Investigating Subsistence Diversity in the Upper Basin: a Second Look At
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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 by 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. i 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 ii 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