University of Nevada, Reno Starch Residue Analysis from Two ...

University of Nevada, Reno

Starch Residue Analysis from Two High Altitude Village Locations: High Rise Village,

Wyoming and the White Mountain Village Sites, California

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in

Anthropology

by

Amanda M. Rankin

Dr. Christopher T. Morgan/Thesis Advisor

August, 2016

We recommend that the thesis

prepared under our supervision by

AMANDA M. RANKIN

Entitled

Starch Residue Analysis from Two High Altitude Village Locations: High Rise

Village, Wyoming and the White Mountain Village Sites, California

be accepted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Dr. Christopher T. Morgan, Advisor

Dr. Dave Rhode, Committee Member

Dr Robert Watters, Graduate School Representative

David W. Zeh, Ph.D., Dean, Graduate School

August, 2016

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

i

Abstract

Starch residue analysis, ground stone, and use-wear analysis on milling

equipment from High Rise Village and the White Mountain Village sites reveals a

subsistence system that included geophyte processing at high elevation. High

altitude residential use is little understood in North America and has often been

thought to relate to intensive pine nut exploitation. This research indicates that

this is not the case, and that geophytes were a targeted resource at high elevation.

A closer look at the archaeological record in the two regions reveals that root

processing was a common occurrence in nearby lowland regions and that high

altitude villages may fit into this broader regional pattern of geophyte processing,

a fact that has been overlooked by archaeologists and ethnographers alike, and

something starch residue analysis is well suited to demonstrate.

ii

Dedication

To my family who have always supported me, and most of all to my mother who was my

greatest support, editor, and cheerleader. I wish you were here to see me finish.

iii

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the Nevada Archaeological Association for the 2014 Student

Research Grant to conduct my research, the UNR Department of Anthropology for the

2014 William Self award, Dr. Dave Rhode at Desert Research Institute for teaching me

the process of starch residue extraction and analysis and for letting me use the facilities,

Dr. Christopher Morgan for allowing me to use the High Rise Village assemblage, and

Dr. Robert Bettinger for allowing me access to the White Mountain collections, and for

the tour of the White Mountain Village sites. Thank you to Shaun Richey for all the love

and support as well as help with editing. Finally, thank you to my graduate cohort for all

fun amid the stress. Portions of this project were funded by the U.S. National Science

Foundation (Grant No. BCS-1302054); the continued support of the American public for

scientific archaeological research is greatly appreciated.

iv

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................... I

DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................................II

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................................ III

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................ IV

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... VIII

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ X

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH CONTEXT ....................................................................................................... 5

HIGH RISE VILLAGE .................................................................................................................................... 5

SITE CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................. 5

Flaked Stone Tools................................................................................................................................. 7

Subsistence Remains .............................................................................................................................. 9

Chronology ............................................................................................................................................ 9

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................... 10

Western Wyoming Paleoenvironmental Record................................................................................... 11

WESTERN WYOMING CULTURE HISTORY.................................................................................................. 13

The Early Archaic ................................................................................................................................ 15

The Middle Archaic ............................................................................................................................. 15

The Late Archaic .................................................................................................................................. 16

The Late Prehistoric Period................................................................................................................. 16

Historic Period .................................................................................................................................... 17

WHITE MOUNTAIN VILLAGE SITES ........................................................................................................... 18

SITE CONTEXT ........................................................................................................................................... 18

Archaeological Findings ...................................................................................................................... 19

CA-MNO-2198: Rancho Deluxe .......................................................................................................... 20

v

CA-MNO-2191: Crooked Forks .......................................................................................................... 21

CA-MNO-2194: Corral Camp South ................................................................................................... 21

Gate Meadows ..................................................................................................................................... 21

CA-MON-2193: Raven Camp .............................................................................................................. 22

CA-MNO-2196: Midway Village ......................................................................................................... 22

Chronology of the White Mountain Sites ............................................................................................. 22

Subsistence Remains: ........................................................................................................................... 24

Interpretation ....................................................................................................................................... 26

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................... 26

Great Basin and Owens Valley Paleoenvironmental Record .............................................................. 28

WHITE MOUNTAINS AND OWENS VALLEY CULTURE HISTORY ................................................................. 29

Western Great Basin: Newberry (4000 B.P.-1500 B.P.) ..................................................................... 31

Western Great Basin: Haiwee Period (ca. 1500-600 B.P.) ................................................................. 31

Western Great Basin: Marana Period (600 B.P.-historic) .................................................................. 32

Historic Period .................................................................................................................................... 32

Environmental and Culture History Comparisons .............................................................................. 34

CHAPTER 3 THEORY AND EXPECTATIONS .................................................................................... 38

HIGH ALTITUDE ARCHAEOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 38

High Altitude Land Use in North America ........................................................................................... 38

The “Pull” Hypothesis......................................................................................................................... 42

The “Push” Hypothesis ....................................................................................................................... 45

MODELING MOUNTAIN PLANT-BASED SUBSISTENCE................................................................................ 46

PREDICTIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 54

CHAPTER 4 METHODS ........................................................................................................................... 55

SAMPLING STRATEGY ............................................................................................................................... 55

GROUND STONE ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 56

vi

Life History .......................................................................................................................................... 56

Form and Function .............................................................................................................................. 57

Morphology.......................................................................................................................................... 58

Occupation Strategy ............................................................................................................................ 58

GROUND STONE ANALYSIS METHODS ...................................................................................................... 59

USE-WEAR ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 60

CHARACTERISTICS AND DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................ 60

Granularity and Durability .................................................................................................................. 60

Topography .......................................................................................................................................... 61

Types of Wear ...................................................................................................................................... 61

Direction of Use ................................................................................................................................... 63

Rock Hardness ..................................................................................................................................... 63

STARCH RESIDUE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 64

STARCH RESIDUE ANALYSIS METHODS .................................................................................................... 66

Extraction ............................................................................................................................................ 66

Aqueous Sediment Reduction ............................................................................................................... 67

LST Flotation ....................................................................................................................................... 67

LST Dilution......................................................................................................................................... 68

Microscope Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 68

Starch Identification Methods .............................................................................................................. 69

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................. 73

GROUND STONE ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 73

High Rise Village ................................................................................................................................. 73

White Mountains .................................................................................................................................. 74

USE-WEAR ................................................................................................................................................. 75

High Rise Village ................................................................................................................................. 75

White Mountains .................................................................................................................................. 77

vii

STARCH RESIDUE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 80

Modern Starch Identifications ............................................................................................................. 80

Modern Starch Identification Summary ............................................................................................... 98

Archaeological Starch Identifications ............................................................................................... 101

Starch Analysis from High Rise Village ............................................................................................. 106

Starch Analysis from the White Mountain Village Sites .................................................................... 112

COMPARISON OF THE HIGH RISE VILLAGE AND WHITE MOUNTAINS STARCH ASSEMBLAGES ................ 124

Diversity and Evenness ...................................................................................................................... 125

Summary of Results ............................................................................................................................ 127

CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................................................................ 129

Discussion of Results ......................................................................................................................... 129

Return Rates....................................................................................................................................... 130

Overall Utility .................................................................................................................................... 132

Culture History and the Ethnographic Record .................................................................................. 134

Why Were Roots Overlooked? ........................................................................................................... 137

Interpretation ..................................................................................................................................... 139

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................... 140

REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................................................. 143

APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................................ 159

APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................................ 164

APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................................ 168

APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................................ 170

APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................................................ 174

APPENDIX F ............................................................................................................................................. 179

viii

List of Tables

Table 2.1. Calibrated Radiocarbon Dates from High Rise Village. Adapted from Morgan

et al. 2016 .......................................................................................................................... 10

Table 2.2. Northwestern Plains and Wyoming Basin Chronologies ................................ 14

Table 2.3. Calibrated Radiocarbon Dates from The White Mountain Village Sites

Adapted from Bettinger 1991 ........................................................................................... 24

Table 2.4. Western Great Basin and Owens Valley Chronologies ................................... 30

Table 3.1. Return Rates for Rocky Mountain and Great Basin Resources ....................... 48

Table 3.2. Relevant Front and Back-loading Data: Pine Nuts versus Roots .................... 50

Table 4.1. Ground Stone Sample ...................................................................................... 55

Table 4.2. Starch Grain Attributes .................................................................................... 65

Table 4.3. Starch References ............................................................................................ 70

Table 5.1. High Rise Village Ground Stone Analysis Assemblage .................................. 74

Table 5.2. White Mountain Ground Stone Millingslab Analysis Assemblage ................. 75

Table 5.3. High Rise Village Micro Use-Wear Analysis.................................................. 78

Table 5.4. White Mountain Macro Use-Ware Analysis ................................................... 79

Table 5.5. Summary of Attributes used in Modern Taxonomic Identifications ............... 99

Table 5.6. Comparison of Typologies and Possible Taxonomic Identifications ............ 101

Table 5.7. High Rise Village Ground Stone Containing Starches .................................. 107

Table 5.8. High Rise Village Starches by Type .............................................................. 108

Table 5.9. High Rise Village Starch Frequency by Type ............................................... 110

Table 5.10. White Mountain Village Ground Stone Containing Starches ...................... 113

ix

Table 5.11. White Mountain Village Sites Quantity of Starches by Type ..................... 114

Table 5.12. Rancho Deluxe Quantity of Starches by Type ............................................. 116

Table 5.13. Corral Camp South Quantity of Starches by Type ...................................... 118

Table 5.14. Midway Villages Quantity of Starches by Type .......................................... 120

Table 5.15 Shannon Diversity and Evenness Index Comparison Between High Rise

Village and the White Mountain Village Sites ............................................................... 126

Table 5.16. Simpson’s Diversity and Evenness Index Comparison Between High Rise

Village and the White Mountain Village Sites ............................................................... 126

Table 6.1. Return Rates on Several Pine and Geophytes Species .................................. 132

x

List of Figures

Figure 2.1. Location of High Rise Village .......................................................................... 6

Figure 2.2. Location of Lodges at High Rise Village (Morgan et al. 2012a) ..................... 7

Figure 2.3. White Mountain Village Sites ........................................................................ 20

Figure 5.1. FR5891-15199 Use-Wear Illustrating Abrasion and Sheen ........................... 76

Figure 5.2. FR5891-2099 Use-Wear Illustrating Frosting and Fatigue Wear .................. 76

Figure 5.3. 382-12317 and 382-2045 Illustrating Pecking and Use-Wear Abrasion........ 77

Figure 5.4. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Lomatium

roseanum ........................................................................................................................... 80

Figure 5.5. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Lewisia

rediviva ............................................................................................................................. 82

Figure 5.6. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Perideridia

bolanderi ........................................................................................................................... 84

Figure 5.7. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Calochortus

leichtlinii ........................................................................................................................... 85

Figure 5.8. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Typha

latifolia .............................................................................................................................. 87

Figure 5.9. Polarized Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Schoenoplectus acutus Root

and Seed ............................................................................................................................ 88

Figure 5.10. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Cyperus

esculantis........................................................................................................................... 89

xi

Figure 5.11. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Pinus

monophylla ........................................................................................................................ 90


albicaulis ........................................................................................................................... 92

Figure 5.13. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of

Achnatherum hymenoides ................................................................................................. 93

Figure 5.14. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Eleocharis

quinqueflora ...................................................................................................................... 94

Figure 5.15. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Allenrolfea

occidentalis ....................................................................................................................... 95


Chenopodium fremontii .................................................................................................... 96

Figure 5.17. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Leymus

cinereus ............................................................................................................................. 97

Figure 5.18. Comparison of Starch Type G2 with Lewisia rediviva .............................. 109

Figure 5.19. Percent of Starches by Type at High Rise Village; blue bars indicate

geophytes and yellow bars indicate grasses and other small seeded plants. Deformed,

broken and otherwise unidentifiable taxa are in grey. .................................................... 111

Figure 5.20. Percent of White Mountain Village Starch Grain Types; blue bars indicate



xii

Figure 5.21. Rancho Deluxe Percent of Starches by Type; blue bars indicate geophytes

and yellow bars indicate grasses and other small seeded plants. Deformed, broken and

otherwise unidentifiable taxa are in grey. ....................................................................... 117

Figure 5.22. Corral Camp South Percent of Starches by Type; blue bars indicate



Figure 5.23. Midway Village Percent of Starches by Type; blue bars indicate geophytes

and deformed, broken and otherwise unidentifiable taxa are in grey. ............................ 121

Figure 5.24. Comparison of Starch Type G5 with Calochortus leichtlinii ..................... 121

Figure 5.25. Comparison of Starch Type G4 with Perideridia bolanderi ...................... 122

Figure 5.26. Comparison of Starch Type S2 with Achnatherum hymenoides Indian Rice

Grass ............................................................................................................................... 122

Figure 5.27. Comparison of Type S3 with Leymus cinereus Great Basin Rye .............. 123

Figure 5.28. Comparison of the Percentage of Starches by Taxon at each Location: blue

bars are High Rise Village and orange bars are White Mountain Village Sites ............. 124

1

Chapter 1 Introduction

This thesis presents the results of ground stone starch residue analysis from two of

only three known alpine village localities in western North America: The High Rise

Village site in the Wind River Range of western Wyoming and six of the 12 village sites

in the White Mountains of eastern California. These analyses were undertaken in order

to reconstruct the subsistence behaviors affiliated with high altitude residential use in

North America, which despite decades of faunal and floral analyses (Grayson 1991;

Rhode 2015; Scharf 2009) remain poorly understood.

Reconstructing high altitude subsistence is not only important to our

understanding of past human lifeways but is also essential to understanding the various

forces driving high altitude land use both regionally and globally. Results of this study

suggest that roots were a subsistence focus at these high altitude sites. This may indicate

that widening diet breadth and decreased foraging efficiency marked by a reliance on

low-return geophytes (but not the even lower-return pine nuts found in the subalpine

zone) played an important role in the shift from short-term hunting focused occupations

to more long-term residential use of the alpine zone.

Throughout the world, intensive residential use of the high altitudes is rare. High

altitudes are defined as areas more than 2500 meters above sea level; they are

characterized by decreased biotic productivity, less atmospheric oxygen, a shortened

growing season, and a lack of summer water when compared to lowland settings

(Aldenderfer 2006).

2

In North America, intensive high altitude residential use occurs only in the very

Late Holocene and is found in three areas, two within the Great Basin: Alta Toquima in

central Nevada, with the village pattern dating to perhaps 1500 B.P. (Thomas 1994) and

the White Mountains of California, with the village pattern dating to after 600 B.P. As

well as a similar but less intensive pattern found in the Wind River Range of Wyoming

dating between 2300 and 850 cal B.P. (Adams 2010; Koening 2010; Losey 2013; Morgan

et al. 2012a; 2016; Trout 2015). For these sites, the shift to residential use of the high

altitude zone is accompanied by shifts in subsistence strategies marked by more intensive

plant collecting and processing.

At each of the North American high altitude village localities, intensive

residential use is indicated by well-developed middens, rock ring or cut and fill lodge

structures, and large amounts of ground stone. This indicates either a shift in focus from

hunting to plant processing or an expansion of previously hunting-based diets to include

plant resources. Because of this, many researchers have sought to explain the scarcity of

high altitude sites in North America by their relationship to pine nut processing arguing

that pine nuts may have been a determining factor in high altitude occupation (Adams

2010; Hildebrandt 2013; Stirn 2014; Rhode 2010, Thomas 1983). Two of these locations

are the focus of this study. The White Mountain village sites located in southeastern

California include 12 residential sites in the alpine zone, with rock-ringed structures, well

developed middens, and large quantities of ground stone (Bettinger 1991). The other

location, High Rise Village, is located in the Wind River Range of western Wyoming at

an elevation of 3273 meters and contains large quantities of ground stone and cut and fill

residential features (Adams 2010; Morgan et al. 2012a; 2016).

3

This thesis focuses on answering subsistence related questions, specifically what

plants were being processed with the large quantities of ground stone at these sites. To

answer this question ground stone analysis, use-wear analysis, and starch residue analysis

was conducted on fifteen millingslabs from six of the White Mountain Village sites and

eleven millingslabs and ten handstone fragments from High Rise Village. Results of this

study indicate that geophytes were the resources being processed at these sites.

Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 provide an introduction to this study and an overview of

the High Rise Village (HRV) and White Mountain Village Pattern (WMVP) site contexts

as well as the environmental and cultural histories of the two regions.

Chapter 3 outlines the theoretical framework of this thesis, in regards to high

altitude archaeology in North America, and human behavioral ecological models in

general. Presented in this chapter is a comparison of pine nut resources and geophyte

resources and the overall utility of the two. Given this information, an expectation is

proposed for the results of the starch residue analysis.

Chapter 4 addresses the methods employed in ground stone analysis, use-wear

analysis, and starch residue analysis. Each analysis is discussed in depth in regards to

methods applied to the field of archaeology as a whole and methods used in this study.

Chapter 5 presents the results of the ground stone, use-wear, and starch analysis.

The results include a discussion of form, function, and degree of use of the ground stone

tools as well as a description of starch granule characteristics for all 20 of the plants used

as reference materials for this study. Following this, a description of the nine starch types

created for the archaeological samples is outlined and results of starch analysis for the

4

two locations is tabulated by type and most likely taxonomic identification. Finally,

diversity and evenness are considered between the two locations.

Chapter 6 concludes the study with a discussion of the results presented in

Chapter 5 and examines the relationship between the newly generated data on root

processing and the evidence for root processing in the two regions throughout prehistory

and into the ethnographic record. The study concludes with a discussion of starch residue

analysis and its application to the field of archaeology.

5

Chapter 2 Research Context

Two high elevation locations are the focus of this study; High Rise Village in

Wyoming’s Wind River Range, and the village sites of the White Mountains in

southeastern California. In both of these locations village sites are located above 3000

meters AMSL (9800 ft) and residential features, midden soils, large quantities of

artifacts, particularly ground stone characterize these sites. Following is a discussion of

the archaeological, cultural, and environmental context of each location.

High Rise Village

Site Context

High Rise Village is located in the Wind River Range of western Wyoming at an

elevation of 3320-3325 m AMSL (10,820-10,908 ft) (Figure 2.1) (Morgan et al. 2012a).

The sites straddles modern treeline, with roughly 1/3 of the site in the alpine ecozone and

the remaining 2/3 in a Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) dominated subalpine forest. A

semi-permanent spring is on site and a mountain sheep migration corridor passes near the

site (Morgan et al 2012a). The site measures 440 by 220 m, and contains 52 cut-and-fill

residential foundations which, during initial recording were referred to as “lodges”

(Figure 2.2). Lodges are features constructed by cutting into the site’s steep (23 degree)

south facing slope and filling the down slope area with the resulting excavated material,

with some of the lodge features ringed by one or more courses of stacked rock. The

features represent house structure foundations that may have supported cribbed timber

6

supper structure with three of the features containing possible remnants of the cribbed

timber supper structure (Adams 2010; Morgan et al. 2012a).

Figure 2.1. Location of High Rise Village

7

Figure 2.2. Location of Lodges at High Rise Village (Morgan et al. 2012a)

Twenty-nine of the lodge features were excavated between 2008 and 2012

(Adams 2010; Koening 2010; Morgan et al. 2012a; Morgan et al. 2016). Based on these

excavations, it appears the most intensive occupation of the site ranges from 2300 to 850

cal B.P. (Morgan et al. 2016). Excavations produced an assemblage indicative of tool

manufacture and plant processing: diagnostic projectile points, bifacial tools, debitage, 52

ground stone pieces, 200 ceramic sherds, and very few fragmentary animal bones.

Flaked Stone Tools

Stone tools and debitage were analyzed from Lodge 10, 13, 16, 19, 21, 22, 26, 28,

49, SS, and W (Figure 2.2) (Losey 2013; Trout 2015). The low density and diversity of

tools suggest that hunting and animal processing occurred but was not a focal activity at

the site. Debitage analysis revealed that both expedient core reduction and biface

reduction occurred in nearly equal proportion at the site, both dominated by very late

stage reduction and retouch. Retouch flakes average about 45 percent of the total

8

debitage. Over 95 percent of the debitage is made from locally available chert with the

remaining five percent made of quartzite and extralocal obsidian and basalt (Trout 2015).

Edge modified flakes (n=61) all exhibit evidence of use for scraping. Bifaces and

edge modified flakes are mostly late stage reduction and show minimal variability in

material type or function, with over 86 percent made on local chert (Trout 2015).

Of the 69 bifaces, two are drills, one is a graver and 47 are stage four or five

bifaces (per Andrefsky 2005:187-188). Of the late stage bifaces 22 are diagnostic

projectile points, either Rosegate or corner-notched points dating roughly to the Medieval

Climatic Anomaly (MCA) or side-notched or tri-notched points dating to the Little Ice

Age (LIA) (Losey 2013, Trout 2015). All lodges contain bifaces with the exception of

Lodge 28. The bifaces are predominantly made from local chert and 91 percent are

broken. Only two expedient cores were recovered from the site. The lack of cores and

quantity of late stage core reduction debitage indicates that core reduction rarely took

place on-site (Trout 2015).

The majority of obsidian artifacts from the site were retouch and pressure flakes

indicating that most of the obsidian found on site arrived as finished tools. Obsidian

hydration and XRF sourcing of a 137 obsidian artifacts from the site demonstrate that the

majority (62 percent) of the obsidian found on site came from the Jackson Hole region

(Teton Pass and Crescent H) with distant but high quality obsidian from Obsidian Cliff

compromising 24 percent of the total assemblage (Morgan et al. 2016).

9

Subsistence Remains

The ground stone found on the site is made from either local quartzite or non-

local basalt. Handstones tend to be well formed and made from the non-local basalt

while millingslabs show less formal shaping and use and are made from the local

quartzite found throughout the area. Each lodge contains at least one ground stone

artifact if not more, indicating grinding was an important activity at High Rise Village.

Flotation samples were taken from several of the hearth features within the lodges;

however, no plant remains were recovered (Losey 2013; Morgan et al. 2012a). The

failure to identify any plant remains left determining the use of the ground stone tools all

the more problematic. Faunal remains are scarce and highly fragmented possibly due to

taphonomic issues. The few identifiable fragments likely represent artiodactyls like

mountain sheep (Ovis canadensis) and marmot (Marmota flaviventris). The small

number of animal bones, formal tools and finished bifaces may indicate animal

processing and even hunting was not a primary focus at the site (Losey 2013).

Chronology

Twenty five radiocarbon dates were obtained for HRV (Adams 2010; Morgan et

al. 2012a; 2016) (Table 2.1) with date ranges from 4010 ± 25 to 130 ± 40 rcy B.P. The

most recent dates have been rejected due to issues with context and the earliest dates are

in question because they may represent an old wood problem (sensu Schiffer 1986).

Dendrochronological assays from the vicinity of the site indicate that downed wood can

survive in the area more than seven centuries and thus wood burned in campfires on site

could have been much older than when the campfire was actually constructed. Lacking

10

in the subsurface site deposit at HRV are any diagnostic points from the Middle Archaic

and the lodge that produced the oldest dates, Lodge 16, only contains Rosegate projectile

points which date from 1500 to 900 cal B.P. on the Plains (Kornfeld et al. 2010) and 1500

to 600 cal B.P. in the mountains (Larson and Kornfeld 1994). Because of this, it seems

likely that the oldest dates are outliers and have thus been rejected. The remaining dates

indicate sporadic use between 2800 to 850 cal B.P. with the most intensive use between

2300 and 850 cal B.P. (Morgan et al. 2016).

Table 2.1. Calibrated Radiocarbon Dates from High Rise Village. Adapted from Morgan

et al. 2016

Lab Lab

Number Material Context Provenience a Radiocarbon

age

Calibrated

Date b

UGAMS 13690 Charcoal Charcoal

Lens Lodge 8 1460 ± 20 1360 ± 30

UGAMS 13689 Charcoal Hearth Lodge 13 3990 ± 25 4470 ± 40

UGAMS 13681 Charcoal Hearth Lodge 13 1380 ± 25 1310 ± 20

UGAMS 3 9756 Charcoal Hearth Lodge 16 4010 ± 25 4480 ± 40


Smear Lodge 19 1590 ± 20 1480 ± 40


Smear Lodge 19 1150 ± 20 1070 ± 50



a) Table only includes the lodges discussed in this study (see Morgan et al. 2016).

b) Dates calibrated using CalPal 2007 (Weninger et al. 2015) and the Hulu calibration curve

(Weninger and Jöris 2008).

Environmental Context

High Rise Village is located in the Wind River Mountain Range of western

Wyoming (Figure 2.1) between 3320 and 3325 meters AMSL (10,560-10,880 ft) on a 23

11

degree, south facing slope (Morgan et al. 2012a). The core of the mountain range is

plutonic in origin with meta-sedimentary rocks ringing the core with quartzite making up

the majority of the rock found on site (Morgan et al. 2014a). The site is located at the

edge of the sub-alpine ecotone and the alpine tundra ecotone. These two ecotones are

characterized by numerous edible plants species specifically: whitebark pine, huckleberry

(Vaccinium scoparium), currants (Ribes spp.), sego lily (Calochortus spp.), biscuitroot

(Lomatium spp.) bitterroot (Lewisia rediviva), and chenopods (Chenopodium spp.)

(Adams 2010; Reed 1976). Animals found in this ecotone are several mammal species

traditionally targeted by the regions hunter-gatherers: bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis),

elk (Cervus elephas), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), yellow-bellied marmot

(Marmota flaviventris), and snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) (Frison 2004; Kornfeld et

al. 2010; Reed 1976).

Analysis of remnant tree snags and stumps above modern treeline in the vicinity

of High Rise Village revealed that during the main occupation of the site (2300-850 cal

B.P.) the whitebark treeline was over 100 meters higher than at present, completely

encompassing the site boundaries within the subalpine whitebark pine zone (Losey 2013;

Morgan et al. 2012a; Morgan et al. 2014a).

Western Wyoming Paleoenvironmental Record

In the Late Holocene there were three main fluctuations in temperature and

moisture regimes throughout the Great Basin and Rocky Mountain regions: the Late

Holocene Dry Period 2800-1850 B.P. (Mensing et al. 2013), the Medieval Climatic

Anomaly (MCA) 1150-550 B.P. (Hughes and Diaz 1994; LaMarche 1974), and the Little

12

Ice Age (LIA) 550-100 B.P. (Mann 2002; LaMarche 1974). These three main

fluctuations however, are marked by considerable geographic and temporal variability.

In the Rocky Mountain Region pollen records indicate cooler and wetter

conditions after 5200 B.P with lowered treeline followed by an advance to modern

treeline and climate after 3000 B.P. (Mensing et al. 2012). In the Wyoming Region

before 4500 B.P. conditions were dry, treelines were lower, dune activity increased, and

drought tolerant species such as juniper moved into the area (Whitlock et al. 2002). After

4500 B.P. conditions cooled and precipitation increased. Glaciers became active in the

highest elevations, tree-lines moved upwards, dunes stabilized and juniper expansion

stopped (Eckerle 1997). This episode of cool and wet was followed by another dry

period starting around 1800 B.P. when dune activity increased, glaciers receded or

disappeared, and forest fire frequency increased. However, alpine treelines expanded and

stabilized due to warmer and longer alpine growing seasons (Losey 2013). This

corresponds with the tail end of the Late Holocene Dry Period, which was the longest

persistent dry period during the late Holocene in the Great Basin and Bonneville Basin,

though it is as-yet unclear the extent and expression of this phenomenon across the region

(Mensing et al. 2013).

Between 1100-650 B.P. multidecadal climatic variability took place in the Rocky

Mountain Region during the MCA (Whitlock et al. 2002). Increased temperature and

arguably increased moisture at higher elevations led to a whitebark treeline advance on

Union Peak in the Wind River Range between 1800 and 800 B.P., during the main period

of occupation at HRV (Morgan et al. 2014a). The death of the trees came about 200

years before the LIA, and may have been caused by a regional ‘mega drought’ at the end

13

of the MCA, 820-780 B.P. (Cook et al. 2010; Morgan et al. 2014a). Temperatures were

higher and precipitation was more stable and predictable (relative to the succeeding Little

Ice Age) during this interval which may have resulted in more predictable resource

productivity at high altitudes, in contrast to drier less favorable low-elevation settings

(Losey 2013).

Around 550-100 B.P., during the LIA, conditions became cooler and wetter

though also more variable than the preceding MCA. This cooling resulted in shortened

growing seasons and cooler summers. In the alpine zone, cooler summers meant

resource depletion. Tree ring evidence also points to severe winters during this time

period. Frequent changes in precipitation and temperature would have had an adverse

effect on pine nut production, and would have arguably made predictable pine nut

harvests less likely (Campell and McAndrews 1993; Mann 2002).

Western Wyoming Culture History

For the Late Holocene (i.e., after 5000 cal B.P.) Metcalfe (1987), denotes six

cultural phases spanning the Early Archaic through the Late Prehistoric for the Wyoming

Basin: (1) the Green River Phase, (2) the McKean Technocomplex, (3) the Pine Spring

Phase, (4) the Deadman Wash Phase, (5) Uinta Phase, and the (6) Firehole Phase.

Kornfeld et al. (2010) distinguish between the Early, Middle and Late Archaic, Late

Prehistoric, and the Protohistoric Periods for the northwestern Plains and Rocky

Mountains. These two chronologies are applied to the Wind River Range and are

summarized in Table 2.2.

14

Table 2.2. Northwestern Plains and Wyoming Basin Chronologies

Years

B.P.

Northwestern Plains

(Kornfeld et al. 2010) Wyoming Basin

(Metcalfe 1987) Phases

Historic

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Late Prehistoric Late Prehistoric

Firehole

Uinta

Late Plains Archaic

Late Archaic

Deadman

Wash

Middle Plains Archaic

Pine Spring

Early Archaic

Green River

Early Plains Archaic

Great Divide

15

The Early Archaic

The Green River Phase dates between 5800-4300 years before present. This

phase is characterized by medium sized triangular side-notched points and a spike in

radiocarbon date frequencies indicating an increase in population density followed by a

short decline in populations (Kelly et al. 2013; Metcalfe 1987). In the nearby Wyoming

Basin, this time period marks a shift to a more diverse diet with an emphasis on plant

resources and specifically root processing. During this phase housepits are widely used

with slab lined storage features and small roasting pits and sites appear to be intensively

used and repeatedly used (Metcalfe 1987; Smith and McNees 2011).

The Middle Archaic

The beginning of the Middle Archaic is marked by the McKean Technocomplex

(5000-3000 B.P.). This complex is more common on the Plains and not as common in

the Wyoming Basin, which accounts in part for the overlap in dating terminology and

timespans between the Early, Middle and Late Archaic. The McKean Complex is

marked by three styles of long lanceolate points with either concave bases or high side

notches. Around 4500 B.P. there was a peak in population accompanied by wetter

climatic conditions (Kelly et al. 2013). This period marks a return to a focus on large

game hunting, specifically of bison, as well as a continued reliance on plant processing

evidenced by an increase in roasting features in the archaeological record (Bender and

Wright 1988; Metcalfe 1987). There is evidence in the Wyoming Basin of an increase in

habitation features containing slab lined storage and roasting pits indicating long-term,

repeated use of the area by hunter-gatherers that represents ties particular patches of

16

resources, specifically roots (Francis 2000; Smith and McNees 1999). This occurred

between about 5000-2800 B.P. with the peak of use of these sites around 4000-3500 B.P.

as populations were diminishing due to a period of increased aridity (Kelly et al. 2013;

Smith and McNees 1999).

The Late Archaic

The Late Archaic is divided into two phases. The first, the Pine Spring Phase

dates from 4600-2800 cal B.P., and is characterized by low populations, sporadic

occupation and a narrowing of the diet to mountain sheep and small game and a

decreased reliance on plant resources (Kelly et al. 2013; Metcalfe 1987; Smith and

McNees 2011). Medium sized dart points, either stemmed or corner notched, similar to

Elko series dart points from the Great Basin, become more common during this phase.

The second phase is known as the Deadman Wash Phase from 2800 to 1800 cal B.P.

(Metcalfe 1987), and is marked by a continued decline in radiocarbon date frequency

followed by a small increase around 2600 cal B.P. (Kelly et al. 2013).

The Late Prehistoric Period

This period is marked by a dramatic increase in radiocarbon date frequencies

corresponding with the introduction of the bow and arrow as well as pottery into the

region between 1500 and 1200 B.P. followed by a dramatic decline starting around 1000

B.P. (Kornfeld et al. 2010; Metcalfe 1987). The Late Prehistoric Period is subdivided

into the Uinta Phase from 1800 to 900 cal B.P. and the Firehole Phase from 1000 cal B.P.

to 250 cal B.P. In the Uinta Phase, Rose Spring points dominate tool assemblages and

17

ground stone and pottery are increasingly more common. However, bison and prong

horn kill sites are found dating to this phase as well, indicating a continued emphasis on

large game procurement (Metcalfe 1987). During this time in the Wind River Basin there

is an increase in house-pit construction and pit-oven construction indicating a broadening

of the diet to include plant, and specifically bulb resources (Smith et al 2001). The

Firehole Phase is marked by a steep decline in radiocarbon dates and the Rose Spring

points are replaced by small side-notched and tri-notched points (Metcalfe 1987). During

the Firehole Phase there is an increased focus on game and a shift away from plant

recourses. The end of this phase is marked by contact and trade of Euromerican goods

such as horses and firearms.

Historic Period

The Eastern Shoshone are thought to have inhabited western Wyoming since at

least 500 B.P. and possibly much earlier (Shimkin 1986). Initially Eastern Shoshone

lifeways reflected those of their Great Basin counterparts with the exception of the

adoption of bison hunting on the High-Plains and the introduction of the horse. The

Eastern Shoshone had a population between 1500-3000 people with three to five bands

dispersing in the winter months and early spring. Their diet was dominated by buffalo

which was hunted for short time periods in both the spring and fall. For plant species the

forests and high plans were important harvesting grounds for both berry and root

resources, with seeds playing a minor role in group subsistence. Berries were eaten raw

or pounded with meat to make pemmican, and roots were roasted in ovens for immediate

consumption and storage for winter (Shimkin 1986).

18

Within the Eastern Shoshone, the Shoshone of the Rocky Mountain region were a

band known as the Tukudeka or “Sheepeater” Shoshone (Shimkin 1999). The Sheepeater

Shoshone inhabited the Wind River Mountains and the mountains of northwestern

Wyoming and spent the summers in the Green River Basin as well as in the Yellowstone

National Park region. This group of Shoshone never adopted the horse and focused part

of their subsistence activities in the alpine environments. They moved in small family

groups following game animals and plants through the high alpine pastures throughout

the summer season (Shimkin 1999).

White Mountain Village Sites

Site Context

The White Mountain Village sites are located in the White Mountains of

southeastern California between 3150 m and 3854 m AMSL (10,350 ft-12,645 ft)

(Figure 2.3) (Bettinger 1991). Rock ringed structural foundations, considerable midden

development, and large quantities of ground stone and flaked stone tools indicate diverse

plant and animal processing and long-term residential occupations. These village sites

contrast with more typical high mountain sites, features, and isolates found in the range

which consist of hunting blinds, projectile points, and lithic scatters.

19

Archaeological Findings

Extensive survey of the alpine zone identified village sites, hunting blinds, and

sparse lithic scatters. Village sites, recognized by the presence of large multi-course

stone ring foundations of pole-and thatch houses, were the focus of excavations

(Bettinger 1991). In total, 12 village sites were excavated. Deposits within structures

and middens located outside of structures were sampled in 11 of the 12 sites. Village

sites contain a wide diversity of tools: bifaces and projectile points, plant processing tools

such as millingslabs and handstones, as well as battered cobbles, drills, cores, and

expedient flake tool debris (Bettinger 1991).

Hunting blinds occur in high frequencies within the alpine zone, some of which

are found within the boundaries of the village sites. Bettinger (1991) determined through

radiocarbon dating of features and lichenometry on rock ring structures that the two types

of features were not related and differ significantly in age and occupational intensity,

with hunting blinds used earlier in time and villages used later in time (Bettinger and

Oglesby 1985). Faunal analysis from the village sites indicates a focus on large

mammals, primarily artiodactyls in pre village times with a shift to a focus on marmot

and a continued use of large mammals during village times (Grayson 1991).

Ground stone from six of the White Mountain Village sites was analyzed for this

study; Rancho Deluxe, Crooked Forks, Corral Camp South, Gate Meadows, Raven

Camp, and Midway Village. Summary and site descriptions follow below.

20

Figure 2.3. White Mountain Village Sites

CA-MNO-2198: Rancho Deluxe

This site is located at 3571 m AMSL (11,715 ft) on a small ridgeline that faces

south. The site contains eight rock ringed structures with well-developed midden soils

and large quantities of ground stone (over 200 collected during excavation), with several

large millingslab features. Artifacts collected during excavation include more than 300

battered cobbles, almost 1000 projectile points, over 1300 bifaces, and 21 pieces of

worked bone (Bettinger 1991). Six radiocarbon dates were obtained from two of the rock

21

ring features and midden deposits with a date range between 1430-200 cal B.P. (Bettinger

1991).

CA-MNO-2191: Crooked Forks

The Crooked Forks village site is located at 3150 m AMSL (10,335 ft) along the

southeast side of Crooked Creek. The site contains three rock ring structures.

Excavations recovered 140 ground stone pieces, 600 battered cobbles, 1700 projectile

points, 1600 bifaces, and 134 pieces of worked bone. Six dates were obtained from two

of the rock ring features ranging between 1690-170 cal B.P. (Bettinger 1991).

CA-MNO-2194: Corral Camp South

This site is located at an elevation of 3364 m AMSL (11,036 ft) on the south side

of Cottonwood Creek. The site contains ten rock ring structures and midden soils.

Excavations resulted in the collection of 130 ground stone pieces, 68 battered cobbles,

280 projectile points, 260 bifaces, and 45 pieces of worked bone. Three dates were

obtained, all from structure five, they range from 1130-410 cal B.P. (Bettinger 1991).

Gate Meadows

Gate Meadows is a dispersed lithic scatter containing several ground stone

millingslabs and no rock ring features. The site is located on a saddle at an elevation of

3556 m AMSL (11,690 ft) just to the west of Rancho Deluxe in a low meadow of

bitterroot plants. The site was not excavated but surface collections include one ground

stone piece tested for this study.

22

CA-MON-2193: Raven Camp

Raven Camp is a small village site located up the drainage (to the south) of Corral

Camp South at an elevation of 3468 m AMSL (11,377 ft). The site contains one large

rock ring structure. Excavations of the site recovered 30 ground stone pieces, 45 battered

cobbles, 320 projectile points, 400 bifaces and 55 worked pieces of bone. Three

radiocarbon dates were obtained from the site. They range from 2610-280 cal B.P.

(Bettinger 1991).

CA-MNO-2196: Midway Village

Midway Village is the largest of the White Mountain Village sites. The site is on

the south side of Cottonwood Creek between Rancho Deluxe and Corral Camp North and

South. The site is located at an elevation of 3437 m AMSL (11,276 ft). The site has ten

rock ring structures and well developed midden soils. Excavations uncovered 150 pieces

of ground stone, 100 battered cobbles, 1700 projectile points, 2200 bifaces, 36 cores, and

22 pieces of worked bone. Six radiocarbon dates were obtained from two of the features

and from the midden soils ranging between 2430-310 cal B.P. (Bettinger 1991).

Chronology of the White Mountain Sites

Thirty-six radiocarbon assays were obtained from rock-ring features, 20 of which

were deemed reliable (Table 2.3). The dates cluster at 525-500 B.P., 460 B.P., and 310-

285 B.P. (Bettinger 1991). Lichenometric dating was also used to date rock-rings

foundations, all of which appear to postdate 1350 B.P. (Bettinger and Oglesby 1985).

Village sites contain primarily Rosegate points, dated from 1350 to 700 B.P., and Desert

23

Side-notched and Cottonwood points, dated from 700 B.P. to historic times (Garfinkel

2010; Thomas 1981). This contrasts with the hunting features which primarily contain

Little Lake and Elko series projectile points, which have been dated at other Great Basin

sites to 3200-1400 B.P. and 1350-700 B.P. (Thomas 1981). These differences suggest

that while both hunting features and villages may have been utilized throughout the

period between 3200 and 700 B.P., village sites were utilized more intensively after 700

B.P. while hunting blinds were used more intensively prior to 700 B.P. (Bettinger 1991).

24

Table 2.3. Calibrated Radiocarbon Dates from The White Mountain Village Sites

Adapted from Bettinger 1991

Lab Number Material Context Provenience a Radiocarbon age Calibrated Date b

UCR-2290 Artemisia Structure 5 Rancho Deluxe 210 ± 50 200 ±120

UCR-2192 Artemisia Structure 3 Rancho Deluxe 350 ± 60 410 ± 70


UCR-2348 Artemisia Rancho Deluxe 870 ± 70 820 ± 80


UCR-2351 Artemisia Rancho Deluxe 1510 ± 60 1430 ±70

UCR-2173 Artemisia Structure 2 Crooked Forks 160 ± 60 170 ±110

UCR-2178 Artemisia Structure 3 Crooked Forks 250 ± 60 290 ± 130

UCR-2180 Pinus Structure 3 Crooked Forks 490 ± 100 510 ± 110



UCR-2363 Artemisia Crooked Forks 1755 ± 100 1690 ± 120

UCR-2352 Artemisia Structure 5 Corral Camp South 360 ± 100 410 ± 90

UCR-2187 Pinus Corral Camp South 830 ± 60 790 ± 70

UCR-2278 Artemisia Corral Camp South 1190 ± 70 1130 ± 90

UCR-2358 Artemisia Raven Camp 2530 ± 60 2610 ± 110

UCR-2276 Artemisia Structure 2 Raven Camp 250 ± 100 280 ± 160

UCR-2195 Pinus Raven Camp 1240 ± 60 1180 ± 80

UCR-2283 Artemisia Structure 8 Midway Village 260 ± 50 310 ± 120



UCR-2182 Artemisia Midway Village 450 ± 100 470 ± 100



a) Table only includes the sites discussed in this study (see Bettinger 1991).

b) Dates calibrated using CalPal 2007 (Weninger et al. 2015) and the Hulu calibration curve

(Weninger and Jöris 2008)

Subsistence Remains:

Faunal Assemblage: Over 700,000 highly fragmented mammal bones were

collected from the excavated village sites and roughly 6000 could be identified to species.

By far the most abundant species identified was marmot (Marmota flaviventris) with over

25

2800 NISP, followed by mountain sheep (Ovis canadensis), squirrel (Spermophilus

sp.)(most likely some bones are not cultural in origin), and cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus

sp.) (Grayson 1991). The difference between pre-village and village-aged deposits show

an increase in species diversity through time; however, Grayson believes that this

increase is due to higher bone fragmentation in the pre village sites leading to less

taxonomic identification (Grayson 1991). The most notable change in taxa representation

is a 50 percent increase in marmot bones from pre-village to village times (Grayson

1991). Grayson notes that cut marks on the marmot bones suggest that the fur of the

animals was being removed. Grayson interprets the faunal data as representing a

continuum of large mammal exploitation with a widening diet breadth that incorporates

more small mammals, particularly marmot, and intensive plant processing into the diet

through time.

Botanical remains: Flotation samples taken from Midway Village, the largest and

longest occupied village in the White Mountains, were analyzed by Scharf (2009).

Pinyon (Pinus monophylla), goosefoot (Chenepodium spp.), and ricegrass (Achnatherum

hymenoides) were the most common taxa in both the village (N= 649) and pre-village

assemblages (N= 49). Pre-village sites and village sites have no significant difference in

taxonomic richness or diversity. Village samples contained more seeds overall than do

pre-village samples, and large seeds are overrepresented in the later contexts (with

pinyon driving that trend). Pinyon and ricegrass grow at elevations well below 3100 m,

the average elevation for the alpine sites, suggesting that groups transported lower-

elevation resources to higher elevations, likely in small quantities. Also, limber pine

grows in abundance at the elevation of the alpine sites but it appears it was not harvested

26

(Scharf 2009). According to this analysis, at least at the Midway Village site alpine

plants were not used to any great extent (Scharf 2009).

Interpretation

Bettinger (1991) argues that the pre-village White Mountain sites represent

typical alpine land use by hunter-gatherers in the Great Basin: logistical hunting parties

passed through the area to procure large game and left behind few tools and scant

residential features. In contrast, the village sites represent a shift in subsistence practices

with a focus on low-ranked alpine resource processing where whole families moved to

the alpine zone from early summer to fall to hunt marmot and collect some alpine plants,

while using low elevation resources to supplement their diet.

Environmental Context

The White Mountain village sites are located in the White-Inyo Mountains of

southeastern California. The White-Inyo Mountains are the western most range within the

Basin and Range physiographic province. The range is an uplifted, east-tilted block with

a large steep escarpment on both its western and eastern sides (Nelson et al. 1991). The

mountain range is quite high, between 3000 m AMSL (9800 ft) to over 4342 m AMSL

(14,245 ft) at White Mountain Peak (Spira 1991), with the village sites located between

3130 m and 3854 m AMSL (10,269 ft and 12,614 ft) (Bettinger 1991). The vegetation of

the White Mountains covers four major vegetation zones: the desert scrub zone found

below treeline (1219-1981 m, or 4000-6500 ft) which is dominated by shadscale (Artiplex

sp.), rabbit brush (Chysothamus latifolius), and sage brush (Artemisia tridentata); the

27

pinyon-juniper woodland (1981-2896 m or 6500-9500 ft) which is characterized by

pinyon pine (Pinus monophylla); the subalpine forest (2896-3505 m or 9500-11,500 ft)

characterized by both bristle cone pine (Pinus longaeva), and limber pine (Pinus flexilis);

and the above-treeline alpine tundra zone (3505-4342 m or 11,500-14,246 ft) (Spira

1991).

The village sites are all located within the alpine tundra zone. Plant growth in this

zone is sparse, with plant cover averaging about 10 percent of the total ground cover

(Lloyd and Mitchell 1973). Common plant species are dwarf sagebrush (Artemisia

arbuscular), fell-field buckwheat (Eriogonum ovalifolium), Cushion phlox (Phlox

condensata) blue flax (Linum lewisii), Mono clover (Trifolium monoens), fleabane

(Erigeron vagus), bitterroot (Lewisis pygmaea), and Labrador tea (Ledum sp.) (Lloyd and

Mitchell 1973; Spira 1991). A common characteristic of these alpine plants is that they

have more of their biomass stored underground than above ground in a well-developed

root and rhizome systems allowing them to store energy through the cold winter and are

thus a good source of nutrients for hunter-gatherers (Spira 1991). Common animal

species hunted by prehistoric groups in the White Mountain alpine zone include yellow-

bellied marmot (Marmota flaviventris), pika (Ochotona princeps) and mountain sheep

(Ovis canadensis) (Carey and Wehausen 1991).

Also of importance to the alpine villages of the White Mountains are the plants

and animals of the subalpine forest. Common edible plants found in this zone are three

species of pine that produce edible nuts: pinyon, limber, and bristlecone, as well as

grasses such as Indian rice-grass (Achnatherum hymenoides) and wild-rye (Elymus

cinereus) (Spira 1991). Sub-alpine zone mammals include mule deer (Odocoileus

28

hemionus) jack rabbit (Lepus californicus) and white-tailed hare (Lepus townsendii)

(Carey and Wehausen 1991).

Great Basin and Owens Valley Paleoenvironmental Record

Though its expression towards the south is as-yet somewhat unclear, in the Great

Basin the Late Holocene Dry Period (2800 to 1850 cal B.P.) was the longest persistent

dry period within the Holocene (Mensing et al. 2013). In the western Great Basin,

Pyramid Lake, Walker Lake, and Mono Lake all experienced significantly lowered levels

beginning around 2000 B.P. Increases in cheno-am pollen around these lakes indicate

dry conditions with significantly lower shorelines allowing for colonization by saltbrush

(Grayson 2011; Mensing et al. 2004). In the Sierra Nevada, Fallen Leaf Lake also shows

evidence for shoreline retreat between 2320-1620 B.P. (Mensing et al. 2013). In the

White Mountains tree-line moved as much as 30 meters downslope between 2800 and

2500 B.P. which indicates warmer and dryer temperatures (LaMarche 1974; Mensing et

al. 2013). In the central Great Basin an interval of alluvial fan building took place

between 2600 and 1850 B.P. triggered by increased run off from shifts in vegetation in

upland areas due to drought (Mensing et al. 2013). In the east, Lake Bonneville may

have experienced a high stand sometime around 3400 B.P. and then began to drop from

2600 to 1850 or possibly even as late as 1600 B.P. (Mensing et al. 2013). The Snake

Range experienced an upward advance of the treeline between 4400 and 2200 B.P. which

indicates a drier and warmer period in that region (Grayson 2011; Mensing et al. 2013).

The next effective period of climatic variability was the Medieval Climatic

Anomaly 1150-550 B.P. In the Great Basin this period was marked by warmer, arid

29

conditions that affected lake levels and treelines in the alpine setting. In the White

Mountains, between 1076-701 B.P. occurred one of eight most intensive droughts in the

last 8000 year record in the region punctuated by a significant wet interval (Grayson

2011). In the southern Sierra Nevada range near Owens Valley, trees thrived between

1185 and 650 B.P. due to an annual maximum temperatures of five degrees Fahrenheit

higher than at present (Grayson 2011). In the central and northern Sierra Nevada, now-

submerged tree stumps indicate substantial droughts ca. 800 and 600 cal B.P. (Kleppe et

al. 2011; Lindström 1990; Morgan and Pomerleau 2012; Stine 1994).

White Mountains and Owens Valley Culture History

Bettinger and Taylor (1974) delineate five cultural time periods for the desert

region of California and the western Great Basin: the Mojave, Little Lake, Newberry,

Haiwaee, and Marana periods. Alternatively, Warren and Crabtree (1972) delineate five

periods with different names; Lake Mojave, Pinto, Gypsum, Saratoga Springs, and

Shoshonean. A similar sequence was developed by Bettinger (1976) specifically for

Owen’s Valley divided into the Klondike, Baker, Cowhorn, and Clyde phases. Of

importance to the cultural history of the White Mountain Village sites are only the last

three periods which will be discussed below and are summarized in Table 2.4 using

Bettinger and Taylor’s (1974) general chronology.

30

Table 2.4. Western Great Basin and Owens Valley Chronologies

Years B.P. California Desert

(Bettinger and Taylor 1974)

Western Great Basin

(Warren and Crabtree

1972)

Owens Valley

Bettinger (1976)

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2800

3000

3200

3400

3600

Historic Historic Historic

Marana Period Shoshonean Period V Klondike Phase

Haiwee Period Saratoga Springs Period IV

Baker Phase

Cowhorn Phase

Newberry Period Gypsum Period III

31

Western Great Basin: Newberry (4000 B.P.-1500 B.P.)

The Newberry Period is characterized by highly mobile hunter-gatherers who

moved in a north to south annual round focusing on large game hunting using atlatls. It is

also marked by a shift in plant exploitation from the riverine ecotone to plants in the

desert scrub ecotone (Bettinger 1977; Bettinger and Taylor 1974; Warren 1984). This

period is marked by the presence of Humboldt concave base, Elko eared, Elko corner-

notched, and Gypsum projectile points. Millingslab use was common and mortars and

pestles begin to appear in assemblages during this time period. Olivella and abalone

beads are first traded into the region from the coast. During the Late Newberry Period

(ca. 2000-1500 B.P.) split twig figurines depicting large mammals as well as an increase

in rock art depicting mountain sheep, deer, and rabbit appear to indicate an increase in the

importance of ritual based around hunting (Warren 1984). This time period also saw a

large increase in the use of obsidian (Bettinger 1980).

Western Great Basin: Haiwee Period (ca. 1500-600 B.P.)

This time period was marked by cultural continuity in artifact types, such as the

use of millingslabs and mortar and pestles, as well as continuity in rock art depictions and

trade goods. This time period corresponds with the Basketmaker III period in the

Southwest and influences and trade were felt along the edges of the southwestern Great

Basin (Warren 1984). Two important shifts took place in this time period: one was a

technological shift from large dart points to Rose Spring and Eastgate arrow points (or

Rosegate per Thomas 1981); the other was pinyon pine nut exploitation marked by the

appearance of pinyon camps in the archaeological record and a decrease in the

importance of large game hunting after 2000 B.P. (Bettinger 1977).

32

Western Great Basin: Marana Period (600 B.P.-historic)

This time period is characterized by Desert Side-notched and Cottonwood

triangular projectile points as well as Shoshonean or brown ware pottery (Eerkens 2003;

Warren 1984). This time period saw a decrease in mobility with semi-sedentary villages

and an increased focus on plant food production, especially small seed processing using

ground stone and pottery.

This time period, some would argue (Bettinger and Baumhoff 1982), marks a

cultural shift from the proceeding Haiwee period with the spread of Numic language

speaking populations northward and westward into the Great Basin and Rocky Mountain

region (Lamb 1958; Sutton 1994). Bettinger and Baumhoff (1982) suggest that shifts in

rock art styles from animals to geometric shapes, the advent of intensive green cone

pinyon exploitation, and the use of alpine villages, indicate a cultural shift occurring

during the Marana Period attributed to Numic-speaking groups entering the region

(Bettinger 1977; Delacort 1995).

Historic Period

By historic times much of the western and southern Great Basin region was

occupied by Numic speaking groups. In the Owens Valley several Paiute bands lived in

sedentary villages on the valley floor. Large permanent villages were occupied year-

round in Owens Valley, though logistical hunting and gathering trips and the yearly

pinyon harvest also occurred. There was a small degree of territoriality, with villages or

several villages organized into districts that controlled land, seed crops, irrigation ditches

and hunting and fishing grounds (Steward 1933). Population was estimated to be roughly

33

2.5 persons per square mile based on early Indian Service survey records and Steward’s

own estimations (Steward 1933).

The settlement patterns of the Owens Valley Piute were restricted to a 15 to 20-

mile radius from their villages on the valley floor, with foot hill and mountain foraging

areas for pinyon and seed harvesting, as well as hunting and fishing grounds (Steward

1933). Summer was spent on the valley floor and seed gathering and fishing were the

primary activities. In the fall, people would gather for communal rabbit drives and

feasting, and in the winter groups would disperse to winter camps in the mountains to

harvest pine nuts which they brought to villages in the valley in the spring. According to

Steward’s (1933; 1938) accounts, pinyon nuts and small seeds were the most important

plant species, however, the Owens Valley Paiute cultivated several wild species: spike

rush (Eleocharis), a type of lily (Brodiaea), a type of sunflower (Helianthus), and

goosefoot (Chenopodium) with crude irrigation ditches constructed on the alluvial fans

debouching from the sierra Nevada (Lawton et al. 1976; Steward 1933). This small scale

irrigation of wild plants is believed to predate Euro-American contact but it is unclear

when it actual began (Bouey 1979; Lawton et al. 1976). This small scale irrigation of

several root and seed bearing species indicates that roots were also included in the diet

even if Steward does not place much emphasis on these resources in his ethnographic

accounts.

34

Environmental and Culture History Comparisons

The cultural and environmental history of the Late Holocene in the Intermountain

West has undergone several reorganizations, both in demography, technologic shifts, and

reactions to changing environmental conditions

In the Wyoming Basin and the Rocky Mountain region the Middle Archaic saw

relatively low population densities, marked by low radiocarbon date frequencies with

mobile groups who constructed pit houses and slab lined storage pit and roasting features

(Francis 2000; Smith and McNees 1999). These sites show evidence of repeated and

long term use indicating that hunter-gatherers may have had strong ties to the landscape

and particular patches of resources, specifically roots (Smith and McNees 1999). There

is also evidence in the archaeological record of a broad diet and an intensive use of small

game and plant resources, possibly indicating resource depression (Kornfeld et al. 2010).

This pattern of site use peaked around 4000-3500 B.P. During this time, conditions were

initially dry and warm with lower treelines and increased expansion of drought tolerant

species such as juniper, yet after 4500 B.P. climate conditions cooled and precipitation

increased causing treelines to reach near modern levels by 3000 B.P. (Mensing et al.

2012; Whitlock et al. 2002).

In the Great Basin the picture is slightly different. Population densities were

arguably lower than the Late Archaic, with highly mobile hunter-gatherer groups moving

throughout the region. Evidence for plant processing and an expansion of the diet is

indicated by the presence of milling technologies at archaeological sites, however an

emphasis on large game hunting persisted (Byers and Broughton 2004; McGuire and

35

Hildebrandt 2005). After about 2500 B.P. residential sites with storage features become

more frequent across the Great Basin, marked by an increase in the frequency of rock

ring pinyon caches and pinyon camps (Bettinger 1999). Important to this study, a similar

pattern is seen in Owens Valley after 1,400 B.P. with large low-land village sites

associated with intentional irrigation of root fields, and pinyon caches in the mountain

zone, all indicating territorial circumscription, residential tethering, and long-term site

use (Bettinger 1977). This residential pattern corresponds with the Late Holocene Dry

Period (2800-1850 B.P.), the longest persistent dry period within the Holocene were lake

levels were significantly lower, treelines moved down slope, and drought tolerant species

dominated (Mensing et al. 2013).

During the Late Holocene, in both the Great Basin and Rocky Mountain region

population began to increase. In the Wyoming and Rocky Mountain region there is a

noticeable increase in radiocarbon dates between 1500 and 1200 B.P. followed by a

dramatic decline starting around 1000 B.P. (Kelly et al. 2013; Kornfeld et al. 2010;

Metcalfe 1987). For High Rise Village this timing is significant because intensive

occupation of the site occurred between 2300-850 cal B.P. at the peak of the population

boom and subsequently site use declined at the same time radiocarbon dates drop off in

the region (Losey 2013).

Across the Great Basin projectile point frequencies indicate a peak in population

after 1500 B.P. (Bettinger 1999). For the White Mountain villages, Owens Valley saw a

steady increase in population starting at 4000 B.P., reaching a high point around 1400 -

1000 B.P. This was accompanied by a reorganization of village settlements on the valley

36

floor (Bettinger 1991). This population increase corresponds with the beginning of

intensive alpine use in the White Mountains.

Increased temperatures had a positive effect on mountain tree populations leading

to expansion of treelines in several regions, particularly in the Wind River Range, at the

same time that High Rise Village was being used. This time of warmer and more stable

conditions (when compared to the last 600 or so years) would have favored higher

elevation species with longer growing seasons. Conversely, in the lowlands, resources

may have been adversely affected, causing streams and marshes to dry. This may have

stressed plant and animal populations, making low-land habitation and resource

exploitation more difficult. For example, more arid conditions stunted grass growth at

low elevations, which may have had an adverse effect on the ungulate populations hunted

by prehistoric groups (Lubinski 2000; Wigand and Rhode 2002). Across the

archaeological record there is widespread evidence of foragers broadening their diets to

include lower-ranked resources, and evidence for technological innovations for the

intensive procurement and processing of specific resources. This reflects a greater trend

during the Late Holocene that may be in response to the dryer and warmer climate

conditions that mark this time period (Bettinger 1999).

This increase in frequency in the number of archaeological sites, radiocarbon

dates, and projectile points, corresponds with changes in technology, specifically the

introduction of the bow and arrow, resource intensification, specifically of pinyon in the

Great Basin, and possible demographic shifts from the expansion of Numic speaking

groups across the Great Basin (Bettinger and Baumhoff 1982). The bow and arrow may

have had profound effects on social organization because single hunters could take down

37

large bodied prey without the assistance of hunting parties (Bettinger 1999). In the Great

Basin ceramic use becomes widespread, with Fremont and Puebloan influence from the

south, and the later introduction of Numic wares into the region (Bettinger 1999).

Ceramics are often cited as an indication of the importance of seed processing and

cooking (Bright et al. 2002; Eerkens 2004) and therefore, their increased frequency after

this time may indicate an importance in seeds and other low-ranked resources. Other

seed and plant harvesting and processing tools become more sophisticated and

strategically designed as well at this time; winnowing trays, basketry, and strategically

designed grinding slabs, all of which were present in the archaeological record

throughout the Holocene but increase dramatically in quantity during the Middle and Late

Archaic (Grayson 2011).

This evidence indicates a reorganization of technology to a more intensive

exploitation regime during the Late Holocene including the intensified use of the alpine

zone (Bettinger 1999). The question remains, if there was a general trend across the

Intermountain West towards intensification of both resources and site use, why is alpine

intensification only seen in a few locations and not a general pattern across the region?

This question will be addressed in the following chapters.

38

Chapter 3 Theory and Expectations

High Altitude Archaeology

The high altitude zone is defined as the area above 2500 meters AMSL (8200 ft)

and is characterized by a decrease in biotic productivity and an increase in human

metabolic requirements. Decreased biotic productivity results from a shortened growing

season, reduced effective temperature and oftentimes a lack of summer water (Benedict

2007). Increased metabolic demands are due mainly to less atmospheric oxygen (but also

cold) which causes basic metabolic rates to increase causing the body to work harder to

preform basic functions (Makinen 2007). Throughout the world, intensive and

permanent or semi-permanent human use of the alpine zone is rare and is generally

restricted to logistical hunting or stone tool procurement. Such use however, is

documented on the Tibetan Plateau, in the Andes Mountains, as well in the Sierra

Nevada, Great Basin, and central Rocky Mountain regions of North America

(Aldenderfer and Zhang 2004; Neme 2016).

High Altitude Land Use in North America

In North America, residential upland use was extremely rare (Canaday 1997) and

use of high altitudes was characterized mainly by large-game hunting, marked by sites

with hunting blinds, game drive features, and small hunting camps that date to as early as

the Early Holocene (Benedict 1992; Frison 2004). Evidence for alpine use in the Great

Basin is found in several mountain ranges and like elsewhere is mostly restricted to game

drives and logistical hunting (McGuire and Hatoff 1991; Canaday 1997). In the Sierra

39

Nevada, there is also evidence for logistical hunting at high altitudes during the Middle

and Late Holocene (Morgan 2006; Stevens 2005). Although alpine hunting is found in

the central Rocky Mountain region at the Lookingbill Site as early as 12,270 B.P.,

consistent upland use in the form of logistical hunting, game drives, and potential ritual

use is common only after about 5000 B.P. (Kornfeld et al. 2001; Benedict 1992).

In the Absaroka Range, alpine and subalpine residential use has also been

documented (Scheiber and Finley 2010). In Utah there is some evidence of high altitude

residential use in the Uinta Mountains (Knoll 2003; Nash 2012; Watkins 2000) the

Pahvant Range (Morgan et al. 2012b) and the Fishlake Plateau (Janetski 2010). These

sites appear to be seasonal residential camps occupied during the Formative Period, and

likely related to Fremont agricultural intensification.

In the Sierra Nevada there is evidence for several high altitude occupation sites.

One site located in the south central Sierra at an elevation of 2895 m AMSL (9793 ft)

contains nine rock-ringed structural foundations, a well-developed midden, and 41

bedrock mortars. While the site has not yet been excavated, the presence of Owens

Valley Brownware may indicate that the site is contemporaneous with the White

Mountain Village pattern dating from 600- 150 B.P. (Morgan 2006). The Southern Sierra

Nevada also may contain several additional high altitude residential sites. Stevens (2005)

identified at least five sites with rock ring structures, well-developed midden deposits and

ground stone, all at elevations between 3200 and 3300 m AMSL (10,498 and 10,826 ft).

Using obsidian hydration readings Stevens determined that these sites were in use after

1500 B.P. This pattern is also similar to the White Mountain Village pattern, but with

40

less intense residential use as seen by lower artifact density and slightly earlier dates

(Stevens 2005).

The two most substantial locations for alpine residential use are both found in the

Great Basin: the White Mountains village sites in California (a focus of this study) and

Alta Toquima Village in the Toquima Range of central Nevada.

At these sites, use of the alpine zone shifted over time. Small logistical groups

began using these areas primarily for bighorn sheep hunting with little long-term

residential stays. However, after 1500 B.P. in the Toquima Range and after 600 B.P. in

the White Mountains, a dramatic shift to intensive residential use replaced the previous

pattern. The Village pattern at the White Mountain sites is characterized by rock ring

structures, well developed midden soils, a wide range of flaked stone and ground stone

tools, and large quantities of mammal bone, in particular marmot bone (Bettinger 1991;

Grayson 1991). The Alta Toquima Village contains 30 rock-ringed structures, well

developed midden, over 500 ceramic sherds, 50 ground stone fragments, and over 225

diagnostic projectile points (Thomas 1982). Thomas (1994) reports 23 radiocarbon dates

for Alta Toquima Village that range from 180 to 1,750 B.P. The site is as a semi-

permanent residential site in a larger foraging system used during times of increased

aridity while the nearby Gatecliff Shelter was occupied in more mesic times (Thomas

2015). Alta Toquima has been interpreted as a camp located close enough to the limber

and pinyon forest to harvest nuts during arid times in the valleys below (Hildebrandt

2013).

A similar but less intensive residential pattern dating to between 2,300 and 850

cal B.P. is found in the Wind River Range of Wyoming. This is marked most notably at

41

High Rise Village (also a focus of this study) and several other documented, yet untested

village sites. (Adams 2010; Koenig 2010; Losey 2013; Morgan et al. 2012a; Trout 2015).

High Rise Village contains 52 lodge features, large quantities of ground stone, and low

quantities of flaked stone (primarily tool maintenance debris), weak midden soils, scant

faunal remains and no macrobotanical remains (Morgan et al. 2012a). This site has been

interpreted as a short term residential base for small forager groups working within a

larger alpine and subalpine foraging system (Trout 2015). Plant resources, specifically

whitebark pine are thought to be the resources driving this system (Adams 2010; Stirn

2014).

Integral to the discussion of high altitude occupation at these locations is which

plant resources were being targeted by their occupants. Because of the large quantities of

ground stone at each of these sites, it has been proposed (Adams 2010; Scharf 2009; Stirn

2014) that plant processing, specifically pine nut processing, was a key aspect of site use

at these alpine villages. In the White Mountains it has been suggested that transported

pinyon pine nuts were used to subsidize alpine villages (Scharf 2009; see also Watkins

2000 for a similar argument concerning maize from Utah’s Uinta Range). Flotation

samples from Midway Village confirmed this theory, containing more pine nut hulls than

any other alpine or sub-alpine resource (Scharf 2009).

In the Wind River Range researchers have for some time thought that alpine

villages were specifically occupied to target whitebark pine in the late summer to early

fall (Adams 2010; Stirn 2014), a hypotheses that on the surface seemed plausible given

that the main residential occupations of High Rise Village corresponded with an upward

advance of the whitebark treeline by over 100 m (Morgan et al. 2014a). To test this

42

hypothesis Stirn (2014) developed a predictive model for known village locations in the

Wind River Range and large whitebark pine stands and found a correlation. He then

ground-truthed his model and found 13 more small residential sites. This led him to

conclude that Wind River “village locations were targeted specifically for the optimal

procurement of pine nuts” (Stirn 2014:523).

A similar model was developed by Hildebrandt (2013) in the Toquima and

Toiyabe Ranges of central Nevada. He found that alpine villages in these ranges occur

only in areas where limber and pinyon pine groves have a large enough extent and are

easily accessible from the alpine zone. He argues that this explains the lack of village

sites in the Toiyabe Range and the presence of Alta Toquima in the Toquima Range

because at Alta Toquima large limber pine stands are near enough to subsidize its

occupants (but see Morgan et al. 2015).

While rare, this shift from low intensity logistical to intensive residential high

altitude occupation in North America may represent a shift in low land demography,

necessitating a more intensive use of the alpine zone. In this vein, there are those

(Benedict 1992; Black 1991; Walsh 2005; Wright et al. 1980) who see high altitude

resources as productive, “pulling” hunter-gatherers to the high altitude in summer and

early fall, and those (Bettinger 1991) whose see them as marginal, producing low-ranked,

high cost resources that are only exploited if “pushed” by external factors.

The “Pull” Hypothesis

To varying degrees, some researchers working in the Rocky Mountain region

hypothesize a “pull” toward the use of high altitude resources, and various terms have

43

been proposed for this cycle, including “high country adaptation” (Wright et al. 1980,

Bender and Wright 1988), the “mountain tradition” (Black 1991), and “seasonal

transhumance systems” (Benedict 1992). In general, however, these models are mostly

descriptive and argue more for how mountain environments were used as opposed to why.

Each of these models are characterized by people exploiting different elevation

ranges over the course of the year based on the variability, distribution, and abundance of

resources (Wright et al. 1980). Different elevation zones are biotically productive at

different times, a pattern termed “periodicity” by Wright et al. (1980). This variability

leads to a concentration of resources into specific altitude zones in single, short temporal

intervals, which results in small, concentrated and highly productive ecozones.

Productive elevation zones move up the mountain as the season progresses and the

snowpack recedes; thus, when the lowlands are dry in mid-summer the high elevations

are becoming productive and continue to be so throughout mid-autumn (Wright et al.

1980; Benedict 1992). Periodicity should lead to specific behavioral adaptations, leading

whole groups to sequentially exploit different elevation zones in order to maximize

returns. Thus, some form of residential mobility would be required, but may include

logistical forays from mountain base camps (Bender and Wright 1988).

Black’s (1991) model contrasts this idea slightly by viewing the mountainous

areas as a comprehensive resource system. In this way the “mountain tradition” is

differentiated from the lowland tradition. Groups will occupy the high country for the

whole year, moving between the high altitude zone in the summer and fall and the

foothill or inter-mountain valleys to overwinter, relying on stored foods from the summer

harvest (Black 1991). Black sees this system in contrast to the groups who exploit

44

lowland resources and use the uplands logistically in the summer. This model would also

require residential settlements at high altitude.

Benedict (1992) points to two separate transhumance systems, one occurring

during the Early Archaic around 5000 B.P. This was marked by seasonal movement

from lower elevations to Colorado’s Front Range in the early spring and then to spending

most of the summer and fall in the high country hunting game and collecting various

plant species. The other system was a more complex “circuit” of movement covering

over 400 km from winter camps in the Hogback region northward to the Front Range and

to North Park for gathering spring plants, and then on to the Continental Dived from the

west and back to the Front range in the fall from the east for communal hunting drives.

This patter is a Late Prehistoric phenomenon dating between 1400 and 750 B.P.

(Benedict 1992).

Bender and Wright (1988) see evidence for the high country adaptation persisting

in the Jackson Hole area of Wyoming. Black’s Mountain Tradition (1999) is seen in the

southern Rocky Mountains and Frison (1991) sees a similar pattern in western Wyoming.

Adams (2010) and more recently Morgan et al. (2016) recognize a similar mountain

pattern operating between High Rise Village, the Yellowstone Plateau and Jackson Hole,

while Benedict (1992) sees a Late Prehistoric rotary transhumance system in the

Colorado Front Range. Each model presented here may differ in the placement of alpine

resources in the settlement system, yet each argues that time-compressed and pronounced

seasonal montane and alpine biotic productivity was critical to conditioning prehistoric

transhumance and mobility patterns

45

The “Push” Hypothesis

Alternatively, some researchers view the high altitude zone as a marginal and

demanding environment. This is based on the idea that at high altitude the body has to

work harder and requires more calories to perform basic functions due to a decrease in

atmospheric oxygen (Aldenderfer 2006). High altitude alpine environments are seen as

less productive than lowland ones. Alpine environments also have greater resource

variability and unpredictability; in that snow often limits access to areas and water is

scarce (Morgan et al. 2012a). If alpine environments are as marginal as proposed, what

would draw hunter-gatherers to the uplands to exploit such marginal resources? Many

researchers (Aldenderfer 2006; Bettinger 1991; Brantingham and Xing 2006) have put

forward the idea of a “push” factor that led humans to intensively exploit high altitude

settings.

Environmental Degradation. One potential explanation along these lines is that a

change in climate led to a degradation of lowland resources “pushing” hunter-gatherers to

intensively exploit marginal areas such as the alpine zone (Bettinger 1991). The Late

Holocene is marked by paleoclimatic variability like the Late Holocene Dry Period 2800-

1850 cal B.P.(Mensing et al 2012; 2013), and the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (MCA)

1150-550 B.P., the latter corresponds with intensified use of alpine zones after 1000 B.P.

but does not account for the residential use of the White Mountains during the Little Ice

Age (550-150 B.P. ), a cooler and wetter time (LaMarche 1974), nor does it account for

the intensive residential use of the Wind River Range 2300-1150 B.P. Conversely, an

increase in temperature and moisture may have favored resources of the alpine zone,

46

causing treelines to rise and allowing longer growing seasons for plants to mature which

may be the case at High Rise Village (Stirn 2014; Morgan et al. 2014a).

Population Pressure. Bettinger (1991) hypothesizes that population pressure

from immigrating groups may have caused some hunter-gatherers to intensify high

altitude use of the White Mountains. If hunter-gatherer populations were large and

resources were at carrying capacity, hunter-gatherers may have adopted new and perhaps

more costly behaviors, such as alpine intensification, to weather lowland resource

shortfalls. If this shift allowed populations to continue to grow it may have become

incorporated into the groups’ overall seasonal procurement strategies and persisted

thereafter (Bettinger 1991).

In the various iterations of both the push and the pull scenarios, resource

procurement strategies and resource productivity are critical: the former entails behaviors

with measurable procurement and handling costs and the latter entails resources with

measurable caloric returns. Thus, evaluating push versus pull hypotheses necessitates a

basic understanding of the costs and benefits of resource procurement.

Modeling Mountain Plant-Based Subsistence

To properly understand and predict forager decisions regarding alpine plant

exploitation, specifically the choice between pine nuts or other plant resources such as

geophytes, the following factors must be considered: return rates for individual species,

storage decisions, availability, seasonality, predictability, and cultivation potential.

The diet breadth model is a basic microeconomic decision-making model used to

determine what resources should be included in the diet (MacArthur and Pianka 1966).

47

It works under the assumption that when confronted with an array of dietary choices, a

forager will select the combination of food types that maximizes energy intake per search

and handling time, the latter comprised of pursuit and processing time (Bettinger et al.

2015). This food combination is based on ranks, where the highest ranked item delivers

the most calories per handling (but not search) time with the highest ranked food always

selected upon encounter. Lower ranked foods are only added to the diet upon encounter

when search times for higher-ranked items (which would still have to be searched for)

increase to the point that taking the lower ranked item results in return rates that are equal

to or better than those of higher-ranked items. What this means is that it is the abundance

of higher-ranked items that determines whether or not the lower-ranked ones are taken

upon encounter (Bettinger et al. 2015).

The calculated return rates of the alpine nut species differ (Table 3.1). If we

assume that limber, pinyon, and whitebark pine nuts require a similar effort to process for

consumption and deliver similar nutritional benefit we can average their return rates and

get an average of 1100 kcal/hr for tree nuts. If we also average the various root species

available at high altitude, we get an average return rate of 1395 kcal/ hr. Given these

return rates, roots on average outrank nuts and would be the plant resource always taken

upon encounter. It must be noted, however, that return rates for nuts versus roots overlap

when taking into account the range of variability in these rates, meaning resource ranking

alone may not be enough to predict which resources ought to be taken in high elevation

settings. To gain a clearer picture of the actual value of the two types of resources we

need to also consider several other characteristics of these two types of resources as a

factor of their overall utility. Following in part Lepofsky and Peacock (2004) the

48

following assesses the storage potential, availability and abundance, seasonality,

predictability, and the cultivation potential of these two types of resources.

Table 3.1. Return Rates for Rocky Mountain and Great Basin Resources

Resource

Low

Return Rate

(Kcal/hr)

High

Return Rate

(kcal/hr)

Average

Return Rate

(kcal/hr)

References

Mtn. Sheep (Ovis

canadensis) 17,971 31,450 24,711 Simms 1987

Marmot (Marmot

flaviventris) 15,725 17,971 16,848 Losey 2013

Pinyon Pine (Pinus

monophylla) 841 1,404 1125

Simms 1987, Barlow and

Metcalfe 1996

Whitebark Pine

(Pinus albicaulis) 1941 (un processed) Adams 2010

Limber Pine (Pinus

flexilis)

178 hulled (5,387 un

hulled) Rhode and Rhode 2015

Biscuit root

(Cyompterus

bulbosus)

1054 1867 1461 Smith and McNees 2005

Biscuit root

(Lomatium

hendersonii)

3831 Couture et al. 1986

Biscuit root

(Lomatium cous) 1219 Couture et al. 1986

Bitterroot (Lewisia

rediviva) 1374 Couture et al. 1986

Sunflower

(Helianthus anus) 467 504 486 Simms 1987

Pickle weed

(Chenopodium) 402

Simms 1987, Barlow and

Metcalfe 1996

Storage Potential. Many researches have pointed to the value of pine nuts and

geophytes for their storability and as use as a resources for winter survival (Ames and

Marshall 1980; Steward 1938; Thoms 1989; Wandsnider and Chung 2003). It may be

that the value of pine nuts compared to geophytes can be determined by the overall return

rate delivered from caching and later consumption. To do this we would use a front-back

loading model (Bettinger 2009). This model is based on the idea that some resources

49

were stored for future use, that the cached resources vary in the amount of time required

to store, and that the resources vary in the amount of time required to process for

consumption. Resources that are easy to store but require large time investments for

consumption are called back-loaded resources, while resources that require large time

investment up front for storage preparation but require little time for consumption are

labeled front-loaded resources (Bettinger 2009). The decision to store one resource over

the other depends on the amount of time required in storage and consumption of each

resource as well as the probability the cache will in fact be used (Bettinger 2009).

Pine nut harvesting requires investment in cone collecting and the construction of

storage cairns, however, the bulk of the effort is in the separation of the nuts from the

cones and the removal of the hull prior to consumption, and the roasting and or milling of

the nuts (Bettinger 2009). Geophytes on the other hand require effort to harvest but

require a large amount of preparation time for storage including the drying or roasting of

the roots (which could take several days) and pounding or grinding of the roots either to

facilitate drying or to create root cakes to package and store or transport (Couture et al.

1986). Consequently, in this dichotomy pine nuts would be considered a back-loaded

resource and geophytes would be considered a front-loaded resource. To then determine

which resource should be exploited we must determine the storage time (z) and the

culinary time (c) for each resource and the probability (q) that the cache will be used

(Bettinger 2009) (Table 3.2).

50

Table 3.2. Relevant Front and Back-loading Data: Pine Nuts versus Roots

Pine

(Barlow and Metcalf 1996) Roots

(Couture et al. 1986)

Storage Time (z) 1.18 hours to procure 3000 kcal

2 hours to procure 3000 kcal

root

+ 1 hour to pound roots and

lay in sun to dry

+ 0.5 hour to rotate roots

throughout the next two days

= 3.5

z1 z2

Culinary Time (c)

5.4 hours to separate nuts from

cone, clean, parch, and hull nuts 1 min or 0.016hr

c1 c2

Overall handling

time 6.58 3.51

Using data generated from Barlow and Metcalf (1996) on pinyon harvesting and

processing culinary time (c) was calculated at 5.4 hours for 3000 kcal of energy. For root

species, culinary time (c) was calculated as 3.5 hours to dig, pound, and dry roots to

obtain 3000 kcal of energy based on Couture et al.’s (1986) study on ethnographic root

processing by the Burns Valley Paiute. Using these data, it is clear that the back loaded

resource (pine) appears to have an advantage because the initial investment in caching is

cheap, while the front loaded resource (roots) is cheaper overall (3.51 hr vs 6.58 hr).

However, we must also factor the probability (q) the catch will be used, determined by

the following equation solved using Table 3.2:

q=z2-z1/c1-c2: q=3.5-1.8/5.4-0.016; q=.430936

The probability switching point (q1↔2) between each resource is derived from the

same equation (with q1↔2 substituting for q). With 0 < q1↔2 <1 the resources are in a

51

classic front to back loaded relationship. In this situation, the resource with the lower

storage time (nuts) is initially favored. But when more than 43.09% (q1↔2) of the stored

resources end up being used (the probability switching point also stipulates the proportion

of use switching point), the resource with the lower overall handling time (roots) is

favored. In short, if more than about 43% of the resources end up being used, it is more

efficient to target roots instead of nuts. This means that if reliance on stored foods is

relatively high, then roots are a better option than nuts because their lower overall

handling costs eventually compensate for their greater up-front storage costs as stored

resources are accessed, processed, and consumed (see Bettinger 2009:50-52).

Availability and Abundance. The availability of a resource refers to its spatial and

temporal distribution. For example, whitebark pine is restricted to the subalpine forest

and only produces nuts in the fall. Roots on the other hand are found in multiple

ecozones and can be harvested throughout the spring and oftentimes into mid-summer

(Lepofsky and Peacock 2004). The abundance of a resource is a measure of its density.

Generally, the plants with higher density are more profitable to harvest due mainly to

decreased travel times between productive patches or plants (Lepofsky and Peacock

2004). In one related study, Lepofsky and Peacock (2004) found that root species

compared to pine nut species were generally more abundant on the landscape. In general,

this points to the greater utility of root species compared to nut species due to the fact that

they are generally more abundant and widely distributed across many western North

American landscapes (except of course the southern and central Great Basin, where

pinyon pine is widely distributed and thus pine nuts are generally more favored than roots

as a subsistence resource [Steward 1938]).

52

Seasonality. It is also important to consider the seasonality of the two types of

resources. Pine becomes ripe in the fall. At high elevations this time would be marked

by unpredictable weather with an increased threat of snow as well as a lack of water in

alpine springs and streams. Geophytes on the other hand, ripen in the early spring and

summer when snow is melting at high elevations. At this time alpine springs and streams

would be full and the threat of long stretches of inclement weather would be lower. If

seasonality is indeed a deciding factor in resource procurement decisions, then geophyte

harvesting would likely be the most favorable option.

Predictability. Predictability and stability of resources is paramount to hunter-

gather survival. During the Holocene large scale fluctuations in temperature and

effective moisture have greatly reordered the biotic landscape of the Intermountain

Region (Grayson 2011). Certain plant and animal species are more susceptible to

variability in climate. Artiodactyls and small mammals both respond negatively to

fluctuations in temperature. For example, increased winter precipitation and dry

summers decrease artiodactyl reproductive success (Broughton et al. 2008). Researchers

have also found that changes in moisture and temperature at key points in the

development of pine cones can cause fluctuations in masting years and no development

of seeds in some instances (Mutke et al. 2005). Specifically, high temperatures during

cone growing season have the most significant effect and trees located in higher generally

cooler elevations are the most susceptible to not setting seeds (Redmond et al. 2012).

Geophytes however, show evidence of a high resiliency or orthoselectivity (Prouty 1995).

By definition, geophytes are plants with underground storage organs (USO) that contain

high amounts of carbohydrates and polysaccharides used for survival during winter

53

dormancy. The nature of these USOs allow them to be well adapted to variations in

temperature and moisture (Smith and McNees 2005). This means that during large scale

fluctuations in weather, geophytes are able to remain in place without substantial changes

in distribution and production (Prouty 1995). If hunter-gatherers sought to avoid risk

though targeting predictable resources, then geophytes would likely be selected over pine

nuts.

Cultivation Potential. Many researchers (Lepofsky and Peacock 2004; Prouty

1995; Smith and McNees 2005; Thoms 1989; Wandsnider and Chung 2003) argue that

geophytes were an important resource because of their positive response to simple

management techniques which can greatly increase yields of certain root crops. For

example, the simple act of digging up and harvesting the roots results in soil aeration

which could encourage growth, a practice used by indigenous groups in the Pacific

Northwest (Thoms 1989). Intentional irrigation can greatly increase yields, a practice in

Owens Valley dating back to prehistoric times (Steward 1938). There is also evidence

that burning of meadows after root harvesting can increase growth the following year by

adding potassium to the soil and eliminating weeds. Periodic burning was practiced by

indigenous groups in the Pacific Northwest as well as selective breeding of particularly

large camas bulbs (Thoms 1989). The ability to minimally manage root crops to increase

yields may have added to their desirability by foragers.

It is important to consider that both pine nuts and geophytes were important

resources to hunter-gatherers in the Great Basin and Rocky Mountain region throughout

most of the Holocene (Simms 2008). These two resources can occur in high densities,

require considerable time investment to processes and store, and if stored can deliver

54

valuable nutrition during the winter months. While evidence for root processing is not as

common in the archaeological record, particularly where pinyon is the dominant ecozone,

it is likely that both resources were sought after for winter stores, if available.

Predictions

Given the considerations of the overall utility of both geophyte species and pine

nut species as a factor of return rates, storage decisions, availability, seasonality,

predictability, and cultivation potential, geophytes score higher in all categories. It is

therefore predicted that starch residue on ground stone from both High Rise Village and

six of the White Mountain Village sites should be dominated by geophyte starch grains,

indicating geophyte processing was occurring at these sites.

55

Chapter 4 Methods

This chapter presents the methods of ground stone analysis, use-wear and starch

residue analysis on artifacts from High Rise Village and the White Mountain Village

sites. Sixteen millingslabs were analyzed from six of the White Mountain Village Sites:

Rancho Deluxe, Crooked Forks, Corral Camp South, Gate Meadows, Raven Camp, and

Midway Village. Ten manos and eleven millingslabs were analyzed from High Rise

Village.

Sampling Strategy

Ground stone sample size was small for High Rise Village and the White

Mountain Village sites (Table 4.1). Sampling was based on choosing the pieces of

ground stone that came from dated contexts and were larger or more complete in size,

and would thus potentially yield more data.

Table 4.1. Ground Stone Sample

Site Date

(cal B.P.) Sample

High Rise Village 2300-850 11 millingslabs 5 manos

Rancho Deluxe 1421-180 8 millingslabs

Crooked Forks 1670-150 1 millingslab

Corral Camp South 800-410 3 millingslabs

Gate Meadows 1 millingslab

Raven Camp 2550-1155 1 millingslab

Midway Village 2440-300 1 millingslab

56

Ground Stone Analysis

The study of grinding technology is a study of behavioral choices, knowledge,

and ideas about how to alter, reduce, or process substances with stone (Adams 2002).

Detailed ground stone analysis includes defining the form and function of the tool as well

as its morphology, life history, and use-wear. The term ground stone refers to tools that

are either made by or made through mechanisms of pecking, pounding, grinding,

abrasion, or polish (Adams 2002; Dubreuil and Savage 2014). Common ground/grinding

tools include grinding implements such as: slabs, metates, manos or handstones;

pounding implements that include mortars and pestles; cutting implements including axes

and adzes; and percussive implements such as hammerstones and anvils; as well as

abraders, and polishers (Dubreuil and Savage 2014). For this study millingslab and

handstone implements used in grinding and pounding are considered.

Life History

Understanding the use of a ground stone implement begins with an understanding

of the five stages of the life history of the tool: (1) manufacture; (2) the primary function

the artifact was designed for; (3) the secondary use of the artifact (this can be single

reuse, where the tool is used for another function without alteration, or multi-use, where

the tool has several uses on differing surfaces of the same tool); (4) recycling, where the

tool is used for another purpose such as in a wall of a structure or as a hearth or boiling

rock (this is contrasted to a redesigned tool where the tool is reshaped to serve another

function); and (5) discard, which could be due to breakage, exhaustion, loss, interment or

deliberate discard of the tool (Adams 2002; Schiffer 1987).

57

Form and Function

There are two basic distinctions made linking shape to ground stone function:

mortars and pestles used for pounding and handstones and metates (or netherstone) used

for grinding or pulverizing. Metates are further divided into flat metates, concave

metates, basin metates, and trough metates. A handstone can be classified as an abrader,

polisher, mano (for grinding) or a pestle. Each form is different because of style of

strokes used in grinding as well as the type of processing being employed: i.e., dried

grain or fresh grain, root, seed, animal flesh or hide. Both Adams (1999) and Dubreuil

(2004) found that differences in ground stone form were linked to different processing

techniques such as fresh meal or dried flour for storage, demonstrating that the type of

processing may be more important to the form of the ground stone than what type of food

is being processed.

Per Adams (2002) manos are classified by size and shape. Shapes may include:

wedge shaped, triangular, round, and whether there are one or multiple ground surfaces.

Metates are classified as: basin, flat concave, flat, and trough. Basin metates have a

circular or elliptical shape with a deep trough due to use with a small mano using circular

strokes. Flat metates result from use with a mano that is as long as the metate is wide

using reciprocal strokes. Flat concave metates have shallow concavities and are most

often used with large manos and reciprocal strokes. Trough metates are intentionally

manufactured prior to use to have a deep trough in the center to hold grain and can only

be used with reciprocal strokes (Adams 2002).

58

Morphology

Morphology is determined by intensity of tool use, type of seed or plant being

processed, and the desired outcome (e.g., fine flour, meal, or mush) (Adams 1999).

Intensive tool use occurs when the tool is used for a long period in one sitting. Extensive

use of a tool occurs when a tool is used for a short period of time and perhaps many short

periods of time. Both may result in heavy wear and thus the difference can only be

morphologically differentiated through design features. For example, it is possible that a

manufacturer will invest more time into making a tool when the tool is intended for

intensive use. Alternatively, if a tool was made expediently, it may have been intended

for extensive use (Adams 2002).

Occupation Strategy

Ground stone tools can be used to gauge the intensity of a site’s occupation based

on the degree of strategic manufacture of a ground stone tool, the degree of use of the

tool (extensive versus intensive), and the degree of versatility of the tool. Expediently

made grinding slabs will have one grinding surface and no other design while a

strategically designed slab will have simple modifications for stability or will be

intentionally shaped. Expediently made handstones have one or two grinding surfaces

and no other design functions. Strategically designed handstones are intentionally

shaped. At short-term occupation sites, a higher percentage of expediently made, single

use or extensive use ground stone tools are expected. Conversely, at long-term

occupation sites, a higher percentage of ground stone tools that are strategically designed,

59

associated with a greater variety of activities (versatile), and displaying heavy wear or

intensive use are expected (Adams 2002).

Ground Stone Analysis Methods

Analyzing ground stone is a four stage process (Adams 2002) with several

subsidiary questions and steps defining each stage. In Stage 1 the life history of the

ground stone implement is assessed by asking the following questions: (1) was the tool

used for the primary function it was designed for?; (2) was the tool used for multiple

tasks?; (3) was the tool recycled and then used for a task different than the one it was

made for?; and (4) was the tool discarded because it was broken or exhausted? In Stage

2, morphology, type, and basic use of the artifact is described by determining answers to

the following questions: (1) handstone or metate (netherstone)?; (2) flat, basin, trough,

bowl?; (3) pestle or mano?; and (4) used for grinding, pulverizing, abrading, polishing,

or pounding? In Stage 3, use intensity is determined: (1) Intensive use: contains design

features for comfort and longevity such as intentionally manufactured features like hand

holds, troughs, ledges or feet or (2) Extensive use: worn from use and not intentionally

shaped. In Stage 4, occupational strategy is assessed by grading under three main

categories: (1) strategic manufacture of the tool: design features versus expediently made

tools; (2) degree of use: extensive versus intensive use; and (3) degree of versatility:

associated with a variety of tasks.

60

Use-wear Analysis

Use-wear analysis is the “examination of an item for macroscopic and

microscopic evidence that allows us to understand how it was altered through use.”

(Adams 2002:27). Use-wear of abrading and grinding implements relies on tribology

(the study of wear) with wear defined as “the progressive loss of substance from the

surface as a result of the relative motion between it and another contact surface”(Adams

2014:129). Progressive loss can be recorded on archaeological tools used for abrading

and grinding. Four types of wear are identified: adhesive, abrasive, fatigue, and

tribochemical. These four types of wear are not mutually exclusive but interact

depending on the contact surface, the nature of the intermediate substance (such as a food

item being ground), and which form of wear is dominant. Each will generate distinctive

wear patterns that can be attributed to specific tasks (Adams 2014).

Characteristics and Definitions

Granularity and Durability

Granularity of a rock is measured in degree from coarse to fine grained.

Durability is a materials’ ability to withstand wear (Adams 2002:20). Durability of the

ground stone implement is important for tool function. For example, in food processing

it is necessary to have a durable rock that will not weather into the meal being processed;

conversely, if a tool is needed for abrading, high granularity of the stone is important

(Adams 2002).

61

Topography

Topography is defined as the differential relief of the surface of the stone (Adams

2002). Surface topography can be analyzed first as macrotopography (the natural

roughness and angles of the surface of the rock) and then as microtopography (the

topography of the individual grains and interstices between grains). Macrotopography

and microtopography are important to understanding the formation of use-wear and in

determining the extent of and morphology of contact surfaces. If the contact surface is

rigid or hard, then only the high points on the surface of the ground stone will make

contact; conversely, if the contact surface is pliable, then wear will reach into the low-

lying interstices between high points (Adams 1995, 2002). Understanding how far the

wear extends into the interstices can shed light on the texture or material type of the

opposing surface (Adams 2002).

Types of Wear

Tribologists define wear as “the progressive loss of substance” (Adams 2014:1) and

this progressive loss can be quantified and recorded on tools used for abrading and

grinding.

A. Adhesive wear occurs when two surfaces come into contact with one another

creating frictional heat that can loosen rock grains (Adams 2002). This will leave

pits on the surface of the stone, deform the individual grains of the stone, and

leave wear particles from both grinding and ground surfaces (Adams 1989).

B. Abrasive wear occurs when a more aspirate surface abrades a softer, less aspirate

surface. This displaces the softer materials leaving abrasive scratches in the

62

direction of movement, referred to as striations, with deeper ones being gouges,

both referred to as abrasion (Adams 1993, 2014). Abrasive wear can also result

from dislodged particles that remain between surfaces and act as abrasive agents

(Adams 1993).

C. Fatigue wear occurs when pressure or stress is applied to the contact surfaces and

the topographic highs are crushed from bearing the majority of the load pressure.

This results in crushing, cracks, step fractures and pits on the grains (Adams

1995).

Abrasive and fatigue wear are the result of reductive processes where as

tribochemical wear and adhesive wear are additive. As surfaces move against each other

adhesive, abrasive, and surface fatigue mechanisms create cracks that generate frictional

heat. This heat and the object being ground create the environment for the tribochemical

interactions to take place.

D. Tribochemical wear is caused by bond formation and destruction as well as the

friction released due to abrasive, fatigue, and adhesive wear. This creates a

chemical interaction that produces a build-up on the surface, called sheen or

polish.

Each of these wear patterns can be present on a given grinding surface and the dominant

wear pattern must be identified (Adams 2002).

63

Direction of Use

The direction of use and type of stroke can be determined through identification

of the direction and type of striations on the ground surface. Direction of use

distinguishes from the active implement (upper tool) and the passive implement (lower

tool). Direction of use can be classified in three ways: (1) how the force was applied to

the tool such as direct percussion, indirect percussion, thrusting percussion, or abrasion;

(2) the direction of forces, either oblique, parallel, or perpendicular, or a combination of

both; and (3) the type of contact from the active implement, either linear for a sharp edge,

punctiform for a point, or diffused for a level surface (Dubreuil and Savage 2014). Direct

percussion tools such as hammerstones and anvils show impact marks concentrated on

the impact zone resulting in fractures and cupules. There is also a microscopic similarity

between abrasive and percussive use-wear, evident in the development of beveled surface

facets and a smoothing of micro-relief (Dubreuil and Savage 2014).

Researchers have identified common wear patterns associated with certain strokes

and certain materials. For example, Adams (1999) found that reciprocal, flat strokes are

most efficient for grinding oily nuts, such as pinyon or acorn.

Rock Hardness

Rock hardness is an important factor in the way use-wear develops. The hardness

of the rock, cohesion of the matrix of the rock, and mineral content are all important to

the asperity, durability, and type of wear the rock can produce and receive (Adams 2002).

Lerner et al. (2007) found that differences in raw material hardness and surface roughness

have differential effects on use-wear accrual and encourage including this information in

64

assessing use-wear. In experimental studies, Dubreuil et al. (2014) also found differing

wear patterns on sandstone and basalt when preforming the same function for the same

amount of time.

Starch Residue Analysis

Residue analysis uses chemical extraction and chemical and biomolecular

analysis to identify organic residue from archaeological contexts that cannot otherwise be

identified (Evershed 2008). It is founded on the idea that organic materials used by

humans have chemical and biomolecular structure that can survive in archaeological

deposits. This biomolecular structure serves as a “fingerprint” that can be identified,

either through chemical or optical analysis long after the actual organic material has

decomposed (Evershed 2008).

Starch is a carbohydrate molecule that serves as a plant’s stored energy. These

energy stores are formed by chloroplasts and amyloplasts that convert glucose, formed

during photosynthesis, into compact, insoluble high-energy starch granules. When a

plant is in need of the starch for energy it is converted back into glucose. Each starch

grain forms from an origin point or hilum and grows as annular layers are formed around

its origin. The reserve starch granules are mostly found in the storage organs of the

plants: e.g, roots, tubers, seeds, and fruits. Some starches are located in other parts of the

plants tissue such as leaves, shoots, stems, and pollen grains (Torrence and Barton 2006).

Starch grains enter the archaeological record through human consumption and

processing of roots, tubers, seeds, nuts, wood, and fibers. The microcrystalline structure

of starch grains makes them resistant to organic decay; they can therefore be recovered

65

long after the plant that produced them has decayed (Herzog 2014). Starch grains have

defining characteristics that can easily distinguish them from other organic substances

and that can serve as markers for specific taxon or species of plants (Torrence and Barton

2006). Such characteristics include: susceptibility to staining a dark blue color by iodine,

birefringence due to the highly ordered molecular structure of the grain, location of the

area of initial growth (hilum) within the grain, the size and shape of the grain (circular,

ovate, polyhedral), the morphology of the extinction cross (dark cross in polarized light)

and length of the arms and the angle at which they meet, and presence or absence of

lamellae or growth rings, fissures, or depressions (Table 4.2 and Appendix A) (Herzog

2014; Perry 2010; Rumold 2010; Torrence and Barton 2006).

Table 4.2. Starch Grain Attributes

Attribute Characteristics/ Comments

Grain type Simple, compound, aggregate

Size in microns Length and width

2-dimensional shape Circular, ovate, semicircular, polygonal, faceted

3-dimensional form Spherical, lenticular, pyriform, hemispherical, polyhedral

Hilum type Closed or open (with small or large vacuole)

Hilum position Centric, eccentric, very eccentric, unknown

Lamellae Faint or distinct, concentric or eccentric, coarse or fine

Fissures Presence/absence. Forms; longitudinal or transverse from the

long axis of the grain, stellate, branching

Surface

-Surface: smooth, rough, knobby

-Projections, compression facets, depressions

-Granularity

Extinction cross

-Degree of polarization or birefringence (weak, medium,

strong)

-Form of cross arms (straight, curved, multiple)

-Angle of cross: symmetric or asymmetric

-Form of margins: expanding, non-expanding, contracting

(after Rumold 2010 and ISCN 2011)

See Appendix A for definitions

66

Starch residue analysis has been conducted for over a century (Wittmack 1905)

but it has only been in the last two decades that starch analysis has been employed in

archaeological analysis to any great extent. Starch residue analysis thus far has been

concentrated in areas such as Australia and Papa New Guinea (Balme et al. 2014; Veth et

al. 2013), South America (Henry et al. 2009; Piperno 2009; Rumold 2010), Europe and

the Middle East (Henry et al. 2009; Hogberg et al. 2009). In North America starch

residue analysis is not common. Particularly in the Great Basin and Intermountain West,

the area of focus for this thesis, only a few studies using starch analysis to date. Herzog

(2014), for example, looked at starches from ground stone found in Surprise Valley

California. There is also a master’s thesis that analyzed ground stone from three locations

in northeastern California (Scholze 2011), an examination of starches on grinding

implements from North Creek Shelter, Utah (Louderback 2014), and analyses contained

in a few contract archaeology reports (e.g., Rhode 2014; Rhode et al. 2011).

Starch Residue Analysis Methods

Extraction

Before starch extraction occurred the working area in the lab as well as all tools

used in residue extraction and processing were washed with distilled water and a mild

soap (Sensifoam). This soap was tested for industrial starches and contained none. The

ground stone was air brushed to remove excess dirt from the surface, and then rinsed with

distilled water. Per Perry (2010), starches were then extracted by washing the ground

67

surface of the tool using a sonic toothbrush and more distilled water. All water and

accompanying residue was collected with pipettes.

Aqueous Sediment Reduction

The sediment water mix from each ground stone sample often filled several tubes,

which were consolidated into a single sample tube for further processing. To do this the

tubes containing sediment from the ground stone sample were placed in a centrifuge for

eight minutes at 5000 revolutions per minute (rpm). The sediment settled to the bottom

of the tube and the clean water was then decanted. The samples were then combined and

reduced again. This process took about four rounds in the centrifuge to consolidate the

sample into one tube, depending on the size of the ground stone sample.

LST Flotation

After consolidation of the sediment sample a heavy liquid, composed of

Lithiumheteropolytungstate (LST) mixed with water to a specific gravity weight of 2.0

g/cc is added to the tube. Silt and sand have a specific gravity weight of about 2.2 g/cc,

starches and pollen have a specific gravity weight of 1.7 g/cc, and distilled water has a

specific weight of 1 g/cc. Using LST results in a floatation of the starches and pollen

grains in the sample from the heavier silts so that the lighter fraction can be easily

removed by pipetting. LST was added to the sample and then the samples were

thoroughly mixed, and centrifuged for eight minutes at 5000 rmp. The light fraction

(starch residue and pollen) were then pipetted from the surface of the solution and placed

in a new tube (Perry 2010).

68

LST Dilution

The sample was then washed several times with distilled water to eliminate the

remaining LST from the sample and concentrate the starches in the tube. The sample

tube was filled with distilled water and again centrifuged for eight minutes. The water

was decanted from the sample, more distilled water was added, and the process was

repeated several times until all of the LST had been eliminated from the sample (Perry

2010). Once all of the LST was removed from the solution the sample was transferred to

a 2 ml microtube, a drop of ethanol was added to protect the sample from microbial

decay and the sample was stored for later examination.

Microscope Analysis

To conduct microscopic starch analysis a small sample was pipetted from the

microtube and one drop was placed on a microscope slide with a drop of glycerol and

then covered with a slide cover slip (Perry 2010). To ensure that no contamination was

occurring in the lab a control slide was also prepared at the same time using the method

described above but with only glycerol and distilled water. Both slides were then

analyzed using an Olympus BX51optical transmitted light microscope equipped with a

polarizing filter. The control slide was scanned first. The entirety of the slide was

scanned or transected using 400x magnification. When no starches were noted on the

control slide the sample was considered free of modern contaminants. The entirety of the

sample slide was then scanned at 400x using the darkfield illumination and a cross

polarized filter to illuminate the extinction cross on the starch grains making them stand

out compared to the other debris on the microscope slide. When a starch grain was

69

found, the morphology, size, and characteristics of the grain were noted and

photographed using an Infinity 2 Lumenera Camera in both polarized light and

brightfield light at 600x magnification. The grain was then rotated and photographed

again in both polarized and brightfield light to gain a three-dimensional perspective of the

grain shape.

Starch Identification Methods

Once photographed, starch grains were described using ten attributes listed in

table 4.2 and measured using Infinity Analyze software (Lumenera 2015) and all

information was stored in a Microsoft Access database. The photos were then compared

to reference photos of known plant species from the two study areas. The reference

samples are listed in (Table 4.3).

70

Table 4.3. Starch References

Type of Resource Species Name Common Name

Geophyte Calochortus leichtlinii Mariposa Lily

Lomatium roseanum Biscuitroot, Adobe Parsley

Lewisia rediviva Bitterroot

Lewisia pygmaea Dwarf Bitterroot

Typha latifolia Cattail (rhizome)

Perideridia bolanderi Yampa

Cyperus esculentus Nut Sedge

Schoenoplectus acutus Bulrush rhizome

Tree Nut Pinus monophylla Singleleaf Pinyon Pine

Pinus flexilis Limber Pine

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine

Quercus lobata Valley White Oak

Eleocharis quinqueflora Few Flowered Spike Rush

Seed Allenrolfea occidentalis Iodine bush

Chenopodium fremontii Goosefoot

Leymus cinereus Wild Rye

Cyperus esculentus Nut Sedge

Achnatherum hymenoides Indian Rice grass

Schoenoplectus acutus Bulrush

Contaminate Zea mays Corn starch

Sensifoam Soap

Enmotion Soap

Reference slides were prepared and analyzed in the same manner as the sample

slides. A small amount of the reference sample was placed on a slide with a drop of

glycerol and a slide cover, and the slides were then analyzed using the BX51 microscope

using a cross polarized filter and brightfield/darkfield light at 600x magnification. Five

pairs of both brightfield and cross polarized light photos were taken using the Infinity 2

Lumenera camera at five random locations on the slide. These grains were measured and

the ten attributes listed in Table 4.3 were recorded. Select grains were also rotated and

photographed to capture the three-dimensional shape of the reference grains.

71

Trait-sets for the reference grains were compared to the sample starch grains.

When possible, each sample starch grain was classified based on attribute and size

overlap with reference grains. Grains that could not be classified were noted as non-

diagnostic. Grains that were too misshapen or deformed were classified as broken.

Damage or features related to the physical wear of the grain was also noted. This

included cracks on the center of the grain or along the edges, a misshaped or deformed

hilum, and an enlarged or broken vacuole.

To address contamination issues in both the lab and the field, three separate

controls were preformed: testing of soil found at each site, testing of basic materials

found in the lab for industrial starches, and the use of a test or control slide for each

sample. In addition, hands and work areas were cleaned with soap and distilled water

before each use.

Sediment contamination: To be sure contamination was not occurring from

starches naturally occurring in the soil one sediment sample was tested from Midway

Village, Corral Camp South, Crooked Forks, and Rancho Deluxe of the White Mountain

sites, and two from High Rise Village: Lodge 26 and Lodge 49. This was done following

the ISCN starch protocol for sampling sediments (Perry 2010).

First the sediments were dried and screened using a 250 micron mesh screen.

Then the sediments were deflocculated to separate and disperse the individual sediment

particles from one and other. This was done using a solution of 25 grams of

Hexametaphosphate in one liter of distilled water. Fifty milliliters of this solution was

then added to ten grams of sediment from each of the samples and agitated several times

over a 72 hour period. After 72 hours the samples were centrifuged for 8 minutes at 5000

72

rpm to separate the solution from the sample, and then the solution was discarded. The

samples were then processed using the same LST flotation and LST dilution process as

well as the microscope analysis used on the ground stone samples. No starches were

found in any of the sediment samples.

Lab contamination: To be sure contamination was not occurring in the lab both

types of commercial soap, En Motion and Sensiforam Soft Soap, were tested by placing a

small sample on a microscope slide and analyzing it under cross polarized light to

identify if the soap itself contained industrial starches. Both soaps contained no starches.

The paper towels in the lab were also tested by rubbing the towel on a microscope slide

and adding a drop of glycerol. This was also analyzed using cross polarized light and no

starches were detected. Finally, a microscope slide was prepared using one drop of

glycerol and left to sit out in the lab for one hour to test if there were industrial starches in

the air. This too, was analyzed using the cross polarized filter on the microscope and no

starches were detected.

As a final control against contamination concerns each archaeological sample

slide was prepared in conjunction with a blank test slide in exactly the same manner (the

sample slide only received a drop of glycerol and not a drop of sample) and was then

scanned using the cross polarized filter on the microscope before scanning the

archaeological sample. When no starches were found it was determined that the

archaeological sample was free of modern contaminates. Only once did one starch grain

appear on a test slide and the sample was re-prepared and analyzed; no additional

contaminate starches were noted.

73

Chapter 5 Results

This chapter discusses the results of ground stone analysis, micro- and macro- use-

wear analysis, and starch residue analysis from High Rise Village and six of the twelve

White Mountains village sites.

Ground Stone Analysis

High Rise Village

Ground stone analysis on sixteen ground stone pieces from High Rise Village

(HRV) revealed an assemblage of expedient millingslabs made from quartzite found

directly on site and well-used handstones made from extralocal basalt and quartzite

(Table 5.1). All of the handstones are complete, while all but one of the millingslabs are

fragmented. Only one of the ground stone pieces appears to have been intentionally

shaped for specific design features or intensive use; their feature characteristics come

from minimal shaping through extensive use. All of the millingslabs are flat and

unformed. All of the handstones are ovoid with a single flat, ground surface save Artifact

1788 which is 13cm long and has a narrow wedge shape. This handstone has one ground

surface and one pecked surface. The tip of Artifact 1788 appears to have been

intentionally shaped into a pestle tip via pecking. All ground stone tools appear to have

been used for their primary use, grinding, and there is no indication of reuse or use for

other tasks such as for cooking (as in the case of hot rock cookery). During excavation,

however, abundant FCR, some of which appears to have been ground, was identified,

suggesting some ground stone at the site was also used as cooking stones.

74

Table 5.1. High Rise Village Ground Stone Analysis Assemblage

Accession

Number Lodge Complete

Material

Type Form

Length

cm

Width

cm

Thickness

cm

FR5891-1923 19 Fragment Quartzite Millingslab 21 12 3.5


FR5891-1562 26 Complete Basalt Handstone 10 8 5.5

FR5891-2273 8 Fragment Quartzite Millingslab 15 6.5 4

FR5891-15199 26 Complete Basalt Handstone 19 15 5

FR5891-1996 10 Fragment Quartzite Millingslab 19 11 5


FR5891-1990 10 Fragment Quartzite Handstone 18 19 2


FR5891-2157 13 Complete Quartzite Millingslab 17 6 3

FR5891-1788 16 Complete Granitic Handstone 9 8 3.5

FR5891-2171 3 Fragment Quartzite Millingslab 8 5.5 3

FR5891-2077 7 Fragment Quartzite Millingslab 13 4.5 3.5


FR5891-2266 8 Fragment Quartzite Millingslab 6.5 4 2.5

FR5891-2276 8 Fragment Quartzite Handstone 13 9 3.5

White Mountains

The fifteen White Mountains ground stone millingslabs show extensive use and

little intentional shaping (Table 5.2). The millingslabs are all of a flat concave design,

with the concavities resulting mainly from heavy use. Six of the tools exhibit pecking of

the grinding surface: 12317, 14161, 14698, 11269, 1056, and 15801. The tools appear to

have only been used for their primary use of grinding foodstuffs with no evidence that the

tools were re-used or discarded due to exhaustion. The material types vary more than

those seen at HRV, but reflect locally available rocks found in the vicinity of the sites.

75

Table 5.2. White Mountain Ground Stone Millingslab Analysis Assemblage

Site Accession

Number Complete

Material

Type

Length

cm

Width

cm

Thickness

cm

Corral Camp

South 382-1628 Complete Quartzite 37 17 11

Corral Camp

South 382-2045 Complete Quartzite 38 20 9

Corral Camp

South 382-14698 Fragment Quartzite 15 11 5

Crooked Forks 382-14161 Fragment Granitic 36 27 9

Gate Meadows 382-10155 Complete Granitic 54 52 5

Midway Village 382-1056 Fragment Meta-

sedimentary 36 29 9

Rancho Deluxe 382-11269 Fragment FGV 25 14 10

Rancho Deluxe 382-9218 Fragment FGV 31 15 8

Rancho Deluxe 382-9275 Fragment FGV 17 12 6.5

Rancho Deluxe 382-9430 Complete Granitic 38 29 10

Rancho Deluxe 382-12317 Fragment Granitic 25 20 9

Rancho Deluxe 382-11271 Complete Granitic 39 19 19



Raven Camp 382-14801 Complete Limestone 54 28 10

Use-wear

High Rise Village

Microscopic use-wear analysis on the sixteen tools from High Rise Village

indicate varying degrees of use (Table 5.3 and Appendix B). The texture of all of the

rocks sampled is coarse-grained. The basalt is vesicular and quartzite is poorly

metamorphosed and granular. Three pieces display low levels of wear: 2147, 2171,

2273, with only the surface of individual grains showing fatigue wear. Seven pieces are

heavily worn. These include five millingslabs (Artifacts 2077, 1954, 2099, 2157, and

2266) and two handstones (Artifacts 2276 and 15199). Four ground stone pieces show

76

abrasion indicative of reciprocal strokes (Figure 5.1). These include one handstone

(Artifact 15199) and three millingslabs (Artifacts 1923, 2157, and 2099). Five ground

stone pieces have areas of frosted grains which is a result of abrasive wear (Figure 5.2).

These include handstones (Artifacts 1562 and 15199) and millingslabs (Artifacts 2077,

2099, and 17620). Seven pieces show signs of sheen (Artifacts 1562, 1954, 2077, and

2276) while Artifacts 1923, 1990, and 1996 have sheen and wear on their highest points.

Surface sheen can be caused by oily substances. These oils create tribochemical

reactions with the stone resulting in sheen build up (Adams 2002).

Figure 5.1. FR5891-15199 Use-Wear Illustrating Abrasion and Sheen

Figure 5.2. FR5891-2099 Use-Wear Illustrating Frosting and Fatigue Wear

77

White Mountains

Macroscopic use-wear analysis of the fifteen millingslabs from the White

Mountain village sites indicate heavy abrasive and tribochemical wear (Table 5.4). All of

the pieces exhibit varying degrees of sheen caused by tribochemical wear. Abrasive ware

is indicated by the large, smooth patches on the grinding surface, many of which have

been pecked to regain surface texture (Figure 5.3). In general, ground stone and use-wear

analysis indicate extensive and heavy use of these tools with constant re-roughening.

Microscopic use-wear analysis was not conducted on the White Mountain ground stone.

Figure 5.3. 382-12317 and 382-2045 Illustrating Pecking and Use-Wear Abrasion

78

Table 5.3. High Rise Village Micro Use-Wear Analysis

Accession

Number Form

Ground

Surface Wear Level Wear Type Stroke

5891-1923 Millingslab 1 High points only Abrasion and sheen Reciprocal

5891-1954 Millingslab 1 Very smooth in center Sheen Indefinite

5891-1562 Handstone 1 Smooth spots on highs Crushing of grains and sheen Indefinite

5891-2273 Millingslab 1 Highs only Some crushing or fatigue Indefinite

5891-1996 Millingslab 1 Highs only Rounded grains and some sheen Reciprocal

5891-1762 Millingslab 1 Highs only Rounded surface of grains Indefinite

5891-1990 Handstone 1 Highs only Some sheen and crushing Indefinite

5891-2147 Millingslab 1 Highs only with sheen Rounded grains and fatigue wear Indefinite

5891-2157 Millingslab 1 Smooth on highs only Abrasion and sheen Indefinite

5891-1788 Handstone 3 Light with sheen Battered at tip Indefinite

5891-2171 Millingslab 1 Light and only on highs Fatigue on some grains, light Indefinite

5891-2077 Millingslab 1 Highs and lows crushing Large areas of sheen Indefinite

5891-2099 Millingslab 2

Side 1: flattened and

crushed grains side 2: highs

only

Abrasion and large areas of

sheen Reciprocal

5891-2266 Millingslab 2 Side 1: highs only side 2:

smooth Rounded grains with sheen Indefinite

5891-2276 Handstone 1 Smooth spots highs only Some crushing and sheen Indefinite

5891-15199 Handstone 2 Sheen on highs and lows Abrasion and flattened grains Reciprocal

See Appendix B for full analysis table

79

Table 5.4. White Mountain Macro Use-Ware Analysis

Site Accession

Number Complete Material type

Ground

Surfaces

Surface

Coverage

Surface

Configuration Surface Texture

Crooked Forks 382-14161 Fragment Granitic 1 Complete Side 1: concave side

2: flat

Smooth with pecking and sheen in

center

Corral Camp South 382-2045 Complete Quartzite 1 Complete Flat Smooth on high point

Corral Camp South 382-1628 Complete Quartzite 1 Only in

center Concave Smooth on high points only

Corral Camp South 382-14698 Fragment Quartzite 1 Complete Side 1: concave side

2: flat Smooth with pecking

Gate Meadows 382-10155 Complete Granitic 1 Complete Flat and slanted Smooth on highs only

Midway Village 382-1056 Fragment Meta-sedimentary 2 Only in

center Concave

Side 1: sheen and pecking side 2: on

small spot of sheen

Rancho Deluxe 382-9218 Fragment FGV 1 Only in

center Concave Smooth on highs only


center Concave Only ground at high points

Rancho Deluxe 382-9430 Complete Granitic 1 Only in

center Slanted Medium sheen

Rancho Deluxe 382-12317 Fragment Granitic 2 Complete Slightly concave Smooth with pecking with sheen


center Concave and slanted Smooth with pecking

Rancho Deluxe 382-11271 Complete Granitic 1 Complete Flat Smooth at high points

Rancho Deluxe 382-16347 Fragment Granitic 1 Complete Flat/sloped Smooth on high points with pecking

Rancho Deluxe 382-11270 Fragment Granitic 1 Complete Slanted Smooth on highs only

Raven Camp 382-14801 Complete Limestone 1 On one

corner

Flat and concave in

one place Course with pecking

See Appendix C for full analysis table

80

Starch Residue Analysis

Modern Starch Identifications

Modern starch identifications were conducted in order to provide reference

material for comparison to prehistoric specimens. Modern starch references were

analyzed using the same 10 characteristics as the prehistoric starch grains. Below is a

description of the reference starch grains by species. This is used as a comparison to the

typologies created for the prehistoric starches found in this study. The reference starch

descriptions are described first and the typologies are described second. The prehistoric

starch grains were assigned typologies as a conservative identification based on size,

morphology, and a comparison to modern specimens.

Geophytes

Biscuitroot (Lomatium roseanum, Apiaceae)

Figure 5.4. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Lomatium

roseanum

81

Commonly referred to as biscuitroot, members of the Apiaceae or carrot family,

have long thick taproots, umbel flower clusters, and fern leaves that protrude from the

base of the stem (Smith and McNees 2005). They are perennial plants that are dormant

for most of the year and blossom in the early spring. When the flower dies in early

summer the tubers are at their greatest size, between 3 and 10 g (Prouty 1995). Members

of the Lomatium genus include Lomatium roseanum, cous, and hendersonii. These are

found throughout Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming at elevation from 1200 to

3000 m AMSL (4000 to 10,000 ft) (plants.usda.gov). Calorie and protein content ranges

from 189 to 127 calories per 100 g and 2.5- 1 g of protein depending on the species

(Couture et al. 1986). Lomatium hendersonii has the highest calorie content and thus

return rate of all the geophytes studied to date: 3831 kcal/hr (Couture et al. 1986).

However, this species is found mainly in Oregon and to a lesser extent in California and

Nevada. For consumption roots were dried in the sun and then ground down to meal for

storage, or they were cooked in roasting pits, or earth ovens (Couture et al. 1985).

Lomatium grains range in size from 8 to 18 µ in length and width and can be as

small as 5 µ. Average length is 11.85 µ and average width is 11.75 µ. Lomatium grains

often stick together as a compound grain, causing faceting or making the grain appear

oblong. Biscuitroot starch grains are similar in many ways to Perideridia starch grains

because they are both part of the Apiaceae family. They both have a circular or

semicircular shape with one to three facets, though Lomatium grains are more often round

than faceted. Both Lomatium and Perideridia have branching or longitudinal fissures at

the hilum. What distinguishes Lomatium grains from other geophyte grains is the

presence of a large vacuole at the hilum and the extinction cross arms. These are

82

symmetrical, orthogonally crossed, and straight-armed. Arms may expand at the margins

to form a Maltese cross.

Bitterroot (Lewisia rediviva and pygmaea, Portulacaceae)

Figure 5.5. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Lewisia

rediviva

Bitterroot (a member of the Portulacaceae or Purslane family) is commonly found

in rocky soils at many elevations with pygmaea found in higher elevations (Prouty 1995).

Bitterroot plants can be found ranging from British Columbia to Arizona, and from

California to Colorado. Bitterroot is a succulent, low growing plant, with small pink-

white flowers and narrow cylindrical succulent leaves of dark green (Prouty 1995). The

plant blossoms in the early spring, losing its flowers quickly but maintaining distinctive

leaves throughout the summer. The tap root is 10-15 cm long, though some have been

found as long as 30-60 cm (Prouty 1995). The nutritional value of Lewisia rediviva is

98.76 calories per 100 grams and 2.48 grams of protein (Couture et al. 1986). As with

Lomatium, roots were dried in the sun and then ground down to meal for storage, or they

were cooked in roasting pits or earth ovens (Couture et al. 1985).

83

Lewisia starch grains range in size from 6 to 12 µ in length and width and can be

as large as 17µ. Average length for the grains is 10.39 µ and average width is 10.63 µ.

The grains are very similar to other geophyte starch grains, specifically Lomatium and

Perideridia. The grain shape is semicircular, with one to three facets resembling a bell

shape. The grains frequently are compound with two granules growing together; the

hemispherical shape occurs when a two-compound granule splits and results a flattened

facet on each. The grains are spherical with a distinct facet on each grain visible when

the grain is flipped, which contrasts with Lomatium and Perideridia in three dimensional

view. The hilum is centric, open, and contains a vacuole, yet the vacuole is smaller and

not as distinct as in the Lomatium grains. The surface characteristics of the grains are

also similar to other geophyte species, with longitudinal and transverse fissures and

longitudinal or round depressions at the location of the hilum. Lewisia grains have

faintly visible concentric lamellae that are concentric (these are not found on Lomatium

nor Perideridia). The extinction cross is centric and symmetrical, frequently with

straight arms similar to Lomatium, occasionally slightly ragged, and generally lacking the

Maltese cross appearance at the margins.

84

Yampa (Perideridia bolanderi, Apiaceae)

Figure 5.6. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Perideridia

bolanderi

Commonly known as Yampa, another member of the Apiaceae family, this tuber

has umbel flowers and fern like leaves with a large taproot. Yampa has a wide range,

from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific and into Canada (Adams 2010). This root

contains on average 20.5 grams of carbohydrates, 13 grams of protein and 635 calories

per 100 grams (Adams 2010). Plant density varies but tends to be around six plants per

square meter. Ethnographically (Couture et al. 1986; Gleason 2001), Yampa has been

documented as a staple in both subsistence and trade for groups in northern California,

Oregon and Idaho. Because of the roots’ thin skin, minimal processing was need prior to

consumption. Roots were washed and peeled, and then dried in the sun or roasted in pit

ovens. Yampa does not require long exposure to heat (Gleason 2001) and were often

boiled and mashed into cakes, and then dried and stored for winter use.

Perideridia starch granules have several characteristics that make them

distinguishable from other root species. Grain sizes range from 6 to 12 µ in length with

an average of 9.12 µ. Grain width ranges from 5 to 11 µ with an average of 9.06 µ.

85

Perideridia starch grain shape is semicircular to circular, having one to three facets which

makes them polygonal in two dimensions. In three dimensions the grain is lenticular to

polyhedral in shape. The hilum position is centric and closed. Surface characteristics of

the grains are very distinct with longitudinal depressions along the axis of the grain and a

branching or longitudinal fissures present on some of the grains. The extinction cross is

centric and elongate (the cross is not orthogonal but slightly diagonal) with curved arms.

Sego Lily (Calochortus leichtlinii, Liliaceae)

Figure 5.7. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Calochortus

leichtlinii

Calochortus spp., known as either mariposa or sego lily, has nearly 60 species in

North America (Cronquist et al. 1977). The plant is part of the Liliaceae family as is the

onion. The bulb is layered like an onion and averages from 3 to 4 cm in diameter. In

general, the plant grows in sandy soils and dry areas at a range of elevations. The plant

flowers May through July. Density of the plant is relatively low with 4 to six plants per

square meter (Smith et al. 2001). The root contains 21 percent carbohydrates, 76 percent

86

moisture, 1.75 percent protein, less than 1 percent fat, and 92 calories per 100 grams

(Smith et al. 2001).

Surprise Valley Piaute collected sego lily in the spring and it was eaten fresh after

being skinned. The Piaute of western Nevada harvested sego in May and June and peeled

and roasted it in heated sand pit ovens, or ate it raw (Kelly 1932).

Calochortus starch granules have several characteristics that distinguish its grains

from other root species. The grains are large, ranging from 8 to 30 microns (µ) long with

and average length of 17.13 µ; they are 7 to 21 µ wide with an average width of 13.62 µ.

The grains have an ovate or pyriform shape that is lenticular in three dimensions. The

hilum is closed and very eccentric. Surface characteristics of the grain include the

presence of consecutive lamellae and transverse fissures at the hilum. The arms of the

extinction cross are strongly polarized, are slight ragged and expand at the margin of the

grain.

87

Cat Tail Rhizome (Typha latifolia, Typhaceae)

Figure 5.8. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Typha

latifolia

Cattail is a perennial plant native to North and South America, Eurasia and

Africa. It is a wetland species that grows in many climates and at elevations ranging

from sea level to 2300 m AMSL (7200 ft) (Gucker 2008). Rhizomes and stalks were

harvested in the early spring and eaten fresh. Rhizomes were also harvested in the fall

and dried for latter consumption. The roots were often roasted. Dried rhizome was

ground for flour and made into mush or cakes. Cattail pollen was also harvested for food

in the early summer (Fowler 1992).

Typha rhizome starch grains are similar to other geophyte starch grains. The

grains range in length and width from 9 and 15 µ with only a few large than 18 µ. The

average length of a Typha grain is 13.36 µ and the average width is 13.01µ. The grains

are mostly circular with some having one to three facets. The grains are spherical in

three dimensions. The presence of a vacuole at the hilum is less common than with

Lewisia and Lomatium grains. The surface of the grain appears to be rough unlike the

smooth surface of both Lewisia and Lomatium grains. Fissures are uncommon.

88

However, round large depressions or branching depressions are present at the center of

the hilum. The extinction cross is centric and has slightly elongate or asymmetrical arms

that do not always meet.

Bulrush Root and Seed (Schoenoplectus acutus, Cyperaceae)

Figure 5.9. Polarized Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Schoenoplectus acutus Root

and Seed

Bulrush or tule is a perennial plant in the Sedge family (Cyperaceae), that grows

in wetland environments between elevations ranging from sea level to 2300 m AMSL

(7200 ft) (Tilley 2012). Ethnographic use of tule was primarily for making baskets and

cordage, thought roots and shoots were eaten raw in the early spring, roasted or boiled,

and stored for later consumption. Seeds from some bulrush plants were also collected in

the fall and parched and ground to make mush or stored for later use (Fowler 1992).

Schoenoplectus contains both an edible seed and an edible root and thus both

were sampled for starch characteristics. Schoenoplectus root starch grains are sparse in

the reference materials. The average size of the grain is 10.65 µ long and 9.59 µ wide.

The grains are round and very spherical. The hilum is centric and the extinction cross has

89

symmetrical and straight arms. The surface of the grain has a circular or longitudinal

depression. The starch grains of the Schoenoplectus seed are compound. They range in

size from 3 to 10 µ with an average length of 6.72 µ and a width of 6.65 µ. They are

polygonal in shape with a rough surface texture. The hilum is centric and there is a

stellate depression or fissure at the center of most of the grains.

Nut Sedge (Cyperus esculentus, Cyperaceae)

Figure 5.10. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Cyperus

esculantis

Nut sedge, or yellow nut sedge is a perennial plant that grows in moist soils,

generally at marsh margins below 1500 m AMSL (5000 ft) (Horak et al. 1987). The

plant produces nut-like tubers that grow on root hairs. These tubers were harvested

directly or harvested from rodent caches. The tubers were often stored after drying and

were rehydrated through boiling for consumption (Fowler 1992). Nut sedge plants were

one of the plants that the Owens Valley Paiute managed through irrigation (Lawton et al.

1976).

90

Cyperus starch grains have several characteristics that differentiate them from

other grass and root starch grains investigated here. The grains range in size from 7 to 20

µ with an average size of 13.57 µ in length and 13.36 µ in width. The grains are ovate

yet slightly irregular in shape with a mostly polyhedral three dimensional form. The

hilum is centric and long and some appear to have an open vacuole. The surface of the

grain is very rough and knobby, with longitudinal depressions and large round

depressions covering most of the surface that give the margin of the grain ring or collar.

Tree Nut

Singleleaf Pinyon Pine (Pinus monophylla, Pinaceae)


monophylla

Commonly known as pinyon pine or single leaf pinyon, this is a type of pine

whose range extends from the Great Basin states of Nevada, Utah, and California, into

New Mexico, Arizona, and as far south as Baja, California. Pinyon is found between

1200 m to 2800 m AMSL (4000 to 9500 ft) and one of the key components of the

Pinyon-Juniper woodland plant community (Steward 1938). Pinyon pine nuts were an

91

important resource to Great Basin foragers from the Middle Holocene and on into historic

times (Simms 1987). Pine cones could be harvested early, when the cones were still

green and closed in the late summer, and then stored for later use or roasted to open up

cones and access the pine nuts (Eerkens et al. 2004). They were more often harvested in

the fall when cones were open and nuts could be shaken out easily. Pine nuts were eaten

raw, roasted, parched, or ground and made into meal (Steward 1933; Steward 1938).

P. monophylla starch grains have certain attributes that distinguish them from

other starch grains (Scholze 2011). P. monophylla starch grains are much smaller than

geophyte starch grains: they range in length from 4 to10 µ, with an average length of 8.84

µ and an average width of 8.38 µ. P. monophylla grains are circular to ovate and

spherical in three dimensions. The grains have a centric hilum with a large vacuole.

These vacuoles are much larger, covering more than half the surface of the grains, than

that of the Lomatium grain. The P. monophylla grains have a rough surface with a large

lip around the margin of the grain as well as longitudinal depressions and branching

fissures. Because of the size of the vacuole, the extinction cross appears to be off-center

and the arms are short and curved, sometimes appearing to not cross at all but rather bend

outward from the central vacuole toward the margins. These starch granules are distinct

form other root and seed granules because of their small size range, the surface

characteristics, and the large vacuole.

92

Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis, Pinaceae)


albicaulis

Whitebark pine is a subalpine species of pine found throughout western North

America. This species is a timberline tree generally found at elevations above 2400 m

AMSL (8000 ft) (Grayson 2011). Though not heavily utilized by Great Basin and Rocky

Mountain groups there is some ethnographic indication that they were a subsistence

resource (Rhode and Madsen 1998; Steward 1938). Steward (1938) mentions the

possibility of whitebark and limber pine use by aboriginal groups but does not stress their

importance. The first evidence of pine use found in the Great Basin is of limber pine

hulls found at Danger Cave (Rhode and Madsen 1998); therefore the resource was

exploited but the degree of importance to the diet is unclear.

Whitebark starch grains are much smaller than singleleaf pinyon grains with an

average length of 5.32 µ and an average width of 4.76 µ. The grains are circular to ovate

in two dimensions and lenticular in three dimensions. The hilum is centric and open,

with a smaller vacuole than in pinyon starch granules. The extinction cross is

asymmetrical and has curved arms at the margin of the grains. There appear to be fewer

93

starch granules in the sample than for the pinyon sample. This could be because

whitebark pine has a higher oil content than pinyon and perhaps a lower carbohydrate

content (Adams 2010; Rhode and Rhode 2015). The starch grains appear mostly in

clumps composed of large circular granules that do not exhibit birefringence, it is

possible that these granules are oil.

Seeds

Indian Rice Grass (Achnatherum hymenoides, Poaceae)


Achnatherum hymenoides

Indian ricegrass is a bunch grass that grows 30-50 cm tall in the salt desert shrub,

sagebrush steppe, and in the pinyon-juniper forest communities up to 3000 m AMSL

(10,000 ft) (Ogle et al. 2013). The small seeds were gathered in the late spring and early

summer and were often stored for later use, or ground and made into flour (Steward

1938).

Achnatherum starch grains are compound grains found in very large aggregates

(45 µ long or more). Individual grain characteristics are very small and difficult to

94

discern. The extinction cross is strongly expressed under polarized light and the cross

arms are curved. The hilum appears to be centric and the grains appear to be polygonal

due to the compound nature of the grains. The margins of each individual grain,

however, are not easily distinguished. The large aggregates have a rough, wrinkled

texture due to the membrane holding them together.

Spike Rush (Eleocharis quinqueflora, Cyperaceae)

Figure 5.14. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Eleocharis

quinqueflora

Spike-rush is a perennial marsh or wet meadow plant with a rhizome, found in

North America, Asia, Europe, and North Africa (plants.usda.gov). Steward (1933; 1938)

mentions that the seeds of the spike-rush plant were eaten by the Owens Valley Paiute

but preparation of the seed for consumption as well as mention of the consumption of the

rhizome was not recorded.

Eleocharis grains are very small compared to other root and nut starch grains

analyzed for this study. Eleocharis grains are less than 8 µ in length with an average of

length of 6.98 µ and an average width of 6.62 µ. The grains are circular, smooth and

95

spherical. The hilum is centric and open with a small vacuole and the extinction cross

has curved and asymmetrical arms. The surface of the grain is generally smooth with

some depressions at the hilum.

Iodine Bush (Allenrolfea occidentalis, Chenopodiaceae)

Figure 5.15. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Allenrolfea

occidentalis

Iodine bush or pickleweed is found in sandy soils and in salt flats in the Great

Basin and California (Barlow and Metcalfe 1996). The plant is a perennial shrub in the

Goosefoot family containing small seeds (0.4-0.9mm) that may have been processed by

Great Basin foragers (Metcalfe and Barlow 1992).

Allenrolfea starch grains are very small, less than 8 µ in length and are found in

aggregates or clumps. Some of the grains are so small that only iodine staining reveals

that they are in fact starch grains (see Torrance and Barton 2006 for description of

methods). The larger grains are irregular, exhibiting circular, triangular, or faceted

shapes. They include a centric hilum and an extinction cross with very curved arms that

do not meet in the center of the grain. The surface of some grains appear to have

96

transverse depressions. When individual grains are free of the aggregates they appear to

be smooth. The aggregates appear to have a rough texture due to some sort of membrane

holding the starches together.

Goosefoot (Chenopodium fremontii, Chenopodiaceae)


Chenopodium fremontii

Goosefoot is an annual plant that is also a member of the Goosefoot family, native

to western North America. The plant grows in both desert habitats as well as the pinyon-

juniper community, with a range of 700 to 3100 m AMSL (2300-10,200 ft)

(plants.usda.gov). Seeds and greens were eaten by forgers across North America

(Steward 1938).

Chenopodium starch grains appear to be aggregates; grains formed from one

amyloplast (Perry 2010). This sample contained very few starch grains and a

representative sample of Chenopodium characteristics was difficult to obtain. The

average size of an individual grain is very small: 4.22 µ long and 4.73 µ wide. Grains

appear to be small, circular and smooth with a centric hilum and straight, symmetrical

97

extinction cross arms. The compound grains were in groups of four, giving each grain

two facets.

Wild Rye (Leymus cinereus, Poaceae)

Figure 5.17. Polarized and Regular Light Photo Illustrating Characteristics of Leymus

cinereus

Great Basin wild rye is a perennial bunch grass that can grow up to one to two

meters tall with seed heads of 10 cm or more in length (Ogle et al. 2012). The plant is

native to the Intermountain West and grows in the sagebrush and pinyon-juniper zones,

with a range of 600 to 3000 m AMSL (1900-9800 ft). The fresh new growth of a stalk

was eaten raw in the early spring and the seeds were gathered and stored or milled

(Steward 1933).

Leymus grains have several characteristics that differentiate them from other grass

seed starch grains. The starch grains range in size from 4 to 26 µ in length, they average

15.59 µ long and 16.01 µ wide. The grains are circular to ovate in shape and flat or

lenticular in three dimensions. The hilum is elongate and centric and the arms of the

extinction cross are wide. The surface of the grain is relatively smooth and has large,

98

round or longitudinal depressions that are wide and cover most of the surface of the grain.

There are either one or two concentric lamellae on the margins of most of the grains.

Leymus granules are dimorphic, with some grains occurring in aggregates of both large

and very small grains.

Modern Starch Identification Summary

With the modern starch samples, it is clear that there are certain characteristics

that can distinguish geophyte starch grains from tree nut and seed starch grains that are

summarized in Table 5.5. Geophyte grains are generally large, over 10 µ, are round in

two dimensions and spherical in three dimensions with one or more facets, and have a

depression at the hilum. Lomatium and Lewisia starch grains have very similar

characteristics making it difficult to distinguish the two. The presence of a Maltese Cross

on Lomatium granules and the distinct facet as well as the presence of lamellae on

Lewisia granules can distinguish them from each other. Compared to root starch grains,

seed starch grains are small, are found in smaller quantities, are often found in

aggregates, and more often than not have asymmetrical extinction cross arms.

Both P. monophylla starch grains and Calochortus spp. starch grains are

individually distinct and can be identified to genus. While not all starch grains contain

diagnostic characteristics that can differentiate them at the genus or species level we can

be confident in certain characteristics that can separate them into larger categories such as

geophytes, seeds, or tree nuts.

99

Table 5.5. Summary of Attributes used in Modern Taxonomic Identifications

Taxon

Av.

Length

µ

Av.

Width

µ

Shape Vacuole Hilum Extinction

Cross

Distinguishing

Characteristics.

Roots

Lomatium

roseanum 11.85 11.75 Semi circular Yes

Centric

Branching

Fissures

Symmetrical

Maltese cross

1 to 3 facets but

more often round

Lewisia rediviva 10.39 10.63

Semicircular

3D: bell

shaped

Yes

Centric

Depression

at hilum

Symmetrical

1 to 3 facets

Concentric

lamellae

Perideridia

bolanderi 9.12 9.06

Semicircular

3D:

polyhedral

No Centric Elongate with

curved arms

1 to 3 facets

Longitudinal

fissures

Calochortus

leichtlinii 17.13 13.62

Ovate

3D: lenticular No

Eccentric

Transverse

fissure

Polarized and

expanding at

margins

Concentric

lamellae

Typha latifolia 13.36 13.01

Circular/semi

circular

3D: spherical

Yes

sometimes

Centric

round

depression

at hilum

Elongate and

asymmetrical

1 to 3 facets

Rough surface

texture

Schoenoplectus

acutus

10.65 9.59 Round

3D: spherical No Centric

Symmetrical

and straight

Circular or

longitudinal

depression

Cyperus

esculentus 13.57 13.36

Ovate

3D:

polyhedral

Yes

sometimes Centric

Elongate and

curved at

margins

Rough knobby

texture

longitudinal and

round depressions

100

Taxon

Av.

Length

µ

Av.

Width

µ

Shape Vacuole Hilum Extinction

Cross

Distinguishing

Characteristics.

Tre

e N

uts

Pinus

monophylla 8.84 8.38

Circular/ovate

3D: spherical Large Centric

Elongate and

curved at

margin

Large round

depression and

rough surface

texture

Pinus albicaulis 5.32 4.76 Ovate

3D: lenticular Small Centric

Asymmetrical

and curved at

margins

Very few starch

grains in sample

See

ds

Shoenoplectus

acutus 6.72 6.65

Compound

Polygonal No

Centric

Stellate

depression

Elongate and

asymmetrical

Rough surface

texture

Achnatherum

hymenoides 45 40

Large

aggregate No Centric

Strongly

polarized Rough texture

Eleocharis

quinqueflora 6.98 6.62

Circular

3D: spherical Small Centric

Asymmetrical

and curved at

margin

smooth

Allenrolfea

occidentalis

Less

than 8

Less

than 8

Irregular:

triangular or

circular

No Centric Curved and

do not cross

Aggregates and

individual grains,

some very small

Chenopodium

fremontii 4.22 4.73 Circular No Centric Symmetrical

Compound: 3

facets

smooth

Leymus cinereus 15.59 16.01

Circular

3D: flat or

lenticular

No Centric Elongate

Wide arms

1 or 2 concentric

lamellae

101

Archaeological Starch Identifications

For the purpose of identification, archaeological starch grain typologies were

established and archaeological starches were then assigned one of nine types developed

specially for this study. Some of the types share characteristics with modern samples

described in the preceding subsection and are classified as such when possible (Table

5.6). The assignment of archaeological samples to a type listed below are the most likely

taxonomic identifications given the starch grain morphology and size. In general, the

typologies constructed for this study fall into three groups: geophyte starches represented

by Types G1-5; seed starches represented by Types S1-3; deformed starches represented

by Type Z.

Table 5.6. Comparison of Typologies and Possible Taxonomic Identifications

Starch Type Most Likely Taxonomic ID Common Name

G1 Lomatium spp. Biscuitroot

G2 Lewisia spp. Bitterroot

G1/G2 Lomatium or Lewisia Biscuitroot or Bitterroot

G3 Geophyte No ID

G4 Apiaceae Parsley Family

G5 Calochortus spp. Mariposa Lily

S1 Cyperaceae Sedge Family

S2 Achnatherum hymenoides Indian Ricegrass

S3 Leymus cinereus Wild Rye

Z Deformed or altered Broken or deformed starches

102

Type G1

Characteristics of Type G1 starches are that they are generally large, ranging from

8 to 20 µ in length and width, with an average length of 13.57 µ and an average width of

13.8 µ. They are circular in cross section, spherical in three dimensions, with one facet

that is often only visible when the starch is flipped. The hilum is centric and is open,

indicating a vacuole. The arms of the extinction cross are generally straight and

symmetrical, with slight curves at the margin. Many of the grains have a depression at

the hilum or a transverse fissure. This type shares characteristics with biscuitroot

(Lomatium spp.). In several instances, Type G1 appears nearly indistinguishable from

Type G2; in these cases the specimen is assigned to Type G1/G2, which subsumes the

two types and their likely taxonomic identification (Lomatium spp. or Lewisia spp.)

Type G2

This starch category is similar to Type G1. The grains range in size from 8 to 25

µ in length with an average length of 13.13 µ and an average width of 12.43 µ. The

grains are circular or semicircular resembling a bell shape with one flat faceted side. In

three dimensions the grain appears to be spherical making it elongate and hemispherical.

The hilum is centric and open, indicating a vacuole. The surface of the grain is generally

smooth with a deep depression at the hilum and or a transverse fissure. The extinction

cross arms are straight and symmetrical. This type shares characteristics with Bitterroot

(Lewisia). In several instances, Type G2 appears nearly indistinguishable from Type G1;

in these cases the specimen is assigned to Type G1/G2, which subsumes the two types

and their likely taxonomic identification (Lomatium spp. or Lewisia spp.).

103

Type G3

Type G3 is characterized by an oblong and lenticular shape, with an eccentric

hilum. The average length of the grains is 12.38 µ and the average width is 8.09 µ. The

arms of the extinction cross are asymmetrical and the arms are often ragged or curved at

the margins of the grain. The grains are smooth and the hilum is closed and occasionally

has a longitudinal depression. Some of these grains resemble Type G4. However, the

eccentric hilum and the long lenticular shape exclude them from being classified as Type

G4. It is possible that these grains are two grains stuck together and thus give the

appearance of a lenticular grain with ragged extinction cross arms. This can be a

common occurrence with Lomatium and Lewisia starch grains and it is possible that this

type could be Lewisia or Lomatium grains stuck together but it is hard to be sure.

Type G4

Type G4 has a wide range of sizes, but share certain diagnostic characteristics.

The grains range in size between 7 and 19 µ in length with an average of 8.24 µ and an

average width of 9.9 µ. The most diagnostic characteristic is the polyhedral shape in

three dimensions and an ovate or triangular shape in two dimensions. An additional

diagnostic characteristic is the longitudinal depression that runs more than half the length

of the long axis of the grain. Many have elongated hilums causing them to appear to be

eccentric. The arms of the extinction cross are curved at the margins and often meet in

the middle of the grain at asymmetric angles. The surface of the grains is generally

smooth and occasionally has no depressions at all. Type G4 grains include characteristics

similar to Perideridia and other geophyte species in the Apiaceae family. It can be

104

reasonably included among the geophytes, though the specific taxon represented remains

somewhat uncertain.

Type G5 Calochortus spp.

Type G5 includes several characteristics that indicate Type G5 represents a

species of Calochortus. These characteristics include: an ovate and pyriform shape, dark

concentric lamellae, eccentric hilum, transvers fissures at the hilum, and an extinction

cross with curved and sometimes ragged arms. The grains are all over 15 µ in length

with an average length of 23.13 µ and an average width of 20.74 µ.

Type S1

Type S1 is characterized by grains smaller than 10 µ, with an average length of

7.75 µ and an average width of 7.54 µ. This type includes a rounded shape and a smooth

texture. The grains are often circular if not slightly ovate, and appear spherical in three

dimensions. The surface of the grain is smooth possibly with a very small depression at

the hilum. The hilum is centric and the extinction cross is symmetrical and straight. This

type shares characteristics with Eleocharis, but the characteristics are not diagnostic and

cannot be positively identified as Eleocharis and is thus classified as Cyperaceae.

Type S2

Type S2 is a compound starch category. Large aggregates of starch granules

make individual grain characteristics difficult to determine. The extinction cross under

polarized light is strong and the hilum is centric. There appears to be a depression at the

105

hilum of each grain and a film that is rough in texture, binding the starches together. The

arms of the extinction cross are asymmetrical and straight. Individual grains appear

faceted. This compound tiny-granule category shares characteristics with both

Achnatherum hymenoides and to a lesser extent Allenrolfea occidentalis. The other

starch sampled that contains compound granules is Chenopodium fremontii, but type S2

does not share any other characteristics with this species.

Type S3

This category is characterized by large circular grains that range in size between 9

and 21 µ. The average length of the grains is 17.32 µ and the average width is 17.04 µ.

The grains are reniform or spherical when flipped. The extinction cross arms generally

do not meet in the middle and are v-shaped. The grains have concentric lamellae and no

surface features. Type S3 shares characteristics with Leymus cinereus.

Type Z

Type Z is a category for starch granules that exhibit some form of deformation

possibly due to heating or milling. The average length of the grains is 12.5 µ and the

average width is 11.9 µ. The starches have sharp or angular edges and a polyhedral

shape. The extinction cross has ragged or broken arms and there are stellate fissures at

the hilum and on the margins of the grain. Due to the deformation of this grain type, no

taxonomic identification is possible.

106

Starch Analysis from High Rise Village

Sixteen ground stone pieces from High Rise Village were processed for starch

residue. Of these, nine contained starch granules (Table 5.6 and Appendix D). On the

nine ground stone pieces containing starches, eighteen total starch granules were found

that represent three starch types (Table 5.7). Type G1 (Lomatium spp.) and G2 (Lewisia

spp.) are the most common with a total of eight complete starch granules and three

broken but possible Type G1 and G2 starches (Table 5.8; Figure 5.17). There were five

starches classified as Type Z which represent starch grains that have deformed

characteristics that could be indicative of milling or processing. The shape of the

individual grains, however, is not conducive to identification to a specific species. One

starch grain was classified as Type S3, a seed grain similar to Leymus cinereus.

107

Table 5.7. High Rise Village Ground Stone Containing Starches

Lodge Accession Number Artifact Type Quantity of

Starches

19 FR5891-1923 Millingslab 0


26 FR5891-1562 Handstone 2














Total 18

See Appendix D for detailed information of starch characteristics and measurements

108

Table 5.8. High Rise Village Starches by Type

Lodge Accession

Number

Specimen

Number Group Type

Most Likely

Taxonomic ID

19 FR5891-1954 01 Type Z

26 FR5891-1562 01 Type Z

26 FR5891-1562 02 Type Z

26 FR5891-15199 01 Type S3 Leymus cinereus

26 FR5891-15199 01 Type Z

8 FR5891-2273 01 Type G2 Lewisia


16 FR5891-1762 01 Broken Type

G1/G2 Lomatium/Lewisia




16 FR5891-1788 01 Type G1/2 Lomatium/Lewisia




7 FR5891-2077 02 Type G1 Lomatium

7 FR5891-2099 01 Type Z



8 FR5891-2276 01 Broken Broken

See Appendix D for detailed information of starch characteristics and measurements

109

Figure 5.18. Comparison of Starch Type G2 with Lewisia rediviva

110

Table 5.9. High Rise Village Starch Frequency by Type

Group

Type Most Likely ID Common Name Number (n) Percent

Type

G1 Lomatium spp. Biscuitroot 1 5.56%

Type

G2 Lewisia spp. Bitterroot 3 16.67%

Type

G1/G2 Lomatium/Lewisia Bitterroot/Biscuitroot 7 38.89%

Type

G3 No ID 0 0.00%

Type

G4 Apiaceae Parsley Family 0 0.00%

Type

G5 Calochortus spp. Sego Lily 0 0.00%

Type

S1 Cyperaceae Sedge Family 0 0.00%

Type

S2

Achnatherum

hymenoides Indian Ricegrass 0 0.00%

Type

S3 Leymus cinereus

Great Basin Wild

Rye 1 5.56%

Type Z Deformed 5 27.78%

Broken 1 5.56%

Total 18 100%

111

Figure 5.19. Percent of Starches by Type at High Rise Village; blue bars indicate


broken and otherwise unidentifiable taxa are in grey.

At High Rise Village all artifacts tested have geophyte starch grains except for the

artifacts from Lodge 26 which have the only grass seed starch grains for the site. Both

ground stone pieces, 1562 and 15199, are basalt handstones exhibiting sheen and

extensive levels of wear. Lodge 16 has the most starch grains, eight in total, from two

ground stone pieces. Artifact 1788 from Level 2, is a basalt handstone of wedge shape

with a battered type. This piece has the most starch grains at the site, all Type G1 or G2

indicating Lomatium or Lewisia. The other piece from Lodge 16, is a quartzite

millingslab, artifact 1762, from Level 4. This piece has two starch grains from Type G1

or G2 as well. This lodge contains the oldest dates of the site (Table 2.1), 4480 ±40 cal

B.P., however, this date has been argued to represent an old wood problem. Two

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

112

temporally diagnostic corner notched points which date to ca. 900 B.P. were found in this

lodge, suggesting that the AMS dates were indeed on old wood (Metcalfe 1987).

Starch Analysis from the White Mountain Village Sites

Fifteen millingslabs were processed for starch residue analysis. All but two

contained starch granules and a total of 179 starch granules were identified in total (Table

5.9 and Appendices E and F). The most common type of starch grains all fell into the

geophyte category: Type G4 (Apiaceae) with 60 grains in total, followed by Type G1 and

G2 (Lomatium spp. and/or Lewisia spp.) combined with 24 grains, and Type G5

(Calochortus spp) with 22 grains (Table 5.10). There were also several grains that fell

into the grass grain category: Type S1, S2, and S3 (Cyperaceae, Achnatherum

hymenoides and Leymus cinereus, respectively).

113

Table 5.10. White Mountain Village Ground Stone Containing Starches

Site Accession Number Quantity of

Starches

Corral Camp South 382-1628 3



Crooked Forks 382-14161 1

Gate Meadows 382-10155 0

Midway Village 382-1056 9

Rancho Deluxe 382-12317 2








Raven Camp 382-14801 3

Total 179

114

Table 5.11. White Mountain Village Sites Quantity of Starches by Type

Group


Type


Type


Type


Type

G3 No ID 17 9.50%

Type


Type


Type


Type

S2

Achnatherum


Type

S3 Leymus cinereus

Great Basin Wild

Rye 8 4.47%


Broken 11 6.15%

Poor

Photo 10 5.59%

Total 179 100%

115

Figure 5.20. Percent of White Mountain Village Starch Grain Types; blue bars indicate



The Rancho Deluxe site had the most starch grains; 128 in total were observed

from eight millingslabs. The most common starch grain was Type G4 (Apiaceae) with

42 grains, followed by Type G1 (Lomatium spp.) and G2 (Lewisia spp.) with 17 grains

(Table 5.11). The seed types; S1-3, have 24 grains in total. Type G5 (Calochortus spp.),

had 11 starch grains with 8 of them coming from one millingslab, 382-16347.

Millingslab 382-11270 had the majority of starch grains from the site with 72 grains in

total but only one Type G5 grain.

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

116

Table 5.12. Rancho Deluxe Quantity of Starches by Type

Group


Type


Type


Type


Type

G3 No ID 15 11.45%

Type


Type


Type


Type

S2

Achnatherum


Type

S3 Leymus cinereus

Great Basin Wild

Rye 7 5.34%


Broken 10 7.63%

Poor

Photo 7 5.34%

Total 131 100%

117

Figure 5.21. Rancho Deluxe Percent of Starches by Type; blue bars indicate geophytes

and yellow bars indicate grasses and other small seeded plants. Deformed, broken and

otherwise unidentifiable taxa are in grey.

Corral Camp South is the second largest sample (in terms of recovery) with 35

starch grains in total from two ground stone millingslabs. Thirty-two starch grains came

from one millingslab, 382-2045, with 9 of the Type G5 (Calochortus spp.) grains 13 of

type G4 (Apiaceae) (Table 5.13).

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

118

Table 5.13. Corral Camp South Quantity of Starches by Type

Group


Type


Type


Type

G3 No ID 2 5.71%

Type


Type


Type


Type

S2

Achnatherum


Type

S3 Leymus cinereus

Great Basin Wild

Rye 1 2.86%


Broken 1 2.86%

Total 35 100%

119

Figure 5.22. Corral Camp South Percent of Starches by Type; blue bars indicate



Midway Village had 9 starch grains from one millingslab. The grain types all fall

into the geophyte category but one (Table 5.13). One millingslab was tested from Raven

Camp and contain 3 starch grains, two of Type G4 (Apiaceae) and one of Type S1

(Cyperaceae). Crooked Forks had one millingslab tested with one starch grain of Type

G4 (Apiaceae).

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

120

Table 5.14. Midway Villages Quantity of Starches by Type

Group


Type


Type


Type

G1/2 Lomatium/Lewisia

Biscuitroot or

Bitterroot 3 33.33%

Type

G3 No ID 1 11.11%

Type


Type


Type


Type

S2

Achnatherum


Type

S3 Leymus cinereus

Great Basin

Wild Rye 0 0.00%


Broken 1 11.11%

Total 9 100%

121

Figure 5.23. Midway Village Percent of Starches by Type; blue bars indicate geophytes

and deformed, broken and otherwise unidentifiable taxa are in grey.

Figure 5.24. Comparison of Starch Type G5 with Calochortus leichtlinii

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

122

Figure 5.25. Comparison of Starch Type G4 with Perideridia bolanderi

Figure 5.26. Comparison of Starch Type S2 with Achnatherum hymenoides Indian Rice Grass

123

Figure 5.27. Comparison of Type S3 with Leymus cinereus Great Basin Rye

To summarize, in the White Mountain assemblage, the Rancho Deluxe site has

the largest number of starch grains with 129 in total. Type G5 Calochortus, has 11 starch

grains with 8 of them coming from one millingslab, 16347. Millingslab 11270 has the

majority of starch grains from the site with 72 grains in total but only one Type G5 grain.

Interestingly, millingslab 16347 has only 6 of the 26 grass species starches and 31

starches from various geophyte species. Corral Camp South has 35 starch grains from

two millingslabs all of them in the geophyte categories with 9 being Calochortus grains.

One ground stone from Midway Village was tested and contains nine starch grains all but

one in the geophyte category. Raven Camp and Crooked Forks each have one

millingslab with geophyte starch grains and one grass starch grain.

124

Comparison of the High Rise Village and White Mountains Starch Assemblages

In comparing both the White Mountain and the High Rise Village starch analysis

results, it is clear that both assemblages are dominated by geophytes with a greater

diversity of geophytes represented in the White Mountain assemblage (Figure 5.28).

Seed starch granules are present at both sites but with a higher diversity and quantity at

the White Mountain sites.

Figure 5.28. Comparison of the Percentage of Starches by Taxon at each Location: blue

bars are High Rise Village and orange bars are White Mountain Village Sites

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

High Rise Village White Mountain Village Sites

Geophytes Grasses &

Other Small

Seeds

No ID

125

Diversity and Evenness

The preceding suggests substantial differences between the High Rise Village and

White Mountains starch assemblages; these are explored in more depth using Shannon’s

diversity (H) and evenness (EH) index and Simpson’s diversity (D) and evenness (ED)

index (Beals et al. 2000). Diversity refers to the number of types in the sample and

evenness refers to the proportional representation of typologies in the sample. For the

Shannon Index the larger the value of H the more diverse the sample. For the Simpson’s

Index the closer D is to 0 the higher the diversity. Evenness is a ratio between the

observed diversity and the maximum diversity possible in the sample, the closer to 1 the

more even the sample.

The results of these indices are tabulated in Table 5.14 and Table 5.15. For High

Rise Village, H= 1.07 and D= 2.4 and for the White Mountains, H=1.66 and D= 4.5

illustrating that the White Mountains assemblage is slightly more diverse than that of the

High Rise Village assemblage. If we reduce the number of species by combining Type

G1, G2 and Type G1/G2 which all represent either Lomatium or Lewisia (the “lumped”

data in the figures below) the diversity changes for HRV (H=0.2 and D=1.18) meaning

there is very little diversity in the HRV starch assemblage. Evenness is similar at both

locations with HRV EH=0.77 and ED=0.6. For the White Mountains EH=0.75 and

ED=0.5. However, if we lump Type G1-G3 together the evenness changes with HRV

becoming less even (EH=0.41 and ED=0.59) and with the White Mountains remaining

even (EH=0.84 and ED=0.61).

126

In general, the White Mountain Village site assemblage shows more diversity in

plants being processed, with more evenness of species processed compared to HRV, but

still substantial evidence for geophyte processing. HRV shows little diversity and

evenness with only geophyte processing occurring on site.

Table 5.15 Shannon Diversity and Evenness Index Comparison Between High Rise

Village and the White Mountain Village Sites

Equation HRV White Mountains

Shannon Diversity Index (H) 1.08 1.66

Shannon Evenness index

(EH) 0.78 0.76

Total Number of Species (N) 4 9

Lumped

Shannon Diversity Index (H) 0.29 1.64

Shannon Evenness index

(EH) 0.41 0.84


Table 5.16. Simpson’s Diversity and Evenness Index Comparison Between High Rise

Village and the White Mountain Village Sites

Equation HRV White Mountains

Simpson’s Diversity Index (D) 2.4 4.51

Simpson’s Evenness Index

(ED) 0.6 0.50


Lumped

Simpson’s Diversity Index (D) 1.18 4.27

Simpson’s Evenness Index

(ED) 0.59 0.61


127

Summary of Results

The ground stone assemblage from High Rise Village indicates use of expedient

technology where quartzite slabs were used as millingslabs with no shaping or

modifications. The millingslabs all exhibit abrasive use-wear. Abrasive wear is the first

level of wear that will occur on a ground surface after minimal use. More extended use

will produce tribochemical wear, specifically the buildup of sheen. Five millingslabs

have patches of sheen with wear extending only to the surface of the grains. This

indicates that the ground stone was not used intensively in order to build up additional

levels of wear. Also of note is that none of the millingslabs show evidence of pecking,

which indicates the ground surfaces never reached a point of exhaustion where the

surfaces need to be re-roughened. The handstones exhibit higher levels of wear. Only

one of the handstones exhibits intentional shaping and is well worn. Four of the five

have patches of sheen on the grinding surface. The one handstone with no sheen appears

to have been shaped into a wedge with a battered tip, which indicates some degree of

intentional design. According to Adams (2002), ground stone with expedient design, one

ground surface and low levels of sheen indicate shorter use and therefore possibly shorter

occupations (which corresponds to Trout’s [2015] interpretation of the site’s flaked stone

assemblage and Morgan et al.’ [2016] general interpretation of the site’s occupational

history).

In contrast, the millingslabs from the White Mountain sites exhibit extensive use

but more concentrated levels of wear. The ground stone shows few signs of intentional

shaping but do show higher levels of use indicated by concave grinding surfaces, surface

128

pecking, smooth grinding surfaces, and patches of sheen. Seven pieces have evidence of

pecking and four have patches of sheen visible macroscopically. The White Mountain

ground stone assemblage appears more heavily used than the High Rise Village ground

stone which is not surprising because residential use is believed to have been more

intensive at the White Mountain sites (compare Bettinger [1991] to Morgan et al. [2016]).

As with the ground stone analysis, starch residue analysis indicates more starches,

and perhaps more use of the White Mountain millingslabs than at High Rise Village. At

both of these localities, however, geophytes are the dominate resource being processed on

the ground stone recovered from these sites. At High Rise Village, 85 percent of the

starch grains fall into the geophyte category (excluding broken starch grains from the

typologies). At the White Mountain sites, 80 percent of the starch grains fall into the

geophyte category (excluding broken starch grains from the typologies) and 16 percent

fall into the grass seed categories.

In sum, starch residue analysis from both locations indicates a focus on geophyte

processing. High Rise Village ground stone was almost exclusively used to process roots

compared to the White Mountain sample which indicated a wider range of processed

plants with a dominance of geophytes. These findings fit well with the two

interpretations of the sites; High Rise Village as single family short term base camp, and

the White Mountain Sites are multi-use, long term summer villages.

129

Chapter 6 Discussion and Conclusion

The shift to high altitude residential use at High Rise Village and the White

Mountain Village sites is poorly understood. What is clear is that plant and especially

root processing took place during the intensive residential use of these sites. With no

macrobotanical remains recovered from High Rise Village (Losey 2013); and low

quantities recovered from the White Mountain Village sites (Scharf 2009), the specific

plant resources being processed at these sites was not clear. My aim in conducting starch

residue analysis was to identify the specific resources being targeted at these high altitude

village sites. My expectations in conducting residue analysis were that geophytes were

the object of processing at these locations. Starch residue analysis confirmed this

prediction.

Discussion of Results

Starch analysis from both High Rise Village and the White Mountain Village sites

indicates geophyte species were the focus of plant processing at all of these high altitude

locations. HRV was dominated by two geophyte species Lomatium spp. (biscuitroot) and

Lewisia spp. (bitterroot). The White Mountain ground stone had more diversity in the

amount of geophyte species represented: Lomatium spp., Lewisia spp., Calochortus spp.

(Mariposa Lily), and two unknown types that look similar to Perideridia (Yampa) and

possibly compound Lomatium or Lewisia grains (Type G3) but could not be positively

identified as such. There are also 33 seed starch grains in the White Mountain sample but

the grass grains lack diagnostic characteristics to positively identify them to a species.

130

None of the starch grains exhibited characteristics of either whitebark or limber pine and

one starch grain cluster shares characteristics with pinyon pine starch grains but could not

be positively identified as such due to a lack of diagnostic attributes.

The results of this study contradict previous researchers’ assertions (Adams 2010,

Scharf 2009, Stirn 2014, Rhode 2010; Thomas 1983) who have pointed to the use of pine

species as the most likely plant resource being processed at these sites. I argue that if one

considers the return rates of pine species and geophyte species, as well as the availability,

predictability, storage potential, and seasonality of these two types of resources,

geophytes appear to be the better choice overall. Further, if one considers the

archaeological record of the two study areas, there is widespread evidence for root

consumption, processing and storage in the valleys adjacent to the ranges containing high

altitude village locales.

It seems that the reason many researchers failed to recognize the importance of

geophytes to high altitude settlement and subsistence intensification is the lack of direct

evidence for root processing and consumption. This is due to the lack of preservation of

root harvesting tools, the lack of disposable or inedible parts of roots prior to

consumption, and the general use of ground stone for diverse food processing tasks. I

explore each of these points in more depth in the discussion that follows.

Return Rates

Very limited research has been done on return rates for root species (Adams 2010,

Couture et al. 1986, Simms 1987, Smith and McNees 2005), with some consideration of

yields of root grounds (Prouty 1995, Thoms 1989, Wandsneider and Chung 2003), as

131

well as yields of root cooking features (Francis 2000, Smith 2001). With these limited

data, the average return rates for both pine and root species fall nearly within the same

range, with root species having consistently higher returns despite some overlap (because

of the difference in return rates for un-hulled compared to processed limber pine nuts, the

average return rate for pine as a category is skewed) (Table 6.1). If we solely consider

pinyon return rates compared to the average geophyte return rate, geophytes are still

higher ranked and all geophyte species individually have a higher return rate than pinyon

with the exception of C. constancei. Given the lack of adequate data for calculating

return rates on these two types of resources, the small difference in return rates alone may

not fully explain the selection of root harvesting over pine harvesting at these locations.

If we then consider several other characteristics of these two types of resources as a

factor of their overall utility, we gain a clearer picture of the total value of each type of

resources and which ones would likely be included in the diet of prehistoric foragers in

these two regions.

132

Table 6.1. Return Rates on Several Pine and Geophytes Species

Resource Return Rate (kcal/hr) References

Pine

Pinus monophylla 1,125

Simms 1987, Barlow

and Metcalfe 1996

Pinus albicaulis 1,941 (un processed) Adams 2010

Pinus flexilis

178 (hulled)

5,387 (un hulled) Rhode and Rhode 2015

Average

2,157 (un processed/hulled)

651 (processed)

Geophytes

Cyompterus bulbosus 1,461 Smith and McNees 2005

Lomatium hendersonii 3,831 Couture et al. 1986

Lomatium cous 1,219 Couture et al. 1986

Cyompterus constancei 306 Adams 1010

Lewisia rediviva 1,374 Couture et al. 1986

Average 1,638

Overall Utility

In considering pine resources in comparison to geophyte resources, return rates

alone may not fully account for the utility of the two types of resources. Using six

additional characteristics such as availability, abundance, seasonality, predictability,

cultivation potential, and storage potential, the utility of each type of resources is much

clearer, particularly at high altitude, with geophytes scoring higher in all categories. The

first quality is the availability and abundance of a resource, which refers to the spatial

distribution, resource density, and the frequency in which a resource is encountered on

the landscape. Lepofsky and Peacock (2004) ranked resources in the Pacific Northwest

based on their availability and abundance and root species out ranked tree nut species in

every case. Whitebark pine is a good example, it is only found in restricted habitats at

133

high elevations while species such as bitterroot and biscuitroot are found in many habitats

and elevation zones. In the two study areas, Whitebark pine is found in the Wind River

Mountains at the location of High Rise Village so availability of Whitebark pine

compared to geophytes may be negligible at this site. Although pinyon pine has a less

restricted range than that of whitebark pine, it was not included in their study because

pinyon does not grow in the Pacific Northwest. Overall, their study indicates that root

species may be encountered more frequently and in higher abundance than some pine

species. These criteria indicate that geophytes are a more favorable resource.

If we then consider the seasonality of the two types of resources, specifically at

high elevation, geophytes are favored over pine. Pine nuts ripen in the late summer and

early fall when weather in the high altitude would be less predictable, the threat of snow

would be greater, and water would be scarce. Geophytes ripen in the late spring and

early summer when snow is melting at high elevation thus making water more available,

weather is increasingly predictable, and the threat of snow is reduced. It is also the

period of time when artiodactyls move back into the high country to graze on newly

productive alpine meadow flora.

The predictability of these two resources categories also favors geophytes over

nuts. The nature of a geophyte is its ability to survive winter dormancy by living of

carbohydrate and polysaccharides stores in an underground storage organ. This feature

allows geophytes to be highly resilient to fluctuations in climate and moisture (Prouty

1995). Conversely, researchers (Mutke et al. 2005; Redmond et al. 2012) have found that

pinyon pine is susceptible to fluctuations in moisture and temperature during periods of

cone growth. This causes greater instability in the frequency of masting years.

134

Many researchers have shown that geophytes also have high cultivation potential

(Lepofsky and Peacock 2004; Prouty 1995; Smith and McNees 2005; Thoms 1989;

Wandsnider and Chung 2003). Minimal management techniques such as aerating the soil

through harvesting, periodic burning, and irrigation, can greatly increase yields of root

crops which is not the case with pinyon and whitebark pine trees. The ability to

minimally manage geophyte grounds may have made geophytes are more desirable

resources. Pine might be favored only when considering the effort needed to prepare the

two resources for storage. If we consider pine as a back-loaded resources and geophytes

as a front-loaded resource it is clear that roots will be favored when reliance on stored

foodstuffs is high (see Chapter 3).

When ranking geophyte and pine nut species based on multiple qualities, not just

on the caloric returns, geophytes are higher ranked in five out of six categories. This

information supports my findings that geophytes were the targeted resources harvested at

the White Mountain Village sites and at High Rise Village.

Culture History and the Ethnographic Record

If we consider the culture history of the lower elevations before and during

occupation of both High Rise Village and the White Mountain Village sites, there appears

to be a consistent pattern of root processing, housepit construction, and use of ‘persistent

places’ (Smith and McNees 2011; Smith and McNees 1999).

In the Yellowstone and Jackson Hole region, Bender and Wright (1988) and

Wright et al. (1980), have identified a ‘high country adaptation’ focused on plant

procurement between 1800 and 2400 m AMSL (6000 and 8000 ft) and possibly higher.

135

This adaptation is based on the periodicity of certain alpine plant resources, specifically

blue camas and other geophytes available in the spring and summer. Hunter-gatherers of

the region moved their settlements up to the high altitude during these seasons for

optimal procurement of geophytes. This pattern holds constant for nearly 10,000 years.

Bender and Wright (1988) see evidence for this adaptation persisting in the Jackson Hole

area of Wyoming while Frison (1991) and Adams (2010) see this pattern in western

Wyoming, and Benedict (1992) in the Colorado Front Range.

A similar pattern for geophyte procurement, processing, and storage is found in

the Green River Basin, Washakie Basin, and the Great Basin Divide just south and east of

the Wind River Mountains. Thousands of rock lined hearths, slab lined pits, fire cracked

rock features, and housepit features have been recorded dating from 6500 to 3100 B.P.

(Smith and McNees 1999). The archaeological record suggests that long-term intensive

root procurement was an integral part of prehistoric food-ways during the Middle

Holocene in Wyoming. Roots were an import food source that were harvested both for

immediate consumption and on a large scale for storage (Francis 2000; Smith and

McNees 1999). These root crops were stable and predictable and this pattern of root

processing holds constant for more than 4000 years (Smith and McNees 1999, Smith et

al. 2001). Following this, around 1800 to 1000 B.P. in north-central Wyoming there is

evidence for a broadening of the diet to include sego lily and other bulbs, evidenced by

deep bell-shaped pits at many sites within the Big Horn and Wind River basins (Smith et

al. 2001). This period is characterized by pit-oven construction and a broadening of the

diet in the Wyoming Basin corresponds with the most intensive occupation of High Rise

Village.

136

Ethnographic accounts of the Rocky Mountain or Tukudeka Shoshone appear to

fit this high country adaptation pattern. The Tukudeka inhabited the high mountain zones

throughout the spring and fall to forage for roots and seeds and to hunt mountain sheep

moving down to the Green River Basin in the winter following game (Shimkin 1999).

Given the evidence for ‘persistent places’ in the Green River Basin and adjacent

areas, and evidence from Yellowstone and the Jackson Hole regions, it appears that the

same foraging strategies were applied in high elevation settings as in low elevation

settings, a pattern which persisted for over four millennia. Both of these models base

settlement and subsistence practices on the predictability, cultivation potential, and

availability of geophyte species as the reasons for the settlement patterns observed in the

archaeological record. If the dominant resource processed at High Rise Village consisted

of geophytes, as my research suggests, perhaps High Rise Village conforms to this high

country adaptation model (Wright et al. 1980).

Similarly, the archaeological record during the Marana period throughout the

White Mountain, Owens Valley, and Mojave share many similar characteristics. Large

permanent villages were occupied year-round in Owens Valley and share similarities

with village sites found in the White Mountains in regards to artifact types, floral and

faunal remains, hearths, rock ringed structures, and well developed midden soils

(Bettinger 1982). In the archaeological record there is also some evidence of root

processing in this region. In the Northern Mojave, just south of Owens Valley, Eerkens

(2002) found that pit features used to roast roots and seeds were common in the Haiwee

and Marana Periods (1500 cal B.P. to historic). Shallow pit hearths varying in size from

1.50-.07 meters in diameter and 7-25 cm deep with large fire cracked rock toss zones are

137

interpreted as root roasting features. These features in the Northern Mojave date to as

early as 1730 ± 90 B.P. but most date between 930 to 290 B.P. Interestingly, a shift from

pit hearths to smaller hearths with seed remains takes place around 270 B.P. Eerkens

attributes this to the introduction of pottery technology in cooking which may have made

seeds a more favorable resource over roots (Eerkens 2002). The widespread us of pit

hearths in the Haiwee and especially Marana periods corresponds with the timing for

occupation of the White Mountain Village sites (Bettinger 1991).

It appears that these high altitude sites are at odds with the ethnographic record as

Bettinger (1991) and Morgan et al. (2014b) argue. In his ethnographic accounts Steward

places such an importance on pinyon harvesting and to a lesser extent summer seed

harvesting that the use of the high altitude was overlooked as well as the importance of

root use in the native diets. Steward’s work with the Shoshone and Paiute showed that

valley and foothill resources dominated subsistence patterns with high altitude resources

playing only a minor role for hunting (Steward 1933). Given the fact that several wild

root and seed species were cultivated, including: spike rush (Eleocharis), a type of lily

(Brodiaea), a type of sunflower (Helianthus), and goosefoot (Chenopodium) with

irrigation ditches constructed on the alluvial fans debouching from the Sierra Nevada

(Steward 1933), roots and seeds appear to have been an important part of the subsistence

regime in the region during ethnohistoric times.

Why Were Roots Overlooked?

In considering the overall utility of these two resources, geophyte use by

prehistoric foragers is not surprising. Why is it that some researchers have overlooked

138

geophyte use? I argue that this is due to a bias in the archaeological and ethnographic

record. Evidence for root procurement in the archaeological record is scarce due to the

lack of preservation of root remains, their lack of inedible parts in need of disposal prior

to consumption, and the minimal amount of processing tools required for root

procurement, the most important of which, the digging stick, does not preserve well in

archaeological contexts (Smith and McNees 2005).

Prehistoric root use has been documented in the ethnographic record as having

varying importance in hunter-gatherer diets in the western United States (Smith and

McNees 2005). In the Pacific Northwest, root procurement was an integral part of

forager diets, with some researchers (Ames and Marshall 1995; Prouty 1995; Thoms

1989) concluding that root use provided a stable, storable resource that allowed for a

seasonal sedentary settlement pattern. Ethnographic work has demonstrated that for

Northwestern groups, root procurement was an important social and subsistence activity

in the late spring and early summer (Couture et al. 1986). This importance of roots in the

diets of the Pacific Northwest groups may be due, in part to the lack of pine nut resources

available in those regions. In the Great Basin however, Steward (1933 and 1938) does

not emphasize root procurement as integral to the diets of the Shoshone and Paiute,

though he recognizes their importance to Numic-speaking groups, especially in the

northern parts of the Great Basin. His research focused on pinyon nut harvesting and to a

lesser extent on seed harvesting. Several root species are mentioned as food but no

mention of their importance is noted. Another place that is lacking in the ethnographic

accounts of the Great Basin groups is a use of the high altitude. Morgan et al. (2014b)

hypothesize that this omission may be due to an emphasis on low and middle elevation

139

pursuits as well as a possible deliberate omission on the part of Steward’s informants.

The question is then, did Great Basin people not focus on these resources and locations or

did their use not get recorded in the ethnographic record? I would argue that because of

this lack of focus on root harvesting, many archaeologists have overlooked their potential

as a valuable resource worth investigating.

The appearance of ground stone in archaeological sites indicates some sort of

plant processing but cannot indicate specific plants. Because of the biased archaeological

record towards preservation of small hard seeds and nuts, as well as the biased

ethnographic record towards a focus on pinyon, archaeologist have overlooked the

potential of geophyte use at Great Basin sites in particular and at high altitude sites in

general. I would argue that starch residue analysis can help ameliorate this bias because

it is well suited to answers questions of which, if any, plants were being processed at

archaeological sites.

Interpretation

Given the archaeological data of the two regions analyzed for this study, and the

new information on a geophyte processing focus at these sites, a new interpretation is in

order. With a focus on geophyte processing in the Wind River Range and adjacent areas,

it appears that HRV fits into an existing pattern of transhumance from the valley to alpine

zone in a yearly foraging cycle, with HRV serving as a short term root harvesting camp,

before moving on to other root pastures or mountain sheep hunting grounds. Given the

ethnographic record in the Pacific Northwest of root camps and patch use, HRV was

likely occupied by several families for a few weeks every two to five years to target

140

specific root fields within the vicinity of the site (Couture et al. 1986; Morgan et al.

2016).

For the White Mountain sites, the picture is somewhat different. Steward (1933)

states that the Owens Valley Piute did not use the high altitude for plant gathering or for

living but the archaeological record indicates otherwise. The White Mountain sites are

upland villages that are markedly similar to the villages in Owens Valley (Bettinger

1989). Tool assemblages, house construction, and a broad based plant and animal diet all

conform to the valley pattern. The only confounding part of this pattern is the dramatic

shift in land use of the alpine zone from logistical hunting to residential living in order to

hunt marmot and large mammals as well as to process roots. The large amounts of

ground stone at each of these sites, as well as the degree of wear on these tools indicates

extensive plant processing. However, the diversity of artifacts particularly the large

quantity of flaked stone tools, implies that the White Mountain sites were not specialized

root camps as in the Wind River Range, but were in fact residential villages geared

towards a wide variety of tasks (Bettinger 1991).

Conclusion

Starch analysis, ground stone, and use-wear analysis was conducted on milling

equipment from High Rise Village and six of the White Mountain Village sites to answer

the question of which resources were the focus of intensive processing at these locations.

Starch residue analysis indicates that geophytes were the main focus of this intensive

processing.

141

At high altitude, researchers have thought that pine nuts (Scharf 2009, Stirn 2014;

Thomas 1983) and to a lesser extent roots (Adams 2010) were the target of intensive

processing. In considering the archaeological record of the two regions root processing

appears to have been part of a broad based subsistence pattern. Archaeologically,

evidence for root consumption does not preserve well, specifically tools used in

procurement and a lack of inedible parts removed prior to consumption.

Ethnographically root consumption in the Great Basin and Wyoming regions was

not considered an important activity and thus archaeologist are slow to consider the

possibility that ground stone may have been used to process geophytes. Starch residue

analysis is well suited to fill this gap in the archaeological and ethnographic record.

While analysis for this study was unable to positively identify starches to the species

level with the exception of sego lily starch grains, the analysis was able to point to the use

of roots as well as seeds in a context that was otherwise lacking that data, specifically at

High Rise Village where no floral remains were uncovered. It is for this reason that

starch analysis should be considered in further investigations of high altitude residential

locations.

It has long been assumed that alpine environments were mainly used to procure

high-ranked animal resources. In the Great Basin and the Rocky Mountain region,

however, there is evidence of high altitude residential sites in both the White Mountains

of eastern California and the Wind River Range of western Wyoming. These sites appear

to be anomalous in that they contradict previously held ideas about hunter-gatherer

adaptive choices, specifically that groups will intensively utilize plant resources in lieu of

hunting (Bettinger 1991). Starch residue analysis from two high altitude village locations

142

shows that hunter-gatherers were intensively processing roots. This may indicate that

root processing was a contributing factor mitigating the shift toward residential use of the

alpine zone in western North America.

143

References Cited

Adams, Jenny L.

1989 Experimental Replication of the Use of Ground Stone Tools. Kiva

54(3):261-271.

2002 Ground Stone Analysis: A Technological Approach. University of Utah

Press, Salt Lake City.

2014 Ground Stone Use-Wear Analysis: A Review of Terminology and

Experimental Methods. Journal of Archaeological Science 48:1-10.

Adams, Richard

2010 Archaeology with Altitude: Late Prehistoric Settlement and Subsitence in

the Northern Wind River Range, Wyoming. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of

Anthropology, University of Wyoming.

Aldenderfer, Mark

2006 Modelling Plateau Peoples: The Early Human Use of the World’s High

Plateaux. World Archaeology 38(3):357-370.

Aldenderfer, Mark, and Yinong Zhang

2004 The Prehistory of the Tibetan Plateau the Seventh Century A.D.:

Perspectives from China and the West Since 1950. Journal of World Prehistory

19:1-55.

Ames, Kenneth M., and Alan G. Marshall

1980 Villages, Demography and Subsistence Intensification on the Southern

Columbia Plateau. North American Archaeologist 2(1):25-52.

Andrefsky, William Jr.

2005 Lithics: Macroscopice Approaches to Analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Babot, P.

2003. Starch Grain Damage as an Indicator of Food Processing. In Phytolith and

Starch Research in the Australian-Pacific-Asian Regions: The State of the Art,

edited by Hart, D.M. and Wallis, L.A. Terra Australis 19, Pandanus Books,

Canberra, pp. 69-81.

Barlow, Renee K., and Michael D. Metcalfe

1996 Plant Utility Indices: Two Great Basin Examples. Journal of

Archaeological Science 23(August 1994):351-371.

144

Beals, Monica, Louis Gross, and Susan Harrell.

2000 Diversity Indices: Shannon's H and E. The Institute for Environmental

Modelling (TIEM), University of Tennessee.

Bender, Susan J., and Gary A. Wright

1988 High-Altitude Occupations, Cultural Process, and High Plains Prehistory:

Retrospect and Prospect. American Anthropologist 90(3):619-639.

Benedict, James B.

1992 Footprints in the Snow : Cultural Ecology of the Colorado Front Range,

U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research 24(1):1-16.

2007 Effects of Climate on Plant-Food Availability at High Altitude in the

Colorado Front Range, U.S.A. Journal of Ethnobiology 27(2):143-173.

Bettinger, Robert L, and Robert Oglesby

1985 Lichen Dating of Alpine Villages in the White Mountains, California.

Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 7(2):202-224.

Bettinger, Robert L.

1977 Aboriginal Human Ecology in Owens Valley: Prehistoric Change in the

Great Basin. American Antiquity 42(1):3-17.

1989 The Archaeology of Pinyon House, Two Eagles, and Crater Middens:

Three Residential Sites in Owens Valley, Eastern California. Anthropological

Papers of the American Museum of Natural History No. 67. American Museum of

Natural History, New York.

1980 Obsidian Hydration Dates for Owens Valley Settlement Categories. Journal

of California and Great Basin Anthropology 2(2):286-292.

1991 Aboriginal Occupation at High Altitude: Alpine Villages in the White

Mountains of Eastern California. American Anthropologist 93(3):656-679.

1999 What Happened in the Medithermal. In Models for the Millenium: Great

Basin Anthropology Today, edited by Charlotte Beck. University of Utah Press,

Salt Lake City, Utah.

2009 Hunter-Gatherer Foraging: Five Simple Models. Eliot Werner Publications

Inc., New York.

Bettinger, Robert L., and Martin A. Baumhoff

1982 The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures in Competition. American

Antiquity 47(3):485-503.

145

Bettinger, Robert L., Raven Garvey, and Shannon Tushingham

2015 Hunter-Gatherers: Archaeological and Evolutionary Theory. Second Ed.

Springer, New York.

Bettinger, Robert L., and R.E. Taylor

1974 Suggested Revisions in Archaeological Sequences in the Great Basin and

Interior Southern California. Nevada Archaeological Survey Research Papers

5:1-26.

Black, Kevin D.

1991 Archaic Continuity in the Colorado Rockies : The Mountain Tradition.

Plains Anthropologist 36(133):1-29.

Bouey, Paul

1979 Population Pressure and Agriculture in Owens Valley. Journal of

California and Great Basin Anthropology 1(1):162-170.

Brantingham, P. Jeffrey, and Gao Xing

2006 Peopling of the Northern Tibetan Plateau. World Archaeology 38(3):387-

414.

Bright, Jason, Andrew Ugan, and Lori Hunsaker

2002 The Effect of Handling Time on Subsistence Technology. World

Archaeology 34(1):164-181.

Broughton, Jack M., David A. Byers, Reid A. Bryson, William Eckerle, and David B.

Madsen

2008 Did Climatic Seasonality Control Late Quaternary Artiodactyl Densities in

Western North America? Quaternary Science Reviews 27(19-20):1916-1937.

Byers, David A, and Jack M. Broughton

2004 Holocene Environmental Change, Artiodactyl Abundances, and Human

Hunting Strategies in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 69(2):235-255.

Campell, Ian D., and John H. McAndrews

1993 Forest Disequilibrium Casued by Rapid Little Ice Age Cooling. Nature

366:336-388.

Canaday, Timothy W.

1997 Prehistoric Alpine Hunting Patterns in the Great Basin. Ph.D. Dissertation,

Department of Anthropology, University of Washington.

146

Carey, Hannah V., and John D. Wehausen

1991 Mammals. In Natural History of the White-Inyo Range: Eastern California,

edited by Clarence A. Hall, Jr. pp. 438-461. University of California Press,

Berkley and Los Angeles.

Cook, Edward R., Richard Seager, Richard R. Heim, Russel S. Vose, Celine Herweijer,

and Connie A. Woodhouse

2010 Megadroughts in North America: Placing the IPCC Projects of

Hydroclimatic Change in a Long-Term Paleoclimate Context. Journal of

Quaternary Science 25(1):48-61.

Couture, Marilyn D., Mary F. Ricks, and Lucile Housley

1986 Foraging Behavior of a Contemporary Northern Great Basin Population.


Cronquist, A., A. H. Holmgren, N. H. Holmgren, J.L. Reaveal, and P.K. Holmgren

1977 Intermnountain Flora: Volume 6, the Monocotyledons. The New York

Botanical Garden, New York.

Delacort, Michael G.

1995 Desert Side-Notched Points as a Numic Population Marker in the West-

Central Great Basin. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Society for

California Archaeology. Eureka, California.

Dubreuil, Laure, and Daniel Savage

2014 Ground Stones: a Synthesis of the Use-Wear Approach. Journal of

Archaeological Science 48:139-153.

Eckerle, William P.

1997 Eolian Geoarchaeology of the Wyoming Basin. In Changing Persepectives

of the Archaic on the Northwest Plains and Rocky Mountains, edited by Mary Lou

Larson and Julie E. Francis, pp. 138-167. University of South Dakota Press,

Vermillion, South Dakota.

Eerkens, Jelmer W.

2003 Towards a Chronology of Brownware Pottery in the Western Great Basin:

A Case Study From Owens Valley. North American Archaeologist 24(1):1-27.

2004 Privitization, Small-Seed Intesification, and the Orgins of Pottery in the

Western Great Basin. American Archaeology 69(4):653-670.

Eerkens, Jelmer W., Jerome King, and Eric Wohlgemuth

2004 The Prehistoric Development of Intensive Green-Cone Piñon Processing in

Eastern California. Journal of Field Archaeology 29:18-27.

147

Esau, Katerine

1977 (1960). Anatomy of Seeds Plants. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Fahn, A.

1990 (1967). Plant Anatomy. Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Fowler, Catherine S.

1992 In the Shadow of Fox Peak: an Ethnography of the Cattail-Eater Northern

Paiute People of Stillwater Marsh. Cultural Resource Series Number 5. U.S.

Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1 Stillwater National

Wildlife Refuge

Francis, Julie E.

2000 Root Procurment in the Upper Green River Basin: Archaeological

Investigations at 48SU1002. In Intermountain Archaeology, eddited by David B.

Madsen and Michael D. Metcalfe. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Frison, George C.

2004 Survival by Hunting: Prehistoric Huan Preditors and Animal Prey.

University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Garfinkel, Alan P.

2010 Rose Spring Point Chronology and Numic Population Movements in

Eastern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 43(1 and

2):42-49.

Gleason, Susan Marie

2001 In Search of the Intangible: Geophyte Use and Management Along the

Upper Klamath River Canyon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology,

University of California Riverside.

Grayson, Donald K

1991 Alpine Faunas from the White Mountains, California: Adaptive Change in

the Late Prehistoric Great Basin? Journal of Archaeological Science 18:483-506.

Grayson, Donald K.

2011 The Great Basin: A Natural Prehistory. University of California Press,

Berkley and Los Angeles.

Gucker, Corey L.

2008 Typha Latifolia. Fire Effects Information Systems. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Reserach Station, Fire Science

Laboratory.

148

Henry, Amanda G., Holly F. Hudson, and Dolores R. Piperno

2009 Changes In Starch Grain Morphologies From Cooking. Journal of

Archaeological Science 36(3):915-922.

Hildebrandt, Tod W.

2013 Intensification, Storage, and the Use of Alpine Habitats in the Central Great

Basin: Prehistoric Subsistence Strategies in the Toquima and Toiyabe Ranges.

Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Utah State

University, Logan Utah.

Horak, Michael J., Jodie S. Holt, and Norman C. Ellstrand

1987 Genetic Variation in Yellow Nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus). Weed Science

35(4): 506-512.

Hughes, Malcom K., and Henry F. Diaz (editors).

1994 The Midieval Warm Period. Academic, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

ISCN

2011 The International Code for Starch Nomenclature,

(http://fossilfarm.org/ICSN/Code.html), accessed (12/10/15)

Jane, J., Leas, S., Zobel, H., Robyt, J.F.

1994. Anthology of Starch Granule Morphology by Scanning Electron

Microscopy. Starch/Stärke 46:121-129.

Janetski, Joel C.

2010 Archaeology and Native American History at Fish Lake, Central Utah.

Occasional Paper, Museum of Peoples and Cultures. Brigham Young University,

Provo Utah.

Kelly, Isabel T.

1932 Ethnography of the Surprise Valley Paiute. University of California Press,

Berkeley, California.

Kelly, Robert L, Todd a Surovell, Bryan N Shuman, and Geoffrey M. Smith

2013 A Continuous Climatic Impact on Holocene Human Population in the

Rocky Mountains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United

States of America 110(2):443-7.

Kleppe, John A., Daniel S. Brothers, Graham M. Kent, Franco Biondi, S. Jensen, Neil W.

Driscoll

2011 Duration and Severity of Medieval Drought in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Quaternary Science Reviews 30(23-24): 3269-3279.

http://fossilfarm.org/ICSN/Code.html

149

Knoll, Michelle K.

2003 Prehistoric Timberline Adaptations in the Eastern Uinta Mountains, Utah.

Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University,

Provo Utah.

Koening, Orrin R.

2010 Does This Hearth Have a Home? A Hearth-Centered Spatial Analysis.

Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, Laramie

Wyoming.

Kornfeld, Marcel, George C. Frison, and Mary Lou Larson

2010 Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of the High Plains and Rockies. 3rd ed. Left

Coast Press, Walnut Creek.

Kornfeld, Marcel, Mary Lou Larson, David J. Rapson, and George C. Frison

2001 10,000 Years in the Rocky Mountains: The Helen Lookingbill Site. Journal

of Field Archaeology 28(3):307-324.

LaMarche, Valmore C.

1974 Paleoclimatic Inferences from Long Tree-Ring Records. Science

183(4129):1043-1048.

Lamb, Sydney

1958 Lingusitic Prehistory in the Great Basin. International Journal of American

Linguistics 24(2):95-100.

Larson, Mary Lou, and Marcel Kornfeld

1994 Betwixt and Between the Basin and the Plains: The Limits of Numic

Expansion. In Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa,

edited by David B. Madsen and David Rhode, pp. 200-209. University of Utah


Lawton, W H, Philip J Wilke, Mary DeDecker, and Willam M Mason

1976 Agriculture Among the Paiute of Owens Valley. Journal of California

Anthropology 3(1):13-50.

Lepofsky, Dana, and Sandra L Peacock

2004 A Question of Intensity: Exploring the Role of Plant Foods in the Northern

Plateau Prehistory. In Complex Hunter-gatherers: Evolution and Orginization of

Prehistoric Communities on the Plateau of Northwestern North America, edited

by William C. Prentiss and Ian Kuijt, pp. 115-139. University of Utah Press, Salt

Lake City.

150

Lerner, Harry, Xiangdong Du, Andre Costopoulos, and Martin Ostoja-Starzewski

2007 Lithic Raw Material Physical Properties and Use-Wear Accrual. Journal of

Archaeological Science 34(5):711-722.

Lindeboom, N., Chang, P.R., Tyler, R.T.

2004. Analytical, Biochemical and Physicochemical Aspects of Starch Granule

Size, with Emphasis on Small Granule Starches: A Review. Starch/Stärke 56:89-

99.

Lindstrom, Susan

1990 Submerged Tree Stumps as Indicators of Mid-Holocene Aridity in the Lake

Tahoe Basin. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 12(2).

Lloyd, Robert M., and Mitchell Sheppard

1973 A Flora of the White Mountains, Califronia and Nevada. University of

California Press.

Losey, Ashley

2013 Risk and Climate at High Eleveation: A Z-Score Model Case Study for

Prehistoric Human Occupation of Wyoming’s Wind River Range. Masters Thesis,

Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Utah State University, Logan Utah.

Louderback, Lisbeth

2014 The Ecology of Human Diets During the Holocene at North Creek Shelter,

Utah. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of

Washington, Seattle.

Lubinski, Patrick M.

2000 Of Bison and Lesser Mammals: Prehistoric Hunting Patterns in the

Wyoming Basin. In Intermountain Archaeology, edited by David B. Madsen and

Michael D. Metcalfe, pp. 176-185. University of Utah Anthropological Papers

Number 122, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Infinity Analyze 2015 (version 15-SCI-01) Lumenera Corporation Ottawa, Ontario.

MacArthur, Robert H., and Eric R. Pianka

1966 On Optimal Use of a Patchy Environment. The American Naturalist

100(916):603-609.

Makinen, Tina M.

2007 Human Cold Exposure, Adaptation, and Preformance in HighLlatitude

Environments. American Journal of Human Biology 19(2):155-165.

151

Mann, Michael

2002 Little Ice Age. In Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change, edited by

M.C. McCracken and J.S. Perry, pp.504-509. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken,

New York.

McGuire, Kelly R., and Brian W. Hatoff

1991 A Prehistoric Bighorn Sheep Drive Complex, Clan Alpine Mountains,

Central Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(1):95-

109.

McGuire, Kelly R., and William R. Hildebrandt

2005 Re-Thinking Great Basin Foragers, Prestige Hunting and Costly Signaling

During the Middle Archaic Period. American Antiquity 70(4):695-712.

Mensing, S., J. Korfmacher, T. Minckley, and R. Musselman

2012 A 15,000 Year Record of Vegetation and Climate Change from a Treeline

Lake in The Rocky Mountains, Wyoming, USA. The Holocene 22:739-748.

Mensing, Scott a, Larry V Benson, Michaele Kashgarian, and Steve Lund

2004 A Holocene Pollen Record of Persistent Droughts from Pyramid Lake,

Nevada, USA. Quaternary Research 62(1):29-38.

Mensing, Scott a., Saxon E. Sharpe, Irene Tunno, Don W. Sada, Jim M. Thomas, Scott

Starratt, and Jeremy Smith

2013 The Late Holocene Dry Period: Multiproxy Evidence for an Extended

Drought Between 2800 and 1850 cal yr BP Across the Central Great Basin, USA.

Quaternary Science Reviews 78:266-282.

Metcalfe, Michael D.

1987 Contributions to the Prehistoric Chronology of the Wyoming Basin. In

Perspectives on Archaeological Resources Management in the “Great Plains,”

edited by A.J. Osborn and C. Hassler, pp. 233-261. Omaha I and O Publishing

Company.

Metcalfe, Michael D., and Renee K. Barlow

1994 A Model for Exploring the Optimal Trade-off Between Field Processing

and Transport. American Anthropologist 34:340-356.

Morgan, Christopher T.

2006 Late Prehistoric Territorial Expansion and Maintenance in the South-

Central Sierra Nevada, California. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of

Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

152

Morgan, Christopher T., Robert L. Bettinger, and Mark Giambastiani

2014b Aboriginal Alpine Ceremonialism in the White Mountains, California.


Morgan, Christopher T., Jacob L. Fisher, and Monique Pomerleau

2012c High-Altitude Intensification and Settlement in Utah’s Pahvant Range.


Morgan, Christopher T., David C. Harvey, and Lukas Trout

2016 Obsidian Conveyance and Late Prehistoric Hunter-Gathere Mobility as

Seen from the High Wind River Range, Western Wyoming. Plains Anthropologist

in press.

Morgan, Christopher T., Ashley Losey, and Lukas Trout

2014a Late-Holocene Paleoclimate and Treeline Fluctuation in Wyoming’s Wind

River Range, USA. The Holocene 24:209-219.

Morgan, Christopher T., Ashley Losey, and Richard Adams

2012a High-Altitude Hunter-Gatherer Residential Occupations in Wyoming’s

Wind River Range. North American Archaeologist 33(1):35-79.

Morgan, Christopher T., and Monique Pomerleau

2012b New Evidence for Extreme and Persistent Terminal Medieval Drought in

California’s Sierra Nevada. Journal of Paleoliminology 47(4):707-713.

Morgan, Christopher T., Mark Giambastiani, Robert Bettinger, Marielle Black, and

Amanda Rankin

2015 Environmental Limitations, Alpine Villages and Logistical Strategies in

the Northern White Mountains. Paper presented for the 80th Annual Meeting for

the Society for American Archaeology San Francisco, California.

Mutke, Sven, Javier Gordo, and Luis Gil

2005 Variability of Mediterranean Stone Pine Cone Production: Yield Loss as

Response to Climate Change. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 132(3-4):263-

272.

Nash, Robert B.

2012 The Role of Maize in Low-Level Food Production Among Northern

Peripheral Fremont Groups in the Northeastern Uinta Mountains of Utah. Ph.D.

Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California Davis.

Nelson, Clemens A., Clarence A. Jr. Hall, and W. G. Ernst

1991 Geologic History of the White-Inyo Range. In Natural History of the White-

Inyo Range: Eastern California, edited by Clarence A. Hall, Jr., pp. 42-55.

University of California Press, Berkley and Los Angeles.

153

Neme, Gustavo

2016 El Indigino and High-Altitude Human Occupation in the Southern Andes.

Latin American Antiquity in press.

Ogle, D., L. John, and T. Jones

2013 Plant Guide for Indian Ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides). USDA-

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Aberdeen Plant Materials Center,

Aberdeen.

Ogle, D.G., D. Tilley, and L. St. John

2012 Plant Guide for Basin Rye (Leymus cinereus). USDA-Natural Resources

Conservation Service, Aberdeen Plant Materials Center, Aberdeen.

Perry, Linda

2010 Starch Extraction Protocol.

Piperno, Dolores R.

2009 Identifying Crop Plants With Phytoliths (and Starch Grains) In Central and

South America: A Review and an Update of The Evidence. Quaternary

International 193:146-159.

Prouty, Guy Lee

1995 Root and Tubers: Prehistoric Plant Use, Settlement and Subsistence

Intesification, and Storage in the Fort Rock Basin, Northern Great Basin, Oregon.

Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene.

Redmond, Miranda, Frank Forcella, and Nichole Barger

2012 Declines in Pinyon Pine Cone Production Associated with Regional

Warming. Ecosphere 3(12): art120.

Reed, Robert M

1976 Coniferous Forest Habitat Types of the Wind River Mountains, Wyoming.

The American Midland Naturalist 95(1):159-173.

Reichert, E.T.

1913. The Differentiation and Specificity of Starches in Relation to Genera,

Species, etc., Carnegie Institute, Washington DC.

154

Rhode, David

2010 Food Values and Return Rates for Limber Pine (Pinus flexilis). Paper

presented at the 32nd Great Basin Conference, Layton, Utah.

2014 Starch-Grain Study In, Cultural Resources Investigations for the Ruby

Pipeline Project in Nevada, Volume II: Prehistory of Nevada’s Northern Tier:

Results of the Data Recovery Program, by William Hildebrandt, Kelly McGuire,

Jerome King, Allika Ruby, and D. Craig Young. Far Western Anthropological

Research Group, Davis CA, for US Bureau of Land Management.

Rhode, David, and David B. Madsen

1998 Pine Nut Use in the Early Holocene and Beyond: The Danger Cave

Archaeobotanical Record. Journal of Archaeological Science (25):1199-1210.

Rhode, David and Allise A. Rhode

2015 Energetic Return Rates from Limber Pine Seeds. Journal of California and

Great Basin Anthropology 35(2): 291-304

Rhode, David, David Schmitt, D Page, J Feathers, and R Quist

2011 Starch Grains, Luminescence Dates, and Bunny Bones from FCR Features

at 42To567, Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. Poster presented at the Society for

American Archaeology Annual Meeting, Sacramento, CA.

Rumold, Claudia Ursula

2010 Illuminating Women’s Work and the Advent of Plant Cultivation in the

Highland Titicaca Basin of South America: New Evidence from Grinding Tool

and Starch Grain Analyses. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology,

University of California, Santa Barbara.

Scharf, Elizabeth A.

2009 Foraging and Prehistoric Use of High Elevations in the Western Great

Basin: Evidence from Seed Assemblages at Midway (CA-MNO-2196),

California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 29(1):11-27.

Scheiber, Laura L., and Judson Byrd Finley

2010 Mountain Shoshone Technological Transitions Across the Great Divide. In

Across a Great Divide: Change and Continuity in Native North America, 1400-

1900, edited by Laura L. Scheiber and Mark D. Mitchell, pp. 128-148. University

of Arizona Press, Tucson.

155

Schiffer, Michael B.

1986 Radiocarbon Dating and the “Old Wood” Problem: The Case of the

Hohokam Chronology Journal of Archaeological Science 13(1):13-30.

1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New

Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Scholze, Gary J.,

2011 The Application of Starch Grain Analysis to Late Prehistorice Subsistence

in Northeastern California. Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology,

Califronia State University, Sacramento.

Shimkin, Demitri B.

1986 Eastern Shoshone. In Handbook of North American Indians - Volume 11

Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D’Azevedo, pp. 308-335. Smithsonian

Institution, Washington D.C.

Shimkin, Demitri B.

1999 Before the Wilderness: Native Peoples and Yellowstone. In Dispossessing

the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks, pp. 41-54.

Oxford University Press, New York.

Simms, Steven R.

1987 Behavioral Ecology and Hunter-Gatherer Foraging: An Example from the

Great Basin. Oxford, England.

Simms, Steven R.

2008 Ancient People of the Gret Basin and Colorado Plateau. Left Coast Press,

Walnut Creek, Ca.

Smith, Craig S, and Lance M. McNees

1999 Facilities and Hunter-Gatherer Long -Term Land Use Patterns: An Example

from Southwest Wyoming. American Antiquity 64(1):117-136.

Smith, Craig S., and Lance M. McNees

2005 Cymopterus bulbosus and Prehistoric Foragers: Patch Size, Plant Density,

and Return Rates. Journal of Ethnobiology 25(1):1-23.

Smith, Craig S., and Lance M. McNees

2011 Persistent Land Use Patterns and the Mid-Holocene Housepits of

Wyoming. Journal of Field Archaeology 36:298-311.

156

Spira, Timothy P.

1991 Plant Zones. In Natural History of the White-Inyo Range: Eastern

California, edited by Clarence A. Hall, Jr. pp. 77-243. University of California

Press, Berkley and Los Angeles.

Stevens, Nathan E.

2005 Changes in Prehistoric Land Use in the Alpine Sierra Nevada: A Regional

Exploration Using Temperature-Adjusted Obsidian Hydration Rates. Journal of

California and Great Basin Anthropology 25(2):187-206.

Steward, Julian H.

1933 Ethnography of the Owens Valley Paiute. University of California

Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 33(3):233-250.

1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Smithsonian Institutin

Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 120,Washington D.C.

Stine, Scott

1994 Extreme and Persistent Drought in California and Patagonia During

Medieval Time. Nature 369:546-549.

Sutton, Mark Q.

1994 The Numic Expansion as Seen from the Mojave Desert. In Across the West:

Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa, edited by David B.

Madsen and David Rhode. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Thomas, David H.

1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada.

Journal f California and Great Basin Anthropology 3:7-43.

1982 The 1981 Alta Toquima Village Project: A Preliminary Report. Desert

Research Institue and American Museum of Natural History

1983 The Archaeology of Monitor Valley 2. Gatecliff Shelter. Anthropological

Papers Vol. 59, Pt. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York.

1994 Chronology and the Numic Expansion. In Across the West: Human

Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa, edited by David B.

Madsen and David Rhode, pp. 56-61. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

2015 Alpine Adaptive and Paleoenvironmental Change at Alta Toquima (Central

Nevada). From The 80th Annual Meeting of the Society for American

Archaeology, San Francisco.

157

Thoms, Alston Vern

1989 The Northern Roots of Hunter-Gatherer Intesification: Camas and the

Pacific Northwest. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington

State University, Pullman.

Tilley, D.

2012 Plant Guide for Hardstem Bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus). Aberdeen, ID.

Trout, W. Lukas

2015 Subsistence, Mobility, and Intensity of Residential Site Use: Results of

Flaked Stone Analysis at High Rise Village. Masters Thesis, Department of

Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.

Walsh, Kevin

2005 Risk and Marginality at High Altitudes: New Interpretations From

Fieldwork on The Faravel Plateau, Hautes-Alpes 79(May 2004):289-305.

Wandsnider, LuAnn, and Yi-Shing Chung

2003 Islands of Geophytes: Sego Lilies and Wild Onion Patch Density in the

High Plains Habitat. In Islands on the Plains: Ecological, Social, and Ritual Use

of Landscapes, edited by Marcel Kornfeld and Alan J. Osborn. University of Utah


Warren, Claude N.

1984 The Dessert Region. In California Archaeology, edited by Michael

Morratto, pp. 339-430. Academic Press, Inc.

Warren, Claude. N., and R. H. Crabtree

1972 The Prehistory of the Southwestern Great Basin. In Handbook of North

American Indians-Volume 11 Great Basin. Smithsonian Institution, Washington

D.C.

Watkins, Robyn

2000 Site 42DC823: Evidence for High Elevation Foraging in the Uinta

Mountains. Utah Archaeology 12(1):45-51.

Weninger, Bernhard, and Olaf Jöris

2008 A 14C Age Calibration Curve For the Last 60 ka: The Greenland-Hulu

U/Th Timescale and Its Impact on Understanding the Middle to Upper Paleolithic

Transition in Western Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55(5):772-781.

Weninger, Bernhard, Olaf Jöris and Uwe Danzeglocke

2015 CalPal-2007. Cologne Radiocarbon Calibration and Palaeoclimate Research

Package. Available at http://www.calpal-online.de/, accessed April 10, 2015.

158

Whitlock, Cathy, Mel A. Reasoner, and Carl H. Key

2002 Paleoenvironmental History of the Rocky Mountain Region During the Last

20,000 Years. In Rocky Mountain Futures: An Ecological Perspective, edited by

Jill S. Baron. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Wigand, Peter E., and David Rhode

2002 Great Basin Vegitation History and Aquatic Systems: The Last 150,000

Years. In Great Basin Aquatic Systems History, edited by R Hershler, David B.

Madsen, and D.R. Currey.

Wright, Gary A., Susan Bender, and Stuart Reeve

1980 High Country Adaptations. Plains Anthropologist 25(89):181-197.

159

Appendix A

Starch Analysis Definitions and Basic Terminology (from Perry 2010)

Starch grain / granule – a semi-crystalline ergastic substance formed in amyloplasts via

the layering of amylose and amylopectin carbohydrate molecules around a central point

(Fahn 1990, Esau 1977).

Simple starch grain – grains that form singly (Fahn 1990)

Compound starch grain – grains that form in aggregates, or grains that have more than

one center of formation within a single amyloplast (Fahn 1990)

Aggregates / Clumps – groupings of starch granules (Fahn 1990, Lindeboom et al. 2004)

Terms for defining assemblages of starch grains

Diagnostic – describing a set of morphological features that is unique to a plant taxon

and allows identification of that form. Can refer to both a single "type" grain and to an

assemblage (Reichert 1913)

Characteristic – describing a set of morphological features that are typical of a

taxonomic group or plant organ, but that do not necessarily allow for a secure

identification (sensu Reichert 1913)

Isomorphic – all of the grains from the species have the same general shape

Heteromorphic – the starches from the species have a variety of shapes

Shape

When at all possible, a three-dimensional term should be used to describe the basic

morphology of a starch grain. When not possible, two-dimensional terms may be used to

describe the shape in plan view and in profile, or they may be used to augment a three-

dimensional description.

Two-Dimensional Terms

Circular – appearing as a circle in which all radii are of equal length

Ovate– having a rounded and slightly elongated outline

160

Semicircular – part of a circle or oval

Square – having four equal sides

Rectangular – having four sides with opposite sides parallel and of equal length

Reniform – kidney-shaped (Reichert 1913)

Trapezoidal – having four sides, one pair of which are parallel

Polygon – having more than four sides; note number of sides in description

Triangular – having three well-defined sides

Three-dimensional terms

Spherical – a sphere in which all radii are equal length (defined in Reichert 1913, used in

Lindeboom et al. 2004)

Hemispherical – half a sphere (Reichert 1913)

Ovoid – egg-shaped, one end smaller than the other (Reichert 1913)

Ellipsoid – ovoid with both ends equal in size (Jane 1994)

Pyriform – shaped like a pear (Reichert 1913)

Cylindrical – having a circular base and top, both of equivalent size (Reichert 1913)

Conical – having a flat circular base and tapering to a pointed top (Reichert 1913)

Conoid – one half of the grain is conical (two straight suB.P.arallel sides), while the

other is ovoid or hemispherical. Differs from conical in that the base is ovoid, not a flat

circle.

Lenticular – bi-convex (Reichert 1913)

Reniform – kidney-shaped (Reichert 1913)

Prismatic – any three dimensional shape that has two equivalent two-dimensional faces

on opposite ends and a parallel axis between the faces, e.g., a cylinder (Reichert 1913)

161

Polyhedral – having many faces that are not necessarily of the same two-dimensional

shape (Reichert 1913)

Terms to use with basic three-dimensional descriptors

Angular – having acute angles where sides meet (Reichert 1913)

Compressed/Flattened – having a smaller dimension in one plane than in another

(Reichert 1913)

Rounded off – having smooth corners (Reichert 1913)

Sharp-edged – having angular corners (Reichert 1913)

Areas of the Starch Grain and Features

Details of the starch grain including the hilum, cross, lamellae, fissures, and surface

features should be described in detail. The area of the grain in which these features occur

should be specified in the description.

Areas

Margin / Outline – the edge of the grain in any view (Reichert 1913)

Proximal – in the end of the grain where an eccentric hilum occurs (Reichert 1913)

Mesial – referring to the central part of the grain (Reichert 1913)

Distal – in the end of the grain away from the eccentric hilum (Reichert 1913)

Features

Hilum – The central point around which the layers of a starch grain form (Fahn 1990,

Esau 1977) Descriptors of hila follow:

Centric/Eccentric – occurs within or outside of the geometric center of the grain

(Reichert 1913, Fahn 1990)

Distinct/Indistinct – can be seen easily or has less clarity (Reichert 1913)

Open: containing a vacuole

162

Extinction Cross – an optical interference pattern that occurs when objects that form

with layers, such as starch grains, are viewed using cross-polarized light. Descriptors for

the cross follow:

Centric/Eccentric – in or outside of the geometric center of the grain (Reichert

1913)

Symmetric/Asymmetric – having similarity in corresponding components of the

cross, or having lack of similarity

Lines Thick/Thin – width of cross arms (Reichert 1913)

Lines Straight/Curved – extending in one direction or bending (Reichert 1913)

Confused – distorted from a distinct X form, often by interference from fissures

(Reichert 1913)

Ragged/Clean Cut – irregular and jagged or regular and well-defined (Reichert

Quadrants – the areas between the dark lines of the figure (Reichert 1913)

Length of arms – short, long, etc.

Degree of Polarization – a somewhat subjective assessment of the prominence of

the cross. Described as Low, Fair, High, Very High etc. (Reichert 1913)

Cracks / Fissures – fissure lines in a starch grain, frequently emanating from the hilum,

and often due to pressure between grains as they form within the plant (Reichert 1913).

Descriptors of cracks as related to hilum position follow:

Branching – having subdivisions of the main fissure, often Lateral (Reichert

1913)

Perpendicular – at a right angle to the plane of the hilum (Reichert 1913)

Parallel – in the same plane and equidistant along the line of the hilum (Reichert

1913)

Stellate – star-shaped (Reichert 1913)

Transverse – extending at a right angle to the long axis of the grain (Reichert

1913)

Longitudinal – extending along the long axis of the grain (Reichert 1913)

163

Lamellae – growth layers of a starch grain (Reichert 1913). Descriptors of lamellae

follow:

Concentric/Eccentric – lamellae of uniform or of non-uniform thickness

(Reichert 1913)

Distinct/Indistinct – clearly or not clearly defined (Reichert 1913)

Coarse /Fine – wide or narrow lines (Reichert 1913)

Surface descriptions

Knobby – having rounded projections (Reichert 1913)

Rough – coarse in texture (Reichert 1913)

Smooth – having a surface free from irregularities (Reichert 1913)

Granular – appearing to be covered with small particles (Reichert 1913)

Projections – areas that extend beyond the main surface of the grain (Reichert 1913)

Depressions – indentations not necessarily due to formation in compound grains

(Reichert 1913)

Indentations – depressions that are larger than Depressions (Reichert 1913)

Wrinkled – having many irregular shallow fissures (Reichert 1913)

Modified starch terms: descriptions of damage to starches

Fragment – a part of an entire grain (Babot 2003)

Crack – a fissure in the grain resulting from processing. The area of the grain in which

crack occurs should be specified, e.g., surface, interior, margin, etc.

Fractured – when the fissures dividing a grain are so complete that portions of the grain

are removed.

164

Appendix B

Table B- 1. High Rise Village Ground Stone and Use-Wear Analysis

Acc

ession

Nu

mb

er

Co

mp

lete/

Fra

gm

ent

Ma

teria

l

Ty

pe

Fo

rm

Gro

un

d

Su

rface

s

SC

OV

SW

EA

R

SC

ON

ST

EX

T

WR

LV

WR

TP

ST

RK

Sta

rches

Len

gth

Wid

th

Th

ickn

ess

FR5891-

1167

No Data 2 N

FR5891-

15199

(S-1)

Co Basalt Hand-

stone

2 complete heavy convex smooth smooth all over reciprocal Y 13 9 3.5

FR5891-

15199

(S-2)

Co Basalt Hand-

stone

2 complete heavy flat smooth sheen on highs

and lows

abrasion

and

flatten-

ed

grains

reciprocal Y 13 9 3.5

FR5891-

1562

Co Basalt Hand-

stone

1 complete moderate flat medium/

smooth

smooth spots on

highs

crushing

of

grains

and

sheen

indefinite Y 10 8 5.5

FR5891-

1762

Fr Quartzite Milling-

slab

1 light flat medium highs only rounded

surface

of

grains

indefinite Y 19 11 5

165

Acc

ession

Nu

mb

er

Co

mp

lete/

Fra

gm

ent

Ma

teria

l

Ty

pe

Fo

rm

Gro

un

d

Su

rface

s

SC

OV

SW

EA

R

SC

ON

ST

EX

T

WR

LV

WR

TP

ST

RK

Sta

rches

Len

gth

Wid

th

Th

ickn

ess

FR5891-

1788

Co Granitic Hand-

stone/-

pestle

3 battered

end and

two

smooth

surfaces

not

ground

course convex medium

with

pecking

light with sheen battered

at tip

indefinite Y 17 6 3

FR5891-

1923


slab

1 complete medium flat

edge

to

edge

smooth

at high

points

at high points

only and

abrasion

abrasion

and

sheen

reciprocal N 21 12 3.5

FR5891-

1954


slab

1 indefinite high in

center

flat

and

worn

only in

center

medium smooth spots

and very

smooth in

center but only

on high spots on

edges

sheen indefinite Y 21 12 3.5

FR5891-

1990

Fr Quartzite Hand-

stone

1 light flat

edge-

edge

smooth

with

small

striations

highs only some

sheen

and

crushing

indefinite N 8 6 4

FR5891-

1996


slab

1 complete moderate flat smooth

with

pecking

highs only rounded

grains

and

some

sheen

reciprocal N 19 15 5

166

Acc

ession

Nu

mb

er

Co

mp

lete/

Fra

gm

ent

Ma

teria

l

Ty

pe

Fo

rm

Gro

un

d

Su

rface

s

SC

OV

SW

EA

R

SC

ON

ST

EX

T

WR

LV

WR

TP

ST

RK

Sta

rches

Len

gth

Wid

th

Th

ickn

ess

FR5891-

2077


slab

1 complete heavy flat all

over

fine highs and lows

crushing

large

areas of

sheen

indefinite Y 8 5.5 3

FR5891-

2099


slab

2 side 1:

heavy

Side 2:

medium

side:

flat all

over

side 2:

flat all

over

side 1:

fine with

pecking

side 2:

medium

side 1: flattened

and crushed

grains 2:highs

only

abrasion

and

large

areas of

sheen

reciprocal Y 13 4.5 3.5

FR5891-

2147


slab

1 indefinite light flat course Highs only with

sheen

rounded

grains

and

fatigue

wear

indefinite N 18 19 2

FR5891-

2157

Co Quartzite Milling-

slab

1 complete heavy flat Re-

sharpene

d

(pecked)

worn

smooth on highs

only

abrasion

and

sheen

indefinite N 15 13 3

FR5891-

2171


slab

1 indefinite light flat

edge-

to-

edge

course light and only

on highs

fatigue

on some

grains,

light

indefinite N 9 8 3.5

167

Acc

ession

Nu

mb

er

Co

mp

lete/

Fra

gm

ent

Ma

teria

l

Ty

pe

Fo

rm

Gro

un

d

Su

rface

s

SC

OV

SW

EA

R

SC

ON

ST

EX

T

WR

LV

WR

TP

ST

RK

Sta

rches

Len

gth

Wid

th

Th

ickn

ess

FR5891-

2266


slab

2 side 1:

moderate

side 2:

heavy

Side 1:

flat

side 2:

flat in

places

but the

surface

was

spalled

side 1:

medium

side 2:

fine

side 1: highs

only side 2:

smooth

rounded

grains

with

sheen

indefinite N 6 5 3.5

FR5891-

2273


slab

1 complete medium flat medium highs only some

crushing

or

fatigue

indefinite YES 15 6.5 4

FR5891-

2276

Fr Quartzite Hand-

stone

1 complete heavy flat

edge-

edge

medium/

smooth

smooth spots

highs only

some

crushing

and

sheen

indefinite YES 6.5 4 2.5

168

Appendix C

Table C- 1. White Mountain Ground Stone and Use-Wear Analysis

Acc

ession

Nu

mb

er

Co

mp

lete

/Fra

gm

ent

Ma

teria

l

typ

e

Fo

rm

Gro

un

d

Su

rface

s

SC

OV

SW

EA

R

SC

ON

ST

EX

T

WR

LV

WR

TP

ST

RK

Sta

rch

es

Len

gth

Wid

th

Th

ickn

ess

Gro

un

d L

Gro

un

d T

h

382-

10155 Co Granitic

Milling-

slab 1

Com-

plete medium

slightly

concave medium

highs

only IND N 54 52 5

382-

1056 Fr Metased

Milling-

slab 2

Com-

plete

Side 1:

heavy

side 2:

light

Side 1:

concave

side 2:

flat

side 1:

sheen and

pecking

side 2: on

small spot

of sheen

side 1:

sheen

and

pecking

IND Y 36 29 9

382-

11269 Fr

Metased

or FGV

Milling-

slab 2

side 1:

com-

plete

side 2:

only in

center

medium

side 1:

concave

side 2:

flat

smooth

with

pecking

IND Y 25 14 10 16 15

382-

11270 Fr Granitic

Milling-

slab 1

Com-

plete medium

flat and

slanted medium

smooth

on highs

only

IND Y 58 39 12

382-

11271 Co Granitic

Milling-

slab 1

only in

center medium

concave

and

slanted

medium

smooth

at high

points

some

sheen IND Y 39 19 19

382-

12317 Fr Granitic

Milling-

slab 2

only in

center heavy concave

smooth

with

pecking

sheen sheen IND Y 25 20 9 13 11

169

382-

14161 Fr Granitic

Milling-

slab 1

only in

center heavy concave

smooth

with

pecking

smooth

all over

with

polish in

center

IND Y 36 27 9 21 18

382-

14698 Fr

Sandston

e/

Quartzite

Milling-

slab 1

only in

center heavy slanted

smooth

with

pecking

only

highs IND N 15 11 5

382-

14801

Comp

lete

Limeston

e

Milling-

slab 1

on one

corner medium

flat and

concave

in one

place

course pecking IND Y 54 28 10 28 12

382-

1628 Co Quartzite

Milling-

slab 1 medium flat smooth

high

points

only

small

patch

es of

sheen

IND Y 37 17 11

382-

16347 Fr Granitic

Milling-

slab 1

Com-

plete medium flat medium

smooth

on high

points

with

pecking

IND Y 39 20 12

382-

2045 Co Quartzite

Milling-

slab 1

Com-

plete medium

flat/slop

ed smooth

smooth

on high

points

abrasi

on IND Y 38 20 9

382-

9218 Fr

Fine-

grained

but

granitic

Milling-

slab 1

only in

center medium concave medium

highs

only IND Y 31 15 8 16 6

382-

9275 Fr FGV

Milling-

slab 1

Com-

plete light slanted

only

ground at

high

points

high

points IND Y 17 12

6.

5

382-

9430 Co Granitic

Milling-

slab 1

in

center

only

medium concave medium sheen IND Y 38 29 10 12 12

170

Appendix D

Table D- 1. High Rise Village Starch Residue Analysis

Acc

ession

Nu

mb

er

Sp

ec. N

Len

gth

Wid

th

Hilu

m L

en

gth

Gra

in T

yp

e

2-D

Sh

ap

e

3-D

Sh

ap

e

Hilu

m T

yp

e

Hilu

m P

ositio

n

La

mella

e

Fissu

res

Su

rface

Ex

tinctio

n

Cro

ss

Gro

up

Ty

pe

FR5891-

15199 S1 01 17.32 17.04 8.98

Sim

ple

Circu

lar

Sp

herical

closed centric concentric longitudinal

at margin no

symmetrical

and straight Type S3

FR5891-

15199 S2 02 15.74 21.65 12.31

Sim

ple

An

gu

lar

Sp

herical

open centric no branching at

hilum no ragged Type Z

FR5891-

1562 01 18.6 15.76 7.37

Sim

ple

Faceted

Po

lyh

edral

closed slightly

eccentric no

transverse at


FR5891-

1562 02 14.95 18.25 8.95

Sim

ple

Faceted

Po

lyh

edral

closed centric no transverse at

hilum rough ragged Type Z

FR5891-

1762 01 11.49 na na

Sim

ple

Faceted

Bro

ken

open centric no no depression

at hilum straight

Broken

G1/G2

171

Acc

ession

Nu

mb

er

Sp

ec. N

Len

gth

Wid

th

Hilu

m L

en

gth

Gra

in T

yp

e

2-D

Sh

ap

e

3-D

Sh

ap

e

Hilu

m T

yp

e

Hilu

m P

ositio

n

La

mella

e

Fissu

res

Su

rface

Ex

tinctio

n

Cro

ss

Gro

up

Ty

pe

FR5891-

1762 02 17.18 23.32 9.15

Sim

ple

Faceted

Po

lyh

edral

open/

broken centric no no

depression

at hilum straight

Broken

G1/G2

FR5891-

1788 01 24.61 23.96 14.5

Sim

ple

Circu

lar

Na closed centric no no no

slightly

curved at

margin

Type

G1/2

FR5891-

1788 02 16.63 15.20 10.85

Sim

ple

Circu

lar

Na closed

slightly

eccentric no no no

slightly

curved at

margin

Type

G1/2

FR5891-

1788 03 16.93 17.38 10.37

Sim

ple

Circu

lar

Na open eccentric no

longitudinal

at hilum no do not meet

Type

G1/2

FR5891-

1788 04 22.45 23.64 11.148

Sim

ple

Circu

lar

with

on

e

facet

Na closed centric no

transverse at

hilum no

asymmetrica

l and

straight

Type G2

172

Acc

ession

Nu

mb

er

Sp

ec. N

Len

gth

Wid

th

Hilu

m L

en

gth

Gra

in T

yp

e

2-D

Sh

ap

e

3-D

Sh

ap

e

Hilu

m T

yp

e

Hilu

m P

ositio

n

La

mella

e

Fissu

res

Su

rface

Ex

tinctio

n

Cro

ss

Gro

up

Ty

pe

FR5891-

1954 01 14.8 18.48 7.98

Sim

ple

Faceted

Po

lyh

edral

closed centric no no depression

at hilum

ragged and

do not meet Type Z

FR5891-

2077 01 13.84 13.79 8.46

Sim

ple

Circu

lar

Na open centric no no no

symmetrical

and straight

Type

G1/2

FR5891-

2077 02 19.12 21.61 9.95

Sim

ple

Circu

lar

Sp

herical

open centric no no depression

at hilum

slightly

asymmetrica

l

Type G1

FR5891-

2099 01 14.33 15.19 8.73

Sim

ple

Circu

lar

Na open centric no no

round

depression

at hilum

curved at

margin Type Z

173

Acc

ession

Nu

mb

er

Sp

ec. N

Len

gth

Wid

th

Hilu

m L

en

gth

Gra

in T

yp

e

2-D

Sh

ap

e

3-D

Sh

ap

e

Hilu

m T

yp

e

Hilu

m P

ositio

n

La

mella

e

Fissu

res

Su

rface

Ex

tinctio

n

Cro

ss

Gro

up

Ty

pe

FR5891-

2099 02 14.11 13.45 6.62

Sim

ple

Faceted

Po

lyh

edral

open centric no no no curved at

margin

Broken

G1/G2

FR5891-

2273 01 12.57 12.29 6.43

Sim

ple

Faceted

Na closed centric no no

depression

at hilum

symmetrical

and straight Type G2

FR5891-

2273 02 17.6 14.49 11.34

Sim

ple

Circu

lar w/

on

e facet

Sp

herical

open eccentric no no depression

at hilum straight Type G2

FR5891-

2276 01 Broken

174

Appendix E

Table E- 1. White Mountain Starch Residue Table Measurements by Site

Accession Number Specimen Number Length Width Hilum

Length

382-1056 01 11.06 8.48 8.25

382-1056 02 10.8 7.42 6.56

382-1056 03 18.06 16.26 10.19

382-1056 04 16.59 13.9 9.89

382-1056 05 9.82 7.85 5.86

382-1056 06 11.97 13.66 6.72

382-1056 07 9.54 7.59 5.03

382-1056 08 28.22 31.05 15.13

382-1056 09 11.27 9.76 6.56

382-11269 01 13.10 11.28 6.32

382-11270 01 13.73 9.39 8.64

382-11270 02 11.41 8.02 7.57

382-11270 03 11.49 9.12 6.38

382-11270 04 11.06 7.38 6.32

382-11270 05 9.15 8.02 5.42

382-11270 06 9.34 6.72 6.11

382-11270 07 11.31 7.74 7.82

382-11270 08 9.62 7.61 4.68

382-11270 09 7.0 6.5 4.85

382-11270 10 11.35 7.74 7.38

382-11270 11 12.64 9.54 8.68

382-11270 12 13.04 11.78 7.85

382-11270 13 12.17 9.15 8.09

382-11270 14 10.19 6.29 6.75

382-11270 15 7.74 6.81 5.92

382-11270 16 8.78 8.89 4.85

382-11270 17 9.02 7.18 6.47

382-11270 18 8.05 8.28 3.02

382-11270 19 14.11 9.44 9.78

382-11270 20 12.45 9.78 5.65

382-11270 21 7.54 5.95 4.17

382-11270 22 8.94 7.38 4.52

175


Length

382-11270 23 7.11 5.65 4.39

382-11270 24 12.94 12.15 7.06

382-11270 25 7.0 6.21 4.33

382-11270 26 11.15 9.11 6.63

382-11270 27 13.88 9.39 8.91

382-11270 28 13.87 5.63 8.91

382-11270 29 10.15 7.27 6.05

382-11270 30 17.95 18.68 9.99

382-11270 31 8.37 7.18 5.59

382-11270 32 12.13 11.45 5.63

382-11270 33 12.94 10.73 6.58

382-11270 34 15.36 9.46 9.44

382-11270 35 11.34 11.11 5.78

382-11270 36 17.7 11.08 8.91

382-11270 37 12.13 8.23 7.76

382-11270 38 14.49 7.69 10.28

382-11270 39 8.18 7.08 4.39

382-11270 40 11.16 10.97 4.94

382-11270 41 10.15 10.84 5.07

382-11270 42 11.74 8.16 6.29

382-11270 43 9.02 7.06 4.39

382-11270 44 13.87 14.87 7.52

382-11270 45 6.62 7.96 3.49

382-11270 46 15.18 9.98 10.44

382-11270 47 10.97 12.42 NA

382-11270 48 12.72 8.84 7.76

382-11270 49 10.94 11.06 4.95

382-11270 50 13.54 8.42 9.22

382-11270 51 9.99 7.58 4.33

382-11270 52 8.44 5.55 5.53

382-11270 53 9.74 7.47 7.29

382-11270 54 10.47 11.69 4.94

382-11270 55 14.36 13.28 7.31

382-11270 56 17.18 8.58 9.5

382-11270 57 13.78 10.21 5.35

382-11270 58 11.57 10.19 6.47

382-11270 59 9.95 7.74 5.46

382-11270 60 8.09 6.89 4.94

382-11270 61 12.41 8.84 7.48

176


Length

382-11270 62 8.05 6.72 3.47

382-11270 63 10.49 6.75 6.95

382-11270 64 11.52 8.18 6.02

382-11270 65 7.06 7.82 3.26

382-11270 66 9.02 9.15 4.56

382-11270 67 9.82 6.5 4.99

382-11270 68 15.22 10.41 9.62

382-11270 69

382-11270 70 10.7 8.48 5.78

382-11270 71 8.89 7.83 3.92

382-11270 72 9.74 9.76 5.9

382-11271 01 18.24 20.71 9.41

382-11271 02 17.3 14.96 9.27

382-11271 03 14.32 13.55 7.23

382-11271 04 13.92 13.19 8.15

382-11271 05 5.59 9.89 7.0

382-11271 06 15.87 16.42 8.23

382-12317 01 9.21 7.82 4.93

382-12317 02 96.48 65.72 NA

382-14161 01 9.15 7.59 5.63

382-14801 01 7.66 9.6 4.94

382-14801 02 5.22 6.07 1.96

382-14801 03 11.27 9.58 5.53

382-1628 01 7.85 7.41 4.12

382-1628 02 20.16 20.43 10.31

382-1628 03 41.63 30.72 21.77

382-16347 01 11.35 13.78 5.89

382-16347 02 8.48 8.59 3.15

382-16347 03 10.85 11.93 8.09

382-16347 04 18.06 17.63 7.27

382-16347 05 10.64 10.25 5.89

382-16347 06 24.15 19.79 19.21

382-16347 07 20.93 17.16 8.48

382-16347 08 11.08 10.19 6.05

382-16347 09 13.23 11.51 5.92

382-16347 10 9.02 9.98 4.94

382-16347 11 8.25 9.32 5.03

382-16347 12

382-16347 13 6.95 10.21 5.53

177


Length

382-16347 14 10.88 13.31 7.0

382-16347 15 9.19 9.62 4.52

382-16347 16 7.18 11.35 4.85

382-16347 17 10.44 9.11 6.52

382-16347 18 16.77 13.87 8.02

382-16347 19 15.52 13.68 9.52

382-16347 20 19.69 22.99 16.81

382-16347 21 15.9 10.64 6.72

382-16347 22 24.11 26.35 NA

382-16347 23 10.85 9.10 4.67

382-16347 24 21.29 23.74 14.73

382-16347 25 21.99 20.86 10.85

382-16347 26 NA NA NA

382-16347 27 10.84 8.48 3.99

382-16347 28 6.99 6.95 3.69

382-16347 29 12.17 10.85 5.7

382-16347 30 11.84 6.81 6.9

382-16347 31 8.52 9.39 5.21

382-16347 32 10.88 11.41 5.63

382-16347 33 5.36 5.9 3.5

382-16347 34 10.88 8.52 4.99

382-16347 35 10.01 10.84 5.2

382-2045 01 9.15 10.44 4.56

382-2045 02 14.14 14.66 8.0

382-2045 03 11.28 10.28 5.7

382-2045 04 15.74 11.16 9.82

382-2045 05 12.38 12.59 6.63

382-2045 06 13.27 10.42 8.71

382-2045 07 11.06 10.45 8.10

382-2045 08 26.07 18.0 19.75

382-2045 09 12.81 10.06 7.57

382-2045 10 15.28 11.08 11.93

382-2045 11 7.91 8.77 5.10

382-2045 12 6.94 6.08 4.36

382-2045 13 12.36 9.76 8.34

382-2045 14 20.68 19.30 14.67

382-2045 15 52.34 37.83 37.42

382-2045 16 17.0 8.59 11.38

382-2045 17 9.2 8.68 5.46

178


Length

382-2045 18 8.68 6.72 6.08

382-2045 19 29.14 32.37 20.86

382-2045 20 23.63 19.08 17.48

382-2045 21 29.94 27.77 17.43

382-2045 22 12.81 10.85 7.8

382-2045 23 8.68 7.91 4.42

382-2045 24 13.19 9.55 9.22

382-2045 25 15.15 13.24 7.75

382-2045 26 15.64 12.89 6.74

382-2045 27 36.45 21.26 27.21

382-2045 28 12.38 11.72 6.05

382-2045 29 16.07 16.07 9.54

382-2045 30 24.03 18.16 15.62

382-2045 31 12.38 10.41 7.99

382-2045 32 12.42 7.68 7.29

382-9218 01 7.41 (both

12.94) 7.23 3.47

382-9275 01 9.76 9.82 6.05

382-9275 02 15.09 11.06 8.89

382-9275 03 18.22 18.43 9.54

382-9275 04 14.4 15.18 6.73

382-9275 05 24.62 26.49 11.51

382-9275 06 15.64 18.65 8.05

382-9430 01 6.29 7.37 3.26

382-9430 02 13.45 16.3 6.7

382-9430 03 8.24 9.97 4.99

382-9430 04 46.14 20.63 NA

382-9430 05 9.82 10.98 5.86

382-9430 06 6.29 6.75 3.15

382-9430 07 9.44 8.4 6.05

382-9430 08 9.6 9.3 6.04

179

Appendix F

White Mountain Starch Analysis Attributes by Site

Table F- 1. Raven Camp

Accessio

n

Nu

mb

er

Sp

ecimen

Nu

mb

er

Gra

in T

yp

e

2-D

Sh

ap

e

3-D

Sh

ap

e

Hilu

m T

yp

e

Hilu

m

Po

sition

La

mella

e

Fissu

res

Su

rface

Ex

tinctio

n

Cro

ss

Gro

up

Ty

pe

382-

14801 02 simple

circular

with

facets

NA closed centric no no depression at hilum symmetrical Type

S1

382-

14801 03 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no

branching

depression asymmetrical

Type

G4

382-

14801 01 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no rough asymmetrical

Type

G4

Table F- 2. Rancho Deluxe

Accessio

n

Nu

mb

er

Sp

ecimen

Nu

mb

er

Gra

in T

yp

e

2-D

Sh

ap

e

3-D

Sh

ap

e

Hilu

m

Ty

pe

Hilu

m

Po

sition

La

mella

e

Fissu

res

Su

rface

Ex

tinctio

n

Cro

ss

Gro

up

Ty

pe

382-

16347 27 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no

longitudinal


Type

G4

382-

16347 33 simple circular spherical closed centric no no no

symmetrical and

straight Type S1

382-

16347 32 simple faceted NA closed centric no no

longitudinal

depression ragged

Type

G4

180

Accessio

n

Nu

mb

er

Sp

ecimen

Nu

mb

er

Gra

in T

yp

e

2-D

Sh

ap

e

3-D

Sh

ap

e

Hilu

m

Ty

pe

Hilu

m

Po

sition

La

mella

e

Fissu

res

Su

rface

Ex

tinctio

n

Cro

ss

Gro

up

Ty

pe

382-

16347 31 simple circular NA closed centric no no

round depression

at hilum symmetrical

Type

G4

382-


longitudinal

depression

curved and do not

meet

Type

G3

382-

16347 20 simple circular spherical closed eccentric concentric

longitudinal

at margin no ragged

Type

G5

382-

16347 28 simple ovate spherical closed

slightly

eccentric no no

depression at

hilum

asymmetrical and

do not meet Type S1

382-

16347 26 simple circular spherical NA NA concentric

multiple on

margins no NA

Type

G5

382-

16347 25 simple circular flat closed centric no no no

symmetrical and

straight Type S3

382-

16347 24 simple circular spherical closed eccentric concentric

branching at

hilum no curved at margin

Type

G5

382-


depression at

hilum asymmetrical

Type

G3

382-

16347 22 simple circular spherical closed NA NA no no NA

Type

G5

382-


depression at

hilum asymmetrical

Type

G4

382-

16347 29 simple faceted NA closed centric no no

branching

depression

asymmetrical and

do not meet Type Z

382-

16347 08 simple circular spherical closed

slightly

eccentric no no no asymmetrical

Poor

Photo

382-


longitudinal

depression

asymmetrical and

curved at margin

Type

G4

382-

11270 05 simple circular spherical closed centric no no smooth symmetrical Type S1

382-


longitudinal

depression

curved and do not

meet

Type

G4

382-

11270 03 simple circular spherical closed centric no no no curved at margin

Type

G2

382-


longitudinal

depression

asymmetrical and

ragged

Type

G3

181

Accessio

n

Nu

mb

er

Sp

ecimen

Nu

mb

er

Gra

in T

yp

e

2-D

Sh

ap

e

3-D

Sh

ap

e

Hilu

m

Ty

pe

Hilu

m

Po

sition

La

mella

e

Fissu

res

Su

rface

Ex

tinctio

n

Cro

ss

Gro

up

Ty

pe

382-


depression at

hilum

asymmetrical and

ragged

Type

G3

382-

16347 34 simple circular polyhedral closed centric no no

longitudinal

depression

asymmetrical and

straight

Type

G4

382-

16347 09 simple circular NA closed centric no no no asymmetrical

Poor

Photo

382-

16347 35 simple circular NA closed centric no no

depression at

hilum

curved and wide at

margin Type S1

382-

16347 07 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no no curved at margin

Type

G5

382-

16347 05 simple faceted spherical closed centric no no no asymmetrical

Poor

Photo

382-

12317 01 simple

circular

with

facets

NA closed centric no no depression at

hilum

symmetrical and

straight Broken

382-


asymmetrical and

straight

Poor

Photo

382-


asymmetrical and

straight

Poor

Photo

382-


asymmetrical and

straight

Poor

Photo

382-

16347 17 simple ovate lenticular closed

slightly

eccentric no no

longitudinal

depression

curved and do not

meet Type S1

382-

16347 10 simple faceted NA closed centric no no no asymmetrical

Poor

Photo

382-9275 01 simple circular spherical NA centric no no depression at

hilum

can’t tell it is

distorted Broken

382-9430 05 simple circular spherical closed centric no no no ragged Type S1

382-9430 04 compound faceted na closed centric no no depression at

hilum

symmetrical and

straight Type S2

382-9430 03 simple circular spherical closed slightly

eccentric no no no

asymmetrical and

straight

Type

G4

382-9430 02 simple circular spherical open centric no stellate at

hilum

round depression

at hilum

asymmetrical and

do not meet Type S3

182

Accessio

n

Nu

mb

er

Sp

ecimen

Nu

mb

er

Gra

in T

yp

e

2-D

Sh

ap

e

3-D

Sh

ap

e

Hilu

m

Ty

pe

Hilu

m

Po

sition

La

mella

e

Fissu

res

Su

rface

Ex

tinctio

n

Cro

ss

Gro

up

Ty

pe

382-9430 01 simple circular spherical closed centric no no smooth curved and do not

meet Type S1

382-

16347 19 simple

circular

with

facets

polyhedral closed slightly

eccentric no

transverse at

hilum no ragged

Type

G5

382-9275 02 simple faceted polyhedral closed centric no no round depression

at hilum ragged Type Z

382-9430 08 simple faceted spherical closed eccentric no no no symmetrical and

straight

Broken

G2

382-9275 06 simple

circular

with

facets

spherical open centric no no depression at

hilum ragged

Type

G1

382-9275 05 simple circular spherical closed centric no no no curved and do not

meet Type S3

382-9275 04 simple angular spherical closed centric no branching at


382-9218 01 compound

circular

with one

facet

spherical closed centric no no depression at

hilum

asymmetrical and

straight

Type

G2

382-

11269 01 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no no symmetrical

Type

G4

382-

12317 02 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no

multiple on

margins no NA

Type

G5

382-9275 03 simple circular spherical closed centric NA no no do not meet Type S3

382-

11271 06 simple circular spherical closed centric no no

depression at

hilum

curved and do not

meet

Type

G2

382-

16347 18 simple ovate polyhedral closed

slightly

eccentric no no

depression at

hilum

slightly curved at

margin

Type

G5

382-

16347 06 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no no curved at margin

Type

G5

382-

16347 16 simple reniform lenticular closed

slightly

eccentric no no

depression at

hilum

asymmetrical and

curved at margin

Type

G4

382-

16347 15 simple circular lenticular closed centric no no

round depression

at hilum curved at margin

Type

G4

183

Accessio

n

Nu

mb

er

Sp

ecimen

Nu

mb

er

Gra

in T

yp

e

2-D

Sh

ap

e

3-D

Sh

ap

e

Hilu

m

Ty

pe

Hilu

m

Po

sition

La

mella

e

Fissu

res

Su

rface

Ex

tinctio

n

Cro

ss

Gro

up

Ty

pe

382-

16347 14 simple ovate spherical closed

slightly

eccentric no no

longitudinal

depression

curved and do not

meet

Type

G4

382-

16347 13 simple ovate lenticular closed centric no no

longitudinal

depression

curved and do not

meet Type S1

382-9430 06 simple circular spherical closed centric no no depression at

hilum

symmetrical and

straight Type S1

382-

16347 11 simple ovate polyhedral closed centric no no

depression at

hilum

asymmetrical and

curved at margin

Type

G4

382-9430 07 simple circular spherical open centric no no

deep branching

depression and or

round depression

symmetrical and

wide at margin Type S3

382-

11271 05 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no no symmetrical Broken

382-

11271 04 simple circular spherical closed

slightly

eccentric concentric no

depression at

hilum

symmetrical and

wide at margin

Type

G5

382-

11271 03 simple

circular

with

facets


hilum ragged

Broken

G1/G2

382-


depression at

hilum do not meet Type S3

382-

11271 01 simple

circular

with one

facet

spherical open centric no stellate at

hilum

depression at

hilum ragged

Type

G1

382-


longitudinal

depression curved and ragged

Type

G3

382-

16347 12 no no

Poor

Photo

382-

11270 44 simple circular spherical open centric no

branching at

hilum rough symmetrical

Type

G1

382-

11270 36 simple ovate spherical closed centric NA no no symmetrical

Type

G5

382-

11270 08 simple ovate spherical closed centric no no

depression at

hilum

curved and do not

meet

Type

G4

382-


depression at

hilum symmetrical

Type

G4

184

Accessio

n

Nu

mb

er

Sp

ecimen

Nu

mb

er

Gra

in T

yp

e

2-D

Sh

ap

e

3-D

Sh

ap

e

Hilu

m

Ty

pe

Hilu

m

Po

sition

La

mella

e

Fissu

res

Su

rface

Ex

tinctio

n

Cro

ss

Gro

up

Ty

pe

382-


longitudinal

depression

asymmetrical and

ragged

Type

G4

382-

11270 49 simple circular spherical closed centric no

multiple on

margins rough symmetrical

Type

G1

382-


longitudinal

depression symmetrical

Type

G3

382-

11270 47 simple faceted NA NA NA NA no no NA Broken

382-

16347 04 simple circular spherical open centric no no no asymmetrical Broken

382-


depression at

hilum

symmetrical and

curved at margin

Type

G4

382-

11270 55 simple circular spherical open centric no

branching at

hilum and

margin

rough

asymmetrical and

wide arms at

margin

Type

G1

382-


depression at

hilum

curved and do not

meet Type S1

382-


longitudinal

depression curved at margin

Type

G4

382-

11270 41 simple circular NA closed centric no no rough curved at margin

Type

G4

382-


round depression

at hilum curved at margin Type S3

382-


depression at

hilum

curved and do not

meet

Type

G4

382-


longitudinal

depression

asymmetrical and

ragged

Type

G3

382-


longitudinal

depression

asymmetrical and

ragged

Type

G4

382-


longitudinal

depression

asymmetrical and

straight

Type

G3

382-

11270 63 simple ovate spherical closed eccentric no

branching at

hilum

branching


Type

G4

382-

11270 72 simple circular spherical closed centric no

branching at

hilum no asymmetrical

Type

G1

185

Accessio

n

Nu

mb

er

Sp

ecimen

Nu

mb

er

Gra

in T

yp

e

2-D

Sh

ap

e

3-D

Sh

ap

e

Hilu

m

Ty

pe

Hilu

m

Po

sition

La

mella

e

Fissu

res

Su

rface

Ex

tinctio

n

Cro

ss

Gro

up

Ty

pe

382-


transverse

depression un clear

Type

G1

382-


longitudinal


Type

G4

382-

11270 69 no no Broken

382-

11270 68 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no

branching at

hilum no

asymmetrical and

wide at margin

Type

G4

382-


longitudinal


Type

G4

382-


longitudinal


Type

G4

382-


depression at

hilum curved at margin

Type

G4

382-


longitudinal


Type

G4

382-


depression at

hilum curved at margin

Type

G4

382-

11270 62 simple circular NA closed centric NA no no symmetrical Type S1

382-


longitudinal

depression

curved and do not

meet

Type

G4

382-


longitudinal


Type

G4

382-


longitudinal


Type

G4

382-

11270 58 simple circular NA closed centric no no rough symmetrical Broken

382-


branching at

hilum

longitudinal


Type

G4

382-


transverse at

hilum

longitudinal


Type

G4

382-


depression at

hilum symmetrical

Type

G4

186

Accessio

n

Nu

mb

er

Sp

ecimen

Nu

mb

er

Gra

in T

yp

e

2-D

Sh

ap

e

3-D

Sh

ap

e

Hilu

m

Ty

pe

Hilu

m

Po

sition

La

mella

e

Fissu

res

Su

rface

Ex

tinctio

n

Cro

ss

Gro

up

Ty

pe

382-


branching at

hilum

longitudinal

depression ragged

Type

G3

382-


longitudinal

depression

asymmetrical and

straight

Type

G3

382-

11270 16 simple

circular

with one

facet


hilum symmetrical

Type

G2

382-

11270 15 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no no asymmetrical

Type

G3

382-

11270 54 simple

circular

with

facets

spherical closed eccentric no no rough asymmetrical and

ragged Type Z

382-

11270 35 simple circular spherical open centric no no rough symmetrical Broken

382-

11270 14 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no no

asymmetrical and

ragged

Type

G3

382-


longitudinal

depression

asymmetrical and

ragged

Type

G4

382-


branching


Type

G4

382-

11270 09 simple

circular

with

facets

polyhedral closed slightly

eccentric no no

depression at

hilum asymmetrical Broken

382-

11270 18 simple circular spherical closed centric no no smooth asymmetrical Type S1

382-


transverse at

hilum

longitudinal


Type

G4

382-

11270 20 simple ovate polyhedral closed

slightly

eccentric no no

longitudinal

depression

curved and do not

meet

Type

G1/2

382-

11270 21 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no smooth asymmetrical Type S1

382-

11270 31 simple circular spherical closed eccentric no no no asymmetrical Type S1

187

Accessio

n

Nu

mb

er

Sp

ecimen

Nu

mb

er

Gra

in T

yp

e

2-D

Sh

ap

e

3-D

Sh

ap

e

Hilu

m

Ty

pe

Hilu

m

Po

sition

La

mella

e

Fissu

res

Su

rface

Ex

tinctio

n

Cro

ss

Gro

up

Ty

pe

382-

11270 22 simple

circular

with one

facet

lenticular closed centric no no depression at

hilum

slightly

asymmetrical

Type

G2

382-

11270 30 simple circular spherical

open/bro

ken centric no

stellate at

hilum no

broken and wide

arms Broken

382-


longitudinal

depression

asymmetrical and

ragged

Type

G3

382-


transverse

depression

ragged and do not

meet

Type

G3

382-

11270 12 simple circular spherical closed eccentric no

stellate at

hilum rough ragged

Type

G4

382-


transverse at

hilum

longitudinal

depression

asymmetrical and

curved at margin

Type

G4

382-


depression at

hilum asymmetrical

Type

G4

382-

11270 32 simple circular spherical open centric no no rough

straight and wide

at margins

Type

G1

382-

11270 33 simple circular polyhedral closed

slightly

eccentric no no rough

asymmetrical and

wide at margin Type Z

382-

11270 25 simple ovate spherical closed eccentric no no

depression at

hilum asymmetrical Type S1

382-


depression at

hilum

asymmetrical and

straight

Type

G4

382-

11270 24 simple circular spherical open centric no? no rough symmetrical

Type

G1

382-

11270 23 simple

ovate/cir

cular polyhedral closed eccentric no no

depression at

hilum asymmetrical Type S1

188

Table F- 3. Midway Village

Accessio

n

Nu

mb

er

Sp

ecimen

Nu

mb

er

Gra

in T

yp

e

2-D

Sh

ap

e

3-D

Sh

ap

e

Hilu

m

Ty

pe

Hilu

m

Po

sition

La

mella

e

Fissu

res

Su

rface

Ex

tinctio

n

Cro

ss

Gro

up

Ty

pe

382-1056 07 simple circular NA closed centric no no no symmetrical Poor

Photo

382-1056 02 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no smooth curved and do not

meet

Type

G4

382-1056 03 simple circular spherical open centric no no depression at hilum symmetrical Type

G1

382-1056 01 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no depression at hilum ragged Type

G3

382-1056 04 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric can’t see

them no depression at hilum curved at margin

Type

G5

382-1056 06 simple circular spherical closed centric no no no symmetrical Type

G1/2

382-1056 08 simple circular spherical open centric concentric no no symmetrical Type

G5

382-1056 09 simple circular polyhedral closed centric no no depression at hilum symmetrical Type

G1/2

382-1056 05 simple ovate/

circular spherical closed centric no no depression at hilum

curved and do not

meet

Type

G1/2

Table F- 4. Crooked Forks

Accessio

n

Nu

mb

er

Sp

ecimen

Nu

mb

er

Gra

in T

yp

e

2-D

Sh

ap

e

3-D

Sh

ap

e

Hilu

m

Ty

pe

Hilu

m

Po

sition

La

mella

e

Fissu

res

Su

rface

Ex

tinctio

n

Cro

ss

Gro

up

Ty

pe

382-

14161 01 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no depression at hilum

asymmetrical and

curved at margin

Type

G4

189

Table F- 5. Corral Camp South

Accessio

n

Nu

mb

er

Sp

ecimen

Nu

mb

er

Gra

in T

yp

e

2-D

Sh

ap

e

3-D

Sh

ap

e

Hilu

m

Ty

pe

Hilu

m

Po

sition

La

mella

e

Fissu

res

Su

rface

Ex

tinctio

n

Cro

ss

Gro

up

Ty

pe

382-2045 24 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no longitudinal

depression ragged

Type

G4

382-2045 03 simple ovate spherical closed slightly

eccentric no no depression at hilum

asymmetrical and

ragged

Type

G4

382-1628 01 simple faceted NA closed centric no no depression at hilum symmetrical and

straight

Type

G1

382-1628 02 simple circular polyhedral closed centric no no depression at hilum do not meet Type

S3

382-2045 20 simple ovate spherical closed eccentric concentric branching

at hilum no

symmetrical and

wide at margin

Type

G5

382-2045 21 simple ovate spherical closed eccentric concentric no no ragged Type

G5


depression

asymmetrical and

straight

Type

G4

382-2045 23 simple circular spherical closed centric no no no symmetrical and

straight

Type

S1

382-2045 07 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no no asymmetrical Type

G4

382-1628 03 simple ovate lenticular closed slightly

eccentric concentric no no

symmetrical and

wide at margin

Type

G5

382-2045 19 simple ovate spherical closed eccentric concentric stellate at

hilum no

symmetrical and

wide at margin

Type

G5

382-2045 18 simple circular spherical closed eccentric no no depression at hilum asymmetrical and

curved at margin

Type

S1

382-2045 17 simple ovate polyhedral closed slightly

eccentric no no

longitudinal

depression

asymmetrical and

curved at margin

Type

G4

382-2045 16 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no longitudinal

depression

asymmetrical and

ragged

Type

G3

382-2045 15 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric concentric branching

at hilum no ragged

Type

G5

382-2045 14 simple ovate Spherical closed eccentric concentric transverse

at hilum no

symmetrical and

wide at margin

Type

G5

190



Type

G4

382-2045 12 simple circular spherical closed slightly

eccentric no no smooth curved at margin

Type

S1

382-2045 11 simple circular spherical closed centric no no no curved at margin Type

S1

382-2045 10 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no no longitudinal

depression ragged

Type

G3

382-2045 01 simple ovate spherical closed centric no no longitudinal

depression

slightly curved at

margin

Type

G4

382-2045 08 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric concentric transverse

at hilum no

asymmetrical and

ragged

Type

G5



Type

G4

382-2045 06 simple ovate polyhedral closed eccentric no no depression at hilum asymmetrical and

curved at margin

Type

G4

382-2045 05 simple circular spherical closed centric no no no asymmetrical and

straight

Type

G4

382-2045 04 simple ovate spherical closed eccentric no no longitudinal

depression

asymmetrical and

curved at margin

Type

G4

382-2045 02 simple knobby polyhedral closed slightly

eccentric no no depression at hilum ragged Type Z



Type

G4



Type

G4

382-2045 30 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric no transverse

at hilum no

asymmetrical and

ragged

Type

G5

382-2045 29 simple circular reniform closed slightly

eccentric concentric

transverse

at hilum no symmetrical

Type

G5

382-2045 28 simple circular spherical closed centric NA no no NA Broken

382-2045 27 simple ovate lenticular closed eccentric concentric no no asymmetrical and

wide at margin

Type

G5


eccentric concentric no no ragged

Type

G1


eccentric no no

longitudinal

depression

weak and

asymmetrical and

curved at margin

Type

G4

University of Nevada, Reno Starch Residue Analysis from Two ...

Documents

Transcript of University of Nevada, Reno Starch Residue Analysis from Two ...