Investigating Subsistence Diversity in the Upper Basin: a Second Look At

Home , Ash pit, Cultigen, Jacal, Oryzopsis hymenoides

Investigating Subsistence Diversity in the Upper Basin: A Second Look at

Archaeobotanical Remains from

MU 125, A Late Pueblo II Settlement

A thesis submitted to the

Graduate School

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

in the Department of Anthropology

of the McMicken College of Arts and Sciences

2014

Jean N. Berkebile

B.A., Baylor University, 2009

Committee:

Susan E. Allen, Ph.D., Chair

Alan P. Sullivan, III, Ph.D

ABSTRACT

While a maize-centric model of Ancestral Puebloan subsistence, based on ethnographic

literature of the historical and present-day Hopi, Zuni, Acoma, and other native groups, has dominated perceptions of Southwest archaeology for decades, this model does not hold true for

the Upper Basin, located on the south rim of the Grand Canyon in northern Arizona. Over the

past thirty years, many archaeological studies in the Upper Basin, the inner Grand Canyon, and

the Colorado Plateau have found higher ubiquity values of wild plant remains than domesticates

within archaeobotanical assemblages. This thesis explores the subsistence strategies of the Late

Pueblo II (AD 1050-1100) Upper Basin inhabitants by conducting archaeobotanical analysis on a

six room masonry structure, MU 125. With the use of four quantification measures, density,

relative frequency, ubiquity, and ranking, I demonstrate that the ancient inhabitants of MU 125

maintained a sedentary lifestyle in the pinyon-juniper woodland of the Upper Basin by practicing

a diverse, yet sustainable, subsistence strategy which relied mainly on the use and procurement

of wild resources and the cultivation of small-seeded wild plants, with only a limited supplementation from domesticated resources (i.e. maize, beans, and squash). The results of this

study not only provide evidence for a need to change the current subsistence model to one that

foregrounds wild resource use, but also show the importance of applying multiple quantification methods, sampling a wider range of context types, and fully sorting archaeobotanical fraction, in

order to better understand patterns of subsistence use across a site.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I have am fortunate to have many people in my life who have deeply cared about my archaeological career and aspirations. First, I would like to thank Dr. Susan Allen for her constant and patient mentorship over my graduate career. Her guidance has not been limited to the field of archaeobotany or archaeology, but has transcended such academic boundaries that I welcome and value her insights on life. Her enthusiasm for archaeobotany is contagious and I have caught the bug! Second, I would like thank Dr. Alan Sullivan, who not only introduced me to Southwest archaeology, but challenged me to think in new ways about the archaeological record. His guidance has been invaluable and I am so grateful to have learned survey from him in the field. Third, I would like to thank my parents and grandparents who have encouraged me from a young age to follow my dreams no matter what the odds. Fourth, Dr. Karen Adams was a wonderful teacher of Southwestern plants and I would like to thank her for her encouragement, the knowledge she passed on to me, and her help with solidifying my identifications on MU

125's tricky "burned bits." Fifth, I would like to thank my boyfriend, Ryan Washam, who was there to listen to me and give me advice and GIS help through the whole process. Finally, I would like to thank all of the undergraduate and graduate students who volunteered to sort heavy fraction; with special thanks to Kassi Bailey, Katie Hunt, Kelly Wells, and Kathleen Forste whose constant commitment ensured that the mountainous task was completed. Additionally, I would like to thank Stephanie Miller for her help with the figures of MU 125.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ...... i

Table of Contents...... ii

List of Figures...... iii

List of Tables...... v

Chapter 1: Introduction...... 1

Chapter 2: Environment...... 6

Chapter 3: Background...... 14

Chapter 4: Methodology...... 30

Chapter 5: Results...... 50

Chapter 6: Interpretations and Conclusions...... 95

References Cited...... 126

Appendix A: MU 125 Flotation Sample Information...... 139

Appendix B: Plant Taxa Recovered from MU 125 Analyzed by Jean N. Berkebile...... 141

Appendix C: Plant Taxa Recovered from MU 125 Analyzed by Cumming and Puseman...... 147

Appendix D: Unknown Seeds from MU 125...... 152

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Map of the Upper Basin and the UBARP survey area...... 2

Figure 3.1. Traditional geographic regions of the Western and Eastern Anasazi...... 14

Figure 3.2. MU 125 with all features labeled...... 17

Figure 3.3. Room 1 with features outlined...... 19

Figure 3.4. Room 2 with features outlined...... 21

Figure 3.5. Room 3 with features outlined...... 24

Figure 3.6. Rooms 4 and 5 with features outlined...... 26

Figure 3.7. Room 6 with features outlined...... 28

Figure 4.1. The author in the process of bucket flotation...... 36

Figure 4.2. Carbonized seeds from the comparative collection...... 40

Figure 4.3. Influence of seed sources on the archaeobotanical record...... 41

Figure 5.1. Relative frequency of resource types by feature...... 53

Figure 5.2. Wood density per sample, expressed as the number of grams per liter...... 56

Figure 5.3. Non-wood density per sample, expressed as the number of items per liter...... 57

Figure 5.4. Relative frequency of resource types in Thermal-Related Food Processing

Contexts...... 59

Figure 5.5. Cheno-am seeds found in FS#97...... 60

Figure 5.6. Phaseolus sp. cotyledon found in FS#97...... 60

Figure 5.7. Relative frequency of resource types in Non-Thermal-Related Food Processing

Context samples...... 66

Figure 5.8. Relative frequency of resource types recovered in Post-Hole and Floor Context

samples...... 69

iii

Figure 5.9. Juniper (Juniperus) seeds (berries) recovered from FS#160...... 74

Figure 5.10. Two types of cactus recovered from FS#160...... 74

Figure 5.11. Zea mays cob fragment, cupule, and cupule fragments recovered from FS#375...... 75

Figure 5.12. Globemallow (Sphaeralcea sp.), grass (Poaceae), and Cattail (Typha sp.) recovered

from FS#375...... 76

Figure 5.13. Purslane (Portulaca sp.), Cactus stem fragment, and

Bugseed (Corispermum sp.) recovered from FS#400...... 77

Figure 5.14. Resin balls recovered in FS#400...... 77

Figure 5.15. Relative frequency of resource types in All Other Context samples...... 79

Figure 5.16. Example of a cactus spine base (Recovered from a different sample, FS#387)...... 81

Figure 5.17. String made from cotton (Gossypium sp.) recovered from FS#168...... 82

Figure 5.18. Relative frequency of resource type by context group...... 87

Figure 5.19. Ubiquity of resource types by context type...... 89

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1. Information about MU 125 Samples Featured in this Study...... 34

Table 4.2. Carbonization Time and Temperature Parameters by Taxon...... 39

Table 4.4. Formulae Applied to Recovered Taxa to Convert Fragmentary Remains to Whole....43

Table 4.5. Relative Frequency Conversion Equation for Each Resource Type in Feat. 96.09...... 45

Table 4.6. Ranking System Based on Number of Items Present for Each Taxon...... 48

Table 5.1. Taxa Differentiated According to Resource Type...... 51

Table 5.2. Ranking System Based on Number of Items Present for Each Taxon...... 90

Table 5.3. Ranking Results...... 91

Table 5.4. Type of Taxa Recovered from Each Room and Exterior of MU 125...... 93

Table 6.1. Taxa Recovered from Floor Samples within Each Room...... 106

Table 6.2. Seasonal Availability of Prominent Taxa Surrounding MU 125...... 111

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This research uses archaeobotanical analysis to explore subsistence strategies and

resource use of the Ancestral Puebloan or Anasazi populations, during the Late Pueblo II period

(AD 1050-1100), who occupied the pinyon-juniper woodland environment of the Upper Basin in

northern Arizona. Although many archaeologists consider the Anasazi in other parts of the

Southwest to have been maize agriculturalists (Haury 1986; Kidder 1927; Kohler et al. 2007;

Kohler and Matthews 1988; Schwartz 1990), archaeobotanical evidence from Site 17 (AZ I:1:17

ASM) (AD 1049-1064), a catastrophically abandoned multi-room settlement in the Upper Basin,

suggests a focus on a mixed subsistence strategy, with low reliance on maize agriculture

(Sullivan 1987). This interpretation is based on the overwhelming dominance of wild plant resources in the macrobotanical assemblage, which yielded 99.5% wild remains and only 0.5% domesticated remains. This evidence suggests a more heterogeneous pattern of subsistence adaptations among Late Pueblo II populations living in the Grand Canyon’s Upper Basin than previously thought (Sullivan 1986; Sullivan and Ruter 2006).

To test this model, I analyzed archaeobotanical samples from another site in the Upper

Basin, MU 125 (AR-03-07-04-1007 KNF). MU 125, occupied from AD 1070/1080-1090 (also

Late Pueblo II), is a six-room masonry structure that lies within the Kaibab National Forest to the

south of the South Rim of the Grand Canyon (Figure 1.1). Preliminary analysis of

archaeobotanical remains from MU 125 by Linda Scott Cummings and Kathryn Puseman (1995,

1997) revealed a pattern similar to that discovered at Site 17. Cummings and Puseman (1995:18)

concluded that the “occupants of MU 125 were agriculturalists who appeared to rely heavily on

native resources,” in view of the small amount of Zea mays (maize) and large amounts of

Chenopodium sp. (goosefoot), Amaranthus sp. (pigweed), Pinus edulis (pinyon pine), and

Brassica sp. (mustards) species recovered. This pattern is inconsistent with the maize-centric model derived from ethnographic studies among the Hopi, Zuni, Acoma, and other modern

Pueblos ( Staller 2010; Whiting 1950).

Figure 1.1. Map of the Upper Basin and the UBARP survey area (hatched) with inset map representing the Upper Basin. Courtesy of Ryan Washam.

The Maize Debate and Archaeobotanical Analysis in the Upper Basin

The dominant reconstruction of Anasazi lifeways is that they were intensive maize agriculturalists who relied on wild resources only as a fallback resource in times of stress or as a

second-class food source (Minnis 1992:135). Once such assumptions are established, it is

difficult and painstaking to alter the accepted, orthodox view. In the last thirty years, many studies have argued for a greater importance of wild resources in subsistence strategies at

Basketmaker III to Pueblo III (AD 400-1300) sites on the Colorado Plateau (Huckell and Toll

2004; Jones 1987) than was previously considered. In support of this view, high ubiquity values for wild seedy annuals are reported in several Anasazi archaeobotanical assemblages (Brandt

2006; Hammett 1993; Minnis 1982; Toll and Donaldson 1982). In fact, archaeobotanists have been unable to find any “conclusive evidence that corn was produced intensively at the expense of wild plants,” in many parts of the Colorado Plateau (Huckell and Toll 2004:55).

Similarly, evidence from the Upper Basin suggests that sedentary populations could have maintained a diverse diet of wild resources which were merely “supplemented by cultivated

plants,” such as maize, rather than relying wholly on domesticates (Whittlesey 1993:261). For example, significantly higher ubiquity and relative frequency values for wild plant resources in the macrobotanical assemblages at sites in the Upper Basin such as Site 17, MU 38, SRI 15, and

SRI 24 support this claim (Sullivan and Ruter 2006). Within the Grand Canyon itself, the

Basketmaker II and III sites of Deer Creek and Beamer’s Cabin show dominance of wild resources such as Cheno-ams, tansy mustard, cactus, yucca, and wild grasses (Jones 1986a,

1986b). Similarly, Hutira (1986:269-286) reports that two other sites within the canyon, Tuna

Creek and Whitmore Wash (both Pueblo III sites), also display remarkably higher ubiquity scores for wild resources than for the cultigens maize, beans, and squash. Those wild resources with the highest ubiquity values include cactus, tansy mustard, Cheno-ams, beeweed, yucca, juniper, mesquite, and small dropseed grasses. Schwartz (1979:90) reports that even a "granary" assemblage, from a granary structure near Bright Angel Pueblo in the inner canyon, yielded only

wild resources. Although these assemblages date to a time when agricultural intensification is

often claimed to be at its greatest, the data do not support a model of reliance on agriculture in

the Grand Canyon region (Sullivan 1987).

Research Goals

The goals of this research are two-fold. The first is to strengthen inferences about resource use and subsistence strategies in the Upper Basin by conducting additional archaeobotanical analysis at MU 125. The second is to combine the new findings with those of

Cummings and Puseman (1995, 1997), in order to develop a more complete picture of resource

patterning at MU 125. Four quantification measures were used to analyze the combined

archaeobotanical assemblage and to assess subsistence strategies at the site: the density of wood

and non-wood remains in each sample, relative taxon abundance, the ubiquity of different taxa at

the site, and a ranking scheme that takes preservation biases for different taxa into account.

In this study, I examined new archaeobotanical data from MU 125 to test the hypothesis

of a more diverse, non-maize-centric subsistence model (as proposed by Sullivan 1987; Sullivan

and Forste 2014; Sullivan and Ruter 2006) and supported by the previous results of Cummings

and Puseman (1995, 1997). Archaeobotanical analysis focused on 18 previously unstudied

samples derived from a wider range of contexts than those studied previously. Newly examined

contexts include unburned pits, bowl fill, fire-cracked rock piles, a "limestone ledge" surface,

interior floor surfaces, and exterior activity areas. In contrast, previous macrobotanical analysis

at MU 125 was conducted only on a limited range of contexts, such as post-holes, an ash pit,

hearths, and floor surfaces below trough metate fragments.

This study shows that examination of a wider array of contexts facilitates recognition of

a more nuanced pattern of subsistence strategy, especially at masonry structures like MU 125

and Site 17 that were occupied year-round but for no more than two decades continuously

(Sullivan et al. 1996). I argue that wild resource availability and predictability in the Upper Basin was sufficient for knowledgeable peoples with a history of proto-agriculture to have maintained a sedentary lifestyle with sustainable subsistence practices centered on wild resource procurement and cultivation of small-seeded wild plants, with little reliance on maize, beans, and squash.

If intensive utilization of domesticates was the norm, then maize, beans, and squash should be the most ubiquitous and abundant taxa in the archaeobotanical assemblages from these habitation sites. However, the archaeobotanical assemblage of Site 17 shows greater ubiquity and relative frequency of cultivable and gathered wild resources, thus it supports the model that

Upper Basin inhabitants were cultivators and gatherers of wild plant resources who merely supplemented their food supply with harvested domesticates only on a limited basis. If MU 125 displays similar patterns in its archaeobotanical assemblages, this will provide more evidence to contradict the maize-centric model.

Thesis Organization

Chapter 2 discusses the geography, climate, and vegetation of the Upper Basin, with particular attention to the biotic communities represented in the Upper Basin. Chapter 3 briefly discusses Anasazi cultural history in the Grand Canyon region and then describes MU 125, highlighting room and feature locations and descriptions. Chapter 4 outlines the methods of recovery and analysis (sorting, identification, quantification) of the archaeobotanical remains for the 18 newly studied samples on which this research is based. Noteworthy in this chapter is the discussion of the creation of the comparative collection used to aid in specimen identification.

Chapter 5 discusses the contexts and results of the analysis of the new assemblage and outlines previous archaeobotanical findings of Cummings and Puseman (1995, 1997). A highlight of the new results is the exciting find of a cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) string piece that may suggest textile trade between groups in the Upper Basin and those in the Inner Canyon or other areas to the south. Chapter 6 provides an interpretation of the results and further discusses the competing subsistence models introduced in this chapter by exploring issues such as population and resource imbalances and interpretive biases in such meaning-laden identifications of "agricultural field houses" and grinding stones. Finally, Chapter 6 summarizes this study’s findings and discusses both the interpretations of prehistoric resource use at MU 125 itself and their implications for the Upper Basin and Grand Canyon region.

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENT OF THE UPPER BASIN

Location

The Upper Basin is located in northern Arizona to the south of the South Rim of the

Grand Canyon, on the northern part of the Coconino Plateau, a “topographically variable area cut

by canyons in the drainage system of the Little Colorado River” (Whittlesey 1993:264). The

Upper Basin is bordered on its north by the South Rim of the Grand Canyon, on its west and

southwest by the Coconino Rim, and on its east by the East Kaibab Monocline (Strahler 1944:7).

From elevations ranging between 7,400 feet above sea level (asl) at Desert View, the

northernmost point along the South Rim, and 6,100 feet asl at Lee Canyon, the Basin’s lowest

point, the climate fosters growth of a dense pinyon-juniper woodland (Sullivan et al. 2002:51).

Temperature and Precipitation

Understanding how temperature and precipitation fluctuate throughout the year and how

they contribute directly to seasonality of vegetation growth is important when examining

resource use and availability. The number of days between frosts is, on average, 148 days, which

is just long enough to be suitable for agriculture (Sellers and Hill 1974:240). Annual

precipitation for the Upper Basin today is 15.3 inches (Sullivan et al. 2002), but between AD

1000-1200 it averaged 14.44 inches, as reconstructed from four Grand Canyon weather stations and tree-ring data (Sullivan and Ruter 2006:185). Despite lower precipitation values than at present, precipitation would have been ample to support the flora of this environment. The Upper

Basin, and northern Arizona in general, has a "bimodal precipitation type" where the largest amounts of precipitation occur during winter and summer regimes: the summer monsoon season from July to the first part of September and the winter storm months from December to February

(Vankat 2013). However, a “Spring Drought” occurs every year between April and June (Rose

1989:25; Vankat 2013). In certain years, this would have limited the extent of agricultural crop

reliance by local inhabitants, who would have needed to both devise mechanisms to cope with

the low availability of potable water and rely heavily on the available wild resources that are conditioned to this ecological zone (Sullivan et al. 2002:53).

It was during the "Spring Drought," of little reliable precipitation, in an environment lacking perennial water sources such as springs or streams, that water catchment structures and strategies became extremely important to the survival of the inhabitants (Sullivan et al. 2002:53).

Habitation of the Upper Basin would have been possible with features such as MU 123.2, a still- water catchment feature or retention basin, which could utilize runoff with the use of rock alignments on exposed bedrock (Norr 1997:25-28). The concentration of pottery at this feature indicates that water was being transported through human labor by ceramic vessel and not through a series of ditches diverting water flow (Norr 1997:30). MU 123.2’s proximity to habitation features is an important key to understanding Upper Basin water management strategies. It lies less than 100 m to the east of MU 125, with the fire-cracked rock pile (MU

123.1), identified as a wild plant processing site, between the two (Sullivan et al. 2001). Norr

(1997:18 and 76) and Sullivan et al. (2001) also acknowledge that other forms of still-water management features, such as basin reservoirs, walk-in wells, and natural depressions, which could hold ample amounts of water, might easily be overlooked by archaeologists and dismissed as natural features, thereby skewing our perception of seasonal water management strategies.

Biotic Communities

Ancestral Puebloan communities in the Upper Basin likely experienced a somewhat different landscape and environment than what we see today. According to studies on sub-fossil pollen deposits and Neotoma spp. (packrat) middens, coniferous species such as Juniperus

sp.(juniper), Pinus edulis (pinyon pine), and Pinus ponderosa (ponderosa pine) have expanded their ranges throughout the Holocene (Romme et. al 2009:221-222). While the pinyon/juniper

stands in the Upper Basin may have fluctuated only slightly over the last 1,000 years, with some points of expansion and contraction of either species in response to local natural processes such as climate change or drought (Romme et. al 2009:221-222), some vegetation around MU 125 and within the Upper Basin would have looked different from that of today. In addition to natural causes that modify the landscape, intentional and unintentional anthropogenic activities have also contributed to landscape change. Karen Adams (2004:167) lists four major human impacts as

“historic fire suppression, extensive domestic animal grazing, use of the steel plow and fertilizers, and the presence of weedy, alien flora, all unknown before Columbus.” Vankat

(2013:44-53) adds prehistoric and historic Native American land use impact, such as the use of fire for hunting and planting and tree cutting, historic European logging, modern climate change, air pollution, and recreation to the list of anthropogenic disturbances that affect the Southwest.

It is important to recognize that some plant resources that were once both widespread and culturally important are no longer observable on the modern landscape. Bohrer (1978) discusses the effects of historic cattle grazing on southwestern landscapes and how the introduction of grazing animals, whose palates preferred the same plants as prehistoric inhabitants, actually contributed to the local extinction of certain species. The list of locally extinct plants that are often present in archaeobotanical assemblages from Ancestral Puebloan sites, but are no longer extant includes stickleaf (Mentzelia albicaulis), purslane (Portulaca sp.), winged pigweed

(Cycloloma atriplicifolium), contrayerba (Kallstroemia sp.), buffalo gourd (Cucurbita foetidissima), wild onion (Allium sp.), and spiderwort (Tradescantia occidentalis) (Bohrer 1978).

Ancient and modern human activity on the Upper Basin also altered the landscape.

Ancient fire management strategies encouraged the growth of wild ruderal plant resources

(Bowman et al. 2011; Sullivan and Forste 2014). Without fire, these resources, such as tobacco

(Nicotiana attenuata), goosefoot, and mutton grass (Poa fendleriana) no longer dot the landscape (Adams 2004:172). Wild resources that were once important and abundant, but were reliant on prehistoric fire management regimes may today appear only sparsely on the landscape.

Similarly, historical fire suppression has increased the litter, or fuel, load of the Colorado Plateau and other high elevation areas of the Southwest, thus contributing to a larger scale of damage associated with large wildfires, which also changes forest structure and its dynamics (Vankat

2013). These patterns of vegetation change should caution archaeologists to avoid assumptions that the present resources are all that would have been available at the time a site was occupied.

In order to place MU 125 within its regional context and to enable its comparison with

other archaeological sites in the area, the system of biotic communities used here is that

described by Brown (1994). Biomes are “natural formations, characterized by a distinctive

vegetation physiognomy, within a biotic province” that therefore reflect “plant and animal

community responses to integrated climatic factors, more or less regional in scope” (Lowe and

Brown 1994:9). A systematic hierarchy for vegetation is useful for ordering data to assess

general or specific attributes of biotic communities and to “illustrate and thereby measure

biological and cultural potential” (Patton 1994:7). However, when using these hierarchies it is

important to consider the high degree of variation within each biotic community that is not

expressed within these rigid categories. Diversity may occur when local microclimates produce

more than one biome in a single area, such that biome boundaries can be blurred due to their

gradual or patchy nature (Vankat 2013). The effect of blurring boundaries is often

oversimplification and loss of pertinent biodiversity data, which is important when understanding

resource use on a local level. Attention to the variability both within and among local

microenvironments in the Upper Basin itself and in the Grand Canyon area is essential for

understanding variation in archaeological patterns of resource use by the Ancestral Puebloans.

The ancient inhabitants of the Upper Basin had to devise local strategies for managing their

resources that maximized the potential of the natural variability of the three primary biomes

represented in the area: Great Basin Conifer Woodland, Rocky Mountain Montane Conifer

Forest, and Great Basin Desertscrub.

Great Basin Conifer Woodland

MU 125, and the Upper Basin in general, lie within the Great Basin Conifer Woodland

biome, which has rocky, thin, and arid soils and thrives at elevations between 5,000 to 7,000 feet

asl (Brown 1994:52). This biome is often referred to as the pinyon-juniper woodland because it is characterized primarily by large stands of cold-adapted Pinus (pinyon) and Juniperus (juniper) evergreens (Brown 1994:52-56). Pinyon-juniper vegetation covers "more area on the mountains and plateaus of the American Southwest than all other vegetation types combined," approximately 19.6% (Vankat 2013). Herbaceous species in this biome include Artemisia tridentate (big sagebrush), Cowania mexicana (cliffrose), Gutierrezia sarothrae (snakeweed),

Ephedra nevadensis and E. torrenyena types (Mormon tea), Oryzopsis hymenoides (Indian ricegrass), Eriogonum spp. (buckwheats), Atriplex canescens (fourwing saltbush),

Chrysothamus nauseous (rabbitbush), Bouteloua gracilis (blue grama grass), Sphaeralcea sp.

(globemallows), with some Opuntia spp. (prickly pear), Cylindropuntia spp. (cholla cactus),

Mammillaria spp. (pincushion cactus), Sporobolus spp. (dropseeds), Yucca glauca (small soapweed), and Yucca baccata (banana yucca) (Brown 1994:52-56). Sage flats are intermittently

dispersed and add to this biome's ecological variability. While the term “pinyon-juniper” might imply that the whole biome is composed of mixed stands, it is common to find pure stands of each species, particularly juniper, at lower elevations (Romme et. al 2009:205). The most common forms of both species on the Colorado Plateau are Pinus edulis (Colorado pine or Two- needle Pine) and Juniperus monosperma (One-seed juniper). Three different variations of pinyon-juniper vegetation structure are categorized with the Great Basin Conifer Woodland: persistent pinyon-juniper woodlands, pinyon-juniper savannas, and wooded shrublands (Romme et al. 2009:206; Vankat 2013:272). The environment around MU 125 would be considered persistent pinyon-juniper woodland. This is because the Upper Basin's soil and climate conditions are consistently favorable for vegetation and the canopy cover ranges from closed to nearly closed (Romme et al. 2009:208; Vankat 2013:272).

Rocky Mountain Montane Conifer Forest

The second biotic community is the Rocky Mountain Montane Conifer Forest, dominated by large stands of Pinus ponderosa (ponderosa pine), at higher elevations than the Upper Basin, between 7,000 and 8,500 feet asl (Pase and Brown 1994:43-46). Between 50% and 75% of crown cover in this biome comes from open, mature Ponderosa stands, while thickets of “dog- hair,” “dense stands of stunted, young tress” have increased in density during the twentieth century due to a decline of indigenous fire management practices (Pase and Brown 1994:44). In fact, at least 80% of all forest and woodland fires are concentrated in this biotic community

(Vankat 2013:27). The forest understory is grassy or herbaceous, with Festuca arizonica

(Arizona fescue) and Koeleria cristata (junegrass) being the most abundant in the herbaceous layer (Merkle 1952: 379). Due to a high litter load of needles in this biome, fire management by native inhabitants was very important for “regulating seedling or sprout establishment” and

forest density (Fule et al. 2002:44). Ancient fire management practices also extended to the Great

Basin Conifer Woodland, where inhabitants were propagating key drought-tolerant wild plant

resources, such as Chenopodium (goosefoot), Amaranthus (pigweed), Oryzopsis hymenoides

(Indian ricegrass), and small grasses (Sullivan and Forste 2014).

Great Basin Desertscrub

The third biotic community, the Great Basin Desertscrub, flourishes between 4,000 and

7,000 feet asl and includes herbaceous vegetation adapted to cold-temperate desertlands like

Artemisia sp. (sagebrushes), Chrysothamnus spp. (rabbitbrushes), Atriplex sp. (saltbushes), and

Salsola sp. (thistles) (Turner 1994:145-155). In addition to these dominant shrubs, a wide variety of Opuntia spp. (cacti) are present, such as chollas, prickly pears, and hedgehog cacti, as well as grasses such as Oryzopsis hymenoides (Indian ricegrass), Descurainia pinnata (tansy mustard),

Stipa speciosa (desert needlegrass), and Suaeda spp. (seep weeds). Within this biome “species

diversity is characteristically low” (Turner 1994:145). Nonetheless, the high edibility of many of

these taxa suggests that pockets of Desertscrub in the Upper Basin may have been viable options

for ancient subsistence utilization. Vegetation representation of all three biotic communities in

the Upper Basin would have provided numerous risk management opportunities for the people of

the Late Pueblo II period.

CHAPTER 3 - BACKGROUND

MU 125 in the Context of Anasazi Culture

Demographically, the Anasazi, or Ancestral Puebloans, are centered on the Colorado

Plateau and spread out concentrically throughout the Four Corners region, including northeastern

Arizona, northwestern New Mexico, southwestern Colorado, and southeastern Utah (Plog 2008).

They are traditionally split into two regional branches: 1) the Eastern Anasazi, which includes

Mesa Verde, Rio Grande, and Chaco Canyon and 2) the Western Anasazi, which includes the

Little Colorado, Kayenta, and Virgin Anasazi (Adams and Fish 2006:293; Plog 1979:108)

(Figure 3.1). It is believed that the Anasazi developed from late hunter-gatherer groups in the

northern portion of the Southwest who started practicing early forms of plant cultivation between

1500 BC and 500 BC (Plog 1979). In the Grand Canyon area, these Archaic people are known

for their numerous split-twig figurines discovered in multiple caves and rock shelters within the

canyon (Euler 1985; Jones 1987:7).

Figure 3.1. Traditional geographic regions of the Western and Eastern Anasazi (taken directly from Plog 1979).

What is typically thought of as the “Anasazi culture” arose during the Ceramic Period, or

Basketmaker III (ca. AD 200), and is characterized by the emergence of regionally complex

sociopolitical systems, an increase in population size and sedentism, and a greater reliance on

agriculture, thus resulting in new patterns of settlement either around socioeconomic centers or dispersed across the landscape in a new way (Plog 2008:56). It was during the Pueblo I (AD 750-

900), Pueblo II (AD 900-1050/1100), and Pueblo III (AD 1050/110-1250/1300) periods that

Anasazi society flourished and fully developed (Plog 2008). Often the large, picturesque cliff-

dwellings of Mesa Verde or the large pueblos of Chaco Canyon overshadow the regional

variability that Anasazi groups exhibited in architecture, pottery designs, and subsistence

strategies. It is important to note that broad cultural traits given to Kayenta Anasazi in the

literature are often too general to encompass the regional variability of the Grand Canyon region.

For example, the Upper Basin has few kivas, little to no monumental architecture, and mainly

consists of smaller, one-to-two room ephemeral sites scattered across the landscape (Plog

1979:125), and few large, multi-room sites such as MU 125 and the Tusayan Ruin.

Description of MU 125

Site MU 125 (Figure 3.2), located in the Kaibab National Forest portion of the Upper

Basin, was discovered in 1990 during surface survey by the Upper Basin Archaeological

Research Project (UBARP). Tree-ring dates from posts in Room 2 indicate that MU 125 was

built, occupied, and subsequently abandoned between AD 1070/1080-1090, during the Late

Pueblo II phase, the period of heaviest Anasazi occupation in the Upper Basin (Fugate 2003).

When classifying MU 125 by its livelihood, or subsistence, strategy, Sullivan and Ruter

(2006:191) consider all samples that come from this semi-catastrophically abandoned site as

"post-resource-production" contexts. In contrast to a seasonal round between the Inner Canyon

and the North and South rims, multi-room structures in the Upper Basin, such as MU 125, are

thought to have been occupied year-round, due to the large number of interior post-holes discovered within rooms (Sullivan et al. 2002).

(map prepared by Stephanie Miller). Stephanie by prepared (map

outlined

MU 125 with features with 125 MU

Figure 3.2.

MU 125 was excavated in four field seasons (1992, 1994, 1995, and 1996), during which six “rooms” were exposed. The site was constructed in at least five phases, with many reconstruction episodes. These are especially evident in Room 3, where evidence of re-building efforts is indicative of constant upkeep and stabilization of the structure (Sullivan and Sorrell

1997:8-9). Room 6, referred to as the Antecedent Structure, appears to predate the others because of its stratigraphic position beneath Rooms 3, 4, and 5.

MU 125 was excavated using a mapping grid pattern consisting of 16 1 x 1 m units, each subdivided into 10 x 10 cm squares (Sullivan 1993:4). The site stratigraphy is characterized by four strata (Stratum I, Stratum II, Stratum III, and Stratum IV). Stratum I consists of post- abandonment/collapse colluvial deposits, Stratum II consists of collapsed architectural debris and associated materials. However, for Rooms 2 and 3, Stratum II differs due to the rooms’ mode of abandonment, as discussed below. Stratum III consists of floor contact material and use- compacted sediments (Fugate 2003; Sullivan et al. 1996). Stratum IV is below the living surface or Stratum III. Excavators noted stratigraphic differences as well as the extensive amounts of bioturbation found in the north, west, and southeast floor contacts in Room 2 and the presence of tree-throw in the southeastern part of Room 2 and the southwestern part of Room 3.

MU 125 Room Descriptions

A detailed description of each room and its features provides contextual associations for all flotation samples, including those analyzed previously by Cummings and Puseman and those newly analyzed in this research.

Room 1

Discovered in 1992, during the first field season, Room 1 (Figure 3.3) is the westernmost room and probably the last room to have been built. This small rectangular masonry structure

measures approximately 4 m by 2 m and has an east-west orientation (Fugate 2003:46). As is

typical of masonry structures, MU 125’s construction consists of irregular, undressed stones held

together by friction or, in a few cases, by daub (Fugate 2003:42). Room 1 lacks post-holes and

does not appear to have been roofed (Fugate 2003:46). Although a rock alignment, suggesting a wing-wall, extends 4 meters to the south from the west wall, it appears not to meet with any other walls or to form another structure (Fugate 2003:37-38). Another wall (Wall 6) of upright stone slabs was found approximately one-third of the way across the room from the west wall under structural collapse, where it outlined the eastern wall of a burial pit. The burial (Feature

92.06) in the western portion of the room, contained pottery sherds and lithic artifacts in association with the individual. After much deliberation with Hopi elders, excavation of the burial was continued, documented, and the remains re-interred (Fugate 2003:46).

Figure 3.3. Room 1 with features outlined (map prepared by Stephanie Miller).

The individual interred was a male between the ages of 32-38 years old who stood 5 feet

5 inches in height (Logan 1993). He had evidence of slight cradle board deformation of his skull in the fashion characteristic of the Anasazi, and extreme dental attrition, no doubt from a diet high in grit due to the use of grinding stones. The burial itself was consistent with a secondary burial because the bones were not arranged in anatomical order, but positioned by body part, suggesting that the soft tissue was allowed to decay in a process called skeletalization before interment (Logan 1993). Because the eastern two-thirds of the room were left unexcavated at the

Hopi’s request, it is difficult to assess room function (i.e. storage room due to its small size) and whether or not it continued in use post-inhumation, as the presence of a new wall may suggest

(Fugate 2003:48).

Room 2

Excavated in 1992, 1994, and 1995, Room 2 (Figure 3.4) is a semi-subterranean feature that measures approximately 3.6 by 4.4 m (Fugate 2003:49). Initially, Room 2 was thought to be a kiva, due to its circular, subterranean structural shape. However, when it was completely exposed, the shape was more sub-rectangular and seemed to conform to a common local architectural form – the U-shaped masonry structure with a jacal front (Sullivan and Sorrell

1997:8). The south wall may have risen as high as 1.7 m above ground, as evidenced by a substantial amount of stone wall fall in the south portion of the room, but the north wall was not nearly as high (Fugate 2003:49). The floor and walls of Room 2 were treated with daub, possibly as a living surface and to stabilize the friable bedrock upon which the room was built (Fugate

2003:49). A feature originally thought to be part of a “limestone bench” was observed and recorded along the east wall. Upon realization that it was not a kiva bench, the feature was then considered to be a "limestone ledge." A partitioned compartment made of three walls, measuring

4.0 by 1.5 m was found adjacent to the west wall of Room 2, where it created a double-wall

phenomenon (Fugate 2003:50). This compartment was labeled Room 2.2. No features were

identified during the excavation of Room 2.2.

Figure 3.4. Room 2 with features outlined (map prepared by Stephanie Miller).

Many post-holes were discovered in Room 2, including one large post-hole dug into bedrock for each corner of the room and 28 others to support the earthen roof. However, there were two parallel sets of post-hole trenches that appeared to correspond to an elongated entrance on the southeastern side of the room as well (Fugate 2003:51). Together, these two trenches encompassed 15 posts and created an entrance measuring 2.5 m long by 0.8 m wide. It is unclear

21 whether or not the entranceway was covered or open. Interestingly, a large obsidian “Cohonina- style” projectile point was found in one of the post-holes in the entrance (PH 229), possibly as a dedicatory offering when the structure was built (Sullivan and Sorrell 1997:8). Rebuilding and re-stabilization of the southern portion of the roof must have been a continuous priority as suggested by the presence of six post-holes in a cluster in the southwest corner and eight in the southeast corner. Stabilization efforts were focused on the eastern part of the room, which lies on the downward portion of the slope (Fugate 2003:51).

In addition to the post-holes, Room 2 also has a shallow central hearth (Feature 2.01), a shallow ash pit adjacent to the hearth (Feature 2.02), two bell-shaped storage pits in the south portion of the room, and a large shattered metate fragment along the wall in the northwestern part of the room (Fugate 2003:51).

That Room 2 may have been a winter-habitation structure is suggested by its subterranean nature and the presence of an indoor central hearth and storage pits (Fugate

2003:52). The recovery of many artifacts on the floor surface, including ceramic sherds, lithics, and groundstone, suggest that this room was used for domestic activities. Macrobotanical remains of several carbonized Zea mays (maize) cob and cupule fragments were manually recovered from unspecified locations within Room 2, and yucca fibers and a yucca spine were recovered from beneath a cluster of Dogoszhi Black-on-White bowl sherds located in the southeastern part of the room (Sullivan 1993:5).

As noted previously, Stratum II in this room differs from Stratum II in other rooms.

Stratum II consists of “pockets of ash, burnt and unburnt [sic] structural elements, FCR, unburned cobbles, and fragments of daub, indicating that Room 2 had been destroyed by fire”

(Fugate 2003:49). Whether this fire was intentional, as a ritual of abandonment, or unintentional,

22 as an accident or natural occurrence after abandonment, remains unknown. However, the amount and wide array of artifacts types left in situ within this room combined with the lack of substantial artifacts in situ in the other rooms, which were likely used in summer, may suggest that MU 125 was abandoned during the winter. Whatever the cause, the outcome of the burning of the room was fortuitous for the preservation of organic remains.

Room 3

Compared to Room 2 to its west, Room 3 (Figure 3.5) is more square in shape. Its entrance is on the east and it shares its west wall with Room 2 (Fugate 2003:53). The room was excavated into the bedrock, but not as deeply as Room 2. It contained a limestone shelf (6.25 m) along the north wall and four large post-holes in each of its four corners. All of these, except the one in the southwest, were excavated into the bedrock itself, since the southwest corner post-hole was located in a previously utilized post-hole trench affiliated with the Antecedent Structure

(Room 6) (Fugate 2003:54). It appears that the whole southern portion of the room was built atop the Antecedent Structure. Due to bioturbation by roots of vegetation and animals, such as rodents and lizards, strata in the southern part of the room are poorly defined. In contrast to Room 2,

Room 3 has small post-holes, which combined with the greater area of Room 3, suggests that the room was capped with a lightweight roof, ramada-style (Fugate 2003:53).

Red and gray plaster lines the top of the prehistoric limestone living surface with an interior wall separating the two colors of plaster, possibly defining two separate spaces, with grey plaster in the western half and red plaster in the eastern half (Fugate 2003: 58). Whether these spaces were used together or consecutively is difficult to determine (Sullivan and Sorrell

1997:8). However, it appears that Room 3 underwent a major remodeling phase during its use period. New southern and eastern walls were added after a non-catastrophic fire that occurred

within the east end of the room, creating a similar, double-wall phenomenon to that in Room 2

(Fugate 2003:57). The re-modeling was possibly the result of a stabilization endeavor after the fire because the new eastern wall was extended from the ledge in the northern wall to encompass both the northeast and southeast roof support posts (Fugate 2003:57-58). Stones from the original east wall were probably used for the new construction. This new east wall separated the aforementioned gray-plastered western surface from the red-plastered eastern surface (Fugate

2003:58). The previous fire must have been so bad that the eastern portion of the room was closed off and not reused, as shown by the oxidized plaster.

Figure 3.5. Room 3 with features outlined (map prepared by Stephanie Miller).

Feature 96.08 (Figure 3.5) is the only feature directly associated with Room 3. It is a

shallow hearth, located west of the room’s center, and measures 40 by 25 cm in area and 20 cm

deep (Sullivan & Sorrell 1997:14). Groundstone artifacts include one large trough metate and a mano fragment, which were found in the southeast corner of the room (Sullivan et al 1996:10).

Clusters of small-diameter post-holes were also found in the western corner, which have been

interpreted as remnants of racking, on which prehistoric peoples could have hung food and other

important items (Fugate 2003:57).

In contrast to Stratum II in Room 2, Stratum II in Room 3, was not burned (Fugate

2003:40). However, parts of Stratum III in Room 3 seem to be burned as evidenced by the

oxidized plaster on the living surface. Fugate (2003:65) speculates that this room was used in

warmer months, as suggested by the lightweight roof and the shallow central hearth. Room 2 and

Room 3 would have been occupied together, allowing for the use of Room 2 in the winter and

spring and use of Room 3 in the summer and fall. After the abandonment of Room 3 it appears to

have collapsed by natural attrition, unlike Room 2.

Rooms 4 and 5

These two rooms (Figure 3.6) are discussed together in all excavation reports because

they are similar in nature and they are separated by one wall. They were built sometime during or

after the remodeling of Room 3 on top of the destruction layer of Room 6 (Fugate 2003:77). The

surface was leveled by filling in the features of Room 6, which predated all the other Rooms.

Room 4 is a small and irregularly shaped masonry structure, measuring 2 by 2 m, which extends

southeast from the southeast corner of Room 3, creating an open-air bay with no northeastern

wall (Fugate 2003:59). Room 4’s posts appear to have supported the masonry but not a roof,

acting like an "open" ramada.

Figure 3.6. Rooms 4 and 5 with features outlined (map prepared by Stephanie Miller).

Room 5 is a C-shaped, open-air bay with an entrance in the southeast corner, measuring 2

m by 5 m (Fugate 2003:60). Unlike Room 4, the floor surface had patches of gray plaster, which

extended to the southeast, connecting Room 5 with outdoor Activity Area 1, a complex of

features resembling a pottery firing area (Fugate 2003:61). Feature 96.01 is a dense ash deposit

within which were a concentration of large ceramic sherds, fire-cracked rock, a utilized lithic

flake and a core, three large cobbles, and several groundstone fragments lying to the west of two small post-holes, which probably supported a small brush screen (Sullivan and Sorrell 1997:12).

Feature 96.03 is a “roasting pit” about 70 cm in diameter and 25 cm deep filled with ash and

charcoal, located at the exterior southeast corner of Room 5 (Sullivan and Sorrell 1997:12).

Feature 96.05 is a burned, shallow pit, about 1 m the west of Feature 96.03, filled with a dense

concentration of ash and charcoal that “probably resulted from prehistoric cleaning of that

probable roasting pit (Feature 96.03)” (Sullivan and Sorrell 1997:14). These features were all

located outside of Room 5, thus no features were uncovered within Rooms 4 and 5.

Although there is no evidence for a roof, the orientation of each room provided protection

from the north and westerly winds that might interfere with certain activities; however, it is

interesting to note that none of the post-holes were deep enough to penetrate the limestone bedrock as shown in the other rooms at MU 125 (Sullivan and Sorrell 1997:10). The ceramics recovered from both rooms were very large and often burned. The presence of sherds within the walls or beneath wall fall pointed to the “recycling of sherds as building materials, a not uncommon practice in the Upper Basin” (Sullivan et al. 1996:17).

Room 6 “Antecedent Structure”

Room 6, (Figure 3.7) also known as the “Antecedent Structure,” was discovered in 1995

and is a 6 m by 6 m jacal structure with no evidence of masonry, lying beneath Rooms 3, 4, and

5 (Fugate 2003:61). It pre-dates the other rooms at the site, but no diagnostic artifacts can label it

as distinctly Cohonina or Anasazi (Sullivan and Sorrell 1997:14). The post-holes of the north and

west walls were placed into a loose fill post-hole trench, while the posts of the southwest corner

were sunk individually into the limestone bedrock, but the absence of large corner posts suggests

that the roof of the structure was lightweight (Fugate 2003:62). It appears that the floor had been

plastered (gray) for a living surface and was buried to facilitate leveling for the new masonry that

composed Rooms 3, 4, and 5.

Figure 3.7. Room 6 with features outlined (map prepared by Stephanie Miller).

There are a two features within the antecedent structure. Feature 96.13 is a hollowed out

hole in the bedrock near the northern wall that had two metate and one mano fragments within.

Feature 96.09 is an unburned circular pit about 70 cm in diameter and 50 cm deep, that was

“intentionally filled with cobbles and blocks, possibly to eliminate it as a hazard after its

usefulness had been exhausted” (Sullivan and Sorrell 1997:14).

There are several features which appear to have post-dated Room 6 and pre-dated the construction of Rooms 4 and 5. Samples from these features (96.10, 96.11, 96.12, 96.14, 96.15)

are considered to be "exterior" to the structure itself and are not affiliated with any room.1

Features 96.10, 96.11, and 96.12 constitute the “post-hole trench” that seem to represent a north wall lying under Room 3. Lastly, Features 96.14 and 96.15 are FCR piles beneath the walls of

Room 4, separated by 20 cm of fill (Sullivan and Sorrell 1997:14). Greenberg (2013:13) describes FCR piles in the Upper Basin as "the archaeological consequence of an economic technology that involved rocks having been placed over hot coals in order to absorb heat, thus reducing the need for additional fuel, then intermittently scattered and churned about as needed to maintain thermal conduction during the processing of plant resources." Sullivan et al.

(1996:17) suggest that the FCR piles may have been remnants of an earlier ceramic production

area, used by the inhabitants after the destruction of Room 6 but prior to the building of Rooms 4

and 5. According to Sullivan et al. (1996:17), the “FCR concentration may have been used in

heating the ceramics and the large sherds likely represent ‘wasters’ used to cover vessels during

the firing process.”

As previously described, MU 125 is a late Pueblo II multi-room masonry structure that

was occupied year-round, with different rooms and activities areas designated for particular

seasons. Next, the archaeobotanical assemblage and the extent to which it corroborates this

interpretation will be assessed.

1 Features 96.11, 96.12, and 96.15 are displayed in Figure 3.5.

CHAPTER 4 - METHODOLOGY

The outcomes of archaeobotanical analysis are constrained by a variety of factors. Both

field and laboratory recovery methods directly affect the archaeobotanical assemblage and introduce bias. Field and laboratory methods vary depending on the focus of the research questions posed by the study, the project's budget and time constraints, and site-specific factors such as the preservation settings, the location of the site and its accessibility, and the type of contexts encountered during excavation. This chapter discusses preservation and recovery biases, field and laboratory methods, and acknowledges potential biases of this research.

Preservation and Recovery Biases

There are many different preservation and recovery biases that affect archaeobotanical assemblages. Three important factors that are often prevalent in most archaeobotanical research are preservation environment, differences in preservation potential for various taxa, and sampling strategies.

Preservation environment directly affects the condition and recovery of archaeobotanical remains. Huckell and Toll (2004:38) state that “much of the Southwestern archaeobotanical record comes from open sites that are characterized by poorly preserved remains that devolved primarily by chance and accident.” However, even in open sites like MU 125, if by chance and accident botanical remains were charred prehistorically, then much is preserved for the archaeobotanist. While carbonization preserves seeds in archaeological contexts, specific morphological features needed for species identification are often deformed or absent after the effects of carbonization. Due to these morphometric changes and the often fragmentary nature of archaeobotanical assemblage, identification of many recovered items is still difficult or even impossible.

A second bias is the differential preservation potential for each plant taxa and its various

parts, such as wood versus succulent cactus pads (Miksicek 1987). Both modern and prehistoric

cultural and natural processes affect plant part deposition, recovery, and preservation. For

example, the dense cob and cupule structure of maize gives it a greater advantage to survive in

the archaeological record over purslane (Portulacaceae sp.) greens which are non-dense and

have a high water content (Minnis 1981). The example of maize cobs-purslane greens also illustrates how prehistoric cultural choices impart a biased representation of resource utilization.

Because purslane greens are picked fresh and wilt rapidly, they were often eaten raw with both greens and seeds consumed entirely, thus separating them from exposure to the carbonization process. Maize cobs, on the other hand were not ingested, being instead preferred for fuel, thereby affording them greater opportunity for preservation by charring (Minnis 1981). Cultural mechanisms (Smart and Hoffman 1988), such as preferences, taboos, ease of resource availability, and decisions by an individual agent, are all factors that lead to preservation bias within an assemblage as well.

A third bias is the type of sampling strategy used to recover archaeobotanical remains.

The standard in past excavation was for excavators to collect visible plant remains by hand. This meant that only large plant macrofossils would be recovered, and those larger remains were often domesticates and the focus of archaeobotanical subsistence investigation (Staller 2010). For example, excavators in the caves in the Prayer Rock area collected only visible plant material, which resulted in the biased over-representation of maize, squash (Cucurbita), bottle gourd

(Lagenaria), beans (Phaseolus), and pinyon nuts (Pinus), and an unrecorded, underrepresented small-seeded wild plant assemblage (Huckell and Toll 2004:54). By taking soil samples for

flotation in a systematic way and by using small mesh sizes for screening soil, this bias can be

eliminated.

Archaeobotanical Sampling (In-Field Recovery)

In the field, excavators of MU 125 used a type of point sampling strategy to collect soil samples for flotation analysis. Point sampling pinpoints those cultural features that are interpreted by the excavator as having the potential to yield archaeobotanical information

(Pearsall 1989).These typically include features such as hearths, ash pits, roasting pits, and

middens. In addition, excavators collected samples from floor deposits in various areas to

facilitate comparison between features and surrounding adjacent surfaces. Rather than collecting

a standard volume of soil, sample volumes varied. Because the majority of previously analyzed

(Cummings and Puseman 1997) samples lack volumetric information, density comparison of those samples with those of the current study is not possible.

Sample Selection

For this study, significant features were targeted that had either not been previously

examined or for which additional samples were available. In total, 22 samples from 17 contexts

were selected; context types include hearths, bowl contents, a post-hole trench, post-holes,

unburned pits, a roasting pit, ash pits, sediment from on top of a "limestone ledge," floor

samples, metate fill, and a FCR pile. All samples were processed using bucket flotation. From

the 22 newly processed samples, 15 were selected for analysis. Selection was made on the basis

of botanical abundance, the type of context, feature redundancy with the previous analysis, and

the richness of contextual information available. In addition to the 15 samples, three that had

been previously floated but not analyzed were also selected for analysis, yielding a total of 18

newly studied samples reported here. Since the three previously floated samples lack volumetric

data, they are not included in the quantitative comparisons that take sample volume into account,

such as density comparisons between samples.

Cummings and Puseman’s analysis focused primarily on the interior deposits of Rooms

2, 3, and 6, whereas this study included additional samples from Room 1 and exterior spaces.

There is little contextual overlap between the samples studied here and those examined by

Cummings and Puseman (1995, 1997). Although the majority of their samples originate from contexts not studied in this research, some contexts, such as Features 96.03, 96.08, 96.09, and

96.13 were re-examined through study of newly processed samples. Table 4.1 displays the samples' contextual associations and whether they are newly reported in this research or were

previously examined by Cummings and Puseman. The complementarity of the two datasets

yields a more complete picture of the botanical remains in these features, thereby strengthening

inferences about resource use, archaeobotanical patterning, and taphonomy.

Table 4.1. Information about MU 125 Samples Featured in this Study. Analyst Sample Room # Feature # Sample Context Cummings FS# Berkebile & Puseman 1 92.06 Bowl Contents Near Burial 204 X - Floor 160 X - Bowl Contents 168 X - Sediment Above "Limestone Ledge" 49 X - Under Metate - Floor 375 X Sediment in Interstices of Shattered - 407/408 X Metate - Structure Floor 400 X 2 2.01 Shallow Central Hearth 401/404 X 2.02 Shallow Ash Pit 405 X PH L (2.015) Post-hole Low Wing Wall to NE Wall 381 X PH I (2.012) Post-hole SE Corner 379 X PH G (2.010) Post-hole SE Corner 385 X PH D (2.07) Post-hole SW Corner 383 X PH A (2.04) Post-hole NW Corner 387 X - Floor 202 X 2.2 - Floor 203 X 88 X 96.08 Hearth 87 X 3 - Sediment from Trough Metate Basin 287/288 X - Sediment Below Trough Metate - Floor 289 X 103 X 96.09 Unburned Deep Storage Pit 104 X 6 138 X 96.13 Hole in Bedrock 138 X 114 X Post-Dates 96.12 Post-hole Trench - Northern Wall 139 X Room 6, Pre-Dates 96.15 FCR and Ash Pile 145 X Construction 96.14 FCR and Ash Pile 146 X of Rooms 4 and 5 PH-44/96.10 Post-hole Trench- Northern Wall 164 X PH36/ 96.01 Post-hole in Pottery-Firing Facility 30 X 97 X Exterior 96.03 Roasting Pit 98 X 99/100 X Shallow Burned Pit 96.05 91 X (1 m from Feat. 96.03)

Sample Processing

Flotation, or water-sieving, of soil samples is a standard recovery technique that uses

water to gently separate organic remains from the soil. Flotation can improve the “quantity and

the range of botanical materials that can be recovered archaeologically” (Pearsall 1989:14). In

order to ensure comparability between my dataset and that produced previously by Cummings

and Puseman, this study used the same bucket flotation method (Matthews 1979). Although this method is “relatively slow and labor-intensive,” it is an ample substitute if a machine-assisted flotation is not an option (Fritz 2005:783). In this method, one liter of sediment is added to three gallons of water and stirred until a strong vortex forms (Figure 4.1). When the vortex slows, the water and material floating on the surface is poured through a 150µm mesh sieve in order to collect the light fraction (LF) (Cummings and Puseman 1995, 1997). The LF constitutes the botanical and non-botanical (insects, bone, fish scales) objects that remain suspended in the water. The heavier materials (heavy fraction or HF) remaining at the bottom of the bucket were then washed out, screened through 0.5 mm mesh, and dried (Cummings and Puseman 1995,

1997). Examples of materials in the HF include rocks, ceramics, lithics, daub, and occasionally dense macrobotanicals, such as wood or legumes. Whereas Cummings and Puseman repeated this process a minimum of three times to guarantee the collection of the majority of macrobotanical remains, in this study, the process was repeated at least five times because smaller buckets were used (2 gallons instead of 3).

Figure 4.1. The author, Jean N. Berkebile, in the process of bucket flotation of the newly studied samples (picture courtesy of Dr. Susan E. Allen).

Analysis

Sample Sorting

Sample sorting was accomplished by grading the LF into four size classes (>2 mm, 1-2 mm, 0.5-1 mm, and <0.5 mm). All material from the largest three size classes was completely sorted under a binocular microscope at magnifications up to 140x, whereas the <0.5 mm size fraction was only scanned for potentially identifiable plant remains. In addition, all HF was scanned to ensure the recovery of more dense botanicals, such as wood charcoal.

Identification

Taxonomic identification of specimens was facilitated by use of a comparative collection and standard seed atlases (Adams and Murray 2004; Cappers et al. 2009; Martin and Barkley

1961; Musil 1963). Crow Canyon Archaeological Center’s online publication Identification

Criteria for Plant Remains Recovered from Archaeological Sites in the Central Mesa Verde

Region, created by Karen R. Adams and Shawn S. Murray (2004), was especially useful because of its focus on pinyon-juniper environments. Because there is a significant lack of published comparative material for identifying archaeobotanical remains not only in the Upper Basin, but also for the Southwestern U.S. in general, it was essential to create a comparative collection of seeds and other plant parts that are regularly recovered in the region in order to ensure accurate

identification of sample contents.

Modern specimens were either collected by hand from the immediate area around MU

125 in Kaibab National Forest or acquired from the USDA National Plant Germplasm System.

Species found today within the Upper Basin but not indigenous to the area, as well as species

common to the wider region of the American Southwest, were also requested in order to aid in

the identification of non-local species that might have arrived through trade.

Because carbonized specimens display morphometric alterations when compared with

unburned samples, comparative materials were also experimentally carbonized in order to

facilitate the identification of burned plant remains (Figure 4.2). For each taxon, specimens were

wrapped in aluminum foil and carbonized in a muffle furnace in the Mediterranean Ecosystem

Dynamics and Archaeobotany Lab at the University of Cincinnati.

The determination of correct carbonization temperatures and times was based first on

Wright’s (2003) study on the carbonization of key Eastern North American species, particularly

37 for small, oily seeds like Amaranthus and Chenopodium. Due to differing preparation methods and furnace types, it was necessary to adjust the times and temperatures for each taxon through trial and error. In general, times and temperatures vary due to differences in size, density, and plant part (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2. Carbonization Time and Temperature Parameters by Taxon. FAMILY GENUS PART TEMP TIME Agavaceae Agave Seeds 300˚ C 1 hr Yucca Seeds 300˚ C 1 hr Amaranthaceae Amaranthus Seeds 300˚ C 30 min Helianthus Seeds 350˚ C 50 min Asteraceae Bahia Seeds 350˚ C 1 hr 15 min

Baileya Seeds 350˚ C 1 hr 15 min Artemisia Seeds 350˚ C 1 hr 15 min Encelia Seeds 350˚ C 1 hr 15 min

Gutierrezia Seeds 350˚ C 1 hr 15 min

Iva Seeds 300˚ C 20 min Brassicaceae Descurainia Seeds 200˚ C 1 hr 10 min Brassica sp. Seeds 300˚ C 20 min Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium Seeds 300˚ C 40 min Atriplex Seeds 300˚ C 45 min Cleomaceae Arivela Seeds 300˚ C 20 min Cucurbitaceae Cucurbita Seeds 300˚ C 40 min Lagenaria Seeds 300˚ C 40 min 30 min/50 Cupressaceae Juniperus Seeds/leaves 300˚ C min Elaeagnaceae Sheperdia Seeds 350˚ C 1 hr 15 min Ephedraceae Ephedra Leaves 350˚ C 45 min Phaseolus Seeds 300˚ C 50 min Fabaceae Prosopis Seeds 300˚ C 50 min Hoffmannseggia Seeds 350˚ C 45 min

Astragalus Seeds 350˚ C 45 min Loasaceae Mentzelia Seeds 350˚ C 1 hr 15 min Malvaceae Sphaeralcea Seeds 350˚ C 1 hr 15 min Nyctaginaceae Mirabilis Seeds 300˚ C 50 min Pedaliaceae Proboscidea Seeds 300˚ C 50 min Seeds/Bark Pinus 300˚ C 1 hr 20 min Pinaceae Scales Pinus (flexilis) Seeds 300˚ C 1 hr

Pinus Cone Scales 300˚ C 1 hr Phalaris Seeds 300˚ C 30 min Poaceae Hordeum Inflorescences 300˚ C 40 min Panicum Seeds 300˚ C 35 min Achnatherum Seeds 300˚ C 40 min

Zea Kernels 200˚ C 1 hr 20 min Portulacaceae Portulaca Seeds 350˚ C 1 hr 15 min Solanaceae Physalis Seeds 350˚ C 1 hr 15 min

All identifiable plant materials were recorded to the most precise taxonomic level

possible. In many cases, identification beyond the genus or even the family level was not

possible. Seeds that were not identifiable due to missing features or distorted morphology, but

were still complete enough for possible classification in the future were photographed and

measured (Appendix D).

Figure 4.2. Carbonized seeds from the comparative collection; Chenopodium berlandieri (top left), Encelia frutescens (top right), Phaseolus vulgaris (bottom left), Sphaeralcea munroana (bottom right).

Taphonomic Considerations

Due to yearly weather and precipitation fluctuations in the Upper Basin (cf. Sullivan

1987), the shallow depth of the deposits, and potential for modern seed contamination, only carbonized plant remains, which are likely to be ancient, were considered and counted in this research. Carbonization, which is the most common form of preservation of archaeobotanical

remains, occurs when organic materials are exposed to high temperatures and converted to

carbon (Miksicek 1987). Carbonized seeds are thus “cultural artifacts” that result from varied

human activities, whether burning is intentional or not (Miller 1988:50).

In any archaeobotanical study, it is imperative to consider the source of seeds and other

plant materials (Figure 4.3). As described by Paul Minnis (1981), not all seeds found in the

archaeological record are prehistoric. Except in special preservation settings such as caves, or special preservation conditions such as water-logging, mineralization, or desiccation, uncarbonized seeds are often modern introductions (Minnis 1981:143). Bioturbation by seed- disseminating organisms such as rodents and reptiles, as well as root activity of modern vegetation, facilitates the vertical dispersal of modern seed rain into the archaeological features that have often become their preferred habitats (Minnis 1981:144). Other agents of disturbance that affect archaeobotanical assemblages include wind-blown seed disposition, plowing, drying cracks in the soil column, and down-washing erosion (Miksicek 1987; Minnis 1981:145).

Figure 4.3. Influence of seed sources on the archaeobotanical record (from Minnis 1981).

Because this research focuses on wild resource utilization by the inhabitants of MU 125, especially their use of weedy annuals, it is important to acknowledge Minnis’ caution when he states that “shortly after abandonment, weedy annuals, which tend to produce prodigious

quantities of seed, would begin growing on and around abandoned sites and would thus intensify

local seed rain” (1981:145). Moreover, these weedy annuals are highly prevalent on flat-roofed,

disturbed structures throughout the Southwest (Minnis 1981).

Minnis (1981) advocates the use of a conservative approach that includes only carbonized seeds and other plant parts, because only the carbonized plant remains may be taken to infer direct and indirect resource utilization at an open-air site like MU 125 (also see Sullivan 1987;

Sullivan and Ruter 2006). Of course, certain exceptions to this rule may occur, like the perfectly preserved non-charred squash seeds discovered in the open air-site of Salmon Ruin (Bohrer and

Adams 1977). Conversely, wind-blown seeds may be unintentionally incorporated into contexts such as hearths, where they may be carbonized (Miksicek 1987).

Quantification

In quantifying the recovered material, seeds were counted as fragmentary unless they were absolutely whole or were almost whole (e.g., juniper berries). Other plant parts such as bark scales, maize cupules, nut shell, and juniper twigs were counted as fragmentary. Pinus cone scales and needles were counted as either whole or fragmentary depending on their preservation.

For wood charcoal, fragments larger than 2 mm were sorted from the samples and weighed in order to create comparable measures across all samples. Pottery, beads, animal bone, daub, and lithic debitage found in the heavy fraction were collected and recorded as present, but were not quantified.

As is standard in archaeobotanical reporting, absolute counts of all recovered archaeobotanical material were utilized for the raw data. These are presented in Appendix B and

facilitate comparisons with previous archaeobotanical results at MU 125 (Cummings and

Puseman 1995, 1997). Although it is necessary to report absolute counts, they can be

42 problematic if used as the sole basis for interpretation, as they “overlook the effects of differential preservation, charring, deposition, recovery, and identification” (Fritz 2005:791). In order to address these biases, relative frequency, ubiquity and ranking, and density quantification methods will be used in this analysis. Use of all three measures limits the effects of taphonomic and preservation biases that are inherent in archaeobotanical data, such as differences among preservation potential, seed productivity, processing methods, modes of abandonment, and sampling methods. More recent archaeobotanical studies in the Upper Basin have included the use of both relative frequency and ubiquity to counter those biases (Sullivan 1987; Sullivan and

Ruter 2006). Lastly, the density of wood and non-wood specimens per liter of sediment in each sample was assessed to better understand the charred composition and taphonomy of each feature’s assemblage (Miller 1988).

In order to include fragmentary materials in the absolute counts, a formula was created to convert numbers of fragments to numbers of whole items (Table 4.4). For example, each maize cupule holds two kernels. Therefore, to convert cob fragments to kernels, each cupule was counted as two kernels. Conversions to kernels were used in order to standardize quantities as measures of seeds.

Table 4.4. Formulae Applied to Recovered Taxa to Convert Fragmentary Remains to Whole Items. Taxon # Fragment = Whole Seed Maize 1 cupule = 2 whole kernels Cheno-Ams, Purslane, Cactus, Poaceae-type grasses, Juniper 2 = 1 whole seed Pinyon 3 = 1 whole seed .

Grouping of Data by Resource Type

To assess patterns of resource use with relative frequency and ubiquity measures, the recovered plants were placed in three resource groups. These groups were defined on the basis of three types of subsistence strategies that are thought to have been prevalent in the Upper Basin.

These strategies are the cultivation or encouragement of wild plant resources that are deemed as potentially “Cultivable” Wild Resources (CWR), the gathering of wild plant resources without modification of their growth regimes are considered Gathered Wild Resources (GWR), and the cultivation of Domesticated Resources (DR). The CWR group includes Cheno-ams, purslane, globemallow, the sunflower-family, tansy mustard, Panic and other small-seeded perennial grasses. The GWR group includes pinyon, juniper, cactus, bugseed, and cattail. The DR group includes only maize and beans. Sample data were aggregated on the basis of resource type

(CWR, GWR, DR) for ubiquity and relative frequency analysis, as discussed below.

Relative Frequency (Abundance)

Relative frequency provides a quick snapshot of the relative abundance of specific taxa within a sample, feature, or site. It is calculated by dividing the absolute count of each taxon by the total number of all known seeds within that sample, context, or site. The result is represented as a percentage that indicates the total seed count of a specific taxon (Popper 1988:60). However, because relative frequency values are ultimately based on absolute counts, which are affected by the biases previously described, on their own, they should not be taken to represent an accurate portrayal of the relative importance of different plants in prehistoric activities.

Nonetheless, relative frequency is a useful measure of sample composition. For features with both newly and previously analyzed samples (Cummings and Puseman 1995, 1997), absolute counts from all samples from the feature were combined within each resource type in

order to calculate relative frequency. For example, there are two samples (FS#103 and 104) from

Feature 96.09, an unburned storage pit. Thus, in order to calculate relative frequency for Feature

96.09, absolute counts for each resource category were summed (184 CWR, 5 GWR, 20 DR) and

then divided by the total number of seeds present in both of the samples (n = 209) to yield values

for relative frequency for each resource type (Table 4.5).

Table 4.5. Relative Frequency Conversion Equation for Each Resource Type in Feature 96.09. Taxon CWR Taxon GWR Taxon DR Total Bugseed 2 Bean 1 Cheno-Am Seed 184.5 Maize Cactus Seed 3 Cupule 20 Total 184.5 5 21 210.5 Relative Frequency 87.60% 2.40% 10% 100%

Relative frequencies were also used to assess compositional differences between various

context types. Four aggregate context types were designated: Thermal-Related Food Processing

Contexts (hearths, roasting pits, ash pits, FCR), Non-Thermal Food Processing Contexts

(sediment within metates), Post-Hole/Floor Contexts (individual post-holes, post-hole trenches, floor samples, sediment below metates), and All Other Contexts (sediment above a "limestone ledge," bowl contents2, unburned pits). For this analysis, data from all samples from a given

context type were combined. In order to calculate relative frequency by context type, the quantity

of seeds for each resource type was then divided by the total number of seeds present within the

aggregated samples of a given context. The same three resource types were used to assess

differences in subsistence strategies on a room by room basis to try to understand whether

2 The term contents, used to describe the sediment within the bowl that was sampled, does not intend to impart a meaning that the recovered archaeobotanical remains represent the remains of a last meal or that the contents of the bowl were placed directly into the bowl by the inhabitants at MU 125. Aside from the archaeobotanical assemblage, the sediments within bowls are likely due to structural deterioration and collapse.

different subsistence activities were being carried out in different spaces within the MU 125

masonry complex.

Ubiquity

Ubiquity analysis, often called presence analysis, helps to reduce the effects of biases in

preservation, in sampling, and in archaeobotanical representation (Popper 1988). Represented as a percentage, ubiquity is a measure of the regularity with which a particular taxon appears within a group of samples (Popper 1988:61). For example, regardless of the absolute count of Cheno- ams within a sample, it will be counted as “present” if there are any Cheno-ams in the sample.

The presence of Cheno-ams in six of 10 samples would be reported as a 60% ubiquity in the sample set. Two important advantages of ubiquity analysis are that (1) “ the score of one taxon does not affect the score of another, and thus the scores of different taxa can be evaluated independently” and (2) “the scores of different taxa can provide information on the relative importance of taxa” (Popper 1988:61). The ubiquity of each resource type (CWR, GWR, DR) was calculated for the four context types (Thermal Food-Processing, Non-Thermal Food

Processing, Post-Holes and Floor, and Other Contexts).

Ranking

Ranking analysis is intended to further address the effects of preservation biases in the representation of different plant taxa caused by factors such as differences in seed productivity or the likelihood of carbonization. Ranking converts absolute counts into an ordinal scale of abundance (Popper 1988:64). For each taxon, a scale of abundance or ranking scheme is developed according to its plant reproduction strategies and its preservation and recovery potential, which “sets the frequency required to fall within each rank” (Popper 1988:64). In

Popper’s (1988:64) study of household status in Peru, her scale of abundance ranking requires 1-

50 quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) seeds to have a ranking of "1," while potatoes require the presence of only 1-2 tubers to have a ranking of "1." Because quinoa plants have a high productivity level of small, dense seeds that preserve well, whereas potatoes produce starchy tubers that do not fare well under most preservation conditions, the classification threshold is much lower for potatoes than for quinoa. In contrast to the resource type approach used for ubiquity and relative frequency, ranking focuses on finer context divisions and narrower taxonomic groups. Thus, patterns that might have been obscured in the groupings used in the other two measures, ubiquity and relative frequency, may be more apparent with the application of ranking.

Scales of abundance, based on Popper’s method (1988), were calculated for the most

prevalent taxa at MU 125 (as displayed in Table 4.6). For maize, low inter-rank thresholds reflect

the abundant number of kernels a maize cob produces, the dense and easily preservable nature of

the cob itself, and the cultural practice of the Ancient Puebloans to use maize cobs as fuel, which

often predisposes them to be preserved by carbonization. The ranking schemes of Cheno-ams,

purslane, grasses, tansy mustard, and cattail are based on Popper’s (1988) quinoa ranking,

because these Southwestern plants have high seed productivity and other seed characteristics

similar to those of quinoa.

Beans are analogous to Popper's (1988) potato ranking because their preferred method of

cooking was by boiling, thus decreasing their opportunity for carbonization. Although cactus

pads do not preserve well, their high seed productivity, dense seed, and sturdy spine bases all

facilitate preservation. Thus, cactus has been assigned higher thresholds than beans in the

ranking scheme. Because bugseed, globemallow, pinyon, and juniper are intermediate in terms of

seed production and preservation potential, their ranking scheme was placed between the lowest

47 producers/least preserved (cactus/beans) and the highest (Cheno-ams, tansy mustard). Pinyon and juniper seed rankings were based on higher seed number thresholds because of their dense seed coats and their higher preservation potential over globemallow and bugseed. Thus, this ranking system takes preservation and recovery potential into account (1 ranks lowest, 3 ranks highest).

Table 4.6. Ranking System Based on Number of Items Present for Each Taxon. Taxon Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Maize 1 - 10 11 – 25 26+ Cheno-Ams 1 - 50 51 – 300 300+ Pinyon/Juniper 1 - 10 11 – 20 21+ Cactus 1 - 25 26 – 50 50+ Purslane 1 - 10 11 – 25 26+ Grasses 1 - 10 11 – 25 26+ Bugseed 1 - 5 6 – 10 10+ Globemallow 1 - 5 6 – 10 10+ Tansy Mustard 1 - 50 51 – 300 300+ Cattail 1 - 50 51 - 300 300+ Beans 1 - 2 3 - 5 6+

Density

In addition to relative frequency, ubiquity, and ranking, standardizing ratios, such as density measures, are often used to compare (1) “samples of unequal size,” (2) "samples differing in circumstances of deposition or preservation,” and (3) “quantities of different categories of material that are equivalent in some respect” (Miller 1988:72). A density measure is a ratio that facilitates inter-sample comparison by standardizing sample data, usually expressed as the weight of charred wood (in grams) divided by the volume of sediment processed (Miller

1988:73). Similarly, density is often expressed as the number of non-wood items divided by the sediment volume (Miller 1988:73). These measures allow for testing “assumptions of uniform deposition, preservation, and recovery rates” (Miller 1988:73). Both types of density measures were calculated for this study and are reported in the results section. Because this measure

48 requires sediment volume, samples that lacked volumetric information were not included in the density comparison.

CHAPTER 5 - RESULTS

Both domesticated and wild plant species were recovered from MU 125. Domesticates

include Zea mays (maize) and Phaseolus vulgaris (beans). The predominant wild plants

recovered were Cheno-ams, bugseed, and cactus. Other wild plants represented include pinyon,

juniper, purslane, globemallow, Panicum and other small-seeded grasses, wild sunflower, cattail,

and tansy mustard. Overall, Cheno-ams were the most abundant and ubiquitous taxon group in

both the newly analyzed samples and those studied previously by Cummings and Puseman

(1995, 1997). Notably, gathered and potentially cultivable wild resources (GWR and CWR) are

both more ubiquitous and show higher relative frequencies than domesticated resources (DR).

Newly reported taxa that were not identified previously at MU 125 include bugseed, cattail,

beans, a Panicum type grass, an Asteraceae type, and cotton, in the form of string. In contrast,

tansy mustard was identified only in samples examined by Cummings and Puseman (1995,

1997). These differences may reflect both contextual differences between the two sets of samples and the greater attention given to the 0.5-1 mm fraction in this study. Wood taxa were identified only by Cummings and Puseman (1995, 1997), who reported the majority of fragments as

Juniperus or Pinus. These taxa are abundant in the local woodland environment and were likely used as both fuel and building material. Other identified wood species include Atriplex

(saltbush), Artemisia (sagebrush), and Shepherdia (buffalocherry). Although, wood identification

in the newly studied samples was beyond the scope of this research, the results of previous wood

identification by Cummings and Puseman (1995, 1997) are included in this discussion.

Plant preservation at MU 125 was limited to carbonized remains. The moderate

environmental conditions of the Upper Basin, created by fluctuations in annual temperature and

precipitation, promote the decay of plant remains and prevent their preservation by desiccation.

Thus, the best preserved botanical deposits on the site were located in areas where burning occurred, such as hearths, roasting pits, and ash piles. Although most samples were recovered

from relatively undisturbed contexts, some bioturbation is indicated by the presence of a

moderate amount of rodent feces in each sample. However, as these were either fully or partially

carbonized in more than half of the samples, this disturbance likely occurred prior to

abandonment. Alternatively, the presence of carbonized rodent feces may indicate deposition and

burning in post-abandonment events unrelated to the prehistoric occupation of MU 125. A tree-

throw in the southeastern corner of the Room 2 may also have disturbed post-hole samples G and

I (Sullivan et al. 1996).

The results of this analysis are described below. Overall patterns in the relative frequency

of different resource types (CWR, GWR, DR described in Table 5.1) by feature are presented

first, followed by the presentation of general patterns revealed in density ratios (non-wood

items/L, wood/L) by feature, the results of relative frequency and ubiquity of individual features

grouped by context type, and the results of the ranking analysis.

Table 5.1. Taxa Differentiated According to Resource Type (CWR, GWR, and DR). Cultivable Wild Resource (CWR) Gathered Wild Resource Domesticated Resource Taxa (GWR) Taxa (DR) Taxa Cheno-Ams Pinyon Maize Purslane Juniper Bean Globemallow Cactus Cotton

Bugseed Sunflower-Family Tansy Mustard Cattail Panic & Other Small-Seeded Grasses

Relative Frequency by Feature

As described in the previous chapter, this study uses relative frequency and ubiquity to

assess the prevalence of three resource types (Cultivable Wild Resources [CWR], Gathered Wild

Resources [GWR], and Domesticated Resources [DR]) among different context types. For

features that have both newly analyzed samples and samples previously reported by Cummings

and Puseman (1995, 1997), aggregated results that combine both datasets are presented.

Appendix B displays the absolute counts for each taxon by sample for this new analysis, as well as the converted values of fragments to whole items. Appendix C displays the absolute counts

and conversion values for Cummings and Puseman's analysis (1995, 1997).

According to relative frequency values (Figure 5.1), while most features contain only two

resource types, only nine of the 28 features analyzed contain all three types. The majority of

features show a high relative frequency of Cultivable Wild Resources, with values ranging

between 100% (Features 96.10, 96.12, metate contents FS#287/288) and 20% (Feature 96.15

and "limestone ledge" sediment FS#49).

Figure 5.1. Relative frequency of resource types by feature.

The average frequency of CWR in all features is 77.2%.3 The samples with the two lowest CWR values have a higher frequency of GWR (77.6% and 80% respectively). Overall,

GWR values ranged between 0% and 80%, with a total of six samples having no GWR remains.

The relative frequencies of DR were consistently the lowest of the three resources, ranging from

3 FCR pile 96.14 yielded no plant remains so it has zero values for each resource type.

0% to 50% (FS#289). The only sample with a high relative frequency of DR was from sediment

below the trough metate in Room 3 (FS#289), comprised of 50% DR and 50% CWR. Fewer than half of the 28 features analyzed contained DR (11/28 or 39%).

Density Values of Wood and Non-Wood by Feature

Converting absolute counts of recovered plant remains into densities provides a way to

assess the intensity of burning activities across a site, the use of wood versus other types of fuel,

and the ratio of wood to non-wood remains. At MU 125, wood density values are highly

variable, ranging from 0.1 – 166.6 grams per liter (Figure 5.2). The greatest wood densities occur

in samples from a "limestone ledge" in Room 2 (166.6 g/L), a floor sample (FS#160) from Room

2 (64.3 g/L), and an outdoor ash pit (25.6 g/L). The lowest wood densities, all between 0.1 and

0.2 g/L, occur in an exterior post-hole (PH-#36), a post-hole trench (96.12) in Room 6, the bowl contents from the burial in Room 1, and a floor sample (FS#203) from Room 2.2. In fact, 12 out of 21 samples have a wood density of less than 1 g/L. Notably, high density values for wood do not map directly onto contexts where burning activity would be expected and may reflect the redeposition of burned materials away from their primary depositional contexts.

The non-wood density values are also highly variable, with values ranging from 2.2 to

388 items per liter (Figure 5.3). One sample, the FCR pile (Feature 96.14), yielded no non-wood archaeobotanical remains. The highest density of non-wood occurred in samples from the contents of the Dogozshi Black-on-White Bowl (388 items/L) and Floor Sample FS#160 (262.2 items/L) in Room 2, the unburned storage pit fill of Feature 96.09 (245.8 items/L), and the Room

2.2 floor sample FS#202 (123.3 items/liter). The lowest non-wood density values occurred in

samples from Hearth 96.08 (2.2 items/L), the "limestone ledge" FS#49 (3.3 items/L), a post-hole

(PH-36) Feature 96.01 (5.6 items/L), and the ash pit Feature 96.05 (5.8 items/L). As with the

54 density of wood charcoal, non-wood density values do not correlate directly with contexts where burning would be expected and may reflect the redeposition of burned material facilitated by a variety of human activities, such as sweeping and cleaning, or natural causes.

iter. l

ensity per sample, expressed as the number of grams per of grams as the number expressed per sample, ensity Wood d

Figure 5.2.

iter. r of items l per r items of ensity per sample, expressed as the numbe expressed sample, ensity per wood d wood - Non

Figure 5.3. 57

Results by Feature and Context Type

For the discussion of results, individual features were grouped into four context types: (1)

Thermal-Related Food Processing Contexts (hearths n=2, a roasting pit n=1, ash pits n=2, FCR

n=2); (2) Non-Thermal Food Processing Contexts (sediment within metates n=2); (3) Post-

Hole/Floor Contexts (individual post-holes n=6, post-hole trenches n=2, floor samples n=4,

sediment below metates n=2); and (4) All Other Contexts (sediment on "limestone ledge" n=1,

bowl contents n=2, unburned pits n=2). Patterns in relative frequency and density values for

individual features within their context group are discussed below.

Thermal-Related Food Processing Contexts

This context group is comprised of hearths, ash pits, roasting pits, and FCR piles. In

general, exterior roasting and ash pit features are overwhelmingly dominated by CWR such as

Cheno-ams. In contrast, only small quantities of maize and beans are present, with lesser

amounts of purslane, juniper, globemallow, Panicum-type grasses, sunflower, and pinyon.

Strikingly, domesticates are lacking in both hearths. In addition, most hearths and roasting pits have extremely low densities of both non-wood (2.2 and 10.7 items/L) and wood (0.6 and 0.3 g/L) and are dominated by Cheno-ams, with small quantities of purslane, pinyon, and juniper. In contrast, FCR piles showed more variation. Whereas FCR pile 96.14 contained no botanical remains, FCR pile 96.15 had all three resource types represented, with GWR dominating the assemblage.

As shown in Figure 5.4, nearly all samples associated with a thermal-related food processing context are dominated by CWR. The only exception is the FCR pile 96.15, comprised mostly of GWR. Notably, domesticates are very poorly represented and are found in only three contexts: one ash pit, the roasting pit, and one FCR pile.

Figure 5.4. Relative frequency of resource types in Thermal-Related Food Processing Contexts.

Roasting Pit

Feature 96.03 (FS#97, 98, and 99/100)

Samples from this feature, identified in the field as a possible roasting pit, were analyzed

by both studies. Filled with ash and charcoal, the pit measures about 70 cm in diameter and 25

cm in depth and is located at the exterior southeast corner of Room 5 (Sullivan & Sorrell

1997:12). Sample #99/100 was collected from Stratum IV (the surface intruding under the living

surface). The presence of carbonized Chenopodium and Cheno-am seeds together with a single

Zea mays kernel fragment in this sample suggested to Cummings and Puseman that these taxa

may have been utilized and processed in the pit. The majority of fuel wood they identified was

Atriplex and Juniperus, with a moderate amount of Pinus. Non-botanical items found include

two ancient gray stone beads, measuring 2.1 and 2.2 mm in diameter and 0.8 and 1 mm thick,

and calcined animal bone fragments suggesting faunal processing may have occurred in the pit

(Cummings and Puseman 1997:7).

Two additional samples (FS#97 and #98), reported here for the first time, were also

dominated by Cheno-am seeds (Figure 5.5). However, these newly studied samples show greater

taxonomic diversity of wild resources than was reported by Cummings and Puseman (1997).

New taxa recovered include purslane, a Panicum-type grass, globemallow, wild sunflower, juniper seed, and pinyon nut shell. One bean (Phaseolus sp.) cotyledon suggests the processing of domesticated beans in this type of feature (Figure 5.6). These two samples were taken from

Stratum III in the feature, at the same level as the living surface. This difference in sample

diversity between FS#97 and #98 and FS#99/100, taken from Stratum IV, may show a greater

diversity of resource use over time. Four additional gray beads of similar dimensions were found,

as well as more calcified animal bone (possibly from small reptiles and/or rodents), three

Tusayan Gray Ware sherds, and one piece of lithic debitage.

Figure 5.5. Cheno-am seeds found in FS#97. Figure 5.6. Phaseolus sp. cotyledon found in FS#97.

The wood density values for this feature (Figure 5.3), based on only two of the three samples (FS#97 and FS#98), fall in the middle of the range of wood density values (1.8 g/L and

2.2 g/L respectively). Such low density values are unusual for a thermal feature of this size.

Interestingly, non-wood density values also are also moderately low (78.7 items/L and 100.1 items/L respectively). Together, these patterns may suggest that the roasting pit was not cleaned out before abandonment like the interior hearths, but was abandoned with the remains of the last activity in situ. Since roasting pits are usually cleaned out before each use, as suggested by the adjacent ash pit (Feature 96.03), the recovered fill may either represent the remains of the last in situ activity, subsequent post-abandonment fill, or a combination of both. The relative frequency of this feature is dominated by CWR (97.1%), then DR (2%), and GWR (0.9%).

Hearths

Feature 96.08 (FS#87 and #88)

This medium sized (40 x 25 x 20 cm) central hearth in Room 3 contained abundant charcoal within its interior (Sullivan and Sorrell 1997:14). Two samples from this hearth have been studied, FS#87, reported by Cummings and Puseman (1997), and FS#88, newly reported here. The charcoal assemblage of FS#87 is dominated by Juniperus and some Atriplex. Seeds included carbonized Cheno-am embryos and a Pinus edulis seed fragment, suggesting the processing of these two taxa (Cummings and Puseman 1997). Sample FS#88 revealed the presence of a new wild taxon, Typha (cattail). Because the Upper Basin lacks perennial streams, the presence of cattail may suggest interaction with the inner canyon where hydrophilous species, such as Typha, grow near the river. Thus, CWR dominated the feature (81.9%) in the relative frequency values, followed by GWR (18.1%). Notably, density values for both wood

(0.8 g/L) and non-wood (10.7 items/L) were low for this hearth and may indicate that the hearth was cleaned out before abandonment.

Feature 2.01 (FS#401-404)

Feature 2.01 is a shallow depression in Room 2 that was provisionally identified as a

hearth due to the high content of visible charcoal and the presence of intact daub along its eastern

margin (Sullivan et al. 1995:6). Four samples from this feature were examined by Cummings and

Puseman (1995). The presence of amaranth, goosefoot, purslane, and juniper seeds suggests their

processing here, while pinyon nut fragments and cone scales suggest the consumption of pinyon

(Cummings and Puseman 1995:12). Again, CWR (86.7%) and GWR (13.3%) comprise the

whole assemblage with no DR represented. Juniperus wood was the most abundant fuel type,

followed by Pinus edulis and Shepherdia sp. Unfortunately, the absence of sample volume data

for this hearth precludes comparison with density values of the other contexts, such as the

previously described hearth in Room 3 (Feature 96.08), which had low wood and non-wood

densities.

Ash Pits

Feature 96.05 (FS#91)

This burned, shallow pit was examined only by Cummings and Puseman and lies about 1

m to the west of Feature 96.03 outside of Room 5. It was filled with a dense concentration of ash

and charcoal that “probably resulted from prehistoric cleaning of that probable roasting pit

[Feature 96.03]” (Sullivan & Sorrell 1997:14). The presence of carbonized Chenopodium,

Cheno-ams, and Zea mays again indicate their use and processing at the site and the same

charcoal assemblage supports the initial interpretation of the excavators that this feature was the

by-product of the cleaning of the adjacent roasting pit (Feature 96.03) (Cummings and Puseman

1997:7). Additionally, a carbonized Juniperus seed fragment and a Pinus cone scale fragment might represent the processing of juniper berries and pine nuts, while a Juniperus leaf may have

been deposited after its use as a medicinal resource or as a remnant of fuel or roofing material

(Cummings and Puseman 1997:7). The relative frequency of resource types within this feature

are CWR (50%), DR (40%), and GWR (10%). The high wood density value (25.6 g/L) in this

feature was the third highest at the site, suggesting that it may have been regularly used as a

place to deposit ash and charcoal from successive episodes of use of Feature 96.03.

Feature 2.02 (FS#405)

This feature is a shallow depression in Room 2, adjacent to the hearth (Feature 2.01),

filled with a fine white ash, which “is unlike the ash intermixed among the architectural debris in

the rest of the room” (Sullivan et al. 1995:6). Analyzed by Cummings and Puseman (1995), this

ash pit may also represent a refuse pit with the cleaned out remains of the central hearth, as

suggested by the presence of carbonized Chenopodium and Juniperus seeds in the sample. No

DR were recovered, thus the relative frequency values were dominated by CWR (73.3%) and

GWR (26.7%). Juniperus charcoal was more abundant than Pinus (Cummings and Puseman

1995:13).

Fire-Cracked Rock Piles (FCR)

In the Upper Basin, FCR piles are usually found in the woodlands away from habitation structures and are traditionally associated with resource processing, with the finished plant by- product transported back to a settlement (Sullivan 1992). Greenberg (2013:3) reports that FCR piles are the fourth most common type of archaeological feature recorded within UBARP, with

217 having been recorded since 2012. The two FCR piles at MU 125 appear to post-date Room

6, or the Antecedent Structure, but pre-date the construction of Rooms 4 and 5, thus suggesting the site was used as a testing ground to determine its resource potential before the main rooms at

MU 125 were built (Sullivan and Sorrell 1997). Other FCR piles in the Upper Basin, like MU

235 and MU 236, tend to yield archaeobotanical assemblages dominated solely by gathered or

cultivable wild resources such as pinyon seed and nut shell, juniper seeds, Indian rice grass

(Oryzopsis hymenoides), buckwheat (Eriogonum sp.), Cheno-ams, and purslane (Sullivan

1992:215-216).

Feature 96.14 (FS#146)

This feature is a concentration of FCR and ash that was located at a depth of 20 cm

beneath a layer of fill below the north wall of Room 4 (Sullivan and Sorrell 1997:14). As such, it

predates the construction of Room 4, but is not considered part of Room 6 or the “Antecedent

Structure.” FS#146 from this feature, examined by Cummings and Puseman (1997:9), contained

only Juniperus and Pinus charcoal and several Pinus bark scales that were together interpreted as

the remains of fuel. The wood density of this sample is markedly low (0.8 g/L) for a thermal

feature expected to have generated much charcoal as a by-product of burning fuel. This feature's

lack of plant seeds or fruits of any taxon is also puzzling (0 items/L), considering the traditional

use of FCR piles as resource extraction sites.4 However, it is possible that both the feature and its

fill were disturbed by post-depositional activities, since Room 6 was subsequently filled and covered over in preparation for the building of Room 4. Alternatively, the fires may have reached temperatures high enough to turn most of the plant material to ash.

Feature 96.15 (FS#145)

This FCR pile (Feature 96.15) was located adjacent to Feature 96.14 in the same stratum

and depositional context, such that it is also considered to pre-date the construction of Room 4,

but is not a part of Room 6 (Sullivan and Sorrell 1997). In contrast to Feature 96.14, the newly

analyzed sample (FS#145) yielded a more rich and varied archaeobotanical assemblage,

4 A cob fragment was discovered during excavation, but was not included in the flotation sample. Since it is considered a macrofossil and because of the building sequence and disturbed deposition of Room 6, its presence was left out of this discussion and conclusions.

consisting of Cheno-ams, juniper seeds, pine cone scales, and a large quantity of pinyon seeds.

The presence of numerous pinyon seeds supports the hypothesis that FCR piles were by-products

of wild resource extraction. In addition to pinyon, a single Phaseolus sp. (bean) cotyledon was

recovered. This is the first reported occurrence of a domesticate in a FCR pile (see also Sullivan

and Ruter 2006). Relative frequency values are: CWR (20.7%), GWR (77.6%), and DR (1.7%).

The higher non-wood density value (22 items/L) fits better with expectations for a thermal

feature. However, the low wood density (0.4 g/L) is striking for a wood-burning feature.

Non-Thermal Food Processing Contexts

This context group includes only metates. Based on relative frequency values, 100% of identified specimens from the metate fill samples were either CWR or GWR (Cummings and

Puseman 1995). No remains from the DR group were recovered. Pollen samples, collected from the two metates described below, instead yielded high amounts of Cheno-am, Cylindropuntia

(cholla cactus), Poaceae (grass), Ephedra (Mormon tea), and High Spine Asteraceae (sunflower

family) pollen (Cummings and Puseman 1995). According to Cummings and Pueseman (1995)

this suite of pollen types suggests that these plants were being processed in these areas of Rooms

2 and 3.

Figure 5.7. Relative frequency of resource types in Non-Thermal-Related Food Processing Context samples. Metates

Metate (FS#407/408)

Sediment ("fill") from the interstices of a fire-shattered metate was sampled in the

northern part of the floor of Room 2. Cummings and Puseman found (1995:12) Cheno-am

embryos and seeds, one purslane seed, and one Opuntia embryo, which they suggest may indicate the processing and possible storage of these taxa in this portion of Room 2. The presence of Pinus cone scales and one nut shell fragment and Juniperus leaves in the sample may also indicate either the processing of pine nuts and juniper berries in this area. Relative frequency values are dominated by CWR (90.5%) and GWR (9.5%), with no representation of DR.

Cummings and Puseman (1995:12) conclude that the charcoal assemblage of Pinus and

Juniperus was likely from burned roof-fall or structure support posts after abandonment.

Large Trough Metate Basin Fill (FS#287/288)

This sample was taken from the sediment in the basin of a large trough metate found in the southeast corner of Room 3. According to Sullivan et al. (1995:10), the metate’s

“depositional history is unclear…because no occupational surface underneath the metate could be discerned.” Cummings and Puseman (1995:15) found only one carbonized Chenopodium seed, suggesting that the processing of goosefoot seeds occurred in the room. Thus, CWR accounted for 100% of the assemblage. The presence of charcoal from Juniperus and Pinus edulis wood was interpreted as reflecting their use in building activities.

Metate Sample Summary

Traditionally in the Southwest, metates, particularly trough metates, have been viewed as material proxies for a reliance on maize agriculture (Hard 1990). Although based on both early ethnographic literature and observations of modern Hopi practices, such assumptions are unwarranted given the significant changes in subsistence practices that occurred in these groups around the time of European colonization. While no evidence of maize or other domesticates was discovered in the sediments within groundstone at MU 125 (Figure 5.7), maize fragments were recovered from the floor surface samples taken beneath them (discussed later in this chapter).

The presence of CWR and DR within the samples on the floor surface below the metates suggests the processing, not only of maize, but also of wild resource types.

Post-Hole and Floor Contexts

This context group includes individual post-holes, post-hole trenches, sediment from under metates, and floor samples, which include those surfaces beneath the metates just discussed. Post-holes are often excluded or deprioritized for archaeobotanical analysis because they lack substantial amounts of plant remains in many preservation settings and can be a waste

of time and labor. In addition, the indirect nature of the evidence they provide, due to the many

potential sources of plant remains, makes even those post-holes with good assemblages too

confusing to interpret. Post-holes often have an open space around the post where it intrudes into

the living surface. This space allows for the collection of plant remains either by accidental

deposition or by the sweeping of materials into the hole. As such, they are essentially aggregate

samples of many activities or episodes of activities that occurred within a room or space, which

may make it difficult to recognize separate activities. Nonetheless, archaeobotanical assemblages

from different post-holes within the same room might be able to inform us of different plant-use

patterns within a room. Most often, analysis of post-hole assemblages is restricted to wood identification in order for the archaeobotanist to understand wood preferences for building.

For the purposes of this study, floor contexts include samples taken from any area of the

floor, or living surface of a room, and samples taken from directly beneath metates. The

justification of including samples below metates is that the samples are in direct contact with the

living surface, rather than within the metate basin itself. Floor assemblages generally yield

macrobotanical data that can inform the archaeologist about plant processing or other activities

within an area. By comparing feature samples to floor samples, similarities or differences

between assemblages can clarify whether the feature is representative of post-depositional

episodes or in situ remains.

The relative frequency values from MU 125 post-hole contexts examined here show that they are all dominated by CWR and GWR (Figure 5.8). Only two post-holes (PH-G and PH-D in the southern half of Room 2) have notable frequencies of domesticated resources. In contrast to the post-hole contexts, all Room 2 floor samples show the presence of all three resource types, with CWR being dominant and DR having the lowest values. Similarly, floor samples from

Room 2.2 were also dominated by CWR and yielded no evidence of DR. In contrast, samples

from sediment immediately below the metates in both Room 2 and Room 3 yielded a higher

proportion of DR (maize), with at least 50% in Room 3. Finally, both post-hole trenches revealed

relative frequencies of 100% of CWR and no presence of GWR and DR.

Figure 5.8. Relative frequency of resource types recovered in Post-Hole and Floor Context samples.

Post-Holes

Post-Hole 36 within Feature 96.01 (FS#30)

This post-hole, one of two located within Feature 96.01, is associated with the remains of

a pottery-firing facility directly outside of Room 5 (Sullivan and Sorrell 1997). The post-holes were located along the west side of the feature and may have supported a small jacal screen which served to protect ceramic firing activities from the wind. Sullivan and Sorrell (1997)

report a concentration of large scorched sherds, FCR, groundstone fragments, and lithic debris

within this feature. This newly analyzed sample yielded very few carbonized remains, perhaps

due to the shallow nature of the deposit. Cheno-ams, a pinyon nut fragment, one pine needle, and one juniper leaf were recovered. CWR (87.5%) dominated the assemblage, followed by GWR

(12.5%). In addition, preservation in exterior post-holes may be poorer than in interior post- holes, which would be better protected. Wood density values were very low (0.1 g/L), as might be expected in a post-hole feature where only accidental thermal events, such as a catastrophic fire, would yield a high quantity of carbonized wood. Non-wood density is also low (5.6 items/L) and helps to illustrate why archaeologists often skip the processing of post-holes entirely.

Unfortunately, absence of volumetric data for all other post-holes precludes comparison of density values for this post-hole with other examples.

Post-Hole A - Feature 2.04 (FS#387)

The contents of this post-hole (24 x 24 x 15 cm), located in the southwestern portion of

Room 2 (Sullivan et al. 1995:7-8), were analyzed by Cummings and Puseman (1995:14) who

found carbonized Cheno-am embryos and seeds, tansy mustard, purslane, Poaceae (grass), a

juniper seed fragment, a Cactaceae spine base, an Opuntia seed fragment, a PET fruit tissue5,

and a monocot stem fragment. On the basis of this assemblage, Cummings and Puseman (1995)

suggest that Room 2 may have been the location of storage or processing of Cheno-ams,

purslane, grasses, and members of the mustard family. Relative frequency values for this post-

hole are: CWR (96.2%), GWR (3.8%), and DR (0%). Charcoal of pinyon pine, juniper, and a

small amount of buffalocherry was also present (Cummings and Puseman 1995)

5 PET fruit tissue is defined by Cummings and Puseman (1995:7) as "softer tissue types, such as starchy parenchymoid or fruity epitheloid tissues," which resemble "sugar-laden fruit or berry tissue without the seeds as well as tissue from succulent plant parts such as cactus pads."

Post-Hole D - Feature 2.07 (FS#383)

The contents of post-hole D (22 x 22 x 45 cm), located in the southwestern portion of

Room 2 (Sullivan et al. 1995:7-8), included carbonized Cheno-am embryos and seeds, a bean cotyledon, and maize cupules (Cummings and Puseman 1995:14). Pinus sp. wood dominated the charcoal assemblage. Notably, this post-hole is one of only two that have yielded evidence of domesticated plant use. Its location on the opposite side of the room from the metate fragments may suggest processing/storage of maize in this corner of Room 2. Relative frequency values for this post-hole are: CWR (67.2%), GWR (0%), and DR (32.8%).

Post-Hole G - Feature 2.01 (FS#385)

Post-hole G (22 x 22 x 58 cm) is located in the southeastern portion of Room 2 (Sullivan et al. 1995:7-8). The macrobotanical assemblage analyzed by Cummings and Puseman (1995:14) included tansy mustard, Cheno-am seeds and embryos, a cactus spine base fragment, a PET fruit tissue fragment, and maize cupule and kernel fragments, therefore suggesting that a degree of processing occurred for each plant within Room 2. The structure support post was likely made from Pinus edulis wood, although small amounts of juniper, Atriplex (saltbush), Artemisia

(sagebrush), and Shepherdia (buffaloberry) charcoal were present. High frequencies of Ephedra and Cylindropuntia (cholla cacti) pollen (Cummings and Puseman 1995) support the macrobotanical evidence for cactus processing in the southeastern part of Room 2. Relative frequency values for this post-hole are: CWR (82.7%), GWR (1.4%), and DR (15.9%).

Post-Hole I - Feature 2.012 (FS#379)

The contents of post-hole I (18 x 18 x 38 cm), located in the southeastern portion of

Room 2 (Sullivan et al. 1995:7-8), were also examined by Cummings and Puseman (1995:13).

Cummings and Puseman's (1995) analysis recovered Cheno-am embryos and seeds, Opuntia

(cholla) stem fragments, and a substantial amount of both pinyon and juniper charcoal. Relative

frequency values for this post-hole are: CWR (78.4%), GWR (21.6%), and DR (0%).

Post-Hole L - Feature 2.015 (FS#381)

The last post-hole (20 x 20 x 55 cm) examined by Cummings and Puseman (1995) was

located in the northeast portion of Room 2 and links the low wing wall to the northeast wall of

the room (Sullivan et al. 1995:7-8). It contained Cheno-am embryos and seeds and Pinus edulis

wood, leading Cummings and Puseman (1995:13) to suggest that the post was made from

pinyon. Relative frequency values for this post-hole are: CWR (93.1%), GWR (6.9%), and DR

(0%).

Post-Hole Trenches

As noted previously, excavators reported that the post-hole trenches described below

were badly disturbed by vegetation or rodent activity (Sullivan and Sorrell 1997:10), suggesting that the archaeobotanical assemblage may be contaminated or not yield many remains.

Post-Hole Trench Feature 96.10 (FS#164)

This trench is part of the northern wall of Room 6, or the Antecedent Structure. This

newly studied sample yielded only 50 Cheno-am seeds and some Pinus bark scales (CWR at

100% relative frequency value). Due to the small sample size, there is a low quantity of

macrobotanical remains, and the density values from both non-wood (28.6 times/L) and wood

(0.7 g/L) are moderate. As such, this sample provides a clear illustration of the value of standardizing ratios, such as density, which take absolute counts and standardize them by volume, or another shared variable, to better assess inter-sample variation (Miller 1988). The formation of the trench, the breaking of the friable limestone, and the construction of the later

Room 4 (complete with the leveling of Room 6) may have disturbed or introduced additional plant materials into this feature's assemblage.

Post-Hole Trench Feature 96.12 (FS#139)

Again, this trench helps define the northern wall of Room 6. This newly analyzed sample yielded Cheno-am seeds, one purslane seed, one globemallow seed, a few Pinus bark scales, and two small calcified animal bones. The sample is dominated by CWR (100%) and has low wood

(0.2 g/L) and non-wood (6.2 items/L) densities. Such low densities may point toward mechanical disturbance, perhaps due to the movement of the friable limestone or the subsequent construction of Room 4. Another possible alternative is that the post-hole trenches did not have substantial plant remains within their deposits to be recovered.

Floor Contexts

Floor Sample (FS#160)

This sample was taken from the northwestern floor of Room 2. There were no features or groundstone associated with the floor surface from which this previously unanalyzed sample was collected. Cheno-am seeds were the dominant taxon in this sample, followed by Pinus cone scales, maize cupules, juniper seeds (Figure 5.9), cactus seeds and spine bases, bugseed, purslane, and pinyon nut shells. Overall, this was a fairly diverse sample in the kinds of taxa and plant parts represented. It was the only sample where two types of cacti were represented, one

Echinocatus sp. and one Mammillaria sp. (Figure 5.10). Together, this assemblage suggests that at least two types of cactus plants were processed in this room. Relative frequency values for this diverse feature are: CWR (78%), GWR (15.7%), and DR (6.3%). A Tusayan Gray Ware sherd was also found in the heavy fraction. Both the wood (64.3 g/L) and non-wood (262.2 items/L) densities for this floor sample were the second highest values among all the samples and may be

attributable to intentional plant processing activities in this room, or inflation of plant

representation due to the roof and support post collapse after abandonment.

Figure 5.9. Juniper (Juniperus) seeds (berries) recovered from FS#160.

Figure 5.10. Two types of cactus recovered from FS#160. Echinocatus sp. (left) and Mammillaria sp. (right).

Floor Sample under Metate (FS#375)

This sample, reported here for the first time, was collected from the soil directly under a

metate (FS#370), in the northeastern part of Room 2 and is the most diverse sample thus far studied at MU 125. Cheno-am seeds were again dominant, but, maize cupule fragments (25) and cob fragments (2) were also recovered (Figure 5.11). This is the highest quantity of maize remains found within any sample at MU 125. Other taxa include purslane, bugseed, cactus

(represented by spine bases and one seed), globemallow (Figure 5.12), an unidentified small

74 grass type (Figure 5.12), sunflower, cattail (Figure 5.12), pinyon nut, Pinus cone scales, and juniper seeds. The location of this sample beneath a metate points toward the use of this tool for processing of all of these plant resources. The diversity of the edible plants represented supports the hypothesis of a mixed subsistence strategy. Relative frequency values also support this claim:

CWR (70.7%), GWR (5.6%), and DR (23.7%).

Figure 5.11. Zea mays cob fragment (top), cupule (bottom left), and cupule fragments (bottom right) recovered from FS#375.

Figure 5.12. Globemallow (Sphaeralcea sp.) (left), grass (Poaceae) (middle), and Cattail (Typha sp.) (right) recovered from FS#375.

Floor Sample (FS#400)

Located in the eastern part of Room 2, this previously unstudied sample was not

associated with any features or groundstone tools. Cheno-am seeds comprise the majority of the assemblage, followed by cactus and purslane (Figure 5.13) seeds. The presence of numerous

cactus spine bases, a stem fragment (Figure 5.13), and one Mammillaria sp. seed may suggest

the processing of cactus fruits within the room. Notably, the presence of maize is very low and is

represented by only three cupule fragments. In addition, the recovery of juniper, Panicum grass, globemallow, bugseed (Figure 5.13), and pinyon nut parallels the other two floor samples from

Room 2, providing additional support for the processing of those resources within this space.

Thus, 85.9% of the assemblage consisted of CWR 12% consisted of GWR, and only 1.8% were

DR.

Figure 5.13. Purslane (Portulaca sp.) (upper left), Cactus stem fragment (upper right), and Bugseed (Corispermum sp.) (bottom) recovered from FS#400.

About eight uncarbonized resin balls with a crystalline structure (Figure 5.14) were found within this sample and appear to have been digested and deposited by a small animal, likely a rodent making a meal of tree sap. Although these anomalies suggest some degree of contamination of this sample by bioturbation, the possibility that the recovered plant remains are the remnants of resource processing in Room 2 cannot be ruled out.

Figure 5.14. Resin balls recovered in FS#400.

Floor Sample (FS#202)

This previously unstudied sample was collected from the northern part of the floor in

Room 2.2 under a rock wall fall whose collapse had sealed this part of the floor. It yielded only twenty Cheno-am seeds, one cactus seed, and a few juniper leaves and pine needles. While the assemblage was small, the presence of Cheno-ams and cactus parallels the prevalent taxa of

Room 2 with which it connects. The juniper leaves and pine needles may reflect either the medicinal use of these plant parts or by-products of wood debris or fuel. Thus, CWR dominate the assemblage (95.2%), followed by GWR (4.8%). The wood density (1.3 g/L) value is moderate, which is not surprising due to the amount of structural collapse found on top of the sample. Non-wood density (123.3 items/L) was the fourth highest in the dataset.

Floor Sample (FS#203)

This previously unstudied sample was also taken from the northern part of the floor in

Room 2.2 under a rock wall fall whose collapse had sealed this part of the floor. Cheno-am seeds

dominate the assemblage. In addition, one globemallow seed, a juniper seed fragment, and a

juniper leaf were also recovered. Like FS#202, the adjacent floor sample, this assemblage

reflects the same taxa found within the adjoining Room 2 and is dominated by CWR (98.5%),

then GWR (1.5%). However, the lower wood (0.2 g/L) and non-wood (71 items/L) density

values in this sample compared to the adjacent sample FS#202, may suggest that the position of

FS#203 lay beyond the area of the wooden posts' collapse.

Floor Sample from beneath Large Trough Metate (FS#289)

This sample was collected from the sediment beneath the large trough metate found in the

southeast corner of Room 3. It provides an excellent comparison to plant processing between

Room 2, as represented by FS#375, and Room 3. Cummings and Puseman's (1995:15) analysis

recovered a Cheno-am embryo, a Chenopodium seed, a maize cupule, and several Pinus bark

scale fragments, suggesting the utilization of goosefoot and maize in Room 3. It is the sample

with the highest DR frequency (50%), with the other half of the assemblage made up of CWR.

Other Contexts

"Other Contexts" include deposits from two bowl contents, on top of a "limestone ledge," an unburned storage pit, and a hole in bedrock. The two bowl samples both are dominated by

CWR, followed by GWR. However, only the bowl contents in Room 2 contained DR. The sediment from the top of the "limestone ledge" is the only Other Context dominated by GWR and has no domesticates. Lastly, CWR and GWR dominate the unburned storage pit and the hole in bedrock features, but only the pit has DR, which has a small relative frequency (10%) value.

There do not seem to be any significant patterns in relative frequency within this context group due to the variability of depositional contexts of the included samples (Figure 5.15).

Figure 5.15. Relative frequency of resource types in All Other Context samples.

Bowl Contents

Bowl near Feature 92.06 (FS#204)

This sample comes from the sediment within the broken sherds of a Deadman's Gray

Ware bowl in Room 1 associated with Feature 92.06, the only human burial found at MU 125.

As discussed in Chapter 3, the proper protocol was followed upon discovery of the burial and the

Hopi allowed for the overseeing of the excavation, on-site examination, and direct re-interment of the remains. A full discussion of the skeletal analysis is provided in Chapter 3. The sherds were located near the burial and a sample was allowed to be taken for flotation. Analyzed here for the first time, only four Cheno-am seeds and two pinyon nut fragments were recovered, and no domesticated plant remains. Thus, CWR dominate (88.9%) the assemblage, followed by

GWR 11.1%). Both wood (0.2 g/L) and non-wood (9.2 items/L) density values were low. The heavy fraction yielded an animal tooth (currently unidentified to species) and a Tusayan Gray

Ware sherd, possibly from another vessel near the bowl. The close proximity of the bowl sherds to the burial does not necessarily associate it with the burial context, nor does the archaeobotanical assemblage reflect an offering for the departed. Instead, Room 1 may have been used after the interment of this individual, with the by-products of plant processing or consumption deposited after the initial burial.

Dogoszhi Black-on-White Bowl Contents (FS#168)

This sample was collected from the sediments of a Dogoszhi Black-on-White sherd cluster on the living surface of Room 2, of which a substantial portion was refitted into the original bowl. New analysis of this small sample shows that it has the highest non-wood density value (388 items/L) of all the studied samples. Cheno-am seeds, bugseed, and purslane seeds, one maize cupule fragment, one cactus spine base (Figure 5.16), and a few juniper leaves and

pine needles were recovered. While this assemblage probably does not represent an Anasazi

meal, it does provide evidence of resource processing. Relative frequency values for this

assemblage are: CWR (83%), GWR (10.2%), and DR (6.8%). The wood density (4.8 g/L) of this

sample was the fourth highest value at MU 125, suggesting that the bowl may have been laying

on the surface of the floor at the time of abandonment, allowing the construction debris, such as

charcoal from burning posts, to add to the bowl fill.

Figure 5.16. Example of a cactus spine base (Recovered from a different sample, FS#387).

One of the most interesting non-macrobotanical finds at MU 125 comes from this

sample; it is a small piece of carbonized string (Figure 5.17), measuring 8 mm in length, and

displays a Z-twist pattern (as described and shown in Adovasio 2010). A Z-twist, or Z-spun

fiber, means the thread is spun to the right, opposite of an S-twist where the thread is spun to the left (Barber 1991:65-66). Many studies have shown that the selection of plant fibers often depends on what twist style is used, as certain fibers have tendencies to which way they curl naturally (Barber 1991:66). Examination of the fibro-vascular bundles on the ends of the string revealed that the fibers are Gossypium sp. (cotton) and not of local yucca or animal/human hair.

Most cotton workers practice the Z-twist while spinning their threads because of cotton’s natural tendency to curl to the right (Barber 1991:66). This new evidence of cotton at MU125 might

81 suggest that they were trading for textiles with Sinagua groups to the south of the Upper Basin

(Hunter et al. 1999) or obtaining it from the inner Grand Canyon, where cotton was grown and worked (Smith and Adams 2011).

Figure 5.17. String made from cotton (Gossypium sp.) recovered from FS#168.

"Limestone Ledge"

"Limestone Ledge" (FS#49)

Sample FS#49 was taken from directly on top of a "limestone ledge,” located along the east wall of Room 2, which was covered by collapsed wall fall (Sullivan and Sorrell 1997). New archaeobotanical analysis reveals that the macrobotanical assemblage includes a few juniper seed fragments, Pinus cone scales, and one grass glume, possibly of the Phalaris genus. This may suggest the ledge was used as a place to hold or store plant products before or after processing, acting like a shelf. This feature has the highest GWR (80%) frequency value, followed by CWR

(20%). Although the quantity of plant remains seem small and the non-wood density value is a low 3.3 items/L, this sample has the highest wood density value in the dataset (166.6 g/L). Such

a high density of wood remains may be due to the wall and roof collapse that enclosed the ledge

fill, not a contained burning activity such as fire in a hearth.

Unburned Pit

Unburned Storage Pit Feature 96.09 (FS#103 and 104)

Located in Room 6, this circular, unburned pit measures 70 cm in diameter and 50 cm

deep (Sullivan and Sorrell 1997:14). Sullivan and Sorrell (1997) report that it had been

“intentionally filled with cobbles and blocks, possibly to eliminate it as a hazard after its

usefulness had been exhausted,” or as a leveling technique prior the construction of Room 4. The

newly studied sample FS#103 confirms Cheno-ams to be the most dominant taxon. However, maize cupules and one bean cotyledon were recovered from within the pit, as well as bugseed, cactus seeds, and a few pine needles. Although the non-wood density value (245.8 items/L) was the third highest at the site, the wood density value (1.3 g/L) was low. A small sherd of indeterminate type was found in the heavy fraction. The unburned nature of this pit suggested to

Sullivan and Sorrell (1997) that it had been a storage pit during its use life. If this is true, the pit would have been cleaned out prior to its sealing, as shown by the small amounts of plant remains. However, the assemblage does not negate the possibility that those items found within the pit might have been stored there previously.

FS#104 was analyzed by Cummings and Puseman (1997). They recovered maize cupules and Cheno-ams, similar to the new analysis of FS#103. However, they point out that it is only maize cupules that are found within the pit, not kernels, which because of their nutritious content, would have been the part stored within a pit such as this. Thus the presence of carbonized cupules alone might mean that the maize, and subsequently the rest of the assemblage, was deposited at the time of backfilling (Cummings and Puseman 1997:8). Because

maize cobs were used as a source of fuel, the presence of the cupules may suggest that part of the

backfill came from a thermal feature. Unlike FS#103, the non-wood density value (12.5 items/L)

of FS#104 was low. However, wood density (2.1 g/L) was similar to FS#103. Relative frequency

values for this feature are: CWR (88%), GWR (2.4%), and DR (9.6%).

Hole in Limestone Bedrock

This feature is not considered to be a post-hole because of its large size and lack of

association with any wall or other post-hole features (Sullivan and Sorrell 1997).

Hollowed-Out Hole in Limestone Bedrock Feature 96.13 (FS#138 and #114)

These samples come from the fill of a hollowed-out hole that was carved into the limestone bedrock within Room 6, or the “Antecedent Structure,” and contained two metate fragments and a “one-handed” mano (Sullivan and Sorrell 1997:14). Both samples were taken from Stratum IV (pre-occupation surface). Due to the large volume of soil removed from this feature of flotation sampling, Cummings and Puseman (1997) analyzed two liters of FS#138, while this study analyzed the remaining 0.75 liters. The Cummings and Puseman (1997) analysis recovered only five carbonized Cheno-ams. Pollen samples also revealed the presence of Picea

(spruce) and Pseudotsuga (Douglas-fir) which represent long-distance wind transport likely from the North Rim, Cheno-am, purslane, ephedra, sagebrush, low and high-spine Asteraceae,

Mirabilis (Colorado Four O’ Clock), and traces of prickly pear and cholla cactus, which led

Cummings and Puseman (1997) to suggest that Cheno-ams and purslane were processed within the room. Density values for both non-wood (16.7 items/L) and wood (0.3 g/L) were both low to moderate, perhaps due to the nature of the friable limestone bedrock and the construction backfill for the building of Room 4, which might have disturbed the archaeobotanical assemblage below it.

Cheno-ams were also recovered in the new analysis of the remaining sample from this

context. However, new taxa were recovered thereby diversifying the sample with the addition of

a juniper seed fragment and Pinus bark scales. If this feature was used as a storage pit, then it

was cleaned out and filled with mostly sterile soil before it was sealed with metate fragments.

FS#114 also came from the same Stratum IV of Feature 96.13. This study recovered only

Cheno-ams, juniper seed fragments, and Pinus bark scales and one needle. Both wood (0.7 g/L)

and non-wood (20.5 items/L) density values are moderate, slightly different from FS#138.

Combined relative frequency values for this feature are: CWR (96.6%), GWR (3.4), and DR

(0%).

Summary of Density, Relative Frequency, and Ubiquity Data for All Context Types

Sample Density

As stated above, converting absolute counts of recovered plant remains into density ratios that standardize samples by volume or another attribute provides a way of assessing the intensity

of burning activities across a site, the use of wood versus other types of fuel, or the diversity of

use in wood to non-wood taxa. At MU 125, wood density values are highly variable, ranging

from 0.1 – 166.6 grams per liter. The greatest wood densities occur in samples from a "limestone

ledge" in Room 2 (166.6 g/L), a floor sample (FS#160) from Room 2 (64.3 g/L), and an outdoor

ash pit (25.6 g/L). Notably, the highest densities do not correlate as they are all from different

context types, only one of which is a thermal feature. The high densities of wood in the

"limestone ledge" and floor samples may be a product of collapsed logs or posts after

abandonment. The lowest wood densities, all between 0.1 and 0.2 g/L, occur in an exterior post-

hole (#36), a post-hole trench (Feature 96.12) in Room 6, the bowl fill from the burial in Room

1, and a floor sample (FS#203) from Room 2.2.

Although hearths are typically expected to contain more wood than other features, wood

densities from the hearth deposits were strikingly low (0.3-0.6 g/L). Hearth 96.08 was on the lower end of the wood density spectrum. Unfortunately, the density of wood in Room 2’s hearth

(2.01) was not able to be calculated because the liters of soil were not recorded at the time of flotation. Low wood density values may reflect pre-abandonment cleaning of the hearths, which is a typical ritual practice of Anasazi that can be found at sites all across the Colorado Plateau.

Additionally, there is a large difference in densities between floor samples (64.3, 1.3, and 0.2 g/L), which encompasses the whole range of the spectrum. Perhaps this difference in the floor sample densities could be attributed to the varied deposition of burned logs or posts during the collapse of the structure after abandonment.

The non-wood density is also highly variable, as is typical for a site with the type of preservation conditions mentioned in the chapters above. Non-wood density values range from

2.2 – 388 items per liter. One sample, the FCR pile (Feature 96.14), yielded no non-wood archaeobotanical remains. The densest samples were from the Dogozshi Bowl contents (388 items/L) and Floor Sample FS#160 (262.2 items/L) in Room 2, the unburned storage pit of

Room 6 (Feature 96.09) (245.8 items/L), and the Room 2.2 floor sample FS#202 (123.3 items/liter). The lowest non-wood densities come from the Room 2 hearth (Feature 96.08) (2.2 items/L), the "limestone ledge" (3.3 items/L), a post-hole (PH-36) from the pottery-firing facility

(5.6 items/L), and the adjacent ash pit (Feature 96.05) (5.8 items/L).

Similar to the wood density, the patterns for non-wood density are inexplicable, since the

highest density values are associated with non-thermal features and are from differing context

types. These values express the different taphonomic processes that may have happened in

different areas of the site. Again, the low non-wood density values in thermal features, such as

the hearth and ash pit, suggest that these were cleaned out prior to abandonment. However, the

moderate density values for two roasting pit samples from Feature 96.03 (100.1 and 78.7

items/L), fit better with the expected range for thermal features and may suggest that they were

not fully cleaned out prior to site abandonment.

Relative Frequency

Once relative frequency of the three resource types was determined by feature, it was

next quantified by context type to understand the variations of the resource types between the

different context groups and whether there were significant patterns of assemblage deposition

(Figure 5.18).

Figure 5.18. Relative frequency of resource type by context group.

The majority of each context-group assemblage consists of Cultivable Wild Resources.

All context groups include all three resource types, except Non-Thermal Food Processing

Contexts, which only displayed cultivable (90.7%) and gathered (9.3%) wild resources.

Interestingly, the lack of domesticated resources in the Non-Thermal Food Processing Contexts,

or in the metate fill, is in stark contrast to the floor samples from fill collected from immediately

beneath the metates themselves. Those samples contain a substantial portion of domesticates

(FS#289: 50% CWR and 50% DR; FS#375: 70.7% CWR, 5.6% GWR, 23.7% DR). This accounts for the higher presence of DR in the Post-Hole and Floor Context group (Figure 5.18).

This contrast may be due to differing processing activities at times prior to abandonment.

Perhaps the last processing event did not include domesticates, so the metate fills lacked the inclusion of that resource type. The context group in which domesticates appear most regularly is

the Post-Hole and Floor group (10.3%), followed by All Other Contexts (6.8%) and Thermal

Food Processing Contexts (2.5%). The domesticated resources within the Thermal Food

Processing Contexts (only 2.5%) come from an ash pit, roasting pit, and an FCR pile, but are

absent in hearths, again suggesting that hearths were cleaned out prior to abandonment because

maize cobs were a preferred fuel source when available.

Ubiquity

To counter the biases inherent in relative frequency values, ubiquity was also calculated

by context group for the three resource types (Figure 5.19). Notably, the high values for relative

frequency of CWR (Figure 5.18) correspond to its high ubiquity values. CWR were 100%

ubiquitous in every sample within the Non-Thermal Food Processing Contexts, Post-Hole and

Floor Contexts, and Other Contexts. In the Thermal Food Processing Contexts, CWR and GWR

were each 86% ubiquitous. GWR were also 100% ubiquitous in the Other Context group. In

contrast, GWR had low values (5.2%, 9.3%, 8.2%, 4.7%) for relative frequency, but had high

ubiquity values for all four context types (86%, 50%, 64%, 100%).

Figure 5.19. Ubiquity of resource types by context type.

DR show the largest difference between relative frequency and ubiquity values. DR take on a greater importance in the ubiquity measure. Although there are few remains of domesticates overall, as reflected by their low absolute counts and therefore in their relative frequency, they occur in a wide range of samples in three different context types. Domesticates appear in 43% of

Thermal Food Processing samples, 43% of Post-Hole and Floor samples, and 40% in Other

Context samples. These higher ubiquity values suggest that DR were in regular, or moderate, use at MU 125. On the other hand, although ubiquity thus establishes DR as having greater importance at MU 125 than is represented by their relative frequencies, they are still the least ubiquitous of the three resource types in all four context groups.

Ranking

To complement the relative frequency and ubiquity measures and to explore patterns on a taxonomic level, a ranking scheme was developed to understand the abundance of certain

89 important species. Table 5.1 displays the scales of abundance for each taxon with which they will be ranked (discussed in Chapter 4). The rankings were based on context (i.e., roasting pit, hearths, bowls, etc.) so some samples were combined and other contexts only included one sample ("limestone ledge"). Rank 1 corresponds to the lowest abundance and Rank 3 corresponds to the highest abundance value.

Table 5.2. Ranking System Based on Number of Items Present for Each Taxon. Scale of Abundance Taxon Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Maize 1 - 10 11 - 25 26+ Cheno-Ams 1 - 50 51 - 300 300+ Pinyon/Juniper 1 - 10 11 - 20 21+ Cactus 1 - 25 26 - 50 50+ Purslane 1 - 10 11 - 25 26+ Grasses 1 - 10 11 - 25 26+ Bugseed 1 - 5 6 - 10 10+ Globemallow 1 - 5 6 - 10 10+ Tansy Mustard 1 - 50 51 - 300 300+ Cattail 1 - 50 51 - 300 300+ Beans 1 - 2 3 - 5 6+

The ranks for each of these taxa were calculated according to different contexts at MU

125 (Table 5.2). Notably, Cheno-ams rank higher than all other taxa in both hearths and roasting pits. In contrast, samples from floor contexts are characterized by greater taxonomic diversity, with the highest rank shared by Cheno-ams, maize, and pinyon/juniper (3), followed by, cactus, purslane, bugseed, and globemallow with intermediate values (2) and grasses as the lowest.

Maize and Cheno-ams have equal ranks to one another within ash pits, unburned pits, post-holes, and bowl fill. Pinyon/juniper have equivalent ranks to maize and Cheno-ams in both ash pits and bowl fill. Post-hole contexts also show high diversity and evenness in the representation of different plants, as shown by the equivalent rank (1) of pinyon/juniper, cactus, purslane, grasses, globemallow, tansy mustard, and beans. As discussed previously, the relative frequency and

ubiquity for samples from sediment within metate basins showed that maize was not present in

those samples, however, those samples from sediments below the metates show the presence of

maize. Because maize was not present within sediments inside the metate basins, maize received

no rank in the metate ranking analysis. However, the assemblage from the fill examined from

underneath the metates was added to the floor sample group, discussed above. Without the

addition of sediment under metates, the floor contexts would have been dominated by Cheno-

ams and pinyon/juniper. Metates show a low (1), but even, abundance of Cheno-ams,

pinyon/juniper, cactus, and purslane. Lastly, the small absolute counts of plant remains within

the "limestone ledge" sample resulted in low ranks for both pinyon/juniper (1) and grasses (1).

Table 5.3. Ranking Results (rank is bolded, absolute counts in parentheses). Contexts

Heart Roasting Ash Floor Post- Unburned Bowl Lime Taxon hs Pits Pits FCR Samples Holes Metate Pits Fill Ledge Maize - 2 (13) 1 (6) - 3 (94) 2 (21) - 2 (19) 1 (2) - Cheno-Ams 2 (57) 3 (648) 1 (13) 1 (6) 3 (645) 2 (228) 1 (35) 2 (255) 1 (26) - Pinyon/ Juniper 1 (9) 1 (6) 1 (4) 3 (23) 3 (39) 1 (4) 1 (4) 1 (3) 1 (1) 1 (4) Cactus - - - - 2 (33) 1 (11) 1 (1) 1 (3) 1 (1) - Purslane 1 (2) 1 (4) - - 2 (19) 1 (3) 1 (1) - 1 (3) - Grasses - 1 (1) - - 1 (3) 1 (1) - - - 1 (1) Bugseed - - - - 2 (10) - - 1 (2) 1 (2) - Globemallow - 1 (1) - - 2 (6) 1 (1) - - - - Tansy - - - - - 1 (7) - - - - Mustard Cattail 1 (1) - - - 1 (1) - - - - - Beans - 1 (1) - - - 1 (1) - 1 (1) - -

Summary of the Three Measures

The three measures each reveal slightly different patterns of resource use at MU 125.

Both relative frequency and ubiquity values for the three resource types, as grouped by context type, reveal a greater presence of wild resources (both cultivable and gathered) at MU 125 over

domesticates. For example, DR occur in less than 45% of samples in all context groups, as

compared with ubiquity values above 80% for CWR in all context types and above 60% for

GWR. With the adjustment of absolute counts by ranking, the abundance of maize appeared

more even with Cheno-ams in some context types, such as unburned pits (2), post-holes (2), floor

samples (3), ash pits (1), bowl fill (1), metates (1). The presence of a domesticated Phaseolus

bean cotyledon within the FCR pile 96.15 contrasts with other analyzed FCR piles in the Upper

Basin, which consistently display high frequencies of wild gathered resources (pinyon, juniper, small-seeded grasses, purslane) rather than domesticates (Sullivan 1992). Hearth contexts directly related to food-processing, contained no maize, but instead substantial amounts of wild

resources (Cheno-ams, pinyon, juniper, purslane, cattail), an interesting absence for a supposed staple and source of fuel. Since maize was absent in samples from the fill in metates, the Non-

Thermal Food Processing context group was dominated by CWR and GWR in all three

quantification measures, which gives the initial impression that maize was not processed with

these tools. However, in contrast, samples taken from fill beneath the metates did have a high

quantity of maize, which was grouped with the Post-Hole and Floor Context group. Thus it appears that maize was indeed processed with these tools, but may not have been the last resource processed before the end of the metate's use. Lastly, the post-hole assemblages show great variability in the three resource types. Although, CWR and GWR show the highest relative frequency and ubiquity values, the ranking analysis places maize and Cheno-ams both at a rank of 2, perhaps suggesting maize and wild resources were used equally. This result should be approached with caution because post-holes, by their very nature, are caches of data from a series of events deposited in time over the length of occupation. Therefore, it is important to pair the results of the ranking analysis with the relative frequency and ubiquity analysis.

Taxa Representation By Room

Although not part of the four quantification methods, examining the diversity (kinds) or presence of different taxa by room is also useful in determining patterns of resource use at MU

125 (Table 5.3). It is important to note that Rooms 1 and 3 may be under-represented because they were not sampled as heavily as Rooms 2, 6, or the exterior area. The two groups of exterior samples were combined into one column. Cheno-am is the only taxon that is represented in all the rooms and exteriors at MU 125, suggesting that it played an important role in the lives and diets of the inhabitants.

Table 5.4. Type of Taxa Recovered from Each Room and Exterior of MU 125. Plant Taxon Room 1 Room 2 Room 2.2 Room 3 Room 6 Exterior Cultivable Wild Resources Asteraceae sp. X X Cheno-Ams X X X X X X Descurainia sp. X Panicum sp. X X Poaceae spp. X Portulaca sp. X X Sphaeralacea spp. X X X Gathered Wild Resources Cactaceae spp. X X X Corispermum sp. X X Juniperus sp. X X X X Pinus edulis X X X X Typha sp. X X Domesticated Resources Gossypium hirsutum X Phaseolus vulgaris X X X Zea mays X X X X

All taxa were recovered from Room 2. Such a high diversity of taxa in Room 2 may be because more samples were analyzed from Room 2 than any other room at MU 125, or more likely, because this room was used intensively as a resource processing space, as indicated by the

93 presence of groundstone artifacts. The domesticates appear to occur together; beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) occur in the same rooms/exterior spaces as maize, with the exception of Room 3, and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) occurs with maize and beans in Room 2. This patterning may indicate that domesticates were often processed together. Interestingly, cactus appears in Rooms

2, 2.2, and Room 6, thereby suggesting these areas of MU 125 were designated for cactus processing. Tansy mustard (Descurainia sp.) and Poaceae grasses are also limited to Room 2.

Lastly, it does not seem that any particular pattern is discernible for the rest of the taxa at MU

125.

The higher quantity of plant materials recovered and greater taxonomic diversity in Room

2 may be explained by seasonal use of the rooms at MU 125 and the time of the habitation's abandonment. The semi-subterranean nature of Room 2 suggests that it was the room inhabited in the winter, or cold/inclement, months, while the above-ground Room 3 with ramada-like walls suggests its occupation in the summer, or warm, months. More artifacts and plant remains were recovered in Room 2 than in any other room at MU 125. This line of evidence, coupled with its catastrophic burning, supports the hypothesis that MU 125 was rapidly abandoned by its inhabitants during the winter after the catastrophic fire, thus leaving artifacts and ecofacts in situ.

CHAPTER 6 - INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter explores the observable spatial and compositional patterns in the archaeobotanical data at MU 125 as a basis for making inferences about subsistence behaviors and taphonomic processes. The activities and behaviors inferred from the data are framed within the broader Late Pueblo II Anasazi context.

The Ethnographic Record and Southwest Archaeobotany

The current model that Ancestral Puebloans were maize-dependent agriculturalists has its roots in the ethnographic literature of the Hopi, Acoma, Zuni, and other Native American groups who have cultural ties to the Grand Canyon area (Powell 1961; Whiting 1950). While the ethnographic record is helpful in understanding cultural behaviors, it is both biased and often incomplete (Ford 1984:220). Ethnographic literature not only portrays indigenous Southwestern societies through the lens of an etic (outsider) view, but also documents cultural practices at a period in time when the effects of European contact were changing native culture and subsistence strategies. Ethnographic literature thus lacks consideration of cultural change because of the use of the "ethnographic present" and the subsequent extrapolation of the present into the interpretation of past human behaviors.

As noted by Staller (2010:14), “our current perceptions of the economic role maize played in the development of civilization in this hemisphere was largely influenced by our interpretations and study of such early primary ethnohistoric accounts, particularly colonial botanicals.” Staller (2010:19-20) further argues that Europeans imbued maize with the same economic and cultural importance that wheat and barley held in their world. The early colonizers’ preference, particularly the Spanish, for maize over beans, squash, and other native economic plant staples is mentioned in many early accounts from Mesoamerica to the Caribbean

(Staller 2010:24). Europeans often demanded maize as tribute and then forced indigenous workers into plantation settings to cultivate it, in essence creating a reliance on a resource that would otherwise not have held so much importance within a traditionally diverse indigenous diet

(Staller 2010:24). Maize is extremely easy to store and transport on the cob and certainly attracted the attention of Conquistadors and other European colonizers who needed an accessible survival food (Staller 2010:81). Thus, Staller (2010:26) argues that a shift to the intensive cultivation of maize after the Spanish arrival changes our current perceptions of maize’s importance to pre-Hispanic New World economies (Caribbean, Mesoamerica, and the American

Southwest) and shows that maize dependence which has been considered "fact," may instead be the consequence of early European perceptions and manipulations of indigenous economies.

In the past thirty years, there has been a general recognition of the inherent biases in the ethnographic literature, such that archaeologists now strive to interpret the past based on archaeological data alone (Ford 1988; Powell 1990; Sullivan 1987, 1992, 2012; Sullivan et al.

2001). Despite these inherent biases, some ethnographic material is helpful to archaeobotanists who recover and study plant remains in the archaeological record. Much of what archaeobotanists know of ancient plant harvesting, growing, tending, and processing strategies and techniques comes from ethnographic observations. For example, the Codex Mendoza, written in 1540, described how Amaranthus (pigweed) seeds were made into a gruel, called pinole, before being consumed by the Aztec (Staller 2010:37; see also Sauer 1950). Doebley

(1984) compiled many ethnographic accounts of how indigenous Southwestern peoples utilized of a whole suite of grasses, such as Indian rice grass (Oryzopsis hymenoides) that was harvested in early summer and was heated to separate the grain from the enclosing lemma.

While the use of post-contact ethnographic and ethnohistorical sources is a main

component in creating a maize-centric model, there are several additional factors to consider

when understanding why the Ancestral Puebloans, as a whole, have been classified as intensive

maize agriculturalists without regard to local environmental variability. Numerous Southwestern archaeobotanical studies are devoted to understanding how maize influenced not only the subsistence of past inhabitants, but how it permeated every level of past culture and society

(Cordell 1984; Fish 2004; Johannessen and Hastorf 1994; Staller et al. 2006; Willis 1988).

Understanding this relationship is indeed important, but as this study argues, it is not necessarily the only, or even the most important, human-plant relationship to consider.

More recently, archaeobotanical sampling and interpretation that helped to propagate the illustration of the Anasazi maize farmer in the Southwest have been increasingly addressed with advances in field and laboratory techniques (Rocek 1995). The most important factor, discussed in Chapter 2, is the recognition that a few, once important and prevalent plant resources are no longer observable on the modern landscape. Bohrer (1978) discusses the effects of historic cattle grazing on southwestern landscapes, particularly how the introduction of grazing animals, whose palates preferred the same plants as prehistoric inhabitants, contributed to the local extinction of certain species. The list of locally extinct plants which are often present in archaeobotanical assemblages at Ancestral Puebloan sites, but not on the modern landscape, includes stickleaf

(Mentzelia albicaulis), purslane (Portulaca sp.), winged pigweed (Cycloloma atriplicifolium), contrayerba (Kallstroemia sp.), buffalo gourd (Cucurbita foetidissima), wild onion (Allium sp.), and spiderwort (Tradescantia occidentalis) (Bohrer 1978). Other biases, discussed in Chapter 4, have helped assert the maize-centric model, such as differential preservation of certain taxa over others (corn cobs versus cactus fruits), general preservation conditions, and sampling strategies

in the field (blanket and point sampling versus visual hand sampling) and the laboratory

(flotation and small sized screening).

Previous Archaeobotanical Results from MU 125

Initially, Cummings and Puseman (1995:18) concluded that the “occupants of MU 125

were agriculturalists who appeared to rely heavily on native resources.” The fact that the Anasazi

inhabitants were utilizing maize is indeed evident; however, Cummings and Puseman (1995,

1997) recognized that they were recovering such small amounts of maize in contrast to large

amounts of wild resources, which strongly indicates a mixed subsistence strategy. Despite claims

for a reliance on maize, they point out that no carbonized maize was found in either the central

hearth or ash pit in Room 2.

Cummings and Puseman (1995:37) also calculated ubiquity and found that high ubiquity

values of Cheno-am pollen and macroremains in Rooms 2 and 3 support the inference of a high

reliance on ruderal plant resources in the Upper Basin (60% Amaranthus ubiquity and 100%

Chenopodium compared with 30% Zea mays ubiquity).6 These ubiquity patterns suggest that

“pigweed and especially goosefoot were common elements of the diet” (Cummings and Puseman

1995:18). However, they attribute the use of wild “pioneer plants,” like Amaranthus,

Chenopodium, Brassicaceae, Oryzopsis, and Portulacaceae, to the growing of domesticates,

saying that the wild plants would have been “facilitated by agricultural and other cultural activities, and would have provided local, edible, and useful plant resources for the site’s occupants” (Cummings and Puseman 1995:18). While agricultural soils and practices do encourage the growth of wild plants, this study argues that wild resources were plentiful enough

in the Upper Basin to sustain local populations without the need for intensive maize farming.

6Ubiquity measures as reported in Cummings and Puseman reflect only the 1995 data and exclude data from later analysis in 1997.

MU 125 Subsistence Interpretations Revisited

The analysis of additional samples from MU 125 reveals several patterns in the archaeobotanical data that support the hypothesis that the inhabitants of MU 125 were practicing a nuanced subsistence strategy based primarily on wild resource production. Relative frequency and ubiquity analysis revealed that all contexts groups were dominated by CWR and GWR, suggesting these two strategies played a more important role in MU 125 subsistence than domesticated resource (DR) strategies, such as intensive maize agriculture. The ubiquity and relative frequency values both show that maize, while present, occurred only infrequently and in small quantities. Maize was associated with a roasting pit (96.03), three floor samples from

Room 2 and one from Room 3 (FS#160, 370, 400, and 289), one bowl fill (FS#168), an unburned storage pit (96.09), a shallow ash pit (96.05), and two post-holes from Room 2 (PH-G and PH-D). These results suggest that maize agriculture was a minor aspect of several strategies of a mixed subsistence economy. Important feature interpretations that support this hypothesis are discussed below.

Thermal Food Processing Contexts: Comprehensive Interpretation

Often the most important contexts for revealing diet or subsistence patterns are thermal features or food-processing artifacts, such as manos or metates. Archaeologists view these contexts as the most direct evidence of food use and processing. The lack of maize, but presence of Cheno-ams and cattail, in the hearth of Room 3 supports Cummings and Puseman's (1995) findings in the Room 2 hearth, which yielded Cheno-ams and pinyon, but no maize. Wild resources were clearly being processed in the hearths of both rooms. However, the low wood density in each suggests they were cleaned out prior to abandonment; the ashy dust that was allowed to remain, held the smaller wild seeds, allowing them to stay within the hearth

depression undetected. Additionally, another reason for low wood density inside the hearths

would be that large fires were being built outside the structure and the coals brought inside to

heat the rooms without the threat of fire (Alan P. Sullivan, personal communication 2014). The small presence of maize in the one ash pit, the roasting pit, and one FCR pile, suggests that although it was not found in the hearths, it was at times being processed at MU 125, even if in

small quantity.

The recovery of a bean cotyledon within the FCR pile (96.15) is highly unusual when

compared with other FCR piles in the Upper Basin. Excavations conducted on FCR piles in the

Upper Basin, like MU 235 and MU 236, revealed that these archaeological phenomena are often

situated in the woodlands away from main habitation structures (Sullivan 1992:214-216). The

macrobotanical remains and associated groundstone artifacts at previously studied FCR piles

suggest that these were areas of wild resource processing, or resource extraction sites (Sullivan et

al. 2001). Such distance from the main occupation structure suggests that the importance wild

resources and their processing might have been overlooked in the past by archaeologists who

were focusing on those large site excavations. High ubiquity values of pinyon, juniper, Cheno- ams, Indian ricegrass, buckwheat, and purslane indicate the processing of cultivable and gathered wild resources (Sullivan 1992:213-214; Sullivan et al. 2001:371) In fact, a study conducted by

Floyd and Kohler (1990:146) on pinyon productivity within the pinyon-juniper woodland of the

Dolores Archaeological Project study area in Southwest Colorado, concluded that "long-distance

collection of pinyon would have been necessary in 40-60% of years if pinyon were a staple in the

prehistoric diet." As stated previously, FCR pile 96.15 may have been the initial resource

extraction and processing feature at MU 125 before its long-term occupation. However, its

position in Room 6, beneath the west wall of Room 4 may mean that it post-dates Room 6, but

100

pre-dates the construction of Rooms 4 and 5. The sediments from 96.15 may have been

compromised or mixed with construction sediments, allowing for later domesticates to become

intermixed with its original assemblage.

Non-Thermal Food Processing Contexts: Comprehensive Interpretation

Metates are often considered to be direct evidence of subsistence and the appearance of

such groundstone artifacts have been viewed as an indicator of processing cultivated grains

(Staller 2010:87; Sullivan 2014). The common interpretation in the Southwest was that if

grinding stones were present or highly ubiquitous within a structure, then not only must the

inhabitants have been grinding maize, but the shape and size of groundstones could determine

the degree of a society's maize-dependency (Hard 1990). According to Martin and Rinaldo

(1947:316), concave slabs, basin metates, and round one-handed manos were classified as

underdeveloped and associated with “seed-gathering” economies, whereas trough-type metates

and rectangular two-handed manos were associated with developed agricultural economies. Hard

(1990) argues that the mean length of manos directly correlates to a society’s maize dependence.

Hard (1990:137) states that “grinding is mechanically inefficient due to the indirect manner in which energy is delivered through equipment to material” and, given maize's time and energy

consuming processing, “manos with larger grinding areas would permit more maize to be ground

in less time.” However, this theory conflicts with the well documented evidence that

groundstones are used in processing wild resources and even clay and temper for ceramic

production, both in the Southwest (Gumerman and Dean 1989:126; Rocek 1995; Sullivan 1987,

2014; Yoder et al. 2010) and around the world (Weiss et al. 2008; Wright 1994).

Additionally, heavy groundstone tools are often placed in a suite of characteristics

associated with sedentism. Sedentism was linked directly with agriculture and groundstone

101 therefore became a hallmark of intensive agricultural production, because a highly mobile society would not expend high energy costs to carry around such heavy tools (Weiss et al.

2008:2402; Wright 2004:246-247). However, excavations conducted on the FCR piles in the

Upper Basin (mentioned above) revealed that groundstones were directly associated with these archaeological phenomena and were used to process wild resources, not cultivated domesticates

(Sullivan 1992; Sullivan et al. 2001). The process of roasting green pinyon cones to remove resin and dislodge seeds from the roasted and brittle cones with the help of groundstone is well documented ethnographically among people of the Great Basin who rely on harvesting the nutritious nuts before they are eaten up by animals (Eerkens et al. 2002:23; Sullivan 1992:222-

223). Pine nut extraction practiced by the Kumeyaay of central and northern California, also takes place away from villages, often in a clearing where the cones are piled up under needles on rocks and ignited, thus making the cones easier to split and separate from the seeds by the use of groundstone tools, which are also associated with activity's archaeological assemblage (Gamble and Mattingly 2012:272-273).

The earliest evidence of seed-grinding manos and metates appears on the Colorado

Plateau before 8000 cal BP, well before the arrival of domesticated maize (Doolittle & Mabry

2009:111-112; Yoder et al. 2010). Thus, these tools were utilized by proto-agriculturalists in the region for processing wild seed-bearing plants, such as goosefoot, Indian Rice grass, and amaranth, as well as pinyon. However, it is interesting that direct (nutshell) and indirect (cone scales) evidence of pinyon processing were found only in the sediment within and floor sample under the non-trough metate in Room 2 (FS#407/408 and #375). Traditionally, trough shaped metates are the favored metate type for maize grinding, so it appears that the non-trough metate type preferred for pinyon nut processing at extraction sites in the woodlands is delegated the

102

same task for small-scale pinyon and other wild resource processing within the habitation

structure. Nevertheless, the Cheno-am seeds recovered from the trough metate samples in Room

3 (FS#297/288 and #289) indicate that small seeded CRW may have been an acceptable resource

for processing on trough shaped metates, thus negating the previous model of their reservation

for maize alone.

The metate samples from this study yielded some confounding results. Such results were

in part due to the distinctions made for context groups: the two samples from the sediment within

the metate basins in Rooms 2 and 3 were placed in the Non-Thermal Food Processing Context

group and the two samples from directly under the metates themselves were placed in the Post-

Hole and Floor Context group. While the fill in the metate basins only contained CWR and

GWR, such as Cheno-ams, cactus, purslane, and pinyon cone scales, the floor samples obtained directly below the metates contained not only those wild resources found within the basin samples, but also bugseed, globemallow, cattail, sunflower, juniper, pinyon nut shell, a grass seed, and maize. In fact, the floor sample under the non-trough metate in Room 2 (FS#375) produced the highest quantity of maize at the entire site. Maize was represented in FS#375 by 25 cupules and two cob fragments, which gave it a 50% relative frequency within the sample.

Therefore, any interpretation of metate use at MU 125 would have to include the floor sample assemblages, such that a combination of maize, cultivable, and gathered wild resources were being indiscriminately processed on the metates in both Rooms 2 and 3.

Post-Hole and Floor Contexts: Comprehensive Interpretations

Individual post-holes and floor samples appear to be the most diverse of all context types.

This diversity is due to the nature of their deposition and their positions, which accesses the

place where all activity is carried out: the floor. As stated in the previous chapter, post-holes are

103

often excluded or deprioritized in archaeobotanical analysis because in many preservation

settings post-holes often lack substantial amounts of plant remains, making analysis of samples

recovered from them a time/labor wasting endeavor. Their assemblages are considered indirect

evidence and are usually deemed as too confusing to parse out plant use. However, since this

study's post-hole samples all come from Room 2, it provided an excellent opportunity to assess their usefulness to understand plant-use activity. The diversity of the post-hole assemblages

suggests that, at least in the Southwest, post-hole samples should be given time and consideration

in any project.

Samples from post-holes are aggregate representations of past human behaviors across a

defined space (i.e., "a room"), thus spatial differentiation may be understood by patterns between

post-holes. Post-holes from Room 2 reveal that maize only occurs in the south half of the room,

along with many different wild resources such as Cheno-ams, juniper, pinyon, purslane, cactus,

tansy mustard, and a grass type. It was also in the southern half of the room where a bean

cotyledon and PET tissue were found. The co-occurrence of PET fruity tissue along with many

cactus seeds and spine bases suggests that cactus (prickly pear or cholla) fruit were being

processed in the southern part of the room. In the north part of Room 2, post-hole samples reveal

no evidence of maize, just a few Cheno-ams. Thus, post-hole samples provisionally support the

inference that maize and a variety of wild resources were being processed in the southern part of

Room 2, but not in the northern half.

The only post-hole examined outside of Room 2 was PH-36 (FS#30) within the pottery-

firing facility (96.01) directly outside of Room 5. The scarce archaeobotanical remains from this

sample are likely due to the shallow nature of the deposit or indicate that only small amounts of

104

Cheno-ams were processed minimally, if at all, with the main focus of the feature being the

firing of ceramics.

On the other hand, post-hole trenches do not seem to be as diverse or as indicative of

human behaviors as individual post-holes. Cheno-ams, one purslane, and one globemallow seed were recovered from the two trenches. However, the small amount of plant remains recovered

does indicate that these features typically may not be rich in archaeobotanical remains. There

may be two plausible reasons for this phenomenon, the first being that the trenches, once dug,

were not open long enough for the accumulation of plant material. The second plausible reason

may be that the inhabitants selected sterile soil, or soil that was not in contact with everyday

living, to use as backfill for the trench, unlike what an archaeobotanist would find if a midden

had been used for backfilling.

Floor samples were also very taxonomically diverse. A comparison of floor samples within Rooms 2, 2.2, and 3 indicate that all three resource types were processed only in Room 2

(Table 6.1). The Room 3 floor sample suggests that only CWR and DR were processed in the room; however, the hearth and metate fill samples yielded evidence of GWR (pinyon and cattail), so all three resource types are technically represented. In contrast, the floor samples from

Room 2.2 revealed a complete absence of DR, with only CWR and GWR present in the room,

thus differing from its adjoining Room 2. Small structures, adjacent or attached to larger

structures, such as Room 2.2, are often interpreted as places of storage. However, this

assumption was not made by the excavators for this room. There were no groundstone or other

artifacts found within the space. The economic resources found in Room 2.2's floor assemblage

may have been deposited in several ways. The room may have been used primarily for

subsistence-related activities and the processing tools subsequently removed. It may have been

105 used as a short-term resource storage space, or the archaeobotanical assemblage could be the by- product of plant parts being tracked or swept into the room accidently by humans.

Table 6.1. Taxa Recovered from Floor Samples within Each Room. Plant Taxon Room 2 Room 2.2 Room 3 Cultivable Wild Resources Asteraceae sp. X Cheno-Ams X X X Descurainia sp. Panicum sp. X Poaceae spp. X Portulaca sp. X Sphaeralacea spp. X X Gathered Wild Resources Cactaceae spp. X X Corispermum sp. X Juniperus sp. X X Pinus edulis X Typha sp. X Domesticated Resources Gossypium hirsutum Phaseolus vulgaris Zea mays X X

While floor samples differ between Rooms 2, 2.2, and 3, different floor samples within the same room can inform resource processing activities as well. Room 2 has the greatest diversity of taxa represented, suggesting that a great amount of both wild and domesticated resources were processed in this space prior to abandonment. The floor sample and metate assemblages suggest that the northern half of the room was being used for resource processing.

The abundance of economic wild plant remains in the post-hole assemblages in the southern half of the room where the entrance was located were possibly deposited from the northern resource- processing half of the room by sweeping, spilling, cooking, or even brought in by foot traffic from the outside as resources were carried in for processing. Although the taxa present differ

106 between rooms, it is clear that at least Rooms 2 and 3 were used for a variety of wild resource and maize processing, as evidenced not only by their archaeobotanical assemblages, but also by the presence of groundstone within each room.

Other Context: Comprehensive Interpretations

The unrelated nature of these features within this context group make it difficult to find any pattern. However one interpretation that may be inferred is that architectural features such as the "limestone ledge" and holes in the bedrock, like the post-hole trench features, yield the least amount of remains, possibly due to their nature of deposition and the shallowness of their deposits. The dominance of gathered and cultivable wild resources in the limestone ledge sample may suggest that wild plant resources were stored on top of this feature. The difference in the two bowl content assemblages reflects the different composition of remains in Room 1 and

Room 2. Contents from Room 1's bowl (FS#204) were dominated by CWR, with a little over

10% of GWR. Room 2's bowl contents (FS#168) were also dominated by CWR and had the same percentage of GWR, however, maize was present in the sample. This is not surprising since

Room 2's post-hole and floor samples also have maize present. Additionally, bowl contents are not indicative of prehistoric diet, as it might reflect what was on the floor at the time of abandonment when the bowl was deposited, or later depositional events. The unburned storage pit in Room 6 (96.09), while dominated by CWR (87.6%), has at least 10% DR and only 2.4%

GWR. Because of the sealed nature of the pit, it may have been cleared out before the sealing and the subsequent construction over top of it. However, this does not negate the possibility that those carbonized remains found within the pit (i.e., Cheno-ams, maize, bugseed, and cactus) could have been stored there previously.

107

Discussion

With ethnographic information foremost in their minds, archaeologists have traditionally interpreted the adoption of maize agriculture in the ancient Southwest in terms of three assumptions: “high population, a low plant and animal biomass, and resultant population/resource imbalances” (Powell 1988:182). As a result of these biases, all archaeological phenomena encountered were defined as artifacts from an agricultural society.

Thus, one-room structures became known as “agricultural field houses,” terraces were assumed to have grown maize, beans, and squash, and lastly, groundstone was dubbed the implement of maize processing (Sullivan 2014). It was thought that a large population could not be sustained by natural resources available in the area (Gumerman and Dean 1989:117). Ford argues that wild edible plants “are widely scattered, variable in annual yield, and unreliable as dietary staples” in pinyon-juniper woodlands to the extent that there would be no localized support of “large populations or even annual return of small bands” (1989:129). According to this theory, prehistoric pinyon masting events were infrequent and unpredictable and the distribution of food- bearing ruderals was severely limited (Ford 1989:129). Contrary to this population/resource imbalance notion, Anschuetz (2006:60) reminds archaeologists that an environmentally deterministic view of prehistoric subsistence strategies may not always reveal the whole picture.

Instead he proposes the idea that "rather than rigidly viewing people as imposing themselves upon their environment, the idea of earning a living acknowledges the possibility that ideation and society define behavioral principles, based on traditional cultural knowledge, for sustaining family and community in the present and into the future by working in a considered relationship with the environment" (Anschuetz 2006:60).

108

The results of this study show that previous models of Southwest resource use do not fit the archaeological reality of the Upper Basin and that the environment of the Upper Basin can sustain sedentary inhabitants who rely on a diverse subsistence strategy based primarily on wild resources. Sullivan et al. (2002:56) defined the variability of the Upper Basin’s pinyon-juniper woodland into three “ecozones” for their archaeological survey: the sage ecozone (consists mainly of sage, grasses and shrubs), the wooded ecozone (consists largely of trees), and the mixed ecozone (equal parts trees, shrubs, sage, and grasses). These ecozones and the variability within a single biome likely figure prominently in shaping settlement patterns across the Upper

Basin. It is the redundancy of the pinyon-juniper resources, as many as 350 trees of each species per acre (Sullivan 1986:16), and the diversity of the understory shrubs, grasses, and cacti that contribute to the development of the sedentary hunter-gatherer-cultivator expression found in the settlement patterns of the Upper Basin.

The archaeobotanical assemblage of MU 125 displays how a diverse, yet reliable, subsistence strategy that incorporated CWR, GWR, and DR, was practiced by inhabitants of the

Upper Basin. The combination of diverse wild resources paired with key domesticates provided year-round stability and nutrition for the inhabitants of the Upper Basin, who intimately understood the seasonal cycles of their surrounding biotic communities. According to Fish et al.

(1990:77), diversity in a biotic community, often “within short horizontal distances, promotes the efficiency of sedentary hunting and gathering strategies by increasing the range of resources accessible within a convenient radius.” The topography of the Upper Basin naturally produces these variable microenvironments, the boundaries of which often overlap and are sometimes difficult to distinguish. An interesting example of this blurring of boundaries is the presence of

“isolated ponderosa pine trees along small ephemeral drainages near the canyon’s edge” within

109

the traditional pinyon-juniper woodland (Sullivan 1986:12). The pinyon-juniper woodland is an optimal ecological niche in which ancient populations could mitigate potential risks of year- round occupation by traversing microenvironments to utilize wild plant resources that were both seasonally and nutritionally complementary.

Table 6.2 displays the ripening/harvesting season of each prevalent wild plant resource.

However, even within a single region, there can be a range of variability to a plant's flowering and fruiting times, which are dependent on local temperature, precipitation, and elevation

(Adams and Bohrer 1998; Jones 1986). Therefore, Table 6.2 displays seasons of availability rather than months, to show the general trends of plant availability in the Grand Canyon area.

Taxa recovered as macroremains at MU 125 are represented in bold, while other taxa represented only by pollen are underlined (Table 6.2).

110

Table 6.2. Seasonal Availability of Prominent Taxa Surrounding MU 125. Taxon Type Part Seasonal Availability References Spring Summer Fall Winter Jones 1986; Kearney et al. Annual/ Greens X X Amaranthus 1960; Personal Observations; Perennial Seeds X X Welsh et al. 1987 Flower X X Asteraceae Annual Kearney et al. 1960 Seeds X Greens X X X Bohrer 1991; Jones 1986; Chenopodium Annual Personal Observations; Seeds X X Welsh et al. 1987 Annual/ Doebley 1984; Kearney et al. Panicum Seeds X X Perennial 1960 Annual/ Jones 1986; Kearney et al. Phalaris Seeds X X Perennial 1960 Annual/ Seeds X X Jones 1986; Kearney et al. Portulaca Perennial Greens X X 1960 Oryzopsis Doebley 1984; Kearney et al. Perennial Seeds X X hymenoides 1960; Personal Observations Flower X X Kearney et al. 1960; Personal Sphaeralcea Perennial Seeds X Observations Flower X Kearney et al. 1960; Personal Ephedra Perennial Stem X X X X Observations Adams & Fish 2006; Kearney Herbaceaous Flower X X Echinocactus et al. 1960; Personal Perennial Fruit X Observations Flower X X Adams & Bohrer 1998; Herbaceaous Adams & Fish 2006; Kearney Cylindropuntia Fruit X Perennial et al. 1960; Personal Pads X X X X Observations Flower X X Adams & Bohrer 1998; Herbaceaous Adams & Fish 2006; Kearney Opuntia Fruit X Perennial et al. 1960; Personal Pads X X X X Observations Adams & Bohrer 1998; Flower X X Herbaceaous Adams & Fish 2006; Kearney Yucca baccata Perennial et al. 1960; Personal Fruit X X Observations Perennial Adams & Fish 2006; Kearney Juniperus Berry X X X X Tree et al. 1960 Perennial Adams & Fish 2006; Kearney Pinus Seeds X Tree et al. 1960; Sullivan 1996 Adams & Fish 2006; Descurainia Annual Seeds X X Personal Observations Karen Adams, personal Semiaquatic Rootstock X X X Typha communication; Kearney et Perennial Pollen X al. 1960; Mitch 2000 Herbaceaous Corispermum X X Kearney et al. 1960 Annual Atriplex Adams & Bohrer 1998; Annual Shrub Fruit X X X canescens Kearney et al. 1960 Greens X Adams & Fish 2006; Kearney Annual/ Cleome et al. 1960; Personal Perennial Seeds X Observations

111

The pinyon-juniper community covers at least 51 million acres in the Southwest, providing a productive range of resources for ancient peoples (Barger and Ffolliott 1972:1). The

woodlands also perform an array of advantageous ecological functions, such as providing food

for wildlife and helping to protect the local watershed upon which other species rely. Pinyon tends to outnumber juniper (2:1), especially along the South Rim of the Grand Canyon (Sullivan

1992:199). In response to claims that pinyon nuts are unreliable, spatial and temporal knowledge of masting events within a region is all that would have been required for the ancient population to assess nut availability because (1) there is a great abundance of pinyon in the Upper Basin, (2)

masting events are predictable one to two years in advance, (3) pinyons produce at least a

marginal crop in most areas, and (4) tree age, stand-structure, and micro-habitat affect nut

production so that substantial harvests can happen locally due to temporal and spatial staggering

(Sullivan 1992:201; see also Barger and Ffolliott 1972; Lanner 1981; Madsen 1986). The

inhabitants of MU 125 and other sites in the Upper Basin could have harvested pinyon nuts in

the fall to be processed and stored for the winter or, if prepared correctly, for three to seven years

to buffer risk during times of stress due to wild resource scarcity (Cummings and Puseman

1997:4-5; Sullivan 1992). Green cones could even have been harvested as early as late summer,

thus freeing inhabitants to focus on a fall harvest of domesticates (Eerkens et al. 2002). Pinyon

was a valued resource, not only because of the nutritious nut, but for its wood used as fuel or for

tools, and its resin, often called pitch, that was used as an adhesive, a water-proofing agent, or for

ceremonial and medicinal purposes (i.e. applying to a sore tooth) (Schellbach 1933).

Although often overlooked in previous literature, juniper also has many uses, including

use of its wood for construction and fuel, and its seeds, cones, and leaves for medicine and food

(Rainey and Adams 2004; Sullivan 1986:19). Juniper berries, available throughout the year and

112

highly nutritious, could have been dried and saved for the winter (Cummings and Puseman

1997:4-5; Sullivan 1986:19, 1992). Utah juniper complements the pinyon pine because it

produces cones and seeds annually, even if it only produces one seed per cone, and the heavy

harvests expected every two to five years help to buffer lean pinyon years or the effects of a

drought (Barger and Ffolliott 1972).

In addition to pinyon and juniper harvests, those Cultivable Wild Resources (CWR)

found at MU 125, such as Cheno-ams, globemallow, purslane, tansy mustard, wild sunflower,

Panicum sp. and Poaceae grasses, would each have an important place in the seasonal

subsistence strategy. These ruderal plants, that thrive in disturbed habitats, provided important

subsistence options via their intentional cultivation and management. Taxa such as goosefoot,

amaranth, Indian rice grass, and dropseed grasses, proliferate in disturbed soil and can easily be

cultivated due to their abundant seeds and large seed heads; one amaranth plant sometimes bears

more than 50,000 seeds (National Research Council 1984). Because perennial grasses are usually

more reliable than annuals in drought years due to perennials' deep, extensive root systems

(Tassel and DeHaan 2013) and their earlier seed maturation, a combination of perennial and annual harvests allows for food security over a longer period of the year (Doolittle and Mabry

2009:112). For example, Indian rice grass could have been harvested as early as late winter or early spring to provide a high caloric food source during the “Spring Drought” (Doolittle and

Mabry 2009:112). Perennials, such as goosefoot and amaranth, can reseed themselves automatically in good conditions and take almost no attention to flourish, leaving more time and energy for tending other wild resources that are more labor-intensive, such as pinyon nuts,

juniper berries, and cactus fruits. While the Cheno-am seeds recovered by this study cannot be

113

identified as either perennials or annuals, both perennial and annual types of goosefoot and

amaranth are drought-resistant and proliferate easily with little attention by humans.

The idea of Cheno-ams as a cultivable resource is neither novel nor undocumented.

Amaranthus hypochondriacus, a native to Mexico, was prehistorically domesticated and became

a staple in Post-Classic Mesoamerica in both subsistence and ritual (Fritz 1984; National

Research Council 1984). Macrobotanical evidence from sites in the Eastern Woodlands and the

American Bottom (Fritz 1984; Smith 1992) suggest that prehistoric groups were actively

cultivating and even domesticating Cheno-ams along with the maize, beans, sunflower, and

squash. Caches of carefully picked and stored Chenopodium sp. and Amaranthus sp. seeds are

found in cave sites alongside key domesticates, tucked away as supplies for the next harvest

(Fritz 1984). Additionally, Cheno-ams are found in many Southwestern sites, documenting their

use north of Mexico. For example, domesticated A. hypochondriacus was recovered and

identified by Vorsila Bohrer (1962) at Tonto National Monument, Arizona, in a Salado context

(AD 1400) (Fritz 1984). Geographically closer to the Upper Basin, a pollen study of the

prehistoric use of man-made ash ridges by the Sinagua, east of Flagstaff, Arizona, found that the

inhabitants were actively cultivating Cheno-ams on the ridges and not maize (Berlin et al. 1990).

Although Berlin et al. (1990) did not consider the absence of bean and squash pollen to be evidence that these domesticates were not cultivated, due to the nature of their pollen transfer, they were confident that Cheno-ams were being cultivated in place of maize.

The leaves and blossoms of globemallow (Sphaeralacea) and Fourwing Saltbush

(Atriplex canescens) could have been harvested in the spring to early summer, as well as the greens and flowers of seepweed (Suaeda) and purslane (Portulaca sp.) to be eaten raw or boiled

(Cummings and Puseman 1997:5-6). Tansy mustard (Descurania sp.) seeds could have been

114

harvested in the spring and early summer to be parched and ground into meal or cooked into a

mush and the greens could be cooked or eaten raw (Rainey and Adams 2004). Wild sunflower

(Helianthus sp.) achenes could have been harvested in early fall and were valued for their oily nutrition. They were either parched and ground into flour or boiled before eaten and it is documented that the achenes were also used to make a blue vegetal paint (Rainey and Adams

2004).

Cattails, often called "an outdoor pantry" (Mitch 2000:448) because of their ability to

provide food all year long, were a resource with many uses. The shoots could be harvested in

spring and eaten raw, used as a potherb, or made into soup (Mitch 2000:448). Flower spikes

could also be harvested in the spring and boiled to be eaten like corn on the cob (Mitch

2000:448). Cattail pollen, perhaps what the plant is most famous for, could be harvested in the

summer, roasted until dried, and made into a flour for making various types of bread (Mitch

2000). Even its seeds could be roasted to rid them of the fluff and eaten or pressed into an oil.

Lastly, the rootstocks are available for harvest anytime in the spring, summer, or fall, however,

they contain more starch at the end of the growing season in fall (Mitch 200:448). The rootstocks

were dried and ground into a fine meal for use. The presence of cattail, a semi-aquatic plant, at

MU 125 is indeed interesting given the lack of perennial streams in the Upper Basin. Its presence may mean that the inhabitants of MU 125 were either trading for cattail with groups from the south or they were obtaining it within the Grand Canyon near the Colorado River or one of its

tributaries. Alternatively, cattail may have been harvested on a small scale in the Upper Basin if

standing water, such as from around man-made water catchment sites, was available throughout

a greater portion of the year. This phenomenon has been recorded with the recovery of

Polygonum amphibium (water smartweed, a semi-aquatic plant like cattail) seeds at Lizard Man

115

Village, a Northern Sinagua site east of Flagstaff, Arizona and just southeast of the Upper Basin

(Hunter et al. 1999:139) This area, like the Upper Basin, is characterized by scarce surface water and sparse precipitation.

Bugseed (Corispermum sp.) was thought to have been introduced from Eurasia after the arrival of Europeans to North America (Kearney et al. 1960); however, evidence in human coprolites and carbonized specimens in archaeobotanical assemblages from ancient habitation structures all over the Southwest, shows that a specific type of Corispermum, Corispermum hyssopifolium, is indeed indigenous to this continent and was a reliable source of food since the

Archaic (Hunter et al. 1999:144, Yoder et al. 2010). The seeds and greens of bugseed could be harvested in summer and early fall and since the plant is so closely related to Chenopodium and

Amaranthus, it would have been processed and utilized in a similar manner.

While not recovered in the macrobotanical assemblage at MU 125, beeweed, ephedra, and yucca pollen were recovered within the structure and were abundant and viable options for resource procurement. Beeweed (Cleome sp.) seeds and greens were valued both as a dietary option (boiled into mush, parched, or eaten raw) and for making black ceramic paint once harvested in the summer (Rainey and Adams 2004). Ephedra (Mormon tea) stems could have been harvested year round and boiled to make a medicinal and nutritious tea (Rainey and Adams

2004). Yucca flowers and fruits could be harvested in the spring and early summer and were roasted, dried, and could be stored for later use in the winter (Rainey and Adams 2004). Yucca leaves could be boiled into soups or used for their fibers to construct string for baskets, sandals, or brushes (Rainey and Adams 2004).

This seasonal schedule revolving around natural resource availability and a combination of wild resources, both plant and animal, would have provided essential vitamins and minerals to

116

maintain good nutrition (Cummings and Puseman 1995:18). Thus, another advantage of wild

plant cultivation is that it is more nutritious than a maize-based diet, since annuals tend to

“channel a greater portion of their nutrients into the seeds they produce” (Doebley 1984:61). For

example, the percentage of the amino acid lysine in amaranth protein is three times greater than

in maize, making these wild plants a more balanced choice in which to invest (National Research

Council 1984:5). The nutritional qualities of the cattail pollen flour include sulfur, phosphorus,

carbohydrates, sugar, and oil, and is "as rich in protein as corn, rice, and wheat" (Mitch

2000:448). Cholla buds are low in fat and highly nutritious, providing high amounts of important

minerals such as magnesium, manganese, and selenium, and low amounts of protein,

carbohydrates, and iron (Greenhouse et al. 1981). Greenhouse et al. (1981:232) report that they

are an “excellent source of calcium, providing more per 100 g serving than eight ounces of milk.” While evidence of cholla use is less archaeologically visible in the Upper Basin than in the Lower Sonoran desert environments, it is still an important potential wild resource.

Pinyon nuts may have been the most nutritious wild resource exploited by the inhabitants of this pinyon-juniper woodland environment. According to Floyd and Kohler (1990:145), pinyon seeds contain all twenty essential amino acids, seven of which are in higher quantities than those in maize and are abundant in iron and phosphorus. In fact, pinyon seeds "contain approximately 14% protein, 61-71% fat, and 17-18% carbohydrates" (Floyd and Kohler

1990:145), thus rendering the nut culturally and nutritionally valuable and giving it an honored place in the subsistence strategy of the Upper Basin inhabitants.

Since the distribution of resources across space has a direct effect on subsistence systems

(Dean 2004:192), the environment of the Upper Basin allowed for adequate wild resource use as a viable subsistence strategy. Therefore, in the pinyon-juniper woodland, cultigens, such as Zea

117 mays (maize), harvested in the late summer or early fall, would have only been needed as a supplement to the diet of the ancient inhabitants, rather than as a staple on which their survival depended.

The archaeological evidence from MU 125 and other PII sites in the Grand Canyon region (Site 17) show that these inhabitants were relatively sedentary (Sullivan 1986, 1987). For example, MU 125 itself was occupied for at least a decade or more (Sullivan and Sorrell 1997).

The seasonality of recovered archaeobotanical evidence makes clear the likelihood for year- round occupation at MU 125 (Table 6.1). While available winter resources are limited to cactus, juniper, ephedra, and saltbush, the storage of spring, summer, and fall resource harvests would satisfy winter habitation needs. Further support for this inference comes from the architectural differences between semi-subterranean Room 2 (winter) and above-ground, ramada-like Room 3

(summer), combined with the presence of unburned storage pits and evidence of many repairs to the structure over time. As is common for the Pueblo II period, archaeobotanical assemblages from MU 125 and other sites (Jones 1986; Sullivan 1986, 1987; Sullivan and Ruter 2006) also include domesticates. This research has shown that sedentary populations living in the Upper

Basin who have access to and utilize domesticates, can still rely on wild resources for a majority of their subsistence, rather than simply as a means of mitigating risk.

Sedentary groups relying heavily on wild resources is not a phenomenon isolated to the

Upper Basin; in fact, many sedentary groups have diverse subsistence strategies. For example, sedentary, complex hunter-gatherer groups who practiced some form of plant husbandry

“persisted for millennia in several resource-rich zones even after cultigens were present in nearby regions and almost certainly [were] available through exchange,” like certain native groups in California and on the Pacific Northwest Coast (Fritz 1995:11). Pre-agricultural

118

societies in the Sonoran Desert were able to maintain a largely sedentary existence due to

optimal resource distribution, making residential stability “possible to a degree that cultivation

did not entail substantial alteration of seasonal schedules” (Fish et al. 1990:77). As long as

mesquite beans (Prosopis sp.), cactus fruits, and seedy annuals could be gathered during the

proper seasons, cultivation of wild plants and sedentism were not hindrances, but rather viable

strategies for sustainable food procurement. Thus the results from this research show that the claims about low plant biomass and resource imbalance are unfounded, especially when the

Upper Basin is viewed as a region of three overlapping biomes (the pinyon-juniper Great Basin

Conifer Woodland mixed with pockets of Rocky Mountain Montane Conifer Forest and Great

Basin Desertscrub) with localized variability. The high quantity of CWR and GWR taxa recovered at MU 125 speaks to the importance of the blurred biotic boundaries across a landscape. Desertscrub resource pockets and mixed ecozone pinyon-juniper woodlands (Sullivan et al. 2002:56) provide the type of environment needed to produce the subsistence remains discovered at MU 125.

Conclusions

The most significant finding of this study is that the inhabitants of MU 125 were heavily reliant on wild resources, more so than previously considered. It provides additional support for

Cummings and Puseman's (1995, 1997) initial conclusions. Although maize and beans were indeed being either grown in the area or traded for with other groups, the small quantity of

maize, mostly as cupule remains, suggests that its importance was less than typically assumed, as

per the maize-centric model. Without a doubt, maize was useful and important to the inhabitants;

however, this research shows that it holds a diminished place in the subsistence strategies of the

MU 125 household. The diversity of the inhabitants' subsistence strategies and their seasonal

119

scheduling allowed them to be successful in the Upper Basin year-round, as suggested by the

semi-subterranean nature of Room 2, the ramada-like nature of Room 3, evidence of numerous structural repairs, and the use of storage pits. The amount of in situ artifacts found within Room

2 and evidence of a catastrophic fire led the excavators to believe MU 125 was abandoned in the winter. The fire was advantageous for preserving the archaeobotanical assemblage that supports the processing, use, and storage of plants obtained in each season, although the majority were from spring, summer, and fall harvests.

Second, this study shows that MU 125 was not only a place of wild resource use, and to a lesser extent, maize, but a place for wild resource processing, as is suggested by the assemblages of Rooms 2 and 3. The archaeobotanical analysis concludes that wild taxa, such as goosefoot, pigweed, purslane, globemallow, cactus, wild sunflower, bugseed, cattail, juniper, and Panicum and other grass types, were actively being processed within or directly around MU 125 itself.

This is significant because the bulk of wild resource processing was thought to have taken place in the woodland, away from habitation structures and at extraction sites (Gamble and Mattingly

2012; Sullivan 1992). While the archaeobotanical assemblage at MU 125 does not represent evidence of one bulk resource processing event, it does show that different wild resources, extracted elsewhere, were at least processed to varying degrees within the site itself. For example, the presence of carbonized cactus spine bases (within floor samples, under a metate, in a bowl sample, and in post-hole samples) indicate that cactus fruits or pads were harvested away from the habitation structure, but brought back to be roasted for spine removal by groundstone

with the rooms.

While pinyon nut shell was recovered at MU 125, the low quantity suggests that the

majority of pinyon nut processing that the inhabitants conducted probably occurred away from

120 the habitation structure and out in the pinyon-juniper woodland at a designated extraction site

(Greenberg 2013; Sullivan 1992). As expected, only a small portion (8.0%) of the pinyon represented in the MU 125 assemblage was from direct evidence (nut shell), as the majority

(92%) of the pinyon represented came from indirect evidence (cone scales and cone axis).

However, even a low quantity of pinyon nut shell and cone scales may either represent the final stages of processing of previously stored pinyon nuts or the processing remains of a small pinyon harvest obtained from trees directly around MU 125 itself. This small-scale harvest in the immediate vicinity of MU 125 would be possible in years when the pinyon stands nearby were masting. Also the majority of juniper remains (80.4%) consists of direct evidence (juniper berries), which suggests that juniper berries may also have been dried and processed at the habitation structure.

The recovery of the cotton string piece was an exciting find because it is evidence of the trade of either raw cotton fiber or finished cotton goods. It is likely that the cotton for the fiber recovered was obtained in trade with either the Northern Sinagua to the southeast, near present day Flagstaff, Arizona (Hunter et al. 1999:142-144), or with groups in the inner Grand Canyon

(Smith and Adams 2011). Both locales have recovered evidence of cotton cultivation (Hunter et al. 1999; Smith and Adams 2011). The lack of cotton seeds at MU 125, which could also have been roasted and eaten, suggests that trade was the likely means of obtaining the recovered cotton. Sites that were involved with cotton cultivation often have a large quantity of cotton seeds in their archaeobotanical assemblage, something which MU 125 lacks. Hunter et al.

(1999:144) report that "Gossypium hirsutum seeds, stems, and bolls have been recovered from archaeological sites in northern Arizona beginning about AD 1100," which is slightly later than the inhabitants of MU 125 would have been making their living in the Upper Basin.

121

This research also demonstrates the importance of using multiple quantification methods for analysis and interpretation, assessing variability within and between context types, including post-hole samples in analysis, and fully sorting small size fraction when possible. First, this study shows that using density, relative frequency, ubiquity, and ranking, slight differences in resource patterning can be discerned. Additionally, complementary patterns between different measures provide a stronger evidentiary basis for interpretation. For example, both the ubiquity and relative frequency analyses revealed that CWR and GWR were both more ubiquitous and frequent in every major context group than DR. Domesticated resources occur in fewer than 43% of samples in all context groups. Conversely, with the addition of the ranking measure, different patterns of abundance were revealed between taxa, such as Cheno-ams and maize, and between context types that were narrowed for this measure, such as floor samples and post-hole samples.

For example, without ranking, this study would have missed the abundance of maize in floor samples, post holes, and unburned pits, contexts where maize was just as abundant as Cheno- ams. This finding was especially important as it suggests the processing of even small quantities of maize, at the site may have been previously overlooked because of its absence in thermal features.

Density analysis of wood and non-wood suggests that thermal features were cleaned out before the abandonment of MU 125 and that the whole structure was either accidentally burned or ritually burned as part of the abandonment process. The only maize recovered by this study was in the form of cupules or a cob fragment, which suggests that maize cobs were being used alongside wood as fuel in the hearth and roasting pits. While not an uncommon practice, it is unusual to not have recovered any maize kernels, the most nutritious and important part of the resource. Interestingly, the samples with the highest wood and non-wood density values

122

(FS#164, 160, 91, 168) do not directly correlate with contexts where burning would be expected,

with the exception of FS#91 from the exterior ash pit (Feature 96.05). Thus, density patterns at

MU 125 may reflect the redeposition of burned material facilitated by a variety of human

activities or natural causes, such as roof fall during or after the catastrophic fire. This finding

highlights the value of sample density analysis as an important component to any

archaeobotanical research and serves as a reminder of the need for careful recording of sample volume by the archaeologist at the time of processing (flotation) and also the careful recording of absolute counts and wood weight while sorting light fraction so that density can be calculated for

each sample.

This analysis also shows the importance of defining context groups and understanding the

bias that might be inherent within those strict definitions. A good example of context definition

bias is the difference between the sediment within the metates in the Non-Thermal Food

Processing group and the sediment below the metates that was placed in the Post-Hole and Floor

Context group. While no DR were found within the metate samples, maize was found in the

samples from the sediment below the metates. If the sediment below the metates had been

considered as part of the Floor context group only and not examined individually, then it would

appear that maize was not processed by groundstone tools (metates) at MU 125. However, by

looking at the relative frequency of each sample individually, maize processing by these metates

can be inferred. Thus, important resource processing information was not lost in this study due to

bias in context group definitions at MU 125.

Additionally, this study revealed the importance of analyzing post-hole samples, which are traditionally ignored or relegated to the end of the sample priority agenda. Post-holes are

catchment sites for all plant remains that come in contact with the floor and are subsequently

123 swept into the spaces between the post and the ground. They are good indicators of resource processing within a room and even within specific areas within the same room, thus activity areas may be defined by use of post-hole analysis.

Lastly, the addition of newly analyzed samples from different features never before analyzed revealed a greater diversity of recovered taxa. Taxa not represented previously that were recovered in this study include bugseed, cattail, cotton (string fragment), Panicum type grass, Echinocatus or Harrisia sp (cactus), Mammillaria sp. (cactus), and an Asteraceae type

(sunflower). In contrast, Descurania sp. (tansy mustard) was only recovered by Cummings and

Puseman (1995, 1997). This increase in taxonomic diversity might be attributable to the full sorting of all light fraction size categories and scanning of the pan (smallest size) fraction for all samples in this study, as compared with the methods used by Cummings and Puseman (1995,

1997), which did not include the sorting of all fraction material in all size categories. The results from this study show the importance of sorting samples in their entirety, which is not always feasible due to time and budget constraints.

In conclusion, this study shows the importance of applying multiple analyses to understand patterns of subsistence. By using the four quantification measures (relative frequency, ubiquity, ranking, and density), this study revealed that the inhabitants of MU125 were practicing a diverse, multi-resource type subsistence strategy, which allowed them to occupy the Upper Basin year round. The archaeobotanical data suggests a greater reliance on wild resources (CWR and GWR) than on domesticated resources (DR) by the inhabitants of MU

125, thus challenging the long-held maize-centric model of Anasazi subsistence. The recent shift away from a maize-centrist model is perhaps due to advances in archaeobotanical sampling methods (both in the field and in the lab), flotation techniques, experimental studies, and

124 recognition of biases within the archaeobotanical assemblage. Following these procedures will help archaeologists recognize and develop more detailed interpretations of Anasazi subsistence strategies. Thus, the Upper Basin inhabitants need not be lumped together with other Anasazi groups in overarching generalizations of subsistence patterns, but can first be understood alone within the context of their environment and then within a greater sphere of interaction across the

Four Corners and beyond. As V.B. Price (2006:179) mused, "knowing where you are, and what it requires of you, and dealing with it on its own terms is the essential quality of long-term survival." The inhabitants of the Upper Basin intimately understood the pinyon-juniper woodland and everything it required of them as each season passed throughout the year, thus allowing them to thrive in a landscape that, to the untrained eye, may seem devoid of the essentials of survival.

125

REFERENCES CITED

Adams, Karen R. 2004 Anthropogenic Ecology of the North American Southwest. In People and Plants in Ancient Western North America, edited by Paul E. Minnis, pp.167-204.Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Adams, Karen R., and Suzanne K. Fish 2006 Southwest Plants. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 3: Environment, Origins, and Population, edited by William C. Sturtevant and Douglas H. Ubelaker, pp. 292- 312. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Adams, Karen R., and Shawn S. Murray 2004 Identification Criteria for Plant Remains Recovered from Archaeological Sites in the Central Mesa Verde Region [HTML Title], Compendium B. Available: http://www.crowcanyon.org/plantID. Date of use: 1 November 2012 – 1 October 2013.

Adams, Karen R., and Vorsila L. Bohrer 1998 Archaeobotanical Indicators of Seasonality: Examples from Arid Southwestern United States. In Seasonality and Sedentism: Archaeological Perspectives from Old World Sites, edited by Thomas R. Rocek and Ofer Bar-Yosef, pp. 129-141. Bulletin 6, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Adler, Michael A. 1992 The Upland Survey. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: A Progress Report, edited by William D. Lipe, pp. 11-23. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center Occasional Paper No. 2, Cortez, Colorado.

Adovasio, J. M. 2010 Basketry Technology: A Guide to Identification and Analysis. Left Coast Press, Inc., Walnut Creek, California.

Anschuetz, Kurt F. 2006 Tewa Fields, Tewa Traditions. In Canyon Gardens: The Ancient Pueblo Landscapes of the American Southwest, edited by V.B. Price and Baker H. Morrow, pp. 57-73. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Barber, E. J.W. 1991 Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Barger, Roland L., and Peter F. Ffolliott 1972 Physical Characteristics and Utilization of Major Woodland Tree Species in Arizona. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-83. Fort Collins, Colorado.

126

Berlin, G. Lennis, David E. Salas, and Phil R. Geib 1990 A Prehistoric Sinagua Agricultural Site in the Ashfall Zone of Sunset Crater, Arizona. Journal of Field Archaeology 17(1):1-16.

Bohrer, Vorsila L. 1978 Plants that Have Become Locally Extinct in the Southwest. New Mexico Journal of Science 18(2):10-19.

1991 Recently Recognized Cultivated and Encouraged Plants among the Hohokam. Kiva 56(3):227-235.

Bohrer, Vorsila L., and Karen R. Adams 1977 Ethnobotanical Techniques and Approaches at Salmon Ruin, New Mexico, Eastern New Mexico Contributions in Anthropology 8(1). Eastern New Mexico University, Portales, New Mexico.

Brandt, Carol B. 2006 Reading the Ancestral Puebloan Landscape: A Paleoethnobotanist's Text of Seeds and Wood. In Canyon Gardens: The Ancient Pueblo Landscapes of the American Southwest, edited by V.B. Price and Baker H. Morrow, pp. 33-44. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Brown, David E. 1994 Great Basin Conifer Woodland. In Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico, edited by David E. Brown, pp. 52-57. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Cappers, Rene T.J., Reinder Neef, and Renee M. Bekker 2009 Digital Atlas of Economic Plants Volumes 1, 2a, 2b. Groningen Institute of Archaeology, Groningen.

Colton, Harold S. 1955 Pottery Types of the Southwest. Museum of Northern Arizona Ceramic Series No. 3. Northern Arizona Society of Science and Art, Flagstaff, Arizona.

1958 Pottery Types of the Southwest. Museum of Northern Arizona Ceramic Series No. 3D. Northern Arizona Society of Science and Art, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Cordell, Linda S. 1984 Prehistory of the Southwest. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

Cummings, Linda Scott 1994 Pollen and Phytolith Analysis of Sediments from Agricultural Terraces, Site MU 125A, Kaibab National Forest, Arizona. Technical Report 94-06. Paleo Research Laboratory, Denver, Colorado.

127

Cummings, Linda Scott, and Kathryn Puseman 1995 Pollen and Macrofloral Analysis at Sites MU 123, MU 125, and MU 235 in Kaibab National Forest, North-Central Arizona. Technical Report 25-10. Paleo Research Laboratory, Denver, Colorado.

1997 Pollen and Macrobotanical Analysis at Sites MU125 and MU125A, Arizona. Technical Report 97-45. Paleo Research Laboratory, Denver, Colorado.

Dean, Jeffrey S. 2004 Anthropogenic Environmental Change in the Southwest as Viewed from the Colorado Plateau. In The Archaeology of Global Change: The Impact of Humans on their Environment, edited by Charles L. Redman, Steven R. James, Paul R. Fish, and J. Daniel Rogers, pp. 191-207. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Doebley, John F. 1984 “Seeds” of Wild Grasses: A Major Food of Southwestern Indians. Economic Botany 38(1): 52-64.

Doolittle, William E., and Jonathan B. Mabry 2009 Environmental Mosaics, Agricultural Diversity, and the Evolutionary Adoption of Maize in the American Southwest. In Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize, edited by John E. Staller, Robert H. Tykot, and Bruce F. Benz, pp. 109-121. Academic Press, Burlington, Massachusetts.

Eerkens, Jelmer W., Jerome King, and Eric Wohlgemuth 2002 The Prehistoric Development of Intensive Green-Cone Piñon Processing in Eastern California. Journal of Field Archaeology 29(1/2): 17-27.

Euler, Robert C. 1984 The Archaeology, Geology, and Paleobiology of Stanton's Cave: Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Grand Canyon Natural History Association, Monograph Number 6.

Fish, Suzanne K. 2004 Corn, Crops, and Cultivation in the North American Southwest. In People and Plants in Ancient Western North America, edited by Paul E. Minnis, pp.115-166. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Fish, Suzanne K., Paul R. Fish, and John Madsen 1990 Sedentism and Settlement Mobility in the Tucson Basin Prior to A.D. 1000. In Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, edited by Paul E. Minnis and Charles L. Redman, pp. 76-91. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

128

Floyd, M. Lisa and Timothy A. Kohler 1990 Current Productivity and Prehistoric Use of Piñon (Pinus edulis, Pinaceae) in the Dolores Archaeological Project Area, Southwestern Colorado. Economic Botany 44(2):141- 156.

Ford, Richard I. 1984 Ecological Consequences of Early Agriculture in the Southwest. In Papers on the Archaeology of Black Mesa, Arizona, Volume II, edited by Stephen Plog and Shirley Powell, pp. 125-138. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville, Illinois.

Fritz, Gayle J. 1984 Identification of Cultigen Amaranth and Chenopod from Rockshelter Sites in Northwest Arkansas. American Antiquity 49(3):558-572.

2005 Paleoethnobotanical Methods and Applications. In Handbook of Archaeological Methods, edited by Herbert D.G. Maschner and Christopher Chippindale, pp. 771-832. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California.

Fugate, Thomas I. 2003 Inferring Settlement Formation Patterns: A GIS-Based Harris Matrix Analysis of a Prehistoric Masonry Ruin in the Upper Basin, Kaibab National Forest, Northern Arizona. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Cincinnati.

Fule, Peter Z., W. Wallace Covington, Margaret M. Moore, Thomas A. Heinlein, and Amy E. M. Waltz 2002 Natural Variability in Forests of the Grand Canyon, USA. Journal of Biogeography 29: 31-47.

Gamble, Lynn H., and Scott Mattingly 2012 Pine Nut Processing in Southern California: Is the Absence of Evidence the Evidence of Absence? American Antiquity 77(2):263-278.

Greenberg, April R. 2013 A GIS-Based Spatial Analysis of Factors that Influenced the Placement of Fire-Cracked Rock Features in the Upper Basin, Northern Arizona. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Cincinnati.

Greenhouse, Ruth, Robert E. Gasser, and Jannifer W. Gish 1981 Cholla Bud Roasting Pits: An Ethnoarchaeological Example. Kiva 46(4): 227-242.

Gumerman, George J., and Jeffery S. Dean 1989 Prehistoric Cooperation and Competition in the Western Anasazi Area. In Dynamics of Southwest Prehistory, edited by Linda S. Cordell and George J. Gumerman, pp. 99-148. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

129

Hammett, Julia E. 1993 Sinaguan Paleoethnobotany along the Transwestern Pipeline. In Across the Colorado Plateau: Anthropological Studies for the Transwestern Pipeline Expansion Project: 15, Subsistence and Environment, edited by Joseph C. Winter, pp. 459-469. Office of Contract Archaeology and Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Hard, R. J. 1990 Agricultural Dependence Among the Mountain Mogollon. In Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, edited by Paul Minnis and Charles Redman, pp. 135-149. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Haury, Emil W. 1986 Prehistory of the American Southwest, edited by J. Jefferson Reid and David E. Doyel. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Huckell, Lisa W., and Mollie S. Toll 2004 Wild Plant Use in the North American Southwest. In People and Plants in Ancient Western North America, edited by Paul E. Minnis, pp. 37-114. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Johannessen, Sissel, and Christine A. Hastorf (eds.) 1994 Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric New World. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Hunter, Andrea, Kathyrn Kamp, and John Whittaker 1999 Plant Use. In Surviving Adversity: The Sinagua of Lizard Man Village, edited by Kathryn A. Kamp and John C. Whittaker, pp. 139-151. Anthropological Papers No. 120. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Hutira, Johna 1986 Analysis of Plants, Pollen, and Coprolites. In A Cross Section of Grand Canyon Archaeology: Excavations at Five Sites along the Colorado River, edited by Anne Trinkle Jones, pp. 269-321. Western Archaeological and Conservation Center, Tucson, Arizona.

Jones, Anne Trinkle 1986a A Cross Section of Grand Canyon Archaeology: Excavations at Five Sites Along the Colorado River. Western Archaeological and Conservation Center, Tucson, Arizona.

1986b Spatial and Temporal Variations in Grand Canyon Subsistence and Technology. Western Anasazi Reports 3(3): 260-271.

Kearney, Thomas H., Robert H. Peebles, and collaborators 1960 Arizona Flora. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.

Kidder, A.V. 1927 Southwestern Archaeological Conference. Science 66:489-491.

130

Kohler, Timothy A., and Meredith H. Matthews 1988 Long-Term Anasazi Land Use and Forest Reduction: A Case Study from Southwest Colorado. American Antiquity 53(3):537-564.

Kohler, Timothy A., C. David Johnson, Mark Varien, Scott Ortman, Robert Reynolds, Ziad Kobti, Jason Cowan, Kenneth Kolm, Schaun Smith, and Lorene Yap 2007 Settlement Ecodynamics in the Prehispanic Central Mesa Verde Region. In The Model- Based Archaeology of Socionatural Systems, edited by Timothy A. Kohler and Sander E. van der Leeuw, pp. 61-104. School for Advanced Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Lanner, Ronald M. 1981 The Piñon Pine: A Natural and Cultural History. University of Nevada Press, Reno, Nevada.

Logan, Noel 1993 Analysis Report for Burial Number 1 at MU 125, Site AR-03-07-04-1007(KNF). Manuscript on File at University of Cincinnati, Department of Anthropology.

Lowe, Charles H., and David E. Brown 1994 Introduction. In Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico, edited by David E. Brown, pp. 8-16. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Madsen, David B. 1986 Great Basin Nuts: A Short Treatise on the Distribution, Productivity, and Prehistoric Use of Pinyon. In Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings, edited by Carol J. Condie and Don D. Fowler, pp. 21-41. Anthropological Papers No. 110, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Martin, Alexander C., and William D. Barkley 1961 Seed Identification Manual. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.

Martin, P. S., and J. B. Rinaldo 1947 The SU Site, Excavations at a Mogollon Village, Western New Mexico: Third Season, 1946, Anthropological Series, Volume 32, Number 3, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois.

Matthews, Meredith H. 1979 Soil Sample Analysis of 5MT2148; Dominguez Ruin, Dolores, Colorado, Appendix B. In The Dominguez Ruin: A McElmo Phase Pueblo in Southwestern Colorado, edited by Alan D. Reed. Cultural Resource Series No. 7. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

Merkle, John 1952 An Analysis of a Pinyon-Juniper Community at Grand Canyon, Arizona. Ecology 33(3):375-384.

131

Miller, Naomi F. 1988 Ratios in Paleoethnobotanical Analysis. In Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains, edited by Christine A. Hastorf and Virginia S. Popper, pp. 72-85. University of Chicago Press, Illinois.

Minnis, Paul E. 1981 Seeds in Archaeological Sites: Sources and Some Interpretative Problems. American Antiquity 46(1):143-152.

1982 The Ethnobotanical Remains. In The Tsaya Project: Archaeological Excavations near Lake Valley, San Juan County, New Mexico, edited by Regge N. Wiseman, pp. 64-82. Note 308. Laboratory of Anthropology, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

1992 Earliest Plant Cultivation in the Desert Borderlands of North America. In The Origins of Agriculture: An International Perspective, edited by C. Wesley Cowan and Patty Jo Watson, pp. 121-141. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C.

Mitch, Larry M. 2000 Common Cattail, Typha latifolia L. Weed Technology 14(2):446-450.

Musil, Albina F. 1963 Identification of Crop and Weed Seeds. Agricultural Handbook No. 219. U.S Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C.

National Research Council 1984 Amaranth: Modern Prospects for an Ancient Crop. Report of an Ad Hoc Panel of the Advisory Committee on Technology Innovation Board on Science and Technology for International Development Office of International Affairs National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Neely, James A. 2004 Archaeological Perspective. In The Safford Valley Grids: Prehistoric Cultivation in the Southern Arizona Desert, pp. 95-111. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Norr, Jeremy A. 1997 Archaeological Investigation of Prehistoric Water Collection Feature in the Upper Basin, Kaibab National Forest, Northern Arizona. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Cincinnati.

Pase, Charles P., and David E. Brown 1994 Rocky Mountain (Petran) and MadreanMontane Conifer Forests. In Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico, edited by David E. Brown, pp. 43-48. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.

132

Patton, David R. 1994 Management Applications of Biotic Community Data. In Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico, edited by David E. Brown, pp. 7. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Pearsall, Deborah M. 1989 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures, Second Edition. Academic Press, New York.

Plog, Fred 1979 Prehistory: Western Anasazi. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 9: Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 108-130. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Plog, Stephen 2008 Ancient Peoples of the American Southwest. Third Edition. Thames and Hudson Ltd., London.

Popper, Virginia S. 1988 Selecting Quantitative Measurements in Paleoethnobotany. In Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains, edited by Christine A. Hastorf and Virginia S. Popper, pp. 53-71. University of Chicago Press, Illinois.

Popper, Virginia S., and Christine A. Hastorf 1988 Introduction. In Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains, edited by Christine A. Hastorf and Virginia S. Popper, pp. 1-16. University of Chicago Press, Illinois.

Powell, John Wesley 1961 [1895]. The Exploration of the Colorado River and its Canyons. Flood and Vincent, London. 1961 facsimile ed. Dover Publications, New York.

Powell, Shirley 1988 Anasazi Demographic Patterns and Organizational Responses: Assumptions and Interpretive Difficulties. In The Anasazi in a Changing Environment, edited by George J. Gumerman, pp.168-191. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Price, V. B. 2006 Landscape and Survival: Thoughts on New Urbanism and Ancestral Puebloan/Pueblo Strategies for Designing Pragmatic Desert Built Environments. In Canyon Gardens: The Ancient Pueblo Landscapes of the American Southwest, edited by V. B. Price and Baker H. Morrow, pp. 169-187. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

133

Rainey, Katherine D., and Karen R. Adams 2004 Plant Use by Native Peoples of the American Southwest: Ethnographic Documentation [HTML Title]. Available: http://www.crowcanyon.org/plantuses. Date of use: 1 November 2012 – 1 October 2013.

Rocek, Thomas R. 1995 Sedentarization and Agricultural Dependence: Perspectives from the Pithouse-to- Pueblo Transition in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 60(2):218-239.

Romme, William H., Craig D. Allen, John D. Bailey, William L. Baker, Brandon T. Bestelmeyer, Peter M. Brown, Karen S. Eisenhart, M. Lisa Floyd, David W. Huffman, Brian F. Jacobs, Richard F. Miller, Esteban H. Muldavin, Thomas W. Swetnam, Robin J. Tausch, and Peter J. Weisberg 2009 Historical and Modern Disturbance Regimes, Stand Structures, and Landscape Dynamics in Piñon–Juniper Vegetation of the Western United States. Rangeland Ecology & Management 62(3): 203-222.

Rose, M. R. 1989 Present and Past Environmental Conditions. In Man, Models, and Management: An Overview of the Arizona Strip and the Management of its Cultural Resources, edited by J. H. Altschul and H. C. Fairley, pp. 7-52. Statistical Research Inc., Tucson, Arizona.

Sauer, Jonathan Deininger 1950 The Grain Amaranths: A Survey of Their History and Classification. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 37(4):561-632.

Schellbach, Louis III. 1933 Indian Use of the Pinyon Pine in the Grand Canyon Region. Grand Canyon Nature Notes 8(9). [HTML Title], Available: http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/grca/notes/vol7-9f.htm. Date of use: 26 September 2012.

Schwartz, Douglas W. 1990 On the Edge of Splendor: Exploring Grand Canyon’s Human Past. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Schwartz, Douglas W., Michael P. Marshall, and Jane Kepp 1979 Archaeology of the Grand Canyon: The Bright Angel Site. Grand Canyon Archaeological Series, Volume 1. The School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Sellers, W. D., and R. H. Hill 1974 Arizona Climate: 1931-1972. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

134

Smart, Tristine Lee, and Ellen S. Hoffman 1988 Environmental Interpretation of Archaeological Charcoal. In Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains, edited by Christine A. Hastorf and Virginia S. Popper, pp. 167-205. University of Chicago Press, Illinois.

Smith, Bruce D. 1992 Rivers of Change: Essays on Early Agriculture in Eastern North America. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Smith, Susan J., and Karen R. Adams 2011 The Perishable Side of Archaeology: Plant Remains and Prehistoric Subsistence in the Grand Canyon. Paper presented at the 76th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Sacramento, California.

Staller, John E. 2010 Maize Cobs and Cultures: History of Zea mays L. Springer-Verlag, Heidelburg.

Staller, John E., Robert Tykot, and Bruce Benz (eds.) 2006 Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize. Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam.

Strahler, Arthur N. 1944 A Guide to the East Kaibab Monocline in the Grand Canyon Region. Plateau 17:1-13.

Sullivan, Alan P. III. 1986 Prehistory of the Upper Basin, Coconino County, Arizona. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No. 167. University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

1987 Seeds of Discontent: Implications of a "Pompeii" Archaeobotanical Assemblage for Grand Canyon Anasazi Subsistence Models. Journal of Ethnobiology 7(2):137-153.

1992 Pinyon Nuts and Other Wild Resources in Western Anasazi Subsistence Economies. In Research in Economic Anthropology, edited by Dale E. Croes, Rebecca A. Hawkins, and Barry L. Isaac, pp. 195-239. JAI Press, Connecticut.

1993 Research Design for the Excavation of Site MU 125, Tusayan Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest. Manuscript on File at University of Cincinnati, Department of Anthropology.

1995 Artifacts Scatters and Subsistence Organization. Journal of Field Archaeology 22(1): 49-64.

2000 Effects of Small-Scale Prehistoric Runoff Agriculture on Soil Fertility: The Developing Picture from Upland Terraces in the American Southwest. Geoarchaeology 15:291-313.

135

2014 The Archaeology of Ruderal Agriculture. In Arid Lands Agriculture: New Views from the Prehistoric North American Southwest, edited by S. Ingram and R.C. Hunt. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, in press.

Sullivan, Alan P., Robert A. Cook, and Anthony J. Ruter 1995 Preliminary Results of Excavations Conducted at Archaeological Site AR-03-07-04- 1007, Tusayan Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest, Coconino County, Arizona. Special- Use Permit Number 5166-01.Manuscript on File at Department of Anthropology, University of Cincinnati.

Sullivan, Alan P., Robert A. Cook, Jeremy A. Norr, and Thomas Fugate 1996 Preliminary Results of 1995 Excavations Conducted at Archaeological Site AR-03-07- 04-1007, Tusayan Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest, Coconino County, Arizona. Special-Use Permit Number 5166-01.Manuscript on File at Department of Anthropology, University of Cincinnati.

Sullivan, Alan P., Robert Cook, Matthew P. Purtill, and Patrick M. Uphus 2001 Economic and Land-Use Implications of Prehistoric Fire-Cracked-Rock Piles, Northern Arizona. Journal of Field Archaeology 28(3):367-382.

Sullivan, A. P., and K. M. Forste. 2014 Fire-Reliant Subsistence Economies and Anthropogenic Coniferous Ecosystems in the Pre-Columbian Northern American Southwest. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. Electronic document, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00334-014-0434-6, accessed January 7, 2014.

Sullivan, Alan P., Philip B. Mink II, and Patrick M. Uphus 2002 From John W. Powell to Robert C. Euler: Testing Models of Grand Canyon Prehistoric Puebloan Settlement History. In Culture and Environment in the American Southwest: Essays in Honor of Robert C. Euler, edited by David A. Philips Jr. and John A. Ware, pp. 49- 68. Anthropological Research Paper Number 8. SWCA, Phoenix, Arizona.

Sullivan, Alan P., and Anthony H. Ruter 2006 The Effects of Environmental Fluctuations on Ancient Livelihoods: Implications of Paleoeconomic Evidence from the Upper Basin, Northern Arizona. In Environmental Change and Human Adaptation in the Ancient American Southwest, edited by David E. Doyel and Jeffrey D. Dean, pp. 180-203. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Sullivan, Alan P., and Daniel H. Sorrell 1997 Preliminary Results of 1996 Excavations Conducted at Archaeological Site MU 125 (AR-03-07-04-1007), Tusayan Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest, Coconino County, Arizona. Special-Use Permit Holder Number 2004-02. Manuscript on File at Department of Anthropology, University of Cincinnati.

136

Toll, Mollie S., and Marcia L. Donaldson 1982 Flotation and Macrobotanical Analysis of Archeological Sites on the McKinley Mine Lease: A Regional Study of Plant Manipulation and Natural Seed Dispersal over Time. In Anasazi and Navajo Land Use in the McKinley Mine Area near Gallup, New Mexico: 1. Archaeology, edited by Christina G. Allen and Ben A. Nelson, pp.712-786. Office of Contract Archeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Tassel, David Van, and Lee DeHaan 2013 Wild Plants to the Rescue. American Scientist 101:218-225.

Turner, Raymond M. 1994 Great Basin Desertscrub. In Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico, edited by David E. Brown, pp. 145-155. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Vankat, J. L. 2013 Vegetation Dynamics on the Mountains and Plateaus of the American Southwest. Springer, Dordrecht.

Weiss, Ehud, Mordechai E. Kislev, Orit Simchoni, Dani Nadel, and Harmut Tschauner 2008 Plant-Food Preparation Area on an Upper Paleolithic Brush Hut Floor at Ohalo II, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:2400-2414.

Whiting, Alfred F. 1950 Ethnobotany of the Hopi. Bulletin 15. Museum of Northern Arizona. Northern Arizona Society of Science and Art, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Whittlesey, Stephanie M. 1993 Subsistence Strategies in Transitional Southwestern Environments. In Culture and Environment: A Fragile Coexistence, edited by R. W. Jamieson, S. Abonyi and N.A. Mirau, pp. 261-271. University of Calgary Press, Alberta, Canada.

Wills, W. H. 1988 Early Prehistoric Agriculture in the American Southwest. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

1992 Plant Cultivation and the Evolution of Risk-Prone Economies in the Prehistoric American Southwest. In Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory, edited by Anne Birgitte Geubauer and T. Douglas Price, pp. 153-176. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

Wright, Patti 2003 Preservation or Destruction of Plant Remains by Carbonization? Journal of Archaeological Science 30:577-583.

137

Yoder, David T., Mark L. Bodily, Sara Hill, Joel C. Janetski, and Bradely A. Newbold 2010 The Onset of Small Seed Processing on the Colorado Plateau. Kiva 75(4):425-446.

138

APPENDIX A MU 125 Flotation Sample Information

139

Sample Liters of Year Room # Feature # Sample Context Stratum FS# Soil Collected

1 92.06 Bowl Contents Near Burial 204 0.6 L 4 1992 - Floor 160 0.6 L 3 1992 - Bowl Contents 168 0.25 L 3 1992 Sediment Above "Limestone - 49 0.15 L 1 1995 Ledge" - Under Metate - Floor 375 Unknown 3 1994 Sediment in Interstices of Shattered - 407/408 Unknown 3 1994 Metate 2 - Floor 400 Unknown 3 1994 2.01 Shallow Central Hearth 401/404 Unknown 3 1994 2.02 Shallow Ash Pit 405 Unknown 3 1994 PH L (2.015) Post-hole Wing Wall to NE Wall 381 Unknown 4 1994 PH I (2.012) Post-hole SE Corner 379 Unknown 4 1994 PH G (2.010) Post-hole SE Corner 385 Unknown 4 1994 PH D (2.07) Post-hole SW Corner 383 Unknown 4 1994 PH A (2.04) Post-hole NW Corner 387 Unknown 4 1994 - Floor 202 0.3 L 1 1992 2.2 - Floor 203 0.5 L 1 1992 3 88 0.375 L 1 1992 96.08 Hearth 87 1.5 L - 1996 Sediment from Inside Trough - 287/288 Unknown 3 1994 Metate Basin Sediment Below Trough Metate - - 289 Unknown 4 1996 Floor 103 0.775 L - 1996 96.09 Unburned Deep Storage Pit 104 1.8 L 4 1996 6 138 2.0 L 4 1996 96.13 Hole in Bedrock 138 0.75 L 4 1996 114 2.75 L 4 1996 Early 96.12 Post-hole Trench - Northern Wall 139 2.25 L 4 1996 Exterior: 96.15 FCR and Ash Pile 145 1.50 L - 1996 Post- Dates 96.14 FCR and Ash Pile 146 2.0 L 4 1996 Room 6, Pre- PH-44/ 96.10 Post-hole Trench- Northern Wall 164 1.75 L 4 1996 Dates Construc tion of Rooms 4 PH36/ 96.01 Post-hole in Pottery-Firing Facility 30 0.9 L 3 1996 and 5 97 3.75 L 3 1996 96.03 Roasting Pit 98 3.75 L 4 1996 Exterior 99/100 2.0 L - 1996 Shallow Burned Pit (1 m from Feat. 96.05 91 2.6 L 96.03)

140

APPENDIX B Plant Taxa Recovered from MU 125 Analyzed by Jean N. Berkebile

(W = whole, F = fragment, Conv = counts based on the conversion method)

141

Plant 204 160 168 49 Taxon Part W F Conv W F Conv W F Conv W F Conv Cultivable Wild Resources Asteraceae sp. seed ------Cheno-Am seed 4 - 4 80 33 96.5 17 9 21.5 - - - Panicum sp. seed ------Poaceae spp. seed ------Poaceae spp. glume ------1 - 1 Portulaca sp. seed - - - 2 - 2 3 - 3 - - - Sphaeralcea sp. seed ------Gathered Wild Resources Cactaceae spp. seed ------spine Cactaceae spp. base - - - 1 - 1 1 - 1 - - - Cactaceae spp. stem ------Corispermum sp. seed - - - 3 - 3 2 - 2 - - - Echinocatus/Harrisia sp seed - - - 1 - 1 ------Juniperus sp. seed - - - 2 5 4.5 - - - - 2 1 Juniperus sp. cone - - - - 1 1 ------Juniperus sp. leaves - - - - 6 6 - 2 2 - - - Mammillaria sp. seed - - - 1 - 1 ------Opuntia sp. seed ------Pinus edulis seed - 2 0.66 - 4 1.33 ------Pinus edulis needles - 1 1 - 23 23 - 1 1 - - - cone Pinus sp. scales - - - 8 - 8 - - - 3 - 3 bark Pinus sp. scales - 2 2 - 832 832 - 22 22 - - - Typha sp. seed ------Domesticated Resources Zea mays cupule - - - - 4 8 - 1 2 - - - Zea mays kernel ------cob Zea mays fragment ------Gossypium hirsutum string ------1 1 - - -

Phaseolus vulgaris cotyledon ------Unknowns Unknown seed - 2 2 - 15 15 - 4 4 - 2 2 Unknown Stem - - - - 8 8 - 6 6 - - - Resin Unknown Balls ------Non-Wood Indeterminate (grams) <0.1 0.1 <0.1 - Wood (grams) 0.1 38.6 1.2 25

142

Plant 375 400 202 203 Taxon Part W F Conv W F Conv W F Conv W F Conv Cultivable Wild Resources Asteraceae sp. seed - 1 0.5 1 - 1 ------Cheno-Am seed 192 54 219 192 162 274 20 - 20 32 2 33 Panicum sp. seed - - - - 2 1 ------Poaceae spp. seed 2 - 2 ------Poaceae spp. glume ------Portulaca sp. seed 10 - 10 16 1 16.5 ------Sphaeralcea sp. seed 4 - 4 1 - 1 - - - 1 - 1 Gathered Wild Resources Cactaceae spp. seed 1 - 1 ------1 - 1 Cactaceae spp. spine base 6 - 6 20 - 20 ------Cactaceae spp. stem - - - - 1 1 ------Corispermum sp. seed 6 - 6 1 - 1 ------Echinocatus/Harrisia sp seed ------Juniperus sp. seed 1 1 1.5 - 1 0.5 - - - - 1 0.5 Juniperus sp. cone - - - 4 - 4 ------Juniperus sp. leaves - 17 17 - 16 16 - 2 2 - 1 1 Mammillaria sp. seed - - - 1 - 1 ------Opuntia sp. seed ------Pinus edulis seed - 3 1 - 4 1.33 ------Pinus edulis needles - 12 12 - 105 105 - 14 14 - - - cone Pinus sp. scales 2 - 2 17 - 17 ------bark Pinus sp.. scales - 166 166 - 70 70 ------Typha sp. seed 1 - 1 ------Domesticated Resources Zea mays cupule - 25 50 - 3 6 ------Zea mays kernel ------cob Zea mays fragment - 2 28 ------Gossypium hirsutum string ------Phaseolus vulgaris cotyledon ------Unknowns Unknown seed - 12 12 - 7 7 - 4 4 - 4 4 Unknown Stem - - - - 41 41 ------Resin Unknown Balls - - - 8 - 8 ------Non-Wood Indeterminate (grams) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Wood (grams) 35.1 42.7 0.4 0.1

143

Plant 88 103 138 114 Taxon Part W F Conv W F Conv W F Conv W F Conv Cultivable Wild Resources Asteraceae sp. seed ------Cheno-Am seed 3 - 3 148 53 174.5 11 2 12 43 10 48 Panicum sp. seed ------Poaceae spp. seed ------Poaceae spp. glume ------Portulaca sp. seed ------Sphaeralcea sp. seed ------Gathered Wild Resources Cactaceae spp. seed ------Cactaceae spp. spine base ------Cactaceae spp. stem ------Corispermum sp. seed - - - 2 - 2 ------Echinocatus/Harrisia sp seed ------Juniperus sp. seed ------1 0.5 2 - 2 Juniperus sp. cone ------Juniperus sp. leaves - - - - 3 ------Mammillaria sp. seed ------Opuntia sp. seed - - - 3 - 3 ------Pinus edulis seed ------Pinus edulis needles - - - - 1 1 - - - - 1 1 cone Pinus sp. scales ------bark Pinus sp.. scales - - - - 57 57 - 3 3 - 27 27 Typha sp. seed 1 - 1 ------Domesticated Resources Zea mays cupule - - - - 3 6 ------Zea mays kernel ------cob Zea mays fragment ------Gossypium hirsutum string ------Phaseolus vulgaris cotyledon - - - 1 - 1 ------Unknowns Unknown seed - - - - 2 2 - - - - 8 8 Unknown Stem ------Resin Unknown Balls ------Non-Wood Indeterminate (grams) - <0.1 - <0.1 Wood (grams) <0.1 1 0.2 0.6

144

Plant 139 145 164 30 Taxon Part Con Con Con Con W F v W F v W F v W F v Cultivable Wild Resources Asteraceae sp. seed ------Cheno-Am seed 11 2 12 5 2 6 46 8 50 2 3 3.5 Panicum sp. seed ------Poaceae spp. seed ------Poaceae spp. glume ------Portulaca sp. seed 1 - 1 ------Sphaeralcea sp. seed 1 - 1 ------Gathered Wild Resources Cactaceae spp. seed ------Cactaceae spp. spine base ------Cactaceae spp. stem ------Corispermum sp. seed ------Echinocatus/Harrisia sp seed ------Juniperus sp. seed - - - 1 0.5 1.5 ------Juniperus sp. cone ------Juniperus sp. leaves - - - - 3 3 - - - - 1 1 Mammillaria sp. seed ------Opuntia sp. seed ------Pinus edulis seed - - - - 60 20 - - - - 2 0.66 Pinus edulis needles - 3 3 - 1 1 - - - - 1 1 cone Pinus sp. scales - - - 1 - 1 ------bark Pinus sp. scales - 4 4 - 10 10 - 38 38 - - - Typha sp. seed ------Domesticated Resources Zea mays cupule ------Zea mays kernel ------cob Zea mays fragment ------Gossypium hirsutum string ------Phaseolus vulgaris cotyledon - - - - 1 0.5 ------Unknowns Unknown seed - 1 1 ------1 1 Unknown Stem ------Resin Unknown Balls ------Non-Wood Indeterminate (grams) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Wood (grams) 0.5 0.6 1.25 0.1

145

Plant 97 98 Taxon Part W F Conv W F Conv Total Cultivable Wild Resources Asteraceae sp. seed - 1 0.5 - - - 1 Cheno-Am seed 214 121 274.5 252 222 363 1614.5 Panicum sp. seed - - - 1 - 1 2 Poaceae spp. seed ------2 Poaceae spp. glume ------1 Portulaca sp. seed 2 - 2 2 - 2 36.5 Sphaeralcea sp. seed - - - 1 - 1 8 Gathered Wild Resources Cactaceae spp. seed ------2 Cactaceae spp. spine base ------28 Cactaceae spp. stem ------1 Corispermum sp. seed ------14 Echinocatus/Harrisia sp seed ------1 Juniperus sp. seed - 3 1.5 - 2 1 14.5 Juniperus sp. cone ------5 Juniperus sp. leaves - 2 2 - 3 3 56 Mammillaria sp. seed ------2 Opuntia sp. seed ------3 Pinus edulis seed - 6 2 - 4 1.33 28.31 Pinus edulis needles - - - - 3 - 180 cone Pinus sp. scales ------31 bark Pinus sp. scales - 596 596 - 559 559 2374 Typha sp. seed ------2 Domesticated Resources Zea mays cupule - 6 12 - - - Zea mays kernel ------cob Zea mays fragment ------112 Gossypium hirsutum string ------1 Phaseolus vulgaris cotyledon - 1 0.5 - - - 2 Unknowns Unknown seed - 29 29 - 2 2 93 Unknown Stem ------55 Resin Unknown Balls ------8 Non-Wood Indeterminate (grams) <0.1 <0.1 ~1.5 Wood (grams) 6.8 8.4 162.65

146

APPENDIX C Plant Taxa Recovered from MU 125 Analyzed by Linda Scott Cummings and Kathryn Puseman (1995 and 1997)

(W = whole, F = fragment, Conv = counts based on the conversion method)

147

Plant 407/408 401/404 405 381 Taxon Part W F Conv W F Conv W F Conv W F Conv Cultivable Wild Resources Cheno-Am seed 36 2 37 46 10 51 5 1 5.5 13 1 13.5 Descurainia sp. seed ------Poaceae spp. seed ------Portulaca sp. seed 1 - 1 2 - 2 ------Gathered Wild Resources Cactaceae spp. spine base ------Cactaceae spp. stem ------Juniperus sp. seed - - - 3 1 3.5 1 2 2 - - - Juniperus sp. leaves - 2 2 ------Opuntia sp. seed 1 - 1 ------Pinus edulis seed 1 - 1 1 2 1.66 ------Pinus edulis needles - - - 2 - 2 ------Pinus sp. cone scales 2 - 2 3 - 3 - - - 1 - 1 Pinus sp. bark scales - 160 160 - 182 182 - 48 48 - 16 16 Domesticated Resources Zea mays cupule ------Zea mays kernel ------cupule Zea mays glume ------Phaseolus vulgaris cotyledon ------Unknowns Unknown seed - - - 1 - 1 ------Unknown Stem ------PET Fruity Unknown Tissue ------Wood (grams) Total 19.23 10.36 1.04 5.16 Artemisia Charcoal - - - - Atriplex Charcoal - - - - Juniperus Charcoal 3.84 7.26 0.66 1.19 Pinus cf. edulis Charcoal 6.86 0.77 0.21 1.8 Shepherdia Charcoal - 0.05 - -

148

Plant 379 385 383 387 Taxon Part W F Conv W F Conv W F Conv W F Conv Cultivable Wild Resources Cheno-Am seed 26 6 29 53 5 55.5 21 3 22.5 35 14 42 Descurainia sp. seed - - - 2 - 2 - - - 5 - 5 Poaceae spp. seed ------1 1 1.5 Portulaca sp. seed ------2 - 2 Gathered Wild Resources Cactaceae spp. spine base - - - 1 - 1 1 - 1 - - - Cactaceae spp. stem - 8 8 ------1 - 1 Juniperus sp. seed ------1 0.5 Juniperus sp. leaves - 1 1 - 7 7 ------Opuntia sp. seed ------1 0.5 Pinus edulis seed ------Pinus edulis needles - - - - 1 1 - 8 8 - - - Pinus sp. cone scales ------Pinus sp. bark scales - 31 31 - 299 299 - 48 48 - 46 46 Domesticated Resources Zea mays cupule - - - 1 1 4 5 - 10 - - - Zea mays kernel - - - 7 - 7 ------cupule Zea mays glume ------Phaseolus vulgaris cotyledon ------1 - 1 - - - Unknowns Unknown seed - - - 1 - 1 ------Unknown Stem - 3 3 ------1 1 PET Fruity Unknown Tissue - - - - 1 1 - - - - 4 4 Wood (grams) Total 2.03 22.47 5.81 2.61 Artemisia Charcoal - 0.02 - - Atriplex Charcoal - 0.46 - - Juniperus Charcoal 0.92 2.01 0.4 0.49 Pinus cf. edulis Charcoal 1.11 10.18 2.4 0.62 Shepherdia Charcoal - 0.47 - 0.01

149

Plant 87 287/288 289 104 Taxon Part W F Conv W F Conv W F Conv W F Conv Cultivable Wild Resources Cheno-Am seed 3 - 3 1 - 1 2 - 2 6 9 9.5 Descurainia sp. seed ------Poaceae spp. seed ------Portulaca sp. seed ------Gathered Wild Resources Cactaceae spp. spine base ------Cactaceae spp. stem ------Juniperus sp. seed ------Juniperus sp. leaves ------Opuntia sp. seed ------Pinus edulis seed - 1 0.33 ------Pinus edulis needles ------Pinus sp. cone scales ------Pinus sp. bark scales - 12 12 - 9 9 - 8 8 - 29 29 Domesticated Resources Zea mays cupule ------1 - 2 - 5 10 Zea mays kernel ------cupule Zea mays glume ------2 4 Phaseolus vulgaris cotyledon ------Unknowns Unknown seed ------Unknown Stem ------PET Fruity Unknown Tissue ------Wood (grams) Total 0.61 0.77 0.44 2.11 Artemisia Charcoal - - - - Atriplex Charcoal 0.03 - - - Juniperus Charcoal 0.4 0.24 0.2 0.62 Pinus cf. edulis Charcoal 0.02 0.28 0.09 0.65 Shepherdia Charcoal - - - -

150

Plant 138 146 99/100 91 Taxon Part W F Conv W F Conv W F Conv W F Conv Total Cultivable Wild Resources Cheno-Am seed 3 4 5 - - - 3 15 10.5 5 5 7.5 294.5 Descurainia sp. seed ------7 Poaceae spp. seed ------1.5 Portulaca sp. seed ------5 Gathered Wild Resources Cactaceae spp. spine base ------2 Cactaceae spp. stem ------9 Juniperus sp. seed ------1 0.5 6.5 Juniperus sp. leaves ------4 4 14 Opuntia sp. seed ------1.5 Pinus edulis seed ------2.99 Pinus edulis needles ------11 Pinus sp. cone scales ------1 - 1 7 Pinus sp. bark scales - 2 2 - 2 2 - 73 73 - 8 8 973 Domesticated Resources Zea mays cupule ------Zea mays kernel ------1 1 - 4 4 cupule Zea mays glume ------1 2 44 Phaseolus vulgaris cotyledon ------1 Unknowns Unknown seed ------1 1 - - - 3 Unknown Stem ------4 PET Fruity Unknown Tissue ------5 Wood (grams) Total 0.27 0.75 0.73 25.63 100.02 Artemisia Charcoal - - - - 0.02 Atriplex Charcoal - - 0.24 5.03 5.76 Juniperus Charcoal 0.19 0.32 0.18 1.57 20.49 Pinus cf. edulis Charcoal 0.03 0.23 0.14 0.08 25.47 Shepherdia Charcoal - - - - 0.53

151

APPENDIX D Unknown Seeds from MU 125 Jean N. Berkebile - Analyst

152

Unknown 1. From FS# 97 (Feature 96.03) Roasting Pit Oval-Elliptical in shape, curved near attachment site, rounded in profile.

Unknown 2. From FS# 114 (Feature 96.13) Hole in Bedrock Round in shape, fragment of whole.

Unknown 3. From FS# 160 Type 1 Floor Sample in Room 2 Elliptical, lipped on one end, attachment site missing.

153

Unknown 4. From FS# 160 Type 2 Floor Sample in Room 2 Elliptical in shape, hollow, circular and deep attachment site.

Unknown 5. From FS# 160 Type 3 Floor Sample in Room 2 Oval to elliptical in shape. Short, elliptical embryo. Possibly a type of Poaceae.

Unknown 6. From FS# 203 Floor Sample from Room 2.2 Round in shape, lipped around the edge.

154

Unknown 7. From FS# 400 Type 1 Floor Sample in Room 2 Elliptical in shape. Rounded at the base, thins at the top. Possibly Erodium sp.

Unknown 8. From FS# 400 Type 2 Floor Sample in Room 2 Oval in shape, pointed on both ends. Specimen on right has protruding feature.

155