Master of Environmental Studies (NECU) Lakehead University
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
L AK E H E AD U N I V E R S I T Y , T H U N D E R B AY , O N T AR I O 2 0 1 4 Plant Microfossil Analysis of Middle Woodland Food Residues, Northern Minnesota A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the Master of Environmental Studies: Northern Environments and Cultures By: Alexandra Burchill PERMISSION TO USE Copies of this document will be available at the department of Northern Environments and Cultures, as well as Lakehead University’s library. My supervisor Dr. Matthew Boyd and graduate coordinator Martha Dowsley, or in their absence, the Chair of the Department of Anthropology or the Dean of the Faculty of Science and Environmental Studies may grant permission for the copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes. Any copying of this thesis for the purpose of financial gain is not allowed without my written permission. Scholarly use of the document must have acknowledged recognition towards Lakehead University and me. I ABSTRACT Northern Minnesota lies within the southern edge of the Boreal Forest and, as a result, archaeological sites in this region typically have poor organic preservation and thin, disturbed, stratigraphy. For this reason, little is known about specific plant foods and their importance at many sites. In order to fill this gap, my research focuses on the extraction of plant microfossils (starch, phytoliths and pollen) from carbonized and non- carbonized food residues associated with Middle Woodland (100 BC – AD 500) components. My results show that wild rice was widely consumed during this time along with cultigens such as maize. No additional evidence suggested farming, so there is a possibility of trade with periphery groups to acquire the cultigens recovered from the microfossil analysis. These results demonstrate the importance of plant microfossil studies as a tool for identifying subtle evidence of wild and domesticated plants in regions characterized by poor organic preservation, small seasonally-occupied sites and other fundamental limitations. The mixed economic strategy apparent in some Northern Minnesota sites re-defines a diet of native and domesticated cultigens, which can be applied to the wider archaeobotanical literature of northeastern North America. II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many individuals assisted with this research project and expressed interest in my topic throughout the last two years. I would first like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Boyd for his mentorship. He showed great patience while editing my thesis and guidance in developing different ideas and lines of thought. I am grateful for the opportunity provided by Dr. Boyd to study at Lakehead University in the MES: NECU program and to have such an interesting and fulfilling research topic. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Hamilton, Dr. Varney and Dr. Mulholland for their edits and suggestions. Dr. Hamilton provided literary resources during my two years at Lakehead and was always available to answer any questions. Dr. Mulholland, my external reviewer, provided helpful insights into Minnesota archaeology and paleoethobotany. Clarence Surette and Megan Wady patiently taught me the required procedures for phytolith and starch extraction and processing. Clarence was always close by to help in the laboratory, from loosening caps twisted too tight on centrifuge tubes to extracting the last milligram of residue from lithic and ceramic samples. The Minnesota archaeology community was extremely helpful throughout the last two years and provided an endless amount of information and support. Lee Johnson provided the samples used in this thesis project and all of the available site information. Heather Hoffman located and mapped the nine sites used in this thesis. Specific archaeologists that assisted with this project include Bill Yourd, LeRoy Gonsier, David 3 Radford, Jennifer Shafer, David Mather, and Jim Cummings. I would also like to thank all the individuals that worked on the archaeological sites from which samples were collected. Additional support came from Manitoba archaeologist Dr. Leigh Syms, who shared his vast knowledge and expertise on prehistoric plant use. Anthea Kyle thoroughly edited my thesis document in the spring of 2014. Jill Taylor-Hollings spent time ensuring that all the ceramic samples were correctly identified, and she answered any questions I had about ceramics in general. My colleagues in the Northern Environments and Cultures program, 2012, provided friendship and an endless amount of support and enthusiasm for my thesis project. There are many others that provided support for this thesis project such as family and friends and for that I am grateful. Dr. Bubel and Dr. McGeough of the University of Lethbridge were my inspiration to pursue a Masters degree in archaeology. Both of these amazing professors put up with meetings, questions, and inquiries and taught me everything I knew about archaeology prior to my master’s. Dr. Bubel is not only an inspirational professor, but a friend as well, and her hard work and dedication in the field and laboratory are an example I will always look up too. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1.1 CULTURE HISTORY-------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1.2 METHODS---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 2.0 STUDY AREA----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 2.1 MODERN ENVIRONMENT------------------------------------------------------ 7 2.2 PALEOENVIRONMENT---------------------------------------------------------- 10 3.0 ARCHAEOLOIGICAL SITES---------------------------------------------------------------- 20 3.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES----------------------------------------------------- 20 3.2 THIRD RIVER BORROW PIT SITE-------------------------------------------- 22 3.3 BIG RICE SITE---------------------------------------------------------------------- 25 3.4 KYLELEEN’S TALL PINE--------------------------------------------------------28 3.5 KYLELEEN’S BENT PINE--------------------------------------------------------28 3.6 WINNIE COTTAGES---------------------------------------------------------------29 3.7 WINDY BEAD------------------------------------------------------------------------30 3.8 SAGA ISLAND---------------------------------------------------------------------- 31 3.9 LOST LAKE-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32 3.10 NO BEARD------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32 3.11 SAMPLES--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33 4.0 THE WOODLAND TRADITION IN THE UPPER GREAT LAKES-----------------35 4.1 INTRODUCTION-------------------------------------------------------------------- 35 4.2 EARLY WOODLAND (1200 BC TO 250 AD) ACHAEOLOGICAL COMPLEXES--------------------------------------------------35 4.3 THE MIDDLE WOODLAND (100 BC TO 500 AD) ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMPLEXES------------------------------------------------39 4.3.1 MIDDLE WOODLAND CHRONOLOGICAL ISSUES-------------------45 4.4 LATE WOODLAND (500-1750 AD) ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMPLEXES----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 49 4.5 PALEODIET OF WOODLAND PEOPLES----------------------------------- 51 5.0 PHYTOLITH AND STARCH ANALYSIS IN ARCHAEOLOGY--------------------- 82 5.1 INTRODUCTION-------------------------------------------------------------------- 82 5.2 PHYTOLITHS------------------------------------------------------------------------ 82 5.3 STARCH GRANULES-------------------------------------------------------------88 5.3.1 STAINING-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 93 5.3.2 BIREFRIGENCE------------------------------------------------------------------ 93 5.3.3 GELATINIZATION--------------------------------------------------------------- 94 5.4 LIMITATIONS------------------------------------------------------------------------ 95 5.5 CASE STUDIES--------------------------------------------------------------------- 99 6.0 METHODS---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101 6.1 OVERVIEW OF FOOD RESIDUE ANLAYSIS------------------------------ 101 6.2 SELECTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SAMPLES------------------------ 102 6.3 LABORATORY PROTOCOLS-------------------------------------------------- 103 6.4 IDENTIFICATION OF SAMPLES-----------------------------------------------111 6.5 COMPARATIVE REFERENCE KEY------------------------------------------ 121 5 6.6 UNKNOWN PLANT SPECIES-------------------------------------------------- 124 6.7 CONTAMINATION----------------------------------------------------------------- 125 7.0 RESULTS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 127 7.1 INTRODUCTION-------------------------------------------------------------------- 127 7.2 RESIDUE SAMPLE SIZES------------------------------------------------------- 127 7.3 THIRD RIVER BORROW PIT--------------------------------------------------- 138 7.4 BIG RICE------------------------------------------------------------------------------138 7.5 KYLELEEN’S TALL PINE--------------------------------------------------------140 7.6 WINNIE COTTAGES-------------------------------------------------------------- 140 7.7 WINDY BEAD------------------------------------------------------------------------141 7.8 SAGA ISLAND----------------------------------------------------------------------