139-153.
Eckerle, William P. 1997 Eolian Geoarchaeology of the Wyoming Basin. In Changing Persepectives of the Archaic on the Northwest Plains and Rocky Mountains, edited by Mary Lou Larson and Julie E. Francis, pp. 138-167. University of South Dakota Press, Vermillion, South Dakota.
Eerkens, Jelmer W. 2003 Towards a Chronology of Brownware Pottery in the Western Great Basin: A Case Study From Owens Valley. North American Archaeologist 24(1):1-27.
2004 Privitization, Small-Seed Intesification, and the Orgins of Pottery in the Western Great Basin. American Archaeology 69(4):653-670.
Eerkens, Jelmer W., Jerome King, and Eric Wohlgemuth 2004 The Prehistoric Development of Intensive Green-Cone Piñon Processing in Eastern California. Journal of Field Archaeology 29:18-27.
147
Esau, Katerine 1977 (1960). Anatomy of Seeds Plants. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Fahn, A. 1990 (1967). Plant Anatomy. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Fowler, Catherine S. 1992 In the Shadow of Fox Peak: an Ethnography of the Cattail-Eater Northern Paiute People of Stillwater Marsh. Cultural Resource Series Number 5. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1 Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge
Francis, Julie E. 2000 Root Procurment in the Upper Green River Basin: Archaeological Investigations at 48SU1002. In Intermountain Archaeology, eddited by David B. Madsen and Michael D. Metcalfe. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Frison, George C. 2004 Survival by Hunting: Prehistoric Huan Preditors and Animal Prey. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Garfinkel, Alan P. 2010 Rose Spring Point Chronology and Numic Population Movements in Eastern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 43(1 and 2):42-49.
Gleason, Susan Marie 2001 In Search of the Intangible: Geophyte Use and Management Along the Upper Klamath River Canyon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California Riverside.
Grayson, Donald K 1991 Alpine Faunas from the White Mountains, California: Adaptive Change in the Late Prehistoric Great Basin? Journal of Archaeological Science 18:483-506.
Grayson, Donald K. 2011 The Great Basin: A Natural Prehistory. University of California Press, Berkley and Los Angeles.
Gucker, Corey L. 2008 Typha Latifolia. Fire Effects Information Systems. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Reserach Station, Fire Science Laboratory.
148
Henry, Amanda G., Holly F. Hudson, and Dolores R. Piperno 2009 Changes In Starch Grain Morphologies From Cooking. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(3):915-922.
Hildebrandt, Tod W. 2013 Intensification, Storage, and the Use of Alpine Habitats in the Central Great Basin: Prehistoric Subsistence Strategies in the Toquima and Toiyabe Ranges. Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Utah State University, Logan Utah.
Horak, Michael J., Jodie S. Holt, and Norman C. Ellstrand 1987 Genetic Variation in Yellow Nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus). Weed Science 35(4): 506-512.
Hughes, Malcom K., and Henry F. Diaz (editors). 1994 The Midieval Warm Period. Academic, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
ISCN 2011 The International Code for Starch Nomenclature, (http://fossilfarm.org/ICSN/Code.html), accessed (12/10/15)
Jane, J., Leas, S., Zobel, H., Robyt, J.F. 1994. Anthology of Starch Granule Morphology by Scanning Electron Microscopy. Starch/Stärke 46:121-129.
Janetski, Joel C. 2010 Archaeology and Native American History at Fish Lake, Central Utah. Occasional Paper, Museum of Peoples and Cultures. Brigham Young University, Provo Utah.
Kelly, Isabel T. 1932 Ethnography of the Surprise Valley Paiute. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Kelly, Robert L, Todd a Surovell, Bryan N Shuman, and Geoffrey M. Smith 2013 A Continuous Climatic Impact on Holocene Human Population in the Rocky Mountains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110(2):443-7.
Kleppe, John A., Daniel S. Brothers, Graham M. Kent, Franco Biondi, S. Jensen, Neil W. Driscoll 2011 Duration and Severity of Medieval Drought in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Quaternary Science Reviews 30(23-24): 3269-3279.
149
Knoll, Michelle K. 2003 Prehistoric Timberline Adaptations in the Eastern Uinta Mountains, Utah. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo Utah.
Koening, Orrin R. 2010 Does This Hearth Have a Home? A Hearth-Centered Spatial Analysis. Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, Laramie Wyoming.
Kornfeld, Marcel, George C. Frison, and Mary Lou Larson 2010 Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of the High Plains and Rockies. 3rd ed. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.
Kornfeld, Marcel, Mary Lou Larson, David J. Rapson, and George C. Frison 2001 10,000 Years in the Rocky Mountains: The Helen Lookingbill Site. Journal of Field Archaeology 28(3):307-324.
LaMarche, Valmore C. 1974 Paleoclimatic Inferences from Long Tree-Ring Records. Science 183(4129):1043-1048.
Lamb, Sydney 1958 Lingusitic Prehistory in the Great Basin. International Journal of American Linguistics 24(2):95-100.
Larson, Mary Lou, and Marcel Kornfeld 1994 Betwixt and Between the Basin and the Plains: The Limits of Numic Expansion. In Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa, edited by David B. Madsen and David Rhode, pp. 200-209. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Lawton, W H, Philip J Wilke, Mary DeDecker, and Willam M Mason 1976 Agriculture Among the Paiute of Owens Valley. Journal of California Anthropology 3(1):13-50.
Lepofsky, Dana, and Sandra L Peacock 2004 A Question of Intensity: Exploring the Role of Plant Foods in the Northern Plateau Prehistory. In Complex Hunter-gatherers: Evolution and Orginization of Prehistoric Communities on the Plateau of Northwestern North America, edited by William C. Prentiss and Ian Kuijt, pp. 115-139. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
150
Lerner, Harry, Xiangdong Du, Andre Costopoulos, and Martin Ostoja-Starzewski 2007 Lithic Raw Material Physical Properties and Use-Wear Accrual. Journal of Archaeological Science 34(5):711-722.
Lindeboom, N., Chang, P.R., Tyler, R.T. 2004. Analytical, Biochemical and Physicochemical Aspects of Starch Granule Size, with Emphasis on Small Granule Starches: A Review. Starch/Stärke 56:89- 99.
Lindstrom, Susan 1990 Submerged Tree Stumps as Indicators of Mid-Holocene Aridity in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 12(2).
Lloyd, Robert M., and Mitchell Sheppard 1973 A Flora of the White Mountains, Califronia and Nevada. University of California Press.
Losey, Ashley 2013 Risk and Climate at High Eleveation: A Z-Score Model Case Study for Prehistoric Human Occupation of Wyoming’s Wind River Range. Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Utah State University, Logan Utah.
Louderback, Lisbeth 2014 The Ecology of Human Diets During the Holocene at North Creek Shelter, Utah. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle.
Lubinski, Patrick M. 2000 Of Bison and Lesser Mammals: Prehistoric Hunting Patterns in the Wyoming Basin. In Intermountain Archaeology, edited by David B. Madsen and Michael D. Metcalfe, pp. 176-185. University of Utah Anthropological Papers Number 122, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Infinity Analyze 2015 (version 15-SCI-01) Lumenera Corporation Ottawa, Ontario.
MacArthur, Robert H., and Eric R. Pianka 1966 On Optimal Use of a Patchy Environment. The American Naturalist 100(916):603-609.
Makinen, Tina M. 2007 Human Cold Exposure, Adaptation, and Preformance in HighLlatitude Environments. American Journal of Human Biology 19(2):155-165.
151
Mann, Michael 2002 Little Ice Age. In Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change, edited by M.C. McCracken and J.S. Perry, pp.504-509. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New York.
McGuire, Kelly R., and Brian W. Hatoff 1991 A Prehistoric Bighorn Sheep Drive Complex, Clan Alpine Mountains, Central Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(1):95- 109.
McGuire, Kelly R., and William R. Hildebrandt 2005 Re-Thinking Great Basin Foragers, Prestige Hunting and Costly Signaling During the Middle Archaic Period. American Antiquity 70(4):695-712.
Mensing, S., J. Korfmacher, T. Minckley, and R. Musselman 2012 A 15,000 Year Record of Vegetation and Climate Change from a Treeline Lake in The Rocky Mountains, Wyoming, USA. The Holocene 22:739-748.
Mensing, Scott a, Larry V Benson, Michaele Kashgarian, and Steve Lund 2004 A Holocene Pollen Record of Persistent Droughts from Pyramid Lake, Nevada, USA. Quaternary Research 62(1):29-38.
Mensing, Scott a., Saxon E. Sharpe, Irene Tunno, Don W. Sada, Jim M. Thomas, Scott Starratt, and Jeremy Smith 2013 The Late Holocene Dry Period: Multiproxy Evidence for an Extended Drought Between 2800 and 1850 cal yr BP Across the Central Great Basin, USA. Quaternary Science Reviews 78:266-282.
Metcalfe, Michael D. 1987 Contributions to the Prehistoric Chronology of the Wyoming Basin. In Perspectives on Archaeological Resources Management in the “Great Plains,” edited by A.J. Osborn and C. Hassler, pp. 233-261. Omaha I and O Publishing Company.
Metcalfe, Michael D., and Renee K. Barlow 1994 A Model for Exploring the Optimal Trade-off Between Field Processing and Transport. American Anthropologist 34:340-356.
Morgan, Christopher T. 2006 Late Prehistoric Territorial Expansion and Maintenance in the South- Central Sierra Nevada, California. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
152
Morgan, Christopher T., Robert L. Bettinger, and Mark Giambastiani 2014b Aboriginal Alpine Ceremonialism in the White Mountains, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 34(2):161-179.
Morgan, Christopher T., Jacob L. Fisher, and Monique Pomerleau 2012c High-Altitude Intensification and Settlement in Utah’s Pahvant Range. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 32(1):27-45.
Morgan, Christopher T., David C. Harvey, and Lukas Trout 2016 Obsidian Conveyance and Late Prehistoric Hunter-Gathere Mobility as Seen from the High Wind River Range, Western Wyoming. Plains Anthropologist in press.
Morgan, Christopher T., Ashley Losey, and Lukas Trout 2014a Late-Holocene Paleoclimate and Treeline Fluctuation in Wyoming’s Wind River Range, USA. The Holocene 24:209-219.
Morgan, Christopher T., Ashley Losey, and Richard Adams 2012a High-Altitude Hunter-Gatherer Residential Occupations in Wyoming’s Wind River Range. North American Archaeologist 33(1):35-79.
Morgan, Christopher T., and Monique Pomerleau 2012b New Evidence for Extreme and Persistent Terminal Medieval Drought in California’s Sierra Nevada. Journal of Paleoliminology 47(4):707-713.
Morgan, Christopher T., Mark Giambastiani, Robert Bettinger, Marielle Black, and Amanda Rankin 2015 Environmental Limitations, Alpine Villages and Logistical Strategies in the Northern White Mountains. Paper presented for the 80th Annual Meeting for the Society for American Archaeology San Francisco, California.
Mutke, Sven, Javier Gordo, and Luis Gil 2005 Variability of Mediterranean Stone Pine Cone Production: Yield Loss as Response to Climate Change. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 132(3-4):263- 272.
Nash, Robert B. 2012 The Role of Maize in Low-Level Food Production Among Northern Peripheral Fremont Groups in the Northeastern Uinta Mountains of Utah. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California Davis.
Nelson, Clemens A., Clarence A. Jr. Hall, and W. G. Ernst 1991 Geologic History of the White-Inyo Range. In Natural History of the White- Inyo Range: Eastern California, edited by Clarence A. Hall, Jr., pp. 42-55. University of California Press, Berkley and Los Angeles. 153
Neme, Gustavo 2016 El Indigino and High-Altitude Human Occupation in the Southern Andes. Latin American Antiquity in press.
Ogle, D., L. John, and T. Jones 2013 Plant Guide for Indian Ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides). USDA- Natural Resources Conservation Service, Aberdeen Plant Materials Center, Aberdeen.
Ogle, D.G., D. Tilley, and L. St. John 2012 Plant Guide for Basin Rye (Leymus cinereus). USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Aberdeen Plant Materials Center, Aberdeen.
Perry, Linda 2010 Starch Extraction Protocol.
Piperno, Dolores R. 2009 Identifying Crop Plants With Phytoliths (and Starch Grains) In Central and South America: A Review and an Update of The Evidence. Quaternary International 193:146-159.
Prouty, Guy Lee 1995 Root and Tubers: Prehistoric Plant Use, Settlement and Subsistence Intesification, and Storage in the Fort Rock Basin, Northern Great Basin, Oregon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene.
Redmond, Miranda, Frank Forcella, and Nichole Barger 2012 Declines in Pinyon Pine Cone Production Associated with Regional Warming. Ecosphere 3(12): art120.
Reed, Robert M 1976 Coniferous Forest Habitat Types of the Wind River Mountains, Wyoming. The American Midland Naturalist 95(1):159-173.
Reichert, E.T. 1913. The Differentiation and Specificity of Starches in Relation to Genera, Species, etc., Carnegie Institute, Washington DC.
154
Rhode, David 2010 Food Values and Return Rates for Limber Pine (Pinus flexilis). Paper presented at the 32nd Great Basin Conference, Layton, Utah.
2014 Starch-Grain Study In, Cultural Resources Investigations for the Ruby Pipeline Project in Nevada, Volume II: Prehistory of Nevada’s Northern Tier: Results of the Data Recovery Program, by William Hildebrandt, Kelly McGuire, Jerome King, Allika Ruby, and D. Craig Young. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Davis CA, for US Bureau of Land Management.
Rhode, David, and David B. Madsen 1998 Pine Nut Use in the Early Holocene and Beyond: The Danger Cave Archaeobotanical Record. Journal of Archaeological Science (25):1199-1210.
Rhode, David and Allise A. Rhode 2015 Energetic Return Rates from Limber Pine Seeds. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 35(2): 291-304
Rhode, David, David Schmitt, D Page, J Feathers, and R Quist 2011 Starch Grains, Luminescence Dates, and Bunny Bones from FCR Features at 42To567, Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. Poster presented at the Society for American Archaeology Annual Meeting, Sacramento, CA.
Rumold, Claudia Ursula 2010 Illuminating Women’s Work and the Advent of Plant Cultivation in the Highland Titicaca Basin of South America: New Evidence from Grinding Tool and Starch Grain Analyses. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Scharf, Elizabeth A. 2009 Foraging and Prehistoric Use of High Elevations in the Western Great Basin: Evidence from Seed Assemblages at Midway (CA-MNO-2196), California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 29(1):11-27.
Scheiber, Laura L., and Judson Byrd Finley 2010 Mountain Shoshone Technological Transitions Across the Great Divide. In Across a Great Divide: Change and Continuity in Native North America, 1400- 1900, edited by Laura L. Scheiber and Mark D. Mitchell, pp. 128-148. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
155
Schiffer, Michael B. 1986 Radiocarbon Dating and the “Old Wood” Problem: The Case of the Hohokam Chronology Journal of Archaeological Science 13(1):13-30.
1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Scholze, Gary J., 2011 The Application of Starch Grain Analysis to Late Prehistorice Subsistence in Northeastern California. Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Califronia State University, Sacramento.
Shimkin, Demitri B. 1986 Eastern Shoshone. In Handbook of North American Indians - Volume 11 Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D’Azevedo, pp. 308-335. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Shimkin, Demitri B. 1999 Before the Wilderness: Native Peoples and Yellowstone. In Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks, pp. 41-54. Oxford University Press, New York.
Simms, Steven R. 1987 Behavioral Ecology and Hunter-Gatherer Foraging: An Example from the Great Basin. Oxford, England.
Simms, Steven R. 2008 Ancient People of the Gret Basin and Colorado Plateau. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, Ca.
Smith, Craig S, and Lance M. McNees 1999 Facilities and Hunter-Gatherer Long -Term Land Use Patterns: An Example from Southwest Wyoming. American Antiquity 64(1):117-136.
Smith, Craig S., and Lance M. McNees 2005 Cymopterus bulbosus and Prehistoric Foragers: Patch Size, Plant Density, and Return Rates. Journal of Ethnobiology 25(1):1-23.
Smith, Craig S., and Lance M. McNees 2011 Persistent Land Use Patterns and the Mid-Holocene Housepits of Wyoming. Journal of Field Archaeology 36:298-311.
156
Spira, Timothy P. 1991 Plant Zones. In Natural History of the White-Inyo Range: Eastern California, edited by Clarence A. Hall, Jr. pp. 77-243. University of California Press, Berkley and Los Angeles.
Stevens, Nathan E. 2005 Changes in Prehistoric Land Use in the Alpine Sierra Nevada: A Regional Exploration Using Temperature-Adjusted Obsidian Hydration Rates. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 25(2):187-206.
Steward, Julian H. 1933 Ethnography of the Owens Valley Paiute. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 33(3):233-250.
1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Smithsonian Institutin Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 120,Washington D.C.
Stine, Scott 1994 Extreme and Persistent Drought in California and Patagonia During Medieval Time. Nature 369:546-549.
Sutton, Mark Q. 1994 The Numic Expansion as Seen from the Mojave Desert. In Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa, edited by David B. Madsen and David Rhode. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Thomas, David H. 1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal f California and Great Basin Anthropology 3:7-43.
1982 The 1981 Alta Toquima Village Project: A Preliminary Report. Desert Research Institue and American Museum of Natural History
1983 The Archaeology of Monitor Valley 2. Gatecliff Shelter. Anthropological Papers Vol. 59, Pt. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York.
1994 Chronology and the Numic Expansion. In Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa, edited by David B. Madsen and David Rhode, pp. 56-61. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
2015 Alpine Adaptive and Paleoenvironmental Change at Alta Toquima (Central Nevada). From The 80th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, San Francisco.
157
Thoms, Alston Vern 1989 The Northern Roots of Hunter-Gatherer Intesification: Camas and the Pacific Northwest. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Tilley, D. 2012 Plant Guide for Hardstem Bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus). Aberdeen, ID.
Trout, W. Lukas 2015 Subsistence, Mobility, and Intensity of Residential Site Use: Results of Flaked Stone Analysis at High Rise Village. Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.
Walsh, Kevin 2005 Risk and Marginality at High Altitudes: New Interpretations From Fieldwork on The Faravel Plateau, Hautes-Alpes 79(May 2004):289-305.
Wandsnider, LuAnn, and Yi-Shing Chung 2003 Islands of Geophytes: Sego Lilies and Wild Onion Patch Density in the High Plains Habitat. In Islands on the Plains: Ecological, Social, and Ritual Use of Landscapes, edited by Marcel Kornfeld and Alan J. Osborn. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Warren, Claude N. 1984 The Dessert Region. In California Archaeology, edited by Michael Morratto, pp. 339-430. Academic Press, Inc.
Warren, Claude. N., and R. H. Crabtree 1972 The Prehistory of the Southwestern Great Basin. In Handbook of North American Indians-Volume 11 Great Basin. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Watkins, Robyn 2000 Site 42DC823: Evidence for High Elevation Foraging in the Uinta Mountains. Utah Archaeology 12(1):45-51.
Weninger, Bernhard, and Olaf Jöris 2008 A 14C Age Calibration Curve For the Last 60 ka: The Greenland-Hulu U/Th Timescale and Its Impact on Understanding the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in Western Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55(5):772-781.
Weninger, Bernhard, Olaf Jöris and Uwe Danzeglocke 2015 CalPal-2007. Cologne Radiocarbon Calibration and Palaeoclimate Research Package. Available at http://www.calpal-online.de/, accessed April 10, 2015.
158
Whitlock, Cathy, Mel A. Reasoner, and Carl H. Key 2002 Paleoenvironmental History of the Rocky Mountain Region During the Last 20,000 Years. In Rocky Mountain Futures: An Ecological Perspective, edited by Jill S. Baron. Island Press, Washington D.C.
Wigand, Peter E., and David Rhode 2002 Great Basin Vegitation History and Aquatic Systems: The Last 150,000 Years. In Great Basin Aquatic Systems History, edited by R Hershler, David B. Madsen, and D.R. Currey.
Wright, Gary A., Susan Bender, and Stuart Reeve 1980 High Country Adaptations. Plains Anthropologist 25(89):181-197.
159
Appendix A
Starch Analysis Definitions and Basic Terminology (from Perry 2010)
Starch grain / granule – a semi-crystalline ergastic substance formed in amyloplasts via the layering of amylose and amylopectin carbohydrate molecules around a central point (Fahn 1990, Esau 1977).
Simple starch grain – grains that form singly (Fahn 1990)
Compound starch grain – grains that form in aggregates, or grains that have more than one center of formation within a single amyloplast (Fahn 1990)
Aggregates / Clumps – groupings of starch granules (Fahn 1990, Lindeboom et al. 2004)
Terms for defining assemblages of starch grains
Diagnostic – describing a set of morphological features that is unique to a plant taxon and allows identification of that form. Can refer to both a single "type" grain and to an assemblage (Reichert 1913)
Characteristic – describing a set of morphological features that are typical of a taxonomic group or plant organ, but that do not necessarily allow for a secure identification (sensu Reichert 1913)
Isomorphic – all of the grains from the species have the same general shape
Heteromorphic – the starches from the species have a variety of shapes
Shape
When at all possible, a three-dimensional term should be used to describe the basic morphology of a starch grain. When not possible, two-dimensional terms may be used to describe the shape in plan view and in profile, or they may be used to augment a three- dimensional description.
Two-Dimensional Terms
Circular – appearing as a circle in which all radii are of equal length
Ovate– having a rounded and slightly elongated outline 160
Semicircular – part of a circle or oval
Square – having four equal sides
Rectangular – having four sides with opposite sides parallel and of equal length
Reniform – kidney-shaped (Reichert 1913)
Trapezoidal – having four sides, one pair of which are parallel
Polygon – having more than four sides; note number of sides in description
Triangular – having three well-defined sides
Three-dimensional terms
Spherical – a sphere in which all radii are equal length (defined in Reichert 1913, used in Lindeboom et al. 2004)
Hemispherical – half a sphere (Reichert 1913)
Ovoid – egg-shaped, one end smaller than the other (Reichert 1913)
Ellipsoid – ovoid with both ends equal in size (Jane 1994)
Pyriform – shaped like a pear (Reichert 1913)
Cylindrical – having a circular base and top, both of equivalent size (Reichert 1913)
Conical – having a flat circular base and tapering to a pointed top (Reichert 1913)
Conoid – one half of the grain is conical (two straight suB.P.arallel sides), while the other is ovoid or hemispherical. Differs from conical in that the base is ovoid, not a flat circle.
Lenticular – bi-convex (Reichert 1913)
Reniform – kidney-shaped (Reichert 1913)
Prismatic – any three dimensional shape that has two equivalent two-dimensional faces on opposite ends and a parallel axis between the faces, e.g., a cylinder (Reichert 1913)
161
Polyhedral – having many faces that are not necessarily of the same two-dimensional shape (Reichert 1913)
Terms to use with basic three-dimensional descriptors
Angular – having acute angles where sides meet (Reichert 1913)
Compressed/Flattened – having a smaller dimension in one plane than in another (Reichert 1913)
Rounded off – having smooth corners (Reichert 1913)
Sharp-edged – having angular corners (Reichert 1913)
Areas of the Starch Grain and Features
Details of the starch grain including the hilum, cross, lamellae, fissures, and surface features should be described in detail. The area of the grain in which these features occur should be specified in the description.
Areas
Margin / Outline – the edge of the grain in any view (Reichert 1913)
Proximal – in the end of the grain where an eccentric hilum occurs (Reichert 1913)
Mesial – referring to the central part of the grain (Reichert 1913)
Distal – in the end of the grain away from the eccentric hilum (Reichert 1913)
Features
Hilum – The central point around which the layers of a starch grain form (Fahn 1990, Esau 1977) Descriptors of hila follow:
Centric/Eccentric – occurs within or outside of the geometric center of the grain (Reichert 1913, Fahn 1990)
Distinct/Indistinct – can be seen easily or has less clarity (Reichert 1913)
Open: containing a vacuole
162
Extinction Cross – an optical interference pattern that occurs when objects that form with layers, such as starch grains, are viewed using cross-polarized light. Descriptors for the cross follow: Centric/Eccentric – in or outside of the geometric center of the grain (Reichert 1913)
Symmetric/Asymmetric – having similarity in corresponding components of the cross, or having lack of similarity
Lines Thick/Thin – width of cross arms (Reichert 1913)
Lines Straight/Curved – extending in one direction or bending (Reichert 1913)
Confused – distorted from a distinct X form, often by interference from fissures (Reichert 1913)
Ragged/Clean Cut – irregular and jagged or regular and well-defined (Reichert
Quadrants – the areas between the dark lines of the figure (Reichert 1913)
Length of arms – short, long, etc.
Degree of Polarization – a somewhat subjective assessment of the prominence of the cross. Described as Low, Fair, High, Very High etc. (Reichert 1913)
Cracks / Fissures – fissure lines in a starch grain, frequently emanating from the hilum, and often due to pressure between grains as they form within the plant (Reichert 1913). Descriptors of cracks as related to hilum position follow:
Branching – having subdivisions of the main fissure, often Lateral (Reichert 1913)
Perpendicular – at a right angle to the plane of the hilum (Reichert 1913)
Parallel – in the same plane and equidistant along the line of the hilum (Reichert 1913)
Stellate – star-shaped (Reichert 1913)
Transverse – extending at a right angle to the long axis of the grain (Reichert 1913)
Longitudinal – extending along the long axis of the grain (Reichert 1913)
163
Lamellae – growth layers of a starch grain (Reichert 1913). Descriptors of lamellae follow:
Concentric/Eccentric – lamellae of uniform or of non-uniform thickness (Reichert 1913)
Distinct/Indistinct – clearly or not clearly defined (Reichert 1913) Coarse /Fine – wide or narrow lines (Reichert 1913)
Surface descriptions
Knobby – having rounded projections (Reichert 1913)
Rough – coarse in texture (Reichert 1913)
Smooth – having a surface free from irregularities (Reichert 1913)
Granular – appearing to be covered with small particles (Reichert 1913)
Projections – areas that extend beyond the main surface of the grain (Reichert 1913)
Depressions – indentations not necessarily due to formation in compound grains (Reichert 1913)
Indentations – depressions that are larger than Depressions (Reichert 1913)
Wrinkled – having many irregular shallow fissures (Reichert 1913)
Modified starch terms: descriptions of damage to starches
Fragment – a part of an entire grain (Babot 2003)
Crack – a fissure in the grain resulting from processing. The area of the grain in which crack occurs should be specified, e.g., surface, interior, margin, etc.
Fractured – when the fissures dividing a grain are so complete that portions of the grain are removed.
164
Appendix B
Table B- 1. High Rise Village Ground Stone and Use-Wear Analysis
Co
T
Fr
Accession Accession
Material Material
Surfaces SWEAR Star
Number
Ground Ground
STEXT
WRLV
L
WRTP
hickness
SCOV SCON
STRK W
Form
T
agment
mplete
ength
ype
idth
ches
/
FR5891- No Data 2 N 1167 FR5891- Co Basalt Hand- 2 complete heavy convex smooth smooth all over reciprocal Y 13 9 3.5 15199 stone (S-1) FR5891- Co Basalt Hand- 2 complete heavy flat smooth sheen on highs abrasion reciprocal Y 13 9 3.5 15199 stone and lows and (S-2) flatten- ed grains FR5891- Co Basalt Hand- 1 complete moderate flat medium/ smooth spots on crushing indefinite Y 10 8 5.5 1562 stone smooth highs of grains and sheen FR5891- Fr Quartzite Milling- 1 light flat medium highs only rounded indefinite Y 19 11 5 1762 slab surface of grains 165
Co
T
Fr
Accession Accession
Material Material
Surfaces SWEAR Star
Number
Ground Ground
STEXT
WRLV
L
WRTP
hickness
SCOV SCON
STRK W
Form
T
agment
mplete
ength
ype
idth
ches
/
FR5891- Co Granitic Hand- 3 battered course convex medium light with sheen battered indefinite Y 17 6 3 1788 stone/- end and with at tip pestle two pecking smooth surfaces not ground FR5891- Fr Quartzite Milling- 1 complete medium flat smooth at high points abrasion reciprocal N 21 12 3.5 1923 slab edge at high only and and to points abrasion sheen edge
FR5891- Fr Quartzite Milling- 1 indefinite high in flat medium smooth spots sheen indefinite Y 21 12 3.5 1954 slab center and and very worn smooth in only in center but only center on high spots on edges FR5891- Fr Quartzite Hand- 1 light flat smooth highs only some indefinite N 8 6 4 1990 stone edge- with sheen edge small and striations crushing
FR5891- Fr Quartzite Milling- 1 complete moderate flat smooth highs only rounded reciprocal N 19 15 5 1996 slab with grains pecking and some sheen 166
Co
T
Fr
Accession Accession
Material Material
Surfaces SWEAR Star
Number
Ground Ground
STEXT
WRLV
L
WRTP
hickness
SCOV SCON
STRK W
Form
T
agment
mplete
ength
ype
idth
ches
/
FR5891- Fr Quartzite Milling- 1 complete heavy flat all fine highs and lows large indefinite Y 8 5.5 3 2077 slab over crushing areas of sheen
FR5891- Fr Quartzite Milling- 2 side 1: side: side 1: side 1: flattened abrasion reciprocal Y 13 4.5 3.5 2099 slab heavy flat all fine with and crushed and Side 2: over pecking grains 2:highs large medium side 2: side 2: only areas of flat all medium sheen over FR5891- Fr Quartzite Milling- 1 indefinite light flat course Highs only with rounded indefinite N 18 19 2 2147 slab sheen grains and fatigue wear FR5891- Co Quartzite Milling- 1 complete heavy flat Re- smooth on highs abrasion indefinite N 15 13 3 2157 slab sharpene only and d sheen (pecked) worn FR5891- Fr Quartzite Milling- 1 indefinite light flat course light and only fatigue indefinite N 9 8 3.5 2171 slab edge- on highs on some to- grains, edge light 167
Co
T
Fr
Accession Accession
Material Material
Surfaces SWEAR Star
Number
Ground Ground
STEXT
WRLV
L
WRTP
hickness
SCOV SCON
STRK W
Form
T
agment
mplete
ength
ype
idth
ches
/
FR5891- Fr Quartzite Milling- 2 side 1: Side 1: side 1: side 1: highs rounded indefinite N 6 5 3.5 2266 slab moderate flat medium only side 2: grains side 2: side 2: side 2: smooth with heavy flat in fine sheen places but the surface was spalled FR5891- Fr Quartzite Milling- 1 complete medium flat medium highs only some indefinite YES 15 6.5 4 2273 slab crushing or fatigue
FR5891- Fr Quartzite Hand- 1 complete heavy flat medium/ smooth spots some indefinite YES 6.5 4 2.5 2276 stone edge- smooth highs only crushing edge and sheen
168
Appendix C
Table C- 1. White Mountain Ground Stone and Use-Wear Analysis
Ground
/Fragment
Ground
Thickness
Accession Accession
Complete
Material Material
Surfaces SWEAR Starches
Number
Ground Ground
STEXT
WRLV
Length
WRTP
SCOV SCON
STRK Wid
Form
type
th
Th
L
382- Milling- Com- slightly highs Co Granitic 1 medium medium IND N 54 52 5 10155 slab plete concave only side 1: Side 1: Side 1: sheen and side 1: 382- Milling- Com- heavy concave pecking sheen Fr Metased 2 IND Y 36 29 9 1056 slab plete side 2: side 2: side 2: on and light flat small spot pecking of sheen side 1: com- side 1: smooth 382- Metased Milling- plete concave Fr 2 medium with IND Y 25 14 10 16 15 11269 or FGV slab side 2: side 2: pecking only in flat center smooth 382- Milling- Com- flat and Fr Granitic 1 medium medium on highs IND Y 58 39 12 11270 slab plete slanted only concave smooth 382- Milling- only in some Co Granitic 1 medium and medium at high IND Y 39 19 19 11271 slab center sheen slanted points smooth 382- Milling- only in Fr Granitic 2 heavy concave with sheen sheen IND Y 25 20 9 13 11 12317 slab center pecking 169
smooth smooth all over 382- Milling- only in Fr Granitic 1 heavy concave with with IND Y 36 27 9 21 18 14161 slab center pecking polish in center Sandston smooth 382- Milling- only in only Fr e/ 1 heavy slanted with IND N 15 11 5 14698 slab center highs Quartzite pecking flat and 382- Comp Limeston Milling- on one concave 1 medium course pecking IND Y 54 28 10 28 12 14801 lete e slab corner in one place small high 382- Milling- patch Co Quartzite 1 medium flat smooth points IND Y 37 17 11 1628 slab es of only sheen smooth on high 382- Milling- Com- Fr Granitic 1 medium flat medium points IND Y 39 20 12 16347 slab plete with pecking smooth 382- Milling- Com- flat/slop abrasi Co Quartzite 1 medium smooth on high IND Y 38 20 9 2045 slab plete ed on points Fine- 382- grained Milling- only in highs Fr 1 medium concave medium IND Y 31 15 8 16 6 9218 but slab center only granitic only 382- Milling- Com- ground at high 6. Fr FGV 1 light slanted IND Y 17 12 9275 slab plete high points 5 points in 382- Milling- Co Granitic 1 center medium concave medium sheen IND Y 38 29 10 12 12 9430 slab only
170
Appendix D
Table D- 1. High Rise Village Starch Residue Analysis
Hilum Position
Hilum Length
Group Type Group
Hilum Type
Grain Type Grain
Extinction Extinction
2 3
Accession Accession
Lamellae
Number
Fissures
- -
Surface
Spec. N Spec.
Length
Width Shape D Shape D
Cross
Spherical
Circular
Simple FR5891- longitudinal symmetrical 01 17.32 17.04 8.98 closed centric concentric no Type S3 15199 S1 at margin and straight
Spherical
Angular
Simple FR5891- branching at 02 15.74 21.65 12.31 open centric no no ragged Type Z 15199 S2 hilum
Polyhedral
Faceted
Simple FR5891- slightly transverse at 01 18.6 15.76 7.37 closed no no ragged Type Z 1562 eccentric hilum
Polyhedral
Facet
Simple FR5891- transverse at 02 14.95 18.25 8.95 closed centric no rough ragged Type Z 1562 ed hilum
Facet
Broken
Simple FR5891- depression Broken 01 11.49 na na open centric no no straight 1762 ed at hilum G1/G2
171
Hilum Position
Hilum Length
Group Type Group
Hilum Type
Grain Type Grain
Extinction Extinction
2 3
Accession Accession
Lamellae
Number
Fissures
- -
Surface
Spec. N Spec.
Length
Width Shape D Shape D
Cross
Polyhedral
Faceted
Simple FR5891- open/ depression Broken 02 17.18 23.32 9.15 centric no no straight 1762 broken at hilum G1/G2
Circular Simple slightly FR5891- Na Type
01 24.61 23.96 14.5 closed centric no no no curved at 1788 G1/2
margin
Circular Simple slightly FR5891- Na slightly Type
02 16.63 15.20 10.85 closed no no no curved at 1788 eccentric G1/2
margin
Circular
Simple
FR5891- Na longitudinal Type
03 16.93 17.38 10.37 open eccentric no no do not meet 1788 at hilum G1/2
with one with
Circular Circular
Simple
facet asymmetrica FR5891- Na transverse at
04 22.45 23.64 11.148 closed centric no no l and Type G2
1788 hilum straight 172
Hilum Position
Hilum Length
Group Type Group
Hilum Type
Grain Type Grain
Extinction Extinction
2 3
Accession Accession
Lamellae
Number
Fissures
- -
Surface
Spec. N Spec.
Length
Width Shape D Shape D
Cross
Polyhedral
Faceted
Simple FR5891- depression ragged and 01 14.8 18.48 7.98 closed centric no no Type Z 1954 at hilum do not meet
Circular
Simple
FR5891- Na symmetrical Type
01 13.84 13.79 8.46 open centric no no no 2077 and straight G1/2
Spherical
Circular Simple slightly FR5891- depression 02 19.12 21.61 9.95 open centric no no asymmetrica Type G1 2077 at hilum
l
Circular Simple round FR5891- Na curved at
01 14.33 15.19 8.73 open centric no no depression Type Z 2099 margin
at hilum 173
Hilum Position
Hilum Length
Group Type Group
Hilum Type
Grain Type Grain
Extinction Extinction
2 3
Accession Accession
Lamellae
Number
Fissures
- -
Surface
Spec. N Spec.
Length
Width Shape D Shape D
Cross
Polyhedral
Faceted
Simple FR5891- curved at Broken 02 14.11 13.45 6.62 open centric no no no 2099 margin G1/G2
Faceted
Simple
FR5891- Na depression symmetrical
01 12.57 12.29 6.43 closed centric no no Type G2 2273 at hilum and straight
Circular Circular
Spherical
one facet one
Simple FR5891- depression 02 17.6 14.49 11.34 open eccentric no no straight Type G2 2273 at hilum
w/
FR5891- 01 Broken 2276
174
Appendix E
Table E- 1. White Mountain Starch Residue Table Measurements by Site
Hilum Accession Number Specimen Number Length Width Length 382-1056 01 11.06 8.48 8.25 382-1056 02 10.8 7.42 6.56 382-1056 03 18.06 16.26 10.19 382-1056 04 16.59 13.9 9.89 382-1056 05 9.82 7.85 5.86 382-1056 06 11.97 13.66 6.72 382-1056 07 9.54 7.59 5.03 382-1056 08 28.22 31.05 15.13 382-1056 09 11.27 9.76 6.56 382-11269 01 13.10 11.28 6.32 382-11270 01 13.73 9.39 8.64 382-11270 02 11.41 8.02 7.57 382-11270 03 11.49 9.12 6.38 382-11270 04 11.06 7.38 6.32 382-11270 05 9.15 8.02 5.42 382-11270 06 9.34 6.72 6.11 382-11270 07 11.31 7.74 7.82 382-11270 08 9.62 7.61 4.68 382-11270 09 7.0 6.5 4.85 382-11270 10 11.35 7.74 7.38 382-11270 11 12.64 9.54 8.68 382-11270 12 13.04 11.78 7.85 382-11270 13 12.17 9.15 8.09 382-11270 14 10.19 6.29 6.75 382-11270 15 7.74 6.81 5.92 382-11270 16 8.78 8.89 4.85 382-11270 17 9.02 7.18 6.47 382-11270 18 8.05 8.28 3.02 382-11270 19 14.11 9.44 9.78 382-11270 20 12.45 9.78 5.65 382-11270 21 7.54 5.95 4.17 382-11270 22 8.94 7.38 4.52 175
Hilum Accession Number Specimen Number Length Width Length 382-11270 23 7.11 5.65 4.39 382-11270 24 12.94 12.15 7.06 382-11270 25 7.0 6.21 4.33 382-11270 26 11.15 9.11 6.63 382-11270 27 13.88 9.39 8.91 382-11270 28 13.87 5.63 8.91 382-11270 29 10.15 7.27 6.05 382-11270 30 17.95 18.68 9.99 382-11270 31 8.37 7.18 5.59 382-11270 32 12.13 11.45 5.63 382-11270 33 12.94 10.73 6.58 382-11270 34 15.36 9.46 9.44 382-11270 35 11.34 11.11 5.78 382-11270 36 17.7 11.08 8.91 382-11270 37 12.13 8.23 7.76 382-11270 38 14.49 7.69 10.28 382-11270 39 8.18 7.08 4.39 382-11270 40 11.16 10.97 4.94 382-11270 41 10.15 10.84 5.07 382-11270 42 11.74 8.16 6.29 382-11270 43 9.02 7.06 4.39 382-11270 44 13.87 14.87 7.52 382-11270 45 6.62 7.96 3.49 382-11270 46 15.18 9.98 10.44 382-11270 47 10.97 12.42 NA 382-11270 48 12.72 8.84 7.76 382-11270 49 10.94 11.06 4.95 382-11270 50 13.54 8.42 9.22 382-11270 51 9.99 7.58 4.33 382-11270 52 8.44 5.55 5.53 382-11270 53 9.74 7.47 7.29 382-11270 54 10.47 11.69 4.94 382-11270 55 14.36 13.28 7.31 382-11270 56 17.18 8.58 9.5 382-11270 57 13.78 10.21 5.35 382-11270 58 11.57 10.19 6.47 382-11270 59 9.95 7.74 5.46 382-11270 60 8.09 6.89 4.94 382-11270 61 12.41 8.84 7.48 176
Hilum Accession Number Specimen Number Length Width Length 382-11270 62 8.05 6.72 3.47 382-11270 63 10.49 6.75 6.95 382-11270 64 11.52 8.18 6.02 382-11270 65 7.06 7.82 3.26 382-11270 66 9.02 9.15 4.56 382-11270 67 9.82 6.5 4.99 382-11270 68 15.22 10.41 9.62 382-11270 69 382-11270 70 10.7 8.48 5.78 382-11270 71 8.89 7.83 3.92 382-11270 72 9.74 9.76 5.9 382-11271 01 18.24 20.71 9.41 382-11271 02 17.3 14.96 9.27 382-11271 03 14.32 13.55 7.23 382-11271 04 13.92 13.19 8.15 382-11271 05 5.59 9.89 7.0 382-11271 06 15.87 16.42 8.23 382-12317 01 9.21 7.82 4.93 382-12317 02 96.48 65.72 NA 382-14161 01 9.15 7.59 5.63 382-14801 01 7.66 9.6 4.94 382-14801 02 5.22 6.07 1.96 382-14801 03 11.27 9.58 5.53 382-1628 01 7.85 7.41 4.12 382-1628 02 20.16 20.43 10.31 382-1628 03 41.63 30.72 21.77 382-16347 01 11.35 13.78 5.89 382-16347 02 8.48 8.59 3.15 382-16347 03 10.85 11.93 8.09 382-16347 04 18.06 17.63 7.27 382-16347 05 10.64 10.25 5.89 382-16347 06 24.15 19.79 19.21 382-16347 07 20.93 17.16 8.48 382-16347 08 11.08 10.19 6.05 382-16347 09 13.23 11.51 5.92 382-16347 10 9.02 9.98 4.94 382-16347 11 8.25 9.32 5.03 382-16347 12 382-16347 13 6.95 10.21 5.53 177
Hilum Accession Number Specimen Number Length Width Length 382-16347 14 10.88 13.31 7.0 382-16347 15 9.19 9.62 4.52 382-16347 16 7.18 11.35 4.85 382-16347 17 10.44 9.11 6.52 382-16347 18 16.77 13.87 8.02 382-16347 19 15.52 13.68 9.52 382-16347 20 19.69 22.99 16.81 382-16347 21 15.9 10.64 6.72 382-16347 22 24.11 26.35 NA 382-16347 23 10.85 9.10 4.67 382-16347 24 21.29 23.74 14.73 382-16347 25 21.99 20.86 10.85 382-16347 26 NA NA NA 382-16347 27 10.84 8.48 3.99 382-16347 28 6.99 6.95 3.69 382-16347 29 12.17 10.85 5.7 382-16347 30 11.84 6.81 6.9 382-16347 31 8.52 9.39 5.21 382-16347 32 10.88 11.41 5.63 382-16347 33 5.36 5.9 3.5 382-16347 34 10.88 8.52 4.99 382-16347 35 10.01 10.84 5.2 382-2045 01 9.15 10.44 4.56 382-2045 02 14.14 14.66 8.0 382-2045 03 11.28 10.28 5.7 382-2045 04 15.74 11.16 9.82 382-2045 05 12.38 12.59 6.63 382-2045 06 13.27 10.42 8.71 382-2045 07 11.06 10.45 8.10 382-2045 08 26.07 18.0 19.75 382-2045 09 12.81 10.06 7.57 382-2045 10 15.28 11.08 11.93 382-2045 11 7.91 8.77 5.10 382-2045 12 6.94 6.08 4.36 382-2045 13 12.36 9.76 8.34 382-2045 14 20.68 19.30 14.67 382-2045 15 52.34 37.83 37.42 382-2045 16 17.0 8.59 11.38 382-2045 17 9.2 8.68 5.46 178
Hilum Accession Number Specimen Number Length Width Length 382-2045 18 8.68 6.72 6.08 382-2045 19 29.14 32.37 20.86 382-2045 20 23.63 19.08 17.48 382-2045 21 29.94 27.77 17.43 382-2045 22 12.81 10.85 7.8 382-2045 23 8.68 7.91 4.42 382-2045 24 13.19 9.55 9.22 382-2045 25 15.15 13.24 7.75 382-2045 26 15.64 12.89 6.74 382-2045 27 36.45 21.26 27.21 382-2045 28 12.38 11.72 6.05 382-2045 29 16.07 16.07 9.54 382-2045 30 24.03 18.16 15.62 382-2045 31 12.38 10.41 7.99 382-2045 32 12.42 7.68 7.29 7.41 (both 382-9218 01 7.23 3.47 12.94) 382-9275 01 9.76 9.82 6.05 382-9275 02 15.09 11.06 8.89 382-9275 03 18.22 18.43 9.54 382-9275 04 14.4 15.18 6.73 382-9275 05 24.62 26.49 11.51 382-9275 06 15.64 18.65 8.05 382-9430 01 6.29 7.37 3.26 382-9430 02 13.45 16.3 6.7 382-9430 03 8.24 9.97 4.99 382-9430 04 46.14 20.63 NA 382-9430 05 9.82 10.98 5.86 382-9430 06 6.29 6.75 3.15 382-9430 07 9.44 8.4 6.05 382-9430 08 9.6 9.3 6.04
179
Appendix F
White Mountain Starch Analysis Attributes by Site
Table F- 1. Raven Camp
Group Type Group
Hilum Type Hilum
Grain Type Grain
Extinction Extinction
2 3
Accession
Specimen Specimen
Lamellae
Number Number
Fissures
Position
- -
Surface
D Shape D Shape Hilum
Cross
circular 382- Type 02 simple with NA closed centric no no depression at hilum symmetrical 14801 S1 facets 382- branching Type 03 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no asymmetrical 14801 depression G4 382- Type 01 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no rough asymmetrical 14801 G4
Table F- 2. Rancho Deluxe
Grain Type Grain
Extinction Extinction
2 3
Accession
Specimen Specimen
Lamellae
Nu Number
Fissures
Position
- -
Surface
Group Group
D Shape D Shape Hilum Hilum
Cross
Type Type
mber
382- longitudinal Type 27 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no asymmetrical 16347 depression G4 382- symmetrical and 33 simple circular spherical closed centric no no no Type S1 16347 straight 382- longitudinal Type 32 simple faceted NA closed centric no no ragged 16347 depression G4 180
Grain Type Grain
Extinction Extinction
2 3
Accession
Specimen Specimen
Lamellae
Nu Number
Fissures
Position
- -
Surface
Group Group
D Shape D Shape Hilum Hilum
Cross
Type Type
mber
382- round depression Type 31 simple circular NA closed centric no no symmetrical 16347 at hilum G4 382- longitudinal curved and do not Type 30 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no 16347 depression meet G3 382- longitudinal Type 20 simple circular spherical closed eccentric concentric no ragged 16347 at margin G5 382- slightly depression at asymmetrical and 28 simple ovate spherical closed no no Type S1 16347 eccentric hilum do not meet 382- multiple on Type 26 simple circular spherical NA NA concentric no NA 16347 margins G5 382- symmetrical and 25 simple circular flat closed centric no no no Type S3 16347 straight 382- branching at Type 24 simple circular spherical closed eccentric concentric no curved at margin 16347 hilum G5 382- depression at Type 23 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no asymmetrical 16347 hilum G3 382- Type 22 simple circular spherical closed NA NA no no NA 16347 G5 382- depression at Type 21 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no asymmetrical 16347 hilum G4 382- branching asymmetrical and 29 simple faceted NA closed centric no no Type Z 16347 depression do not meet 382- slightly Poor 08 simple circular spherical closed no no no asymmetrical 16347 eccentric Photo 382- longitudinal asymmetrical and Type 06 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no 11270 depression curved at margin G4 382- 05 simple circular spherical closed centric no no smooth symmetrical Type S1 11270 382- longitudinal curved and do not Type 04 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no 11270 depression meet G4 382- Type 03 simple circular spherical closed centric no no no curved at margin 11270 G2 382- longitudinal asymmetrical and Type 02 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no 11270 depression ragged G3 181
Grain Type Grain
Extinction Extinction
2 3
Accession
Specimen Specimen
Lamellae
Nu Number
Fissures
Position
- -
Surface
Group Group
D Shape D Shape Hilum Hilum
Cross
Type Type
mber
382- depression at asymmetrical and Type 01 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no 11270 hilum ragged G3 382- longitudinal asymmetrical and Type 34 simple circular polyhedral closed centric no no 16347 depression straight G4 382- Poor 09 simple circular NA closed centric no no no asymmetrical 16347 Photo 382- depression at curved and wide at 35 simple circular NA closed centric no no Type S1 16347 hilum margin 382- Type 07 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no no curved at margin 16347 G5 382- Poor 05 simple faceted spherical closed centric no no no asymmetrical 16347 Photo circular 382- depression at symmetrical and 01 simple with NA closed centric no no Broken 12317 hilum straight facets 382- asymmetrical and Poor 03 simple circular spherical closed centric no no no 16347 straight Photo 382- asymmetrical and Poor 02 simple circular spherical closed centric no no no 16347 straight Photo 382- asymmetrical and Poor 01 simple circular spherical closed centric no no no 16347 straight Photo 382- slightly longitudinal curved and do not 17 simple ovate lenticular closed no no Type S1 16347 eccentric depression meet 382- Poor 10 simple faceted NA closed centric no no no asymmetrical 16347 Photo depression at can’t tell it is 382-9275 01 simple circular spherical NA centric no no Broken hilum distorted 382-9430 05 simple circular spherical closed centric no no no ragged Type S1 depression at symmetrical and 382-9430 04 compound faceted na closed centric no no Type S2 hilum straight slightly asymmetrical and Type 382-9430 03 simple circular spherical closed no no no eccentric straight G4 stellate at round depression asymmetrical and 382-9430 02 simple circular spherical open centric no Type S3 hilum at hilum do not meet 182
Grain Type Grain
Extinction Extinction
2 3
Accession
Specimen Specimen
Lamellae
Nu Number
Fissures
Position
- -
Surface
Group Group
D Shape D Shape Hilum Hilum
Cross
Type Type
mber
curved and do not 382-9430 01 simple circular spherical closed centric no no smooth Type S1 meet circular 382- slightly transverse at Type 19 simple with polyhedral closed no no ragged 16347 eccentric hilum G5 facets round depression 382-9275 02 simple faceted polyhedral closed centric no no ragged Type Z at hilum symmetrical and Broken 382-9430 08 simple faceted spherical closed eccentric no no no straight G2 circular depression at Type 382-9275 06 simple with spherical open centric no no ragged hilum G1 facets curved and do not 382-9275 05 simple circular spherical closed centric no no no Type S3 meet branching at 382-9275 04 simple angular spherical closed centric no no ragged Type Z hilum circular depression at asymmetrical and Type 382-9218 01 compound with one spherical closed centric no no hilum straight G2 facet 382- Type 01 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no no symmetrical 11269 G4 382- multiple on Type 02 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no NA 12317 margins G5 382-9275 03 simple circular spherical closed centric NA no no do not meet Type S3 382- depression at curved and do not Type 06 simple circular spherical closed centric no no 11271 hilum meet G2 382- slightly depression at slightly curved at Type 18 simple ovate polyhedral closed no no 16347 eccentric hilum margin G5 382- Type 06 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no no curved at margin 16347 G5 382- slightly depression at asymmetrical and Type 16 simple reniform lenticular closed no no 16347 eccentric hilum curved at margin G4 382- round depression Type 15 simple circular lenticular closed centric no no curved at margin 16347 at hilum G4 183
Grain Type Grain
Extinction Extinction
2 3
Accession
Specimen Specimen
Lamellae
Nu Number
Fissures
Position
- -
Surface
Group Group
D Shape D Shape Hilum Hilum
Cross
Type Type
mber
382- slightly longitudinal curved and do not Type 14 simple ovate spherical closed no no 16347 eccentric depression meet G4 382- longitudinal curved and do not 13 simple ovate lenticular closed centric no no Type S1 16347 depression meet depression at symmetrical and 382-9430 06 simple circular spherical closed centric no no Type S1 hilum straight 382- depression at asymmetrical and Type 11 simple ovate polyhedral closed centric no no 16347 hilum curved at margin G4 deep branching symmetrical and 382-9430 07 simple circular spherical open centric no no depression and or Type S3 wide at margin round depression 382- 05 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no no symmetrical Broken 11271 382- slightly depression at symmetrical and Type 04 simple circular spherical closed concentric no 11271 eccentric hilum wide at margin G5 circular 382- depression at Broken 03 simple with spherical closed centric no no ragged 11271 hilum G1/G2 facets 382- depression at 02 simple circular spherical closed centric no no do not meet Type S3 11271 hilum circular 382- stellate at depression at Type 01 simple with one spherical open centric no ragged 11271 hilum hilum G1 facet 382- longitudinal Type 07 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no curved and ragged 11270 depression G3 382- Poor 12 no no 16347 Photo 382- branching at Type 44 simple circular spherical open centric no rough symmetrical 11270 hilum G1 382- Type 36 simple ovate spherical closed centric NA no no symmetrical 11270 G5 382- depression at curved and do not Type 08 simple ovate spherical closed centric no no 11270 hilum meet G4 382- depression at Type 51 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no symmetrical 11270 hilum G4 184
Grain Type Grain
Extinction Extinction
2 3
Accession
Specimen Specimen
Lamellae
Nu Number
Fissures
Position
- -
Surface
Group Group
D Shape D Shape Hilum Hilum
Cross
Type Type
mber
382- longitudinal asymmetrical and Type 50 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no 11270 depression ragged G4 382- multiple on Type 49 simple circular spherical closed centric no rough symmetrical 11270 margins G1 382- longitudinal Type 48 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no symmetrical 11270 depression G3 382- 47 simple faceted NA NA NA NA no no NA Broken 11270 382- 04 simple circular spherical open centric no no no asymmetrical Broken 16347 382- depression at symmetrical and Type 45 simple circular spherical closed centric no no 11270 hilum curved at margin G4 branching at asymmetrical and 382- Type 55 simple circular spherical open centric no hilum and rough wide arms at 11270 G1 margin margin 382- depression at curved and do not 43 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no Type S1 11270 hilum meet 382- longitudinal Type 42 simple ovate polyhedral closed centric no no curved at margin 11270 depression G4 382- Type 41 simple circular NA closed centric no no rough curved at margin 11270 G4 382- round depression 40 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no curved at margin Type S3 11270 at hilum 382- depression at curved and do not Type 39 simple ovate polyhedral closed centric no no 11270 hilum meet G4 382- longitudinal asymmetrical and Type 38 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no 11270 depression ragged G3 382- longitudinal asymmetrical and Type 37 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no 11270 depression ragged G4 382- longitudinal asymmetrical and Type 46 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no 11270 depression straight G3 382- branching at branching Type 63 simple ovate spherical closed eccentric no symmetrical 11270 hilum depression G4 382- branching at Type 72 simple circular spherical closed centric no no asymmetrical 11270 hilum G1 185
Grain Type Grain
Extinction Extinction
2 3
Accession
Specimen Specimen
Lamellae
Nu Number
Fissures
Position
- -
Surface
Group Group
D Shape D Shape Hilum Hilum
Cross
Type Type
mber
382- transverse Type 71 simple circular spherical closed centric no no un clear 11270 depression G1 382- longitudinal Type 70 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no curved at margin 11270 depression G4 382- 69 no no Broken 11270 382- branching at asymmetrical and Type 68 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no 11270 hilum wide at margin G4 382- longitudinal Type 67 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no symmetrical 11270 depression G4 382- longitudinal Type 66 simple ovate polyhedral closed centric no no asymmetrical 11270 depression G4 382- depression at Type 53 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no curved at margin 11270 hilum G4 382- longitudinal Type 64 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no curved at margin 11270 depression G4 382- depression at Type 52 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no curved at margin 11270 hilum G4 382- 62 simple circular NA closed centric NA no no symmetrical Type S1 11270 382- longitudinal curved and do not Type 61 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no 11270 depression meet G4 382- longitudinal Type 60 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no curved at margin 11270 depression G4 382- longitudinal Type 59 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no asymmetrical 11270 depression G4 382- 58 simple circular NA closed centric no no rough symmetrical Broken 11270 382- branching at longitudinal Type 57 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no asymmetrical 11270 hilum depression G4 382- transverse at longitudinal Type 56 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no symmetrical 11270 hilum depression G4 382- depression at Type 65 simple ovate polyhedral closed centric no no symmetrical 11270 hilum G4 186
Grain Type Grain
Extinction Extinction
2 3
Accession
Specimen Specimen
Lamellae
Nu Number
Fissures
Position
- -
Surface
Group Group
D Shape D Shape Hilum Hilum
Cross
Type Type
mber
382- branching at longitudinal Type 10 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no ragged 11270 hilum depression G3 382- longitudinal asymmetrical and Type 17 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no 11270 depression straight G3 circular 382- depression at Type 16 simple with one spherical closed centric no no symmetrical 11270 hilum G2 facet 382- Type 15 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no no asymmetrical 11270 G3 circular 382- asymmetrical and 54 simple with spherical closed eccentric no no rough Type Z 11270 ragged facets 382- 35 simple circular spherical open centric no no rough symmetrical Broken 11270 382- asymmetrical and Type 14 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no no 11270 ragged G3 382- longitudinal asymmetrical and Type 13 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no 11270 depression ragged G4 382- branching Type 11 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no asymmetrical 11270 depression G4 circular 382- slightly depression at 09 simple with polyhedral closed no no asymmetrical Broken 11270 eccentric hilum facets 382- 18 simple circular spherical closed centric no no smooth asymmetrical Type S1 11270 382- transverse at longitudinal Type 19 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no asymmetrical 11270 hilum depression G4 382- slightly longitudinal curved and do not Type 20 simple ovate polyhedral closed no no 11270 eccentric depression meet G1/2 382- 21 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no smooth asymmetrical Type S1 11270 382- 31 simple circular spherical closed eccentric no no no asymmetrical Type S1 11270 187
Grain Type Grain
Extinction Extinction
2 3
Accession
Specimen Specimen
Lamellae
Nu Number
Fissures
Position
- -
Surface
Group Group
D Shape D Shape Hilum Hilum
Cross
Type Type
mber
circular 382- depression at slightly Type 22 simple with one lenticular closed centric no no 11270 hilum asymmetrical G2 facet 382- open/bro stellate at broken and wide 30 simple circular spherical centric no no Broken 11270 ken hilum arms 382- longitudinal asymmetrical and Type 29 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no 11270 depression ragged G3 382- transverse ragged and do not Type 28 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no 11270 depression meet G3 382- stellate at Type 12 simple circular spherical closed eccentric no rough ragged 11270 hilum G4 382- transverse at longitudinal asymmetrical and Type 27 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no 11270 hilum depression curved at margin G4 382- depression at Type 26 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no asymmetrical 11270 hilum G4 382- straight and wide Type 32 simple circular spherical open centric no no rough 11270 at margins G1 382- slightly asymmetrical and 33 simple circular polyhedral closed no no rough Type Z 11270 eccentric wide at margin 382- depression at 25 simple ovate spherical closed eccentric no no asymmetrical Type S1 11270 hilum 382- depression at asymmetrical and Type 34 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no 11270 hilum straight G4 382- Type 24 simple circular spherical open centric no? no rough symmetrical 11270 G1 382- ovate/cir depression at 23 simple polyhedral closed eccentric no no asymmetrical Type S1 11270 cular hilum
188
Table F- 3. Midway Village
Grain Type Grain
Extinction Extinction
2 3
Accession
Specimen Specimen
Lamellae
Number Number
Fissures
Position
- -
Surface
Group Group
D Shape D Shape Hilum Hilum
Cross
Type Type
Poor 382-1056 07 simple circular NA closed centric no no no symmetrical Photo curved and do not Type 382-1056 02 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no smooth meet G4 Type 382-1056 03 simple circular spherical open centric no no depression at hilum symmetrical G1 Type 382-1056 01 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no depression at hilum ragged G3 can’t see Type 382-1056 04 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no depression at hilum curved at margin them G5 Type 382-1056 06 simple circular spherical closed centric no no no symmetrical G1/2 Type 382-1056 08 simple circular spherical open centric concentric no no symmetrical G5 Type 382-1056 09 simple circular polyhedral closed centric no no depression at hilum symmetrical G1/2 ovate/ curved and do not Type 382-1056 05 simple spherical closed centric no no depression at hilum circular meet G1/2
Table F- 4. Crooked Forks
Grain Type Grain
Extinction Extinction
2 3
Accession
Specimen
Lamellae
Numbe Number
Fissures
Position
- -
Surface
Group Group
D Shape D Shape Hilum Hilum
Cross
Type Type
r
382- asymmetrical and Type 01 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no depression at hilum 14161 curved at margin G4
189
Table F- 5. Corral Camp South
Grain Type Grain
Extinction Extinction
2 3
Accession
Specimen
Lamellae
Number Number
Fissures
Position
- -
Surface
Group Group
D Shape D Shape Hilum Hilum
Cross
Type Type
longitudinal Type 382-2045 24 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no ragged depression G4 slightly asymmetrical and Type 382-2045 03 simple ovate spherical closed no no depression at hilum eccentric ragged G4 symmetrical and Type 382-1628 01 simple faceted NA closed centric no no depression at hilum straight G1 Type 382-1628 02 simple circular polyhedral closed centric no no depression at hilum do not meet S3 branching symmetrical and Type 382-2045 20 simple ovate spherical closed eccentric concentric no at hilum wide at margin G5 Type 382-2045 21 simple ovate spherical closed eccentric concentric no no ragged G5 longitudinal asymmetrical and Type 382-2045 22 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no depression straight G4 symmetrical and Type 382-2045 23 simple circular spherical closed centric no no no straight S1 Type 382-2045 07 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no no asymmetrical G4 slightly symmetrical and Type 382-1628 03 simple ovate lenticular closed concentric no no eccentric wide at margin G5 stellate at symmetrical and Type 382-2045 19 simple ovate spherical closed eccentric concentric no hilum wide at margin G5 asymmetrical and Type 382-2045 18 simple circular spherical closed eccentric no no depression at hilum curved at margin S1 slightly longitudinal asymmetrical and Type 382-2045 17 simple ovate polyhedral closed no no eccentric depression curved at margin G4 longitudinal asymmetrical and Type 382-2045 16 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no depression ragged G3 branching Type 382-2045 15 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric concentric no ragged at hilum G5 transverse symmetrical and Type 382-2045 14 simple ovate Spherical closed eccentric concentric no at hilum wide at margin G5 190
longitudinal Type 382-2045 13 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no asymmetrical depression G4 slightly Type 382-2045 12 simple circular spherical closed no no smooth curved at margin eccentric S1 Type 382-2045 11 simple circular spherical closed centric no no no curved at margin S1 longitudinal Type 382-2045 10 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no ragged depression G3 longitudinal slightly curved at Type 382-2045 01 simple ovate spherical closed centric no no depression margin G4 transverse asymmetrical and Type 382-2045 08 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric concentric no at hilum ragged G5 longitudinal Type 382-2045 25 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no asymmetrical depression G4 asymmetrical and Type 382-2045 06 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no depression at hilum curved at margin G4 asymmetrical and Type 382-2045 05 simple circular spherical closed centric no no no straight G4 longitudinal asymmetrical and Type 382-2045 04 simple ovate spherical closed eccentric no no depression curved at margin G4 slightly 382-2045 02 simple knobby polyhedral closed no no depression at hilum ragged Type Z eccentric longitudinal Type 382-2045 32 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no asymmetrical depression G4 longitudinal Type 382-2045 31 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no curved at margin depression G4 transverse asymmetrical and Type 382-2045 30 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no at hilum ragged G5 slightly transverse Type 382-2045 29 simple circular reniform closed concentric no symmetrical eccentric at hilum G5 382-2045 28 simple circular spherical closed centric NA no no NA Broken asymmetrical and Type 382-2045 27 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric concentric no no wide at margin G5 slightly Type 382-2045 26 simple ovate polyhedral closed concentric no no ragged eccentric G1 weak and slightly longitudinal Type 382-2045 09 simple ovate polyhedral closed no no asymmetrical and eccentric depression G4 curved at margin