Citation:

Diehl, Michael W. 2007 Interassemblage Macrobotanical Variation from the U.S. 89 Project Area. In Sunset Crater

Archaeology: The History of a Volcanic Landscape. Environmental Analyses, edited by M.D. Elson, pp. 21-36. Anthropological Papers No. 33. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tuc-son.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. U.S. 89 Pollen Analysis and Regional Archaeo-botanical Overview, Susan J. Smith

2. Interassemblage Macrobotanical Variationfrom the U.S. 89 Project Area, Michael W.Diehl

3. Soil Fertility and Prehistoric Agriculture in theSunset Crater Area, Joshua S. Edwards

4. Hopi Corn and Volcanic Cinders: A Test of theRelationship Between Tephra and Agriculturein Northern Arizona, Gwendolyn Waring

5. Prehistoric Agricultural Assessment of the U.S.89 Project Area Using Multidate Aerial Photo-graphs, G. Lennis Berlin and Joseph E. Crouse

6. Origin of Cinders in Wupatki National Monu-ment, Jason A. Hooten, Michael H. Ort, andMark D. Elson

7. Sunset Crater Tephra Mapping Project, JasonA. Hooten and Michael H. Ort

8. A Paleomagnetic Dating Study of Sunset Cra-ter Volcano, Michael H. Ort, Mark D. Elson,and Duane E. Champion

Anthropological Papers No. 33:

Sunset Crater Archaeology:

The History of a Volcanic Landscape

Anthropological Papers No. 33

Center for Desert Archaeology

Edited by

Mark D. Elson

Contributions by

G. Lennis BerlinDuane E. ChampionJoseph E. CrouseJeffrey S. DeanMichael W. DiehlJoshua S. EdwardsMark D. ElsonJason A. HootenMichael H. OrtMatthew W. SalzerSusan J. SmithGwendolyn Waring

Environmental Analyses

TRACS No. 089 CN 434 H2022 02DContract No. 97-41

http://www.archaeologysouthwest.org/store/anthropological-papers/sunset-crater-archaeology-the-history-of-a-volcanic-landscape-environmental-analyses.html

CHAPTER 2

INTERASSEMBLAGEMACROBOTANICAL VARIATIONFROM THE U.S. 89 PROJECT AREA

Michael W. DiehlDesert Archaeology, Inc.

Archaeological investigations along U.S. 89 re-covered large quantities of charred plant remainsfrom the excavated prehistoric sites. Charred planttissues provide important information about dietand resource use of the people who lived in the U.S.89 project area. The analyses in this chapter werestructured to accomplish two primary goals: (1) toidentify and quantify the kinds of plants recoveredand to describe the basic resource pattern of the U.S.89 inhabitants; and (2) to determine if there wereconsistent differences in the kinds of plant resourc-es, or in the quantities of different resources, amongassemblages attributed to prehistoric Cohonina andSinagua groups in the region around Flagstaff andSunset Crater.

This chapter is organized into several sections.The theoretical basis for studying differences in foodconsumption and resource use as a means for dis-tinguishing different ethnic groups is examined inthe first section. Techniques applied to historical andhistorical archaeology settings show that the studyof paleobotanical assemblages can be used to iden-tify groups that differed with respect to ethnicity orsocioeconomic status. The plant taxa observed in theU.S. 89 assemblages are listed in the second section.

The third section presents the results of the clus-ter analyses that identified assemblages with com-mon kinds and quantities of resources. The analy-ses show that assemblages can be grouped basedon their similarities; however, these statistical groupsbear no resemblance to the groups created merelyby classifying sites as either Cohonina or Sinagua.In the fourth section, higher-level relationshipsamong assemblages are looked for. In that section,resource groups are defined as suites of plants prob-ably acquired from the same places on the landscapeand used in similar ways. The analyses did not in-dicate strong relationships between assemblagecomposition and purported cultural affinity.

Statistical techniques are applied in the fifth sec-tion to compare Cohonina and Sinagua assemblag-es at their most general level. The analyses show thatCohonina and Sinagua assemblages do not differ inany significant way. In the sixth and final section,data from other archaeological projects conducted

in the Flagstaff and Sunset Crater areas are incorpo-rated, and the preceding analyses are repeated.Again, the composition of macrobotanical assem-blages from Cohonina and Sinagua sites do not dif-fer.

Together, the analyses in this chapter demon-strate there are no substantive differences in themacrobotanical assemblages obtained from sitesdefined as Cohonina and those defined as Sinagua.Thus, there is no basis in the data from macrobotan-ical assemblages for inferring the existence of dif-ferences in food preferences or resource use thatwould indicate the Cohonina and Sinagua were eth-nically or culturally distinct identities. The twogroups used the same kinds of plants in the sameamounts. Agricultural products (maize, beans, andsquash) were the primary sources of food, the sta-ples that fueled basic existence in this area of theColorado Plateau. Arboreal resources, such asgrapes, juniper berries, pinyon nuts, and sumac ber-ries, were an important secondary resource that aug-mented harvested plants. As with many prehistoricSouthwestern groups, lesser weedy plants and wildgrasses were occasionally and intermittently used,but these were neither staples nor high prioritiesamong groups living in the area.

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ANDMACROBOTANICAL ASSEMBLAGEANALYSIS

One of the research questions for the U.S. 89project was to assess the nature and degree of mate-rial differences between the Cohonina and Sinaguaarchaeological traditions. As Cordell (1997:177-180)noted, the early and close allegiance between archae-ologists and cultural anthropologists, and the defi-nition of culture used by early archaeologists (ashared suite of ideas, traditions, beliefs, rituals,norms, and the material items and behaviors distinc-tive to these phenomena) led to the widespread as-sumption that material differences in archaeologi-cal assemblages equated with cultural—that is,ethnic—differences among prehistoric groups.

22 Chapter 2

The quest for material variation and the effort tolink it with ethnic variation is, however, replete withinterpretive challenges. The effort to recognize eth-nic boundaries or distinctions is challenged by thecomplicating effects of environmental variation (forexample, varying microenvironments, topographies,or resource distributions) around archaeologicalsites, as well as the suite of contingent behavioraldifferences that environmental variation may pro-mote. It is further complicated by other phenologi-cal problems such as clinal, graded, fuzzy, or other-wise ambiguous spatial or temporal boundariesamong posited archaeological sets (Cordell 1997;Cordell and Plog 1979).

Any effort to assess the degree of material dif-ference between two archaeological groups must beevaluated carefully based on two areas of inquiry:(1) the extent to which material differences betweenarchaeological groups really exists; and (2) the ex-tent to which the data are consistent with ethnicvariation. The first area of inquiry is a descriptiveand statistical task that may be easier to pursue be-cause it only requires a sufficient quantity of datasubject to thorough scrutiny. The archaeobotanicalresearch presented here begins with the assumptionthat if ethnic variation existed between the Cohoninaand Sinagua, such variation may have been accom-panied by variation in food remains.

The second area of inquiry is more ambiguousand difficult to pursue. If demonstrable materialdifferences exist, is it necessarily attributable to eth-nic variation rather than to other causes? This re-search assumes that if variation is identified and notaccounted for by environmental factors, the varia-tion can be attributed to other behaviors, such asnotions of taste, that might be consistent with eth-nic variation.

Historic Era Case Studies of EthnicVariation in Food Preferences

Examples of ethnically distinctive foods are com-mon and familiar. Most can name the plausible eth-nic source of a meal based on their experiences withdistinctive food preparations, recipes, suites of foodsor cuisines, and presentations. However, identify-ing ethnic differences in foods based on archaeolog-ical materials is more challenging.

Historical archaeologists have had considerablesuccess in studying issues related to ethnicity andethnic variation in archaeological assemblages be-cause documentation or ethnohistoric research isoften available. Hypotheses or interpretive frame-works derived from Historic era documents can betested using archaeological data. Chang (ed. 1977)

provided the basic model for structuring such stud-ies by explaining the underlying cultural impera-tives that influenced the composition of meals in tra-ditional Chinese cooking and by inviting otheranthropologists to explore variation in food prefer-ences.

More recently, Super (1988) and Pilcher (1998)examined food preferences among Colonial Span-iards and high-status Mexicans. Both researchersnoted that wheat products and European foods werepreferred among Colonial Spaniards and high-sta-tus Mexicans as a way to display their cosmopoli-tan tastes and social distinctiveness. Pilcher (1998)also documented changes in official Mexican atti-tudes toward maize consumption. As a matter ofMexican federal policy, maize agriculture was ac-tively discouraged for many years, until a post-1940sshift in attitudes rejuvenated maize consumption,in the form of tortillas and tamales, as nationalistemblems. Goldsmith (1994) documented activitiesrelated to family provisioning and garden mainte-nance by Mexican women in the Greater Southwestduring the early twentieth century.

These studies have been used to create frame-works for interpreting archaeological assemblagesfrom Historic era sites. Chang (ed. 1977) stimulateda surge and continued interest in archaeologicalstudies of “Overseas Chinese” in the American West(Evans 1980; Felton et al. 1984; Great Basin Founda-tion 1987; Greenwood 1993; Lister and Lister 1989;Praetzellis and Praetzellis 1982; Staski 1985; Wegars1993).

In a recent study of late nineteenth- early twen-tieth century overseas Chinese in Tucson, Diehl etal. (1998) used Chang’s (1977) overview of Chinesefood preferences as the basis for interpreting ethno-botanical, osteofaunal, and ceramic assemblages.Diehl et al. (1998) attributed the composition of theassemblages to overseas Chinese gardeners’ desireto maintain a traditional diet, rather than succumbto the wheat-and-meat habits of Euro-Americans.Wegars (1991) examined domed rock ovens onAmerican railroad sites, comparing these to tradi-tional Chinese and Irish cooking devices. Based onsimilarities between archaeological remains and his-torically documented specimens, Wegars (1991) con-cluded that these ovens were probably constructedby railroad workers of Irish ancestry, rather than byoverseas Chinese.

Similar successes have been realized by archae-ologists studying ethnicity during the Spanish Co-lonial, French Colonial, and Mexican periods in theNew World. Reitz and Scarry (1985) examined arti-fact, osteofaunal, and paleobotanical assemblagesfrom sixteenth century St. Augustine to assess theextent to which an Iberian food regime was main-

Interassemblage Macrobotanical Variation from the U.S. 89 Project Area 23

tained, or even maintainable, in Spanish ColonialFlorida. Their research indicated that Floridian Span-iards had to incorporate elements of the local, in-digenous food supply despite their best efforts tocater to their traditional food preferences.

However, deFrance’s (1996) study of Spanish Co-lonial food consumption in sixteenth century Perudemonstrated that some Spanish colonists enjoyedgreater success in maintaining an Iberian diet. Col-onists at the Moquequa winery were substantiallyless dependent on locally grown Andean camelidsthan those living at Torata Alta. In a similarly struc-tured study, Gremillion (2002) examined macrobo-tanical remains from the French colony at Mobile,finding that locals relied on a mixture of locallygrown maize and common beans, with importedfava beans, grapes, and peaches.

Recent excavations in Tucson have provided ac-cess to data from the Spanish presidio and fromAmerican Territorial period Mexican households.Analyses were structured to assess the consistencybetween Spanish and high-status Mexican food pref-erences, as described by Super (1988) and Pilcher(1998). These general ethnohistorical accountsseemed consistent with local historical documentsthat indicated wheat dishes were served when re-ceiving honored guests. The macrobotanical assem-blages confirmed a preference for wheat amongColonial Spaniards and high-status Mexican-Amer-icans, and a tendency toward the use of maizeamong low socioeconomic status Mexican-Ameri-cans (Diehl 2002; Diehl et al. 2005).

As these case studies clearly illustrate, ethnicvariation in the archaeobotanical record can be ex-amined. This endeavor has always been assumed tobe possible in the analysis of hard artifacts, such asceramic types and lithic artifact styles. The success-ful consideration of ethnicity using paleobotanicaland osteofaunal data shows that subsistence prac-tices can also be related to ethnic differences.

Prehistoric Ethnic Variation

While the historical archaeology studies re-viewed above are cause for optimism in the effort toidentify ethnic variation, even among assemblagesof food remains, they highlight some of the limita-tions of prehistoric research. Very little ethnohistoricdocumentation can be used to directly derive a suiteof empirical expectations for ethnic variation inprehistoric assemblages based on observed cultur-al differences in food habits, even though there aremany ethnobotanical studies of Southwestern Na-tive American groups (see Moerman 1998, for a re-view). Most of the resources commonly discussed

in ethnobotanies were used by virtually all South-western groups.

Multiple varieties of maize, beans, and squash werecultivated by all Southwestern farmers, and only oneof these, the tepary bean, seems relatively constrainedto any particular region, that is, the Sonoran desert-scrub provinces of Arizona and southward into Mex-ico. In the Tonto Basin of central Arizona, the highabundance of maize pollen and lack of tansy mus-tard remains was combined with architecture andthe artifact assemblage to argue for an intrusion ofpueblo migrants (Elson, Stark, and Gregory 2000).While the ethnobotanical remains in this case are sug-gestive of ethnic distinctions, without artifactual andarchitectural data, this case could not be made.

Archaeologists may eventually be able to distin-guish among different types of maize grown con-currently by different prehistoric ethnic groups. Forexample, until recently it was thought possible toidentify maize “races” based on cob morphologyand to associate races with individual ethnic groups.Recent research on maize morphology and the iden-tification of races, however, has demonstrated thatextant maize racial classification schemes are scien-tifically problematic. This is because morphologicaltraits once used to characterize individual races nolonger seem limited to single varieties, and the com-monly named races do not reliably map onto anylineages that can be created using genetic data(Adams 1994:294-298; Adams et al. 1999; Doebley1990, 1994). Additionally, the racial categories arenot internally consistent, and they encompass asmuch genetic variation within any given race asamong races. Future efforts at classifying maize willlikely need to rely on efforts to sequence the DNAof prehistoric specimens.

Archaeological Expectations

The absence of detailed historical descriptionsand ethnohistoric overviews of ancient people forc-es researchers to rely solely on assemblage varia-tion to identify potential ethnic variation. This studyconsiders the problem as both an empirical and aninterpretive question. The empirical question re-quires the assessment of whether significant differ-ences exist among macrobotanical assemblages fromdifferent sites. The interpretive question asks if suchvariation can plausibly be attributed to ethnic vari-ation. Specifically, to the extent that variation is ob-served, do the systemic categories “Cohonina” and“Sinagua” better predict variation than differencesin the local environment, such as elevation, or func-tional classification, for example, a fieldhouse site,as opposed to a large residential site?

24 Chapter 2

IDENTIFIED CHARRED SEED ANDWOOD TAXA

The contents of the flotation samples and mac-robotanical specimens are described in this section,and the resource use pursuits indicated by these taxaare discussed. The discussion of phenology that iscommon to ethnobotanical reports is avoided here.Rather, the taxa are listed and the timing and geo-graphic locations where they occur can be readilyfound in the literature (Adams 1988; Barbour andBillings 1988; Brown, ed. 1994; Hitchcock 1971;Kearney and Peebles 1973; Parker 1990; Schopmeyer1974; U.S. Department of Agriculture 1971).

A total of 175 flotation sample light fractions and170 hand-collected macrobotanical specimens wereexamined, including several samples initially ana-lyzed by Charles Miksicek, whose assistance in thiseffort is acknowledged. The contents of each flota-tion sample and specimen bag are listed in Diehl(2007). The wood and seed taxa identified duringthis research are listed in Table 2.1.

Quantification and Summaries of Taxaby Component

The quantification and interpretation of macro-botanical data is a methodological exercise that hasbeen the subject of considerable debate and intro-spection (see Hastorf and Popper 1988; Minnis 1981;Pearsall 1989). In answering the research questionsposited at the beginning of this study, data were firstsummarized by site component. The ubiquities ofseed and other reproductive tissue parts in the ex-amined assemblages are presented in Table 2.2. Thesites are arranged, through time, using data present-ed in Table P.2 (this volume; see also Elson 2006a,2006b).

The ubiquity of a given taxon is the proportionalfrequency, among all features that contained at leastone charred seed of any kind, of features in whichthe taxon was present. For example, 10 features fromone component of a site contained at least onecharred seed of any kind. If at least one maize ker-nel or cupule occurs in five of the features, the ubiq-uity of maize is 0.5. Ubiquity is the most commonlyused index for summarizing the abundance of dif-ferent seed taxa, because differences in use and pres-ervation may distort the relative importance of dif-ferent seed taxa if other measures of abundance areused (Minnis 1981).

The wood charcoal was quantified differently.The simple percentages (proportions) of the totalnumber of examined wood charcoal fragments ex-amined in each component are enumerated in Ta-ble 2.3. Wood charcoal is dense, and all the samples

in the assemblage may be reasonably construed aseither construction material or the result of use asfuel. Problems of differential preservation amongwood taxa are of less concern because the over-whelming majority of charred wood represents taxawith similar ethnohistorical records of use as archi-tectural material and fuel wood.

INTERCOMPONENT VARIATIONIN THE PLANT ASSEMBLAGESBASED ON TAXONOMIC UBIQUITY

The degree of difference among assemblagesderived from sites classified as either Cohonina andSinagua is assessed in this study. Classifications weremade exclusively on ceramic ware frequency; thatis, if greater amounts of Alameda Brown Ware wererecovered, the site was called Sinagua, and if great-er amounts of San Francisco Mountain Gray Warewere recovered, the site was called Cohonina (Pref-ace, this volume).

Two approaches in examining ethnicity in theethnobotanical record are used. One begins by ig-noring the systematic categories and uses clusteranalyses to create empirically derived groups ofsites, based on similarities in their plant assemblag-es. The clusters are then compared with the system-ic classification to assess if the composition of as-semblages, or parts of them, can be predicted byclassification of a site as either Cohonina or Sinagua.The second approach treats the systemic categoryas an independent variable, and assesses if ubiquityindices and assemblage diversities from Cohoninaand Sinagua assemblages differ significantly.

The results of the analyses show that the classifi-cations Cohonina and Sinagua do not predict thenumber or kinds of plant taxa or resource groups inthe U.S. 89 project area. Based on the ubiquities ofseed tissues at different temporal components withinthe area, two groups and one isolate may be inferredusing cluster analyses techniques. However, thegroups are weak clusters, and their membershipdoes not predict site classification with respect tothe systematic categories of Cohonina and Sinagua.Similarly, systemic classification, treated as an in-dependent variable, does not predict macrobotani-cal assemblage composition.

Cluster Analysis of Seed and WoodAssemblages Based on TaxonomicUbiquity

Cluster analysis methods group objects—in thiscase, plant assemblages from different temporalcomponents of several archaeological sites—based

Interassemblage Macrobotanical Variation from the U.S. 89 Project Area 25

on similarities in their characteristics. Two clusteranalyses were used, one for seeds and one for woods,to determine if there is a purely empirical basis forgrouping different components. Components werecompared using the ubiquity scores of all the iden-

tified seed taxa and the proportional frequencies ofall the identified wood taxa.

This initial search for patterned variation madeno assumptions about the priority of taxa; for exam-ple, variation in maize or beans was not accorded

Table 2.1. Identified macroplant tissues from U.S. 89 project samples.

Taxon Common Name Tissues

Yucca sp. Yucca Seeds

Amaranthus sp. Pigweed Seeds

Rhus sp. Sumac Seeds

Alnus sp. Alder Wood

Atriplex sp. Saltbush Seeds, wood

Chenopodium sp. Goosefoot Seeds

Cheno-ams Goosefoot or pigweed Seeds

cf. Corispermum sp. Bugseed Seeds

Cleome sp. Spider flower Seeds

Compositae Sunflower or aster family Seeds

Artemisia sp. Sagebrush Wood

Iva sp. Sumpweed Wood

Encelia sp. Brittlebush Seeds

Helianthus sp. Sunflower Seeds

Cruciferae Mustard family Seeds

Descurainia sp. Tansy mustard Seeds

Cucurbita sp. Squash or gourd Seed fragments

Juniperus sp. Juniper Seeds, wood

Quercus sp. Oak Wood

Quercus cf. emoryii Emory oak Wood

Gramineae Grass family Seeds

Agrostis/Muhlenbergia sp. Bentgrass, Muhley type Seeds

Oryzopsis sp. Ricegrass Seeds

Panicum sp. Panic grass Wood

Phragmites sp. Common reed Seeds

Sporobolus sp. Dropseed Seeds

Zea mays Maize Cupules, kernels

Labiatae Mint family Seeds

Leguminosae Bean family Seeds

Phaseolus cf. vulgaris Common bean Seeds

Gossypium sp. Cotton Seeds

Sphaeralcea sp. Globemallow Seeds

Pinus sp. Pine Wood

Pinus cf. edulis Pinyon pine Shell fragments, wood

Pinus cf. ponderosa Ponderosa pine Wood

Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir Wood

Polygonaceae Dock family Seeds

Portulaca sp. Purslane Seeds

Cowania sp. Cliffrose Wood

Salicaceae Willow family Wood

Populus sp. or Salix sp. Cottonwood or willow Wood

Solanaceae Nightshade family Seeds

Ulmaceae Elm family Wood

Vitis cf. arizonica Canyon grape Seeds

26 Chapter 2

greater priority than variation in wild grasses. It sim-ply measured the overall similarity among the as-semblages. Because all the taxa have ubiquity val-ues that range from zero to one, there were noconcerns about inadvertent bias or weight given toany particular taxon. The statistical model used is asingle-linkage hierarchical model based on theEuclidian distances between components (StatSoft,Inc. 1994:3,159-3,161). To mitigate concerns aboutinadequate sampling at sites where few featureswere sampled, only sites with flotation samples fromfive or more features were considered.

The cluster result from the analysis of the seedassemblages is illustrated in Figure 2.1. Each com-ponent, the cluster membership, and the systemicclassification (Cohonina versus Sinagua) as derivedfrom ceramic studies are listed in Table 2.4. Initial-ly, cluster membership seems to predict systemicclassification rather well. Excluding the Deadman’sEdge site, NA 420, five of the seven cases are cor-rectly predicted. A statistical test of the relationship,however, proves that random sampling effects mayhave been the source of variation. A Fisher’s Exacttest (2-tailed) of the table shows that distribution ofthe data in the table is statistically insignificant (p =0.29, excluding the isolate, Deadman’s Edge).

In the second cluster analysis, the same compo-nents were compared based on similarities amongtheir wood charcoal assemblages, using the woodproportions listed in Table 2.3. Two clusters weredefined, but group membership did not resemblethe cluster groups described in Table 2.4. The woodclusters provided no predictive associations betweencluster membership and systemic classification, withapproximately half the members of each cluster com-prised of Cohonina assemblages and half of Sinaguaassemblages. That analysis is not shown here, andthe cluster memberships are not discussed in detail.If there are any consistent differences between Co-honina and Sinagua plant assemblages, these wouldlikely be observed only in the food taxa. Consequent-ly, the remaining analyses in this report focus onlyon the seed taxa.

To further explore the weak patterns describedin Table 2.4, the hierarchical cluster analysis wasrepeated using the seed tissue data from all the as-semblages. If the methodologically cautious decisionto include only components represented by five ormore analyzed features reduced the sample size tothe extent that statistical significance was unattain-able, the need to include more data is obvious. Thatis, if Cohonina and Sinagua do predict cluster groupmembership, the inclusion of all the assemblagesmay yield substantially the same associations, andwith greater statistical significance. The revisedanalysis, however, did not clearly identify any clus-ters.

Another analysis, using a K-means approach,was performed, and a two-cluster solution was re-quested to maximize the number of cases in eachgroup. The results, which are not illustrated here,indicated the categories Cohonina and Sinagua pre-dicted cluster membership in nine of 18 cases (50percent), no better than the predictive success thatcould be obtained simply by guessing.

INTERCOMPONENT VARIATION INSEED ASSEMBLAGES BASED ONRESOURCE GROUP UBIQUITY

Early studies of Cohonina and Sinagua groupssuggested that there were differences in subsistencesystems and resource use. The Cohonina were char-acterized as foragers who supplemented their re-source base by engaging in small-scale farming(McGregor 1951:141-142). The Sinagua, in contrast,were described as settled, agricultural people whoused cultigens more consistently (Colton 1946). Theanalyses that follow evaluate if the Cohonina-Sina-gua typology accurately predicts differences in thegeneral emphasis on agricultural, as opposed to oth-er resources.

To assess if groups used different resource suites,the taxa listed in Table 2.1 were each assigned toone of six different plant resource groups listed inTable 2.5. This analysis assumes that prehistoric peo-ple may not have placed importance on taxonomy,in the Linnaean sense, but rather on categories ofplants that were energetically interchangeable. Aplant resource group (hereafter, simply referred toas resource group) is a group of plants with similarphenological habits, sizes and structures, and eco-logical settings. Further, in any given resourcegroup, the tools used to process the plants in thegroup were similar, and the plants within the cate-gories were handled, processed, and stored in simi-lar ways. The ubiquities and taxonomic diversitiesof each resource group from each component arepresented in Table 2.6.

Arboreal Resources

All the sites in the U.S. 89 project area are locat-ed within the margins of the Great Basin ConiferWoodland biotic province (Brown 1994), which isdominated by pine (especially pinyon types, but alsoponderosa) and juniper. Additionally, oak andsumac (Rhus sp.) are common, although they are notthe dominant arboreal taxa in the project area. Thetasks involved in harvesting these resources are sim-ilar, and a single suite of tools (baskets and beatingsticks) can be used to collect them. Pinyon, juniper,

Interassemblage Macrobotanical Variation from the U.S. 89 Project Area 27

Table 2.2. Ubiquities of identified seed taxa in U.S. 89 project flotation samples, by site and time period.

Temporal Perioda/ Site Name, Number (NA) nb

Yu

cca

sp. (

Yu

cca)

Am

aran

thu

s sp

. (P

igw

eed

)

Rhu

s sp

. (S

um

ac)

Atr

iple

x sp

. (S

altb

ush

)

Che

nop

odiu

m s

p. (

Go

ose

foo

t)

Ch

eno

-am

s (P

igw

eed

or

Go

ose

foo

t)

cf. C

oris

perm

um

sp

. (B

ug

seed

)

Cle

ome

sp. (

Sp

ider

Flo

wer

)

Co

mp

osi

tae

(Ast

er o

r S

un

flo

wer

Fam

ily

)

En

celi

a sp

. (B

ritt

leb

ush

)

Hel

ian

thu

s sp

. (S

un

flo

wer

)

Cru

cife

rae

(Mu

star

d F

amil

y)

Des

cura

inia

sp

. (T

ansy

Mu

star

d)

Cu

curb

ita

sp. (

Sq

uas

h o

r G

ou

rd)

Jun

iper

us

sp. (

Jun

iper

)

Gra

min

eae

(Gra

ss F

amil

y)

Agr

osti

s/M

uhl

enbe

rgia

-ty

pe

(Ben

tgra

ss/

Mu

hle

y T

yp

e)

Ory

zops

is s

p. (

Ric

egra

ss)

Pan

icu

m s

p. (

Pan

ic G

rass

)

Spo

robo

lus

sp. (

Dro

pse

ed)

Zea

may

s (M

aize

)

Lab

iata

e (M

int

Fam

ily

)

Leg

um

ino

sae

(Bea

n F

amil

y)

Pha

seol

us

cf. v

ulg

aris

(C

om

mo

n B

ean

)

Gos

sypi

um

sp

. (C

ott

on

)

Sph

aera

lcea

sp

. (G

lob

emal

low

)

Pin

us

cf. e

duli

s (P

iny

on

Pin

e)

Po

lyg

on

acea

e (D

ock

Fam

ily

)

Por

tula

ca s

p. (

Pu

rsla

ne)

So

lan

acea

e (N

igh

tsh

ade

Fam

ily

)

Vit

is c

f. a

rizo

nic

a (C

any

on

Gra

pe)

Period 1

Lenox Park, 20,700

9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22

0.33 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11

Dean, 25,753

d 2

2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Perio

Lenox Park, 20,700 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.06 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Divide, 21,087 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Lenox Annex, 25,779

d 3

5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Perio

Slope, 18,417 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Snag, 18,680 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Clay House, 21,103 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

Little Elk, 25,751 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

North End, 25,767

d 4

1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Perio

Basalt Ridge, 21,089

1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Elk, 21,104 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Little Elk, 25,751 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Deadman Flat, 25,764 2 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Plainview, 25,766 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bachelor House, 25,769

3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Seven, 25,777 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Lenox Annex, 25,779 4 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Homestead, 181

d 5

24 0.13 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.25 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.21 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Perio

Ant Hill, 19,007 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00

Full House, 21,091 3 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Deadman’s Edge, 420 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.11 0.00 0.33 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

aPeriod 1 = A.D. 400-700; Period 2 = A.D. 800-1000; Period 3 = A.D. 1000-1065/1075; Period 4 = A.D. 1065/1075-1150; Period 5 = A.D. 1125-1150/1175. bn = Number of sampled features that contained at least one charred seed taxon.

28 Chapter 2

Ta

ble

2.3

. P

rop

ort

ion

al f

req

uen

cies

of

wo

od

tax

a in

U.S

. 89

pro

ject

flo

tati

on

sam

ple

s, b

y s

ite

and

tim

e p

erio

d.

Tem

po

ral

Per

iod

a /

Sit

e N

ame,

Nu

mb

er

(NA

) n

b

Ber

beri

s sp

. A

trip

lex

sp.

Co

mp

osi

tae

Jun

iper

us

sp.

Qu

ercu

s sp

. G

ram

inea

e P

inu

s sp

p.

Cow

ania

sp

. S

alic

acea

e O

ther

Per

iod

1

Len

ox

Par

k, 2

0,70

0

186

0.00

0.

00

0.01

0.

08

0.01

0.

00

0.70

0.

01

0.19

0.

01

Dea

n, 2

5,75

3

66

0.00

0.

00

0.00

0.

00

0.00

0.

00

1.00

0.

00

0.00

0.

00

Per

iod

2

Len

ox

Par

k, 2

0,70

0 36

9 0.

00

tc

0.00

0.

02

t 0.

00

0.88

t

0.08

0.

02

Div

ide,

21,

087

67

0.00

0.

00

0.00

0.

55

0.01

0.

00

0.42

0.

00

0.00

0.

03

Len

ox

An

nex

, 25,

779

84

0.

00

0.00

0.

00

0.00

0.

00

0.00

0.

93

0.00

0.

01

0.06

Per

iod

3

Slo

pe,

18,

417

36

0.00

0.

00

0.00

0.

25

0.00

0.

00

0.75

0.

00

0.00

0.

00

Sn

ag, 1

8,68

0

11

0.00

0.

00

0.00

1.

00

0.00

0.

00

0.00

0.

00

0.00

0.

00

Cla

y H

ou

se, 2

1,10

3 43

0.

00

0.00

0.

00

0.02

0.

05

0.00

0.

74

0.02

0.

16

0.02

Lit

tle

Elk

, 25,

751

20

0.

00

0.00

0.

00

0.00

0.

00

0.00

1.

00

0.00

0.

00

0.00

No

rth

En

d, 2

5,76

7

14

0.00

0.

00

0.13

0.

47

0.00

0.

00

0.40

0.

00

0.00

0.

00

Per

iod

4

Bas

alt

Rid

ge,

21,

089

9 0.

00

0.00

0.

00

0.00

0.

00

0.00

1.

00

0.00

0.

00

0.00

Elk

, 21,

104

108

0.00

0.

00

0.00

0.

11

0.00

0.

00

0.86

0.

00

0.00

0.

03

Lit

tle

Elk

, 25,

751

60

0.00

0.

00

0.00

0.

00

0.00

0.

00

1.00

0.

00

0.00

0.

00

Dea

dm

an F

lat,

25,

764

83

0.00

0.

00

0.00

0.

00

0.00

0.

00

0.64

0.

00

0.36

0.

00

Pla

inv

iew

, 25,

766

25

0.00

0.

00

0.04

0.

52

0.00

0.

00

0.44

0.

00

0.00

0.

00

Bac

hel

or

Ho

use

, 25,

769

80

0.03

0.

00

0.00

0.

85

0.00

0.

00

0.13

0.

00

0.00

0.

00

Sev

en, 2

5,77

7 27

0 0.

00

0.00

0.

01

0.32

t

0.00

0.

66

0.00

t

0.00

Len

ox

An

nex

, 25,

779

62

0.00

0.

00

0.00

0.

00

0.00

0.

00

1.00

0.

00

0.00

0.

00

Ho

mes

tead

, 181

76

4 0.

00

t 0.

03

0.22

0.

00

t 0.

71

0.00

0.

00

0.00

Per

iod

5

An

t H

ill,

19,

007

111

t 0.

00

0.00

t

0.00

0.

00

0.94

0.

04

0.00

t

Fu

ll H

ou

se, 2

1,09

1 54

0.

00

0.04

0.

00

0.15

0.

48

0.00

0.

07

0.00

0.

00

0.26

Dea

dm

an’s

Ed

ge,

420

23

7 0.

00

0.00

0.

02

0.39

t

0.00

0.

46

0.02

0.

08

0.03

a Per

iod

1 =

A.D

. 400

-700

; Per

iod

2 =

A.D

. 800

-100

0; P

erio

d 3

= A

.D. 1

000-

1065

/10

75; P

erio

d 4

= A

.D. 1

065/

1075

-115

0; P

erio

d 5

= A

.D. 1

125-

1150

/11

75.

bn

= N

um

ber

of

wo

od

ch

arco

al f

rag

men

ts e

xam

ined

. c t

= P

rese

nt,

<1

per

cen

t.

Interassemblage Macrobotanical Variation from the U.S. 89 Project Area 29

Table 2.4. U.S. 89 site components’ cluster membership versus systemic classification.

Site Name, Number (NA) Temporal Perioda Cluster Membership Systemic Classification

Deadman’s Edge, 420 Period 5 1 Cohonina

Homestead, 181 Period 4 2 Cohonina

Elk, 21,104 Period 4 2 Sinagua

Seven, 25,777 Period 4 2 Cohonina

Lenox Annex, 25,779 Period 2 2 Sinagua

Ant Hill, 19,007 Period 5 3 Sinagua

Lenox Park, 20,700 Period 1 3 Sinagua

Lenox Park, 20,700 Period 2 3 Sinagua

Note: Table includes only components represented by five or more features. aPeriod 1 = A.D. 400-700; Period 2 = A.D. 800-1000; Period 3 = A.D. 1000-1065/1075; Period 4 = 1065/1075-1150; Period 5 = A.D. 1125-1150/1175.

Table 2.5. U.S. 89 project seed taxa, arranged by resource category.

Resource Group Seed Taxa

Arboreal Juniperus sp., Pinus cf. edulis, Rhus sp., Vitis cf. arizonica

Cultigens Cucurbita sp., Gossypium sp., Leguminosae, Phaseolus vulgaris, Zea mays

Grasses Agrostis/Muhlenbergia sp., Oryzopsis sp., Panicum sp., Sporobolus sp.

High-density crop weeds Amaranthus sp., Chenopodium sp., Cheno-ams, Cruciferae, Descurainia sp., Helianthus sp.

Low-density weeds cf. Corispermum sp., Compositae, Cleome sp., Encelia sp., Polygonaceae, Portulaca sp., Sphaeralcea sp.

Shrubs and succulents Atriplex sp., Labiatae, Solanaceae, Yucca sp.

Figure 2.1. Hierarchical tree cluster of U.S. 89 project seed assemblages, by site and time periods, using Euclideandistances, single-linkage model.

30 Chapter 2

and sumac are joined in the U.S. 89 macrobotanicalassemblages by canyon grape (Vitis cf. arizonica),which grows in the area, often parasitizing trees orother shrubs.

The productivity of pinyon nut stands variesfrom year to year. Harvests were available, at most,every two years, and very productive harvests maynot have occurred more than once every 7-10 years(Lanner 1981). In especially good years, a pinyoncrop might rival maize agriculture for short-termproductivity, but circumstances mitigated againstthe maximum harvest of arboreal taxa. All of theseare preferred foods for a variety of animals and birds,so the competition for them would have been in-tense. In most years, the amount of food availablefrom arboreal resources was considerably lower thanthe returns from cultigens and high-density cropweeds. However, arboreal taxa should have been

an important resource throughout the project area,because they were intermittently quite productiveand regularly more profitable to locate and harvestthan other wild resource groups.

Cultigens

In the U.S. 89 project area, this group includesmaize, beans, squash, and cotton. All but cotton wereplanted, monitored, watered, harvested, processed,and stored using a common suite of tools and tac-tics aimed at crop cultivation. The requisite tool tech-nology included storage facilities (baskets and prob-ably subterranean pits), and possibly manos andmetates as well (see Adams 1994). Cultigens pro-vided the highest return rates among all the taxaidentified in these assemblages, and they had the

Table 2.6. Ubiquities of U.S. 89 project plant resource groups, by site and time period.

Arboreal Cultigens Grasses High-density Weeds

Low-density Weeds Shrubs Temporal Perioda/

Site Name, Number (NA) Ub nc U n U n U n U n U n

Period 1

Lenox Park, 20,700 0.22 2 0.89 3 0.22 2 0.44 3 0.11 1 0.00 0

Dean, 25,753 0.00 0 1.00 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.50 1 0.00 0

Period 2

Lenox Park, 20,700 0.13 2 0.88 3 0.19 1 0.63 1 0.06 1 0.00 0

Divide, 21,087 0.50 1 1.00 2 0.00 0 0.50 2 0.00 0 0.00 0

Lenox Annex, 25,779 0.00 0 1.00 2 0.00 0 0.20 1 0.00 0 0.00 0

Period 3

Slope, 18,417 0.00 0 1.00 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0

Snag, 18,680 0.00 0 1.00 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0

Clay House, 21,103 0.00 0 1.00 2 0.50 1 1.00 2 0.50 1 0.00 0

Little Elk, 25,751 1.00 1 1.00 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0

North End, 25,767 0.00 0 1.00 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0

Period 4

Basalt Ridge, 21,089 0.00 0 1.00 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0

Elk, 21,104 0.30 2 0.90 2 0.10 1 0.20 2 0.00 0 0.00 0

Little Elk, 25,751 0.00 0 1.00 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0

Deadman Flat, 25,764 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.50 1 1.00 2 0.00 0 0.00 0

Plainview, 25,766 0.00 0 1.00 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0

Bachelor House, 25,769 0.33 1 0.33 1 0.00 0 0.66 2 0.33 1 0.00 0

Seven, 25,777 0.00 0 1.00 1 0.14 1 0.14 1 0.00 0 0.00 0

Lenox Annex, 25,779 0.00 0 1.00 2 0.00 0 0.50 3 0.25 1 0.00 0

Homestead, 181 0.04 1 0.63 2 0.25 3 0.42 3 0.17 3 0.17 2

Period 5

Ant Hill, 19,007 0.00 0 1.00 1 0.00 0 0.60 1 0.20 1 0.20 1

Full House, 21,091 0.67 2 1.00 2 0.00 0 0.67 2 0.33 1 0.33 1

Deadman’s Edge, 420 0.00 0 0.89 3 0.44 1 0.56 2 0.33 3 0.11 1

aPeriod 1 = A.D. 400-700; Period 2 = A.D. 800-1000; Period 3 = A.D. 1000-1065/1075; Period 4 = A.D. 1065/1075-1150; Period 5 = A.D. 1125-1150/1175. (See Table P.2 for individual feature assignments at multicomponent sites.)

bUbiquity of resource group at this site. cNumber of identified plant taxa in this group from this site.

Interassemblage Macrobotanical Variation from the U.S. 89 Project Area 31

singular advantage of being controllable with re-spect to the timing and location of their availability.

The presence of cotton seed fragments in sam-ples from the Lenox Park site, NA 20,700, is some-what enigmatic, because the site is situated within aponderosa pine forest at an elevation of 7,070 ft(2,155 m). Wild cotton does not naturally occur inArizona at elevations above 7,000 ft (2,134 m); mod-ern domesticated cotton (Gossypium hirsutum, orPima cotton) is rarely grown successfully in Arizo-na outside the range of 100-3,000 ft (30-914 m). Hopicotton (G. hirsutum v. punctatum), however, growswell at higher altitudes, and this was likely the vari-ety represented in the U.S. 89 samples. The presenceof carbonized seeds may be a consequence of theirconsumption as food. Cotton has been found ingreater quantities in other Flagstaff area sites, suchas Lizard Man Village, NA 17,957 (Hunter et al.1999), although at 6,320 ft (1,926 m), that site is slight-ly lower in elevation than the Lenox Park site.

High-density Crop Weeds

This group includes high-density weeds com-monly found in disturbed soils, particularly on themargins of agricultural fields. Prehistoric agricultur-ists probably did not allow these species to intrudeinto active fields. Although respectable grain har-vests can be obtained from these taxa, they do notcompare favorably with cultigens. Further, cropweeds competed with crops for light and water, re-ducing cultigen yields and providing hosts for in-sect pests that could damage crops. High-densitycrop weeds may, however, have been valued be-cause their habit of colonizing disturbed soils madethem a valuable resource as secondary crops grow-ing in abandoned fields. Their lower water demandsmay also have made them useful as famine foods(Minnis 1991) when crop harvests were poor. All theplants in the crop-weed category could be harvest-ed and processed using the same tools and tech-niques: bags, baskets, and blades for collecting; bas-kets for parching and winnowing; and manos andmetates for grinding seeds.

Low-density Weeds

This group includes low-density weeds that oc-cur throughout the U.S. 89 project area, especiallyin low swales, but also on the margins of cultivatedplots. Although they grow in the same locations ashigh-density weeds and required the same tools toprocess, low-density weeds occur in such low den-sities that the effort required to harvest them is muchgreater. Given the low ubiquities of plants in this

group, it is suspected that they never achieved wide-spread importance in the diet. Their use was proba-bly limited to that of famine foods, flavoring agents,or quelites (potherbs or vegetables; see Bye 2000). Thecollection of low-density weeds was probably em-bedded in other activities.

Shrubs and Succulents

This group is a catchall category for remnants ofthe paleobotanical assemblage. It is comprised ofsaltbush (Atriplex sp.), yucca (Yucca sp.), mint fami-ly (Labiatae), and nightshade family (Solanaceae)seeds. These were distributed in a dispersed fash-ion throughout the project area, probably concen-trating in swales or other minor, local catchmentswhere water was marginally more abundant afterrains. No special tools were required to harvest yuc-ca or nightshade fruits. The mint and saltbush seedsprobably required parching, grinding, and winnow-ing before use. Yucca fruit may have been consumeddirectly if harvested when the seeds were not ripe;otherwise, the seeds would also have requiredparching and winnowing. Although many plantsamong the Solanaceae are toxic, those that are notcould have been consumed raw.

Wild Grasses

Dropseed (Sporobolus sp.) is the most prolific wildgrass taxon in the U.S. 89 assemblages, although oth-er grasses were occasionally used. Only dropseed islikely to have intruded on the margins of cultivatedplots. The common characteristics shared by thewild grasses include their growth in locations thatwere somewhat removed from residential sites andcultivated fields (except dropseed, as noted) and theuse of the same suite of tools and techniques as forcrop weeds. Most studies of human uses of wildgrasses show that the energetic return rates fromgrasses are the lowest among any wild plant pri-marily harvested for its seeds (Jones and Madsen1989; Simms 1987).

Cluster Analysis of Seed AssemblagesBased on Resource Group Ubiquity

The hierarchical tree-clustering approach was re-peated, comparing plant resource group assemblag-es with five or more analyzed features in three dif-ferent cluster runs, using the data presented in Table2.6. The first run compared assemblages based onubiquities of all the major resource groups. The sec-ond run excluded the cultigens, for reasons discussed

32 Chapter 2

below. The third run excluded cultigens and high-density crop weeds. The results of all three runs arepresented in Table 2.7. These analyses did not re-veal an association between the systemic categoriesof Cohonina or Sinagua with any suite of resources.The details are discussed below.

The first cluster attempt compared the compo-nents using ubiquities of the resource groups. Twoplausible clusters were produced, in addition tothree unclassifiable components. Cluster One con-tained two large Sinagua habitation sites—both oc-cupation periods at Lenox Park and the Elk site, NA21,104. Cluster Two included two small habitationsites—a Sinagua site, Lenox Annex, NA 25,779, anda Cohonina site, Seven, NA 25,777. The three un-classifiable sites included two large Cohonina habi-tation sites—Homestead, NA 181, and Deadman’sEdge, and a Sinagua small habitation site, Ant Hill,NA 19,007. The categories Cohonina and Sinaguapredicted macroplant assemblage similarity for halfthe sites; that is, they were no better than randomselection. This Fisher exact statistical test (p = 0.50) isweak, due to the small number of cases. It may be asimportant that most of the cases defied clustering. Ineither case, the predicative utility of the terms Coho-nina and Sinagua is severely limited.

During the current analysis, cluster membershipand distances were found to be unchanged, even ifthe cultigen resource group was statistically weight-ed. This discovery suggests that similarities in theuse of cultigens are so strong among the assemblag-es that they mask any variation that might have oc-curred in the use of other resource groups. There-fore, a second cluster analysis was run, excludingthe cultigens. The effect of removing the cultigensfrom the analysis was to rearrange cluster member-ship. Only two sites (Seven and Lenox Annex) couldbe plausibly described as a cluster, and they are Co-honina and Sinagua sites, respectively. Again, thesystemic categories do not predict macroplant as-semblage similarity more accurately than randomguessing.

The third cluster run excluded cultigens andhigh-density crop weeds. High-density crop weedabundance was assumed to covary in some way withcultigens, given the microclimatic association be-tween the two resource groups. The analysis pro-duced one broad, weak cluster comprised of twoCohonina sites, Homestead and Seven, and three Si-nagua sites, Lenox Park, Elk, and Lenox Annex.Again, the systemic categories Cohonina and Sina-gua did not predict assemblage similarity better thanrandom selection.

In sum, cluster analyses of assemblage similari-ty based on resource group ubiquity did not sup-port the hypothesis that the systemic categories Co-honina and Sinagua predict macroplant assemblage

similarity in the U.S. 89 project area. The results dis-cussed above show no compelling differences in re-source use or diet structure based on the ubiquitydata presented in Table 2.6.

Cluster analyses are both inexact and inductive.Inductive in this instance means that the goal of clus-ter analysis is to create clusters, not to test hypothe-ses. Cluster analyses create the greatest variationamong groups, and that variation has been shownto not necessarily relate to any specific cause or in-dependent variable. To formally test the proposalthat the systemic categories predict anything aboutmacroplant assemblage composition, non-clustertechniques were then applied. These are discussedin the following section.

INTERCOMPONENT VARIATION INMACROPLANT ASSEMBLAGEDIVERSITY

The previous analyses rule out the possibility ofstrong relationships between systemic classificationand either taxonomic ubiquity or resource groupubiquity. Differences, however, may occur at a moregeneral level. For example, if the Cohonina weremore likely to engage in foraging despite their heavydependence on cultigens, Cohonina assemblagesshould regularly be more diverse (that is, containmore identifiable seed plant taxa) than Sinagua as-semblages, either in total, or within a particular re-source group. The analyses discussed below showthere are no statistically significant associations inthe macroplant assemblage diversities in Sinaguaand Cohonina components.

The taxonomic diversities of each of the compo-nents studied in this analysis are listed in Table 2.6.The total assemblage diversity is the sum of the di-versities (n) for each resource group. In comparingthe diversities of assemblages and resource groups,a gamma test was used (Levin and Fox 1988:336-346; StatSoft, Inc. 1994:1,453). This statistic comparesthe rank order correlation of the independent vari-able (Cohonina versus Sinagua) and the dependentvariables (assemblage diversity and diversity with-in each resource group). Positive gamma values in-dicate Sinagua assemblages had higher diversities;negative scores indicate Cohonina assemblages hadhigher diversities. The magnitude of the score pro-vides the strength of the correlation between diver-sity and assemblage type. The test does not requirenormal, that is, bell-shaped, distributions and maybe applied to any suite of ordinal data.

The Gamma scores and significance probabilities(p) for two test runs are presented in Table 2.8. Thefirst run included only those components with fiveor more analyzed features. The second run included

Interassemblage Macrobotanical Variation from the U.S. 89 Project Area 33

all the components listed in Table 2.6. In both testsruns, there were no statistically significant differenc-es in overall taxonomic diversity, or in any resourcegroup, when Cohonina and Sinagua assemblageswere compared. Again, there was no compellingevidence to indicate differences in the dietary com-position or resource selection among the Cohoninaas compared with the Sinagua.

REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES ONMACROPLANT ASSEMBLAGECOMPOSITION

The U.S. 89 project is the most recent of severallarge-scale regional archaeological projects and in-tensive university-based research programs con-ducted in the Flagstaff area. Macrobotanical datafrom these other projects are used to supplement thepreceding analyses. Although these other assem-blages indicate more extensive resource use by con-taining some taxa not observed in the U.S. 89 flota-tion samples, the overall patterns are virtually

identical. With respect to predicting variation amongplant assemblages, the systemic categories Cohoni-na and Sinagua remain irrelevant. The inclusion ofdata from other sources does not result in statisti-cally significant differences between Cohonina andSinagua macrobotanical assemblages. PrehistoricSinagua and Cohonina subsistence efforts incorpo-rated several varieties of cultigens, several notablearboreal resources, and a limited array of other wildtaxa. The results of macrobotanical analyses fromother projects are reviewed below.

Regional Microbotanical Data

The Cinder Devil Site, AR 03-04-02-3786 (CNF)

A total of 16 flotation samples was recoveredfrom this posteruptive Sinagua settlement, repre-senting four structures (Marmaduke et al. 1998). Thesite was situated near San Francisco Wash, approx-imately 18 km northeast of Flagstaff. The identifiedtaxa included 1 cultigen (maize), 2 high-density crop

Table 2.7. Assemblage clusters based on similarities among resource groups.

Cluster Membership by Component

Cluster All Groups Cultigens Omitted Cultigens and Crop Weeds Omitted

Cluster 1 Elk, NA 21,104 Lenox Park, NA 20,700

Seven, NA 25,777; Lenox Annex, NA 25,779

Homestead, NA 181 Lenox Park, NA 20,700 Elk, NA 21,104 Seven, NA 25,777 Lenox Annex, NA 25,779

Cluster 2 Seven, NA 25,777 Lenox Annex, NA 25,779

— —

Not clustered Homestead, NA 181 Deadman’s Edge, NA 420 Ant Hill, NA 19,007

All others Deadman’s Edge, NA 420 Ant Hill, NA 19,007

Table 2.8. Gamma correlations of systemic category and resource or assemblage diversity.

Components with Five or More Analyzed Features All Components

Category n Gammaa pb n Gamma p

All taxa 8 -0.20 0.62 20 0.12 0.59

Arboreal 8 0.20 0.69 20 0.06 0.85

Cultigens 8 0.27 0.57 20 0.39 0.14

Grasses 8 -0.53 0.19 20 -0.37 0.21

Crop weeds 8 -0.50 0.25 20 0.02 0.92

Low-density weeds 8 -0.14 0.71 20 0.03 0.91

Shrubs 8 -0.20 0.69 20 0.09 0.79

aA negative value indicates that Cohinina assemblages were more diverse; a positive value indicates that Sinagua assemblages were more diverse.

bThe statistical likelihood that any ordering identified in Gamma differs from random chance.

34 Chapter 2

weeds (goosefoot and buffalo gourd, Cucurbitafoetidissima), and 3 low-density weeds (bugseed,Asteraceae, composite family, and a fireweed-typeplant, Kochia sp.). Grass seeds and pinyon nut frag-ments were also observed. As with the U.S. 89 as-semblages, the two most abundant resource groupswere the cultigens and high-density crop weeds, rep-resented by maize, goosefoot, and pigweed (ubiq-uity = 100 percent).

Lizard Man Village, NA 17,957

This small Sinagua site was excavated by theGrinell College archaeological field school over fourseasons in the 1980s (Kamp and Whitaker 1999:5). Itis located approximately 18 km east of Flagstaffalong a tributary of the Rio de Flag. The excavatedcomponents include a pithouse hamlet from theAngell-Winona phase (A.D. 1064-1100, representedby seven discrete contexts) transitioning to a smallpueblo occupied during the Elden phase (A.D. 1125-1200, represented by five discrete contexts). Inter-pretation of the macrobotanical assemblage from thissite was complicated by the failure of the originalanalyst to complete the work or to return the origi-nal flotation samples. The effort was completed byHunter (Hunter et al. 1999); as noted, however, manyof the best flotation samples remain unreported andunavailable for analysis (Hunter et al. 1999).

The range of seed taxa represented in the totalLizard Man Village plant assemblage is somewhatbroader than the assemblages observed in the U.S.89 samples, although the same suite of resources wasobserved and in comparable quantities. Cultigensincluded maize, beans (two varieties of Phaseolus vul-garis and one variety of P. acutifolius), cotton (Gos-sypium hirsutum v. punctatum, or Hopi cotton), andpossibly two varieties of squash. High-density cropweeds included goosefoot (Chenopodium sp.), pigweed(Amaranthus sp.), dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus),peppergrass (Lepidium sp.), sagebrush (Artemisia sp.),and wild sunflowers (Helianthus cf. petiolaris). Low-density weeds included bugseed (Corispermum hys-sopifolium), nightshade (Solanum spp.), purslane(Portulaca oleracea), and smartweed (Polygonumramosissim and P. amphibium). The only arboreal taxawere juniper (Juniperus spp.) and manzanita (Arcto-staphylos pringlei). A variety of wild grasses, dis-persed shrubs, and a prickly pear cactus completedthe assemblage.

Of the taxa mentioned above, cultigens (ubiquitygreater than 86 percent) and crop weeds (ubiquityas high as 100 percent) were emphasized. The remain-ders occurred in low proportional frequencies. Theubiquities reported by Hunter et al. (1999:142) areconsistent with those for cultigens, crop weeds, grass-es, and so forth observed in the U.S. 89 flotation

samples. In short, despite slight differences, the Si-nagua assemblage from Lizard Man Village does notsignificantly differ from the U.S. 89 assemblages.

Medicine Jar, AR-03-04-02-2567 (CNF)

Flotation samples from 16 features at this ninththrough eleventh century Cohonina site were exam-ined (Dosh 1998). The site was situated near the U.S.89 project area, less than 3 km north of the turnoff toSunset Crater. The identified taxa included maize,undifferentiated goosefoot or pigweed (cheno-ams),prickly pear cactus seeds (Opuntia sp.), a small le-gume (Leguminosae), and pinyon nuts. The ubiqui-ty of maize in samples that contained any charredtaxa was 100 percent. The other resources include alimited sample of the same suite of resources ob-served in Cohonina and Sinagua sites from the U.S.89 project.

Townsend-Divide Site, AZ I:10:30 (ASM)

Twenty-nine flotation samples from five houses(represented by 12 discrete contexts) from this Sina-gua site were analyzed by Huckell (1985). The sitewas located along U.S. 89, approximately 1 km northof Elden Pueblo and the Flagstaff city limits. The iden-tified taxa included maize, beans, cotton, goosefoot,pigweed, and pinyon nut fragments. The ubiquitiesof cultigens and high-density crop weeds (80 percentand 60 percent, respectively) are consistent with re-sults from other sites discussed in this study. Again,the emphasis was on crops and the wild plants thatcolonize the margins of cultivated fields.

Soil Systems, Inc., Excavations at NA 20,671and Lenox Park, NA 20,700

Several Cohonina and Sinagua sites were inves-tigated in the Coconino National Forest by Soil Sys-tems, Inc. (Landis 1993). Seven flotation sampleswere recovered from two of the sites with architec-ture: one from NA 20,671 and six from Lenox Park(the same site investigated during the current U.S.89 project). Unfortunately, the volume of the flota-tion samples, ranging from 1.3 liters to 2.0 liters(Miller and Kwiatkowski 1993), was probably insuf-ficient to recover the full range of taxa that may haveoccurred in any feature. The taxa represented in theassemblage from Lenox Park included maize, chia(Salvia columbariae), and undifferentiated goosefootand pigweed seeds (cheno-ams). Minimumally, thesamples collected by Soil Systems are consistent witha resource use pattern based on crop cultivation. Nocultigens were recovered from NA 20,671, a Coho-nina site with a single pithouse situated more than75 km west of Flagstaff.

Interassemblage Macrobotanical Variation from the U.S. 89 Project Area 35

Transwestern Pipeline Project

Several Sinagua sites were investigated by theOffice of Contract Archaeology, University of NewMexico. Flotation samples analyzed by Hammett(1994b) represented 54 features at four sites situat-ed approximately 15 km south of Sunset Crater. Theidentified taxa substantially replicate the resultsfrom the studies described above and from the U.S.89 project. Cultigens were the most ubiquitous re-source at three of the sites, ranging from 63 percentto 91 percent, and crop weeds the second-most ubiq-uitous, at 13 percent to 18 percent. At the fourth site(442-93), the positions were reversed, with high-den-sity crop weeds occurring in more than half the fea-tures (54 percent), and maize slightly lower in ubiq-uity (43 percent). Arboreal taxa, cacti, and wildgrasses were much less abundant.

Statistical Analysis using Regional Data

The assemblages from these other projects signifi-cantly expand the number of cases available to com-pare Cohonina and Sinagua resource use patterns.The Gamma test was repeated, combining assem-blages from the U.S. 89 project with the assemblagesdiscussed above, except Lizard Man Village. Datafrom the latter were not presented in detail, so theubiquity scores of the different resource groups asdescribed in this paper could not be determined us-ing that summary. The results of the revised statis-tical analysis were, again, inconclusive. There wereno statistically significant differences between Co-honina and Sinagua assemblages with respect to ei-ther the taxonomic diversities of resource groups,the ubiquities of resource groups, or the overall di-versity of the assemblages. Regarding the macro-plant assemblage composition, the Cohonina and Si-nagua are indistinguishable.

COHONINA-SINAGUA PLANTRESOURCE USE

The primary emphasis of the preceding analysiswas to determine if there were consistent differenc-es among macroplant assemblages from sites de-fined as Cohonina or Sinagua. No differences wereobserved in statistical analyses of the U.S. 89 assem-blages, nor in analyses that incorporated data fromother projects in the general Flagstaff area. The con-sistency among the assemblages suggests the pre-historic occupants of this area pursued a commonsuite of resources that could be grown or locallygathered.

The foremost plant resources were agriculturalcrops. Maize consistently had the highest ubiquity

among all the observed plant taxa. As a group, culti-gens consistently had the highest ubiquities amongthe resource groups found in the assemblages. Thesubsistence system was organized around the localproduction of the common major agricultural trium-virate, maize, beans, and squash.

Maize was widely cultivated throughout the U.S.89 project area and the Greater Southwest. Maule(1963), Colton (1965), and Waring (Chapter 4, thisvolume) have all demonstrated that the presence ofa thin cinder layer may increase soil moisture reten-tion and buffer against temperature extremes, en-hancing maize yield. When dating of the SunsetCrater eruption is precisely identified, archaeologistsmay observe increases in maize consumption. How-ever, there is plenty of macrobotanical evidence formaize cultivation in the ninth through eleventh cen-tury in sites that have been examined to date.

Edwards’ (2002; see also Chapter 3, this volume)analysis of site distributions and soil composition,in conjunction with results from this study, indicateagriculture was both possible and commonly prac-ticed prior to the eleventh century A.D. Therefore,there is no a priori reason to suspect that the erup-tion of Sunset Crater necessarily stimulated a whole-sale shift from a primarily foraging subsistencesystem to one based primarily on agriculture. Al-though similar experiments have not been attempt-ed using beans and squash, the temperature buffer-ing and water retention effects of moderatequantities of cinder mulch would certainly favortheir growth as well. As discussed elsewhere in thisvolume, the cinder mulch deposition opened newareas for agriculture that were previously too dry tofarm, although it did not affect the suite of cropscultivated in the general Flagstaff area.

Cotton is present at the Homestead, Deadman’sEdge, and Lenox Park sites from the U.S. 89 project,as well as from Lizard Man Village. Its presence issomewhat enigmatic, however, because it is com-monly assumed that domesticated cotton cannot begrown at this latitude at elevations higher than 6,000ft (1,829 m). The occurrence of charred seeds is con-sistent with the parching and consumption of theseeds as food. Capsules and boll fragments fromLizard Man Village at least indicate either that cot-ton was grown in the area, or that whole, unproc-essed cotton bolls were imported as a raw materialrather than as a value-added commodity. It is pos-sible, however, that circumstances of climatic ame-lioration allowed cotton to be locally grown in someyears. If, for example, local climatic regimes im-proved during the Medieval Warm period (roughlyA.D. 950-1200), cotton may have been more easilycultivated in the higher elevations. The cinder mulchmay have also aided the cotton growth by conserv-ing water.

36 Chapter 2

Two secondary resource groups, high-densitycrop weeds and arboreal resources, were also im-portant. The high-density weeds were plants thatreacted favorably to disturbed, moist conditions, aswould be found on the margins of cultivated plots.In these conditions, they occur in higher stand den-sities (numbers of plants per unit of land) and offergreater grain yields than the other, lesser-used re-source groups such as the wild grasses and low-densi-ty weeds. The two most important arboreal resourceswere juniper berries and pinyon nuts; both plantshave extensive ethnohistoric records of use through-out the Great Basin and the Greater Southwest. Pin-yon nuts may have yielded substantial harvests asoften as every seven years; in those years, their pro-ductivity may have approached the productivity ofmaize. However, such events were probably rare.

The remaining resources (wild grasses, low-den-sity weeds, and cacti) were used infrequently. Theirpresence in samples from some, but not many, ofthe sites considered here is consistent with intermit-tent use, although these resources were likely nevermerely ignored. In any given season, they were prob-ably used at one time or another by most households.Their use was, however, not regular enough to pro-mote high recovery rates in flotation samples. Mostoften, a forager or farmer passing to or from a hunt-ing area or a field ignored these plants unless a par-ticularly fruitful patch was encountered. The pre-historic occupants of the U.S. 89 project area did notdepend upon these lesser resources for their liveli-hood, and the success or failure of any communitywas not tied to their natural abundance.

CONCLUSIONS

The macroplant assemblages from the U.S. 89project and other Flagstaff sites indicate that char-acterizing sites as either Cohonina and Sinagua doesnot predict the plant species used, their ubiquities,the taxonomic diversities of assemblages, or any oth-er higher order grouping of plant resources. Themacroplant assemblages from these sites are incon-sistent with the assertion that the Cohonina and Si-nagua were ethnically distinct entities with respectto food production or food consumption habits. Ifthe Cohonina and Sinagua were distinct culturalentities, the proof of the difference and the extent ofsuch differences must be established by the consis-tency of the terms to predict patterning in archaeo-logical data sets. The absence of such patterning inthe macroplant assemblages does not necessarily ob-viate the use of the categories. If, however, analysesof other data sets also fail to indicate that Cohoninaand Sinagua strongly predict differences in datacomposition or structure, the case for recognition of

two distinct ethnic groups in the U.S. 89 project areais either rejectable, or at least considerably weak-ened.

To the extent that Cohonina and Sinagua areviewed as discrete cultural entities, the proof mustbe made using other data sets, or alternatively, theuse of the terms should be discontinued. Cohoninaand Sinagua are taxonomic terms that classify ar-chaeological assemblages according to details oftheir ceramic assemblages and, to a certain extent,architectural construction. They were not initiallydefined based on food practices, and early suspicionsthat the Cohonina were primarily foragers wereproven unfounded even before the U.S. 89 projectwas initiated.

Many researchers have tended to use taxonomicor systemic categories such as phase or, in some cir-cumstances, culture to imply the broader anthropo-logical concept of cultures as ethnically discrete en-tities. It has often been the case that the claim forrecognizing discrete ethnic entities rests upon ar-chaeological evidence that is either scanty or limit-ed to one or two narrow artifact categories amongthe many available kinds of evidence.

Ethnic categories are empirically slippery phe-nomena. People of diverse ethnic backgrounds maybe assimilated within a generation, showing fewoutward traces of their ancestry. Conversely, mi-grant populations or different ethnic groups withstable boundaries may practice widely divergenttraditions and sustain their differences for long in-tervals. In the current study, ethnohistorical evi-dence was reviewed and examples of archaeologi-cal studies in which varying food preferences andconsumption habits among different ethnic groupsand socioeconomic classes were demonstrated. Intheory, when consistent differences in food habitsare demonstrated, the evidence is consistent withthe possible existence of ethnic differences.

In this study, a variety of nonparametric statisti-cal methods—including cluster analyses, Gammatests, and Spearman rank-order correlations—wereperformed. The data were statistically analyzed us-ing inductive methods that were blind to a prioriknowledge of classification as Cohonina or Sinagua.No associations among assemblages could be con-structed that predicted classification using theseterms. Deductive tests were also performed, and inthese tests, Cohonina and Sinagua were treated asindependent categories that might predict any ofseveral aspects of macroplant assemblage composi-tion. They did not, however, yield better predictionthan random selection would provide. In conclusion,Cohonina and Sinagua, at least in the U.S. 89 projectarea and probably also in the greater Flagstaff area,are terms that do not predict the composition of mac-roplant assemblages.