DONATE TODAY
Archaeobotanical Remains
by Shawn S. Murray and Nicole D. Jackman-Craig
Introduction
1
Archaeobotanical remains were collected from a variety of contexts during
Crow Canyon's test excavations at Yellow Jacket Pueblo (Site 5MT5). The
analyses presented in this chapter were undertaken specifically to provide
insight into the use of plants by the prehistoric inhabitants for food,
fuel, and construction. In addition, the results of archaeobotanical analysis
are used to infer the seasons of site occupation, the proximity of agricultural
fields, and the nature of the past environment, as well as to address
questions of resource depletion and food stress. The archaeobotanical
data and interpretations presented in this chapter are based on the analysis
of reproductive plant parts and wood charcoal from a total of 47 flotation
and 444 macrofossil samples. The temporal framework used in the discussion
section is from Kuckelman and Ortman's reconstruction of the history of
site occupation as presented in "Chronology."
2
The plant remains from Yellow Jacket Pueblo were recovered in one of
three ways: (1) collection by hand of plant remains found during excavation,
(2) screening of sediment through ¼-in mesh in the field, and (3) water-processing
of flotation samples in the laboratory. Macrofossils (that is, larger
plant remains such as charcoal, maize [corn], and beans) were generally
collected using the first two methods, whereas microfossils (smaller seeds
and charcoal bits) were recovered through flotation. Together, these three
methods of collection provide a better representation of plant remains
at a site than does any single method used alone.
Methods
Flotation Samples
Processing
3
Ninety-five flotation samples were collected during Crow Canyon's excavations
at Yellow Jacket Pueblo; of these, 47 were selected for processing and
analysis. Because analyzing flotation samples of standard, or nearly standard,
original volume reduces the chance that sample size will bias the results,
we measured all selected samples and, when there was sufficient volume,
processed 1 liter of sediment for each. For the majority (64 percent)
of the 47 flotation samples reported here, it was possible to process
1 liter of sediment; any sediment in excess of 1 liter was curated. Twenty-six
percent of all samples processed were ¾ liter in volume, and the rest
(10 percent) contained less than ¾ liter of sediment. All samples of less
than 1 liter were processed in their entirety.
4
The flotation process uses water to separate lighter, more buoyant organic
remains, called the "light fraction," from heavier organic and inorganic
materials, or the "heavy fraction." The measured sediment of each flotation
sample was poured into a 5-liter bucket of lukewarm water and gently agitated
by hand or with a wooden stirring rod. The organic matter that floated
to the surface was slowly poured onto a flotation cloth (mesh size 0.355
mm) nested inside a screen. The bucket was again filled with water, the
sample agitated, and the organic remains poured off. This process was
repeated a minimum of three times or until no organic matter remained
floating on the surface of the water. The light fraction collected in
this manner was then allowed to dry in the flotation cloth, away from
direct sunlight, for a minimum of two days. When dry, the light fraction
was gently sorted through a series of geological sieves (mesh sizes 4.75
mm, 2.80 mm, 1.40 mm, 0.71 mm, 0.25 mm, and less than 0.25 mm). Sorting
of flotation light fractions serves two purposes: (1) it allows us to
sort taxa by size and (2) it reduces eye strain by minimizing changes
in eye focal distance for analysts examining plant remains through a microscope
(Bohrer and Adams 1977*1:40).
Although the flotation cloth consists of 0.355-mm mesh, particles smaller
than 0.355 mm sometimes adhere to larger particles when wet. Once dry,
these smaller materials separate from the larger particles and are caught
in either the 0.25-mm sieve or the sieve smaller than 0.25 mm. Materials
smaller than 0.25 mm are not examined, because seeds of this size generally
do not occur in the region, and because tiny, fragmented items are difficult
to identify. After the light fraction was sorted by size, each Yellow
Jacket sample was labeled and bagged according to provenience and particle
size. The sediment remaining at the bottom of the bucket, the heavy fraction,
was also dried thoroughly, then bagged, labeled, and stored.
Analysis
5
All materials caught in the largest sieve (4.75 mm) were examined. Remains
of this size are relatively easy to sort and may include unique items.
For the remainder of the particle sizes, a subsampling strategy was employed
to ensure that the analyst identified the largest number of taxa without
having to completely examine all materials within each particle-size group.
This subsampling strategy assumes that taxa are randomly distributed within
each particle-size group and that identifying the number of different
taxa present in a sample provides reliable, useful information about ancient
plant use (Adams 1993*1;
Popper 1988*1). Somewhat
different subsampling strategies were applied to the two categories of
flotation materials: (1) charred reproductive plant parts and other nonwood
materials and (2) wood charcoal (the term "charcoal" is used throughout
this chapter to indicate the burned remains of, specifically, the woody
parts of plants).
6
When analyzing charred reproductive parts and other nonwood materials,
we use a sample's own taxon diversity to decide when the sorting of a
particular particle-size group is complete. This strategy was adapted
from the "species area curve" concept developed by ecologists (see Mueller-Dombois
and Ellenberg 1974*1:52–53; Pianka
1974*1). The species area curve plots the curve of the increasing
number of taxa detected in a sample against the number of standard subsample
volumes examined. The curve flattens when no new taxa are recovered in
succeeding, standardized subsamples; it is at this point that we stop
examination of that particle-size group (see Adams
1993*1).
7
We use this approach when analyzing materials with particle sizes smaller
than 4.75 mm. A standard subsample has been defined by Bohrer
and Adams (1977*1:40) to be "the volume of material that can be packed,
but not piled, contiguously under a [microscope's] field of view for each
particle size." For open-air archaeological sites in the Southwest, standard
volumes have been developed for each particle-size group analyzed at 7X
magnification: 1.8 ml for particles larger than 2.80 mm, 0.9 ml for particles
larger than 1.40 mm, 0.4 ml for particles larger than 0.71 mm, and 0.3
ml for particles smaller than 0.71 mm (Adams
1993*1). For each of these particle-size groups, the first 6 ml is
analyzed in subsamples of the stated volumes (for example, four 1.8-ml
subsamples of the 2.80-mm particle-size group, seven 0.9-ml subsamples
of the 1.40-mm particle-size group, and so on); any given particle-size
group that measures less than 6 ml is sorted in its entirety. If new taxa
are still being discovered at the end of the first 6-ml sort, we continue
sorting until three consecutive subsamples have yielded no new taxa. It
is likely that this sampling scheme results in our failure to detect some
rare taxa.
8
A standard subsampling strategy was also developed for the analysis of
wood charcoal. Here, we examine 20 pieces of charcoal from the 4.75-mm
and 2.80-mm particle-size groups. Charcoal pieces are selected on the
basis of their potential to be identified (for example, they are of sufficient
size to allow identification) and on their varying appearances, so that
as many different kinds of charcoal as possible are included. If fewer
than 20 pieces are available in the 4.75-mm particle-size group, the remaining
number are taken from the 2.80-mm group. Wood charcoal smaller than 2.80
mm is not analyzed, because reliable recognition of defining characteristics
on such small specimens is difficult. Each charcoal specimen is identified
by examining the cross section, but not the tangential or radial sections;
this results in quicker analysis, with identification usually to genus
level only (Bohrer 1986*1).
In most cases, it is necessary to break the archaeological specimens to
obtain clean cross sections. The cross sections are examined under magnifications
of 20X to 45X. Identification of all archaeobotanical specimens is based
on direct comparison to a collection of charred and uncharred plants obtained
within the Mesa Verde region.
Macrofossil Sample Analysis
9
The macrofossil samples from Yellow Jacket Pueblo were first scanned
for any charred nonwood items such as fruit or seeds, maize kernels or
cob parts, and bean cotyledons. When present, these items were segregated
and analyzed. Then, as for flotation samples, a subsampling strategy was
employed for the wood charcoal. Twenty pieces of wood charcoal were selected
and analyzed, unless fewer than 20 pieces were present, in which case
all were examined. The same methods of identification were used for the
macrofossil wood charcoal as were used for wood charcoal present in flotation
samples.
Identification to Type
10
The reference flora for common and scientific plant names used in this
chapter is A Utah Flora, by Welsh
et al. (1987*1). Because taxa indigenous to the Southwest are sometimes
very similar to one another in appearance and therefore are difficult
to distinguish, we append the word "type" to most of our family-, genus-,
and species-level identifications. This signifies that the specimen closely
resembles the taxon named, but that other taxa in the area might also
have similar-looking parts (see Adams
1993*1:197). When the designation "type" is used, it is understood
that it encompasses all identifications made to the taxonomic level in
question and to those below that level as well. For example, "Cercocarpus-type"
includes all items identified to the genus Cercocarpus and to the
species Cercocarpus montanus. For ease of use, the word "type"
is designated only in the tables of this chapter; it is omitted from text
references to the same taxa. The one exception to the rule is maize (Zea
mays), which is easy to identify and occurs as only one species and
therefore is never reported as "type."
11
Finally, some archaeobotanical specimens have characteristics that resemble
two closely related genera—for example, the wood charcoal of either
chokecherry or rose. In such cases, the genus names of both plants, separated
by a slash, are used to indicate that a finer level of identification
could not be achieved. In the foregoing example, the scientific name would
be given as Prunus/Rosa in text and as Prunus/Rosa-type
in tables.
Results
12
A large number of flotation and macrofossil samples (n = 107) were collected
from secondary refuse (materials discarded away from their area of use)
found in various pits and middens, in subterranean structures, and on
extramural surfaces (Table
1). Fewer, but more interpretable, samples (n = 24) came from de facto
(intentionally left, but useable, materials) and primary (material remaining
in its area of use) refuse deposits in hearths and on intact surfaces.
De facto and primary refuse deposits are believed to preserve the best
record of plant use by humans, and it is on samples from these contexts
that much of the following discussion will focus. The majority of macrofossil
samples, together with some flotation samples (n = 325), were recovered
from mixed deposits, construction deposits, and collapsed structural deposits,
as well as deposits disturbed in modern times by nonprofessional digging.
Because remains from disturbed deposits are less interpretable than those
from undisturbed deposits, these samples and contexts will not be discussed
further.
13
Charred remains of a minimum of 35 plant taxa were identified in the analyzed
archaeobotanical assemblage from Yellow Jacket Pueblo (Table
2). This estimate was derived by conservatively combining taxonomic
levels, when appropriate. For example, for all analyses that follow in
this chapter, Pinus edulis bark scales, charcoal, and cone scales
are counted as a single taxon, and the same is done for all Pinus ponderosa
parts. It is reasonable to assume that Pinus remains not identified
to the level of species likely represent either Pinus edulis or
Pinus ponderosa. Therefore, for purposes of assessing taxon diversity
in a given context, Pinus remains found in association with P.
edulis remains are counted as P. edulis, and those found in
association with P. ponderosa remains are counted as P. ponderosa.
Pinus is counted as a separate taxon only when its remains are
found in association with the remains of both, or neither, of the two
named species.
14
At least 18 of the 35 taxa in the Yellow Jacket Pueblo archaeobotanical
assemblage are present as wood charcoal, whereas 23 taxa were recovered
in various nonwood forms. The diversity of plant parts represented within
some taxa leads us to infer that many of these plants had multiple uses.
For example, maize kernels were eaten and cobs were used as fuel. It is
also probable that some of these taxa entered the archaeological record
incidentally, especially as macrofossils—for example, cones likely
were carried in on tree branches that were burned as fuel, and other items
may have been introduced into site deposits by animals or wind. It is
for these reasons and others that archaeological plant remains rarely,
if ever, provide an unambiguous record of prehistoric plant use (Minnis
1981*1:143).
15
Uncharred plant specimens were also recovered in the flotation and macrofossil
samples at Yellow Jacket Pueblo (Table
2 and Table 3).
Although Minnis (1981*1)
states that, under most conditions of preservation, unburned organic materials
degrade within about a century, it is possible at many ancient Pueblo
sites to find unburned plant remains and partly burned construction beams
preserved by extraordinarily arid and protective circumstances. Unburned
remains may be inferred to be ancient if they occur in contexts that are
clearly ancient: numerous seeds, for example, in a basket within a sealed
context, or partly burned or unburned wood that is contained in an intact
constructional deposit. However, because it is often difficult to distinguish
ancient uncharred plant remains from more-recent uncharred remains, we
usually consider unburned remains to be modern. We have therefore excluded
from our discussion three plant taxa (Lappula redowski, Marrubium
vulgare [introduced from Europe], and Rumex) that occur only
in an uncharred state in the Yellow Jacket assemblage, as well as several
occurrences of unburned wood and seed types that were also found in charred
condition. Partly burned wood, however, we consider to be ancient.
16
The complete archaeobotanical database for Yellow Jacket Pueblo may be
accessed through Crow Canyon's research
database. Two additional on-line publications provide further information
relevant to the analysis and interpretation of plant remains recovered
from sites excavated by Crow Canyon. The criteria used to identify the
various plant taxa and parts are described in the Plant
Identification Criteria, by Shawn Murray and Karen Adams, and
ethnographically documented uses of various plants identified in the assemblages
are reported in the Ethnographic
Uses of Plants, by Katharine Rainey and Karen Adams.
Discussion
Foods
17
The ancient plant remains found at Yellow Jacket Pueblo indicate that
the inhabitants grew and consumed the domesticated plants maize (Zea
mays), beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), and squash (Cucurbita),
but also exploited wild plants such as cheno-ams (Chenopodium and/or
Amaranthus) and various other small-seeded plants (Table
4). Much of the evidence for food preparation and cooking was found
in primary (16 samples) and de facto (three samples) refuse in hearths
and other pits, features typically associated with cooking. Additional
food refuse was recovered as secondary refuse in middens (eight samples).
Some de facto refuse came from collapsed roofing material; maize was probably
dried and processed for consumption on some roofs. Other contexts contained
a mix of food and other debris, but because of mixing, these contexts
are excluded from further discussion.
18
Maize was a food item found often at Yellow Jacket Pueblo. Maize was
most commonly recovered in the form of cupules, the dense, cup-shaped
structures that hold two kernels within their associated bracts. The cupule
is the toughest, and usually the best-preserved, part of the cob, which
probably explains why so many were recovered at Yellow Jacket Pueblo.
19
Maize cupules and larger cob parts were found in many samples from primary
and de facto refuse (Table
5). In particular, they were found in the collapsed roofing material
of Structure 1214, a bi-wall room of the great tower. The maize was probably
refuse from a hearth in Structure 1222, the room above Structure 1214,
that fell into the roofing material of Structure 1214 when the upper story
collapsed. Maize cupules and cob parts were also found in several hearths
and pit features in Architectural Blocks 200 and 2600, and in Structure
1201 (the bi-wall tower kiva). In these hearths, cobs were probably used
as fuel after the kernels were removed, a practice observed in historic
pueblos (see Elmore 1944*1;
Robbins et al. 1916*1).
The presence of cob parts in two pit features (Features 1 and 2) on an
extramural surface (Nonstructure 2606) may indicate maize storage or processing;
alternatively, the cobs might have been refuse that was discarded in the
pits. In Feature 1, a complete bowl containing maize cupules and charcoal
was also found. Numerous other cobs were contained in various midden deposits
at the site and in several deposits of mixed refuse.
20
In contrast to cupules and cob fragments, maize parts such as kernels,
shank (the short stem below the ear) parts, and main stalk (stem) fragments
were found in low numbers and in few contexts. The small number of shank
and stalk parts could indicate that mostly ears (cobs with kernels) were
brought to the village, with the remainder of the plant generally being
left in the fields. This practice would have reduced transport costs by
minimizing weight and the handling of unwieldy plant parts. Alternatively,
it is possible that these less-sturdy stalks and stems were transported
to the village but were used as fuel in hearths. This latter possibility
might explain the presence of several charred, but disfigured, plant parts
that were identifiable only as monocotyledons (see paragraphs
29-33).
21
Seeds and cotyledons (half seeds) of domesticated beans (Phaseolus
vulgaris) were found in seven samples. The majority of these bean
parts were recovered from midden deposits in Structures 704 and 903 and
in Nonstructure 102. The collapsed roofing material in Structure 1214
contained beans, together with maize and cheno-ams, in deposits interpreted
as de facto refuse. As discussed in paragraph 19,
Structure 1214 is the lower story of a two-story structure, and the beans
probably fell from the second-story floor into the roofing material of
the first-story room when the second-story structure collapsed. In general,
beans are poorly represented in the archaeological record; they are less
likely to be preserved than maize, because they are usually boiled before
consumption, rather than roasted or parched, and this renders them soft
and degradable.
22
Rind fragments of a member of the squash genus, Cucurbita, were
the only other domesticated plant remains recovered at Yellow Jacket Pueblo.
Two Cucurbita species, Cucurbita pepo and C. moschata,
are edible squashes that have been found in sites in northern New Mexico
dating from as early as 950 B.C. (Simmons
1986*1). The rind fragments recovered from midden deposits in Architectural
Block 400 and in deposits above a disturbed burial pit (Feature 1, Nonstructure
603) were probably food refuse.
23
The inhabitants of Yellow Jacket Pueblo also relied on wild plants for
a portion of their diet. Of the wild plant remains recovered, cheno-am
seeds are the most ubiquitous, occurring in 27 samples. Cheno-am seeds
are so-called because of the difficulty in distinguishing the tiny, black,
spherical seeds of Chenopodium from those of Amaranthus,
especially when they are charred and degraded. Cheno-am seeds were recovered
from several samples from primary and de facto refuse. In particular,
cheno-am seeds were found with maize cobs, beans, and numerous types of
wood charcoal in de facto refuse in roof-fall deposits in bi-wall Structure
1214 (part of the great tower). Cheno-am seeds were also preserved in
the hearth of Structure 1201, which is the oversize kiva in the great
tower. This hearth contained abundant maize parts, many types of wild
seeds, and a wide range of charcoal types, all of which suggest that this
hearth was used for a variety of purposes, including cooking. Several
other features outside the great tower complex also contained cheno-am
seeds. Cheno-ams in de facto refuse were associated with Nonstructure
506, an extramural surface, and were also found in the primary refuse
of three firepits in Architectural Blocks 200 and 2600.
24
It is likely that cheno-am seeds were an important wild food resource
for the inhabitants of Yellow Jacket Pueblo. There are extensive postcontact
records of Southwestern groups harvesting Chenopodium and Amaranthus
seeds for consumption (Adams
1988*2). In postcontact times, the leaves were boiled and eaten as
greens (summer and fall); the seeds were harvested (late summer and fall)
and ground into flour for mush (Adams
1988*2:204).
25
A variety of charred wild seeds was consistently found in thermal features
and middens across the site, despite the substantial disturbance of some
of these contexts. Seeds or fruit of the most commonly recovered wild
genera—cheno-am, groundcherry (Physalis), datil yucca (Yucca
baccata), purslane (Portulaca), bulrush (Scirpus),
ricegrass (Stipa hymenoides), and big sagebrush (Artemisia
tridentata)—were found in hearths, firepits, pit features, and
middens more often than in any other context. This pattern suggests that
these seeds were the remains of food-related activities, rather than remains
of plants introduced incidentally during occupation, though the sagebrush
achenes might have entered on branches brought in as fuel.
26
Several other types of wild seeds were recovered from only a few samples
each. In a hearth (Feature 7) in Structure 1201 (the oversize kiva in
the great tower), hedgehog cactus (Echinocereus fendleri) seeds
and oak (Quercus) nutshell were found, along with the slightly
more common purslane, groundcherry, and bulrush, suggesting that this
kiva hearth was used for several purposes, including cooking. The seeds
of many other taxa were preserved in only one sample each (Table
4). It is difficult to know whether these rare plants were used by
the inhabitants of the village or were introduced accidentally into the
Yellow Jacket Pueblo deposits. Most of these taxa have known ethnographic
uses and might have been used by the inhabitants, but they will not be
discussed further in this chapter.
Inferring Seasonality
27
It is highly unlikely that Yellow Jacket Pueblo was occupied only seasonally—stored
food resources could have permitted year-round occupation. Nonetheless,
it is important to identify those specific seasons for which we have direct
archaeobotanical evidence of human presence at the site. Individual seasons
of occupation can be inferred by identifying the times of the year when
the plant parts present in the assemblage would likely have been available
(Adams and Bohrer 1998*1).
Many of the plant parts found at Yellow Jacket Pueblo were in fruiting
form, which allows us to make inferences about the season in which they
were gathered and, by extension, the seasons when areas of Yellow Jacket
Pueblo were occupied. This strategy, however, has its limitations. First,
differences in elevation, latitude, and rainfall can make it difficult
to accurately predict when fruits will mature at a given location. Second,
fruits are often gathered and stored for later consumption; therefore,
the presence of fruits, though an indicator of season of harvest, does
not necessarily indicate the season of use (Adams
and Bohrer 1998*1). To infer seasonality, it is best to use plants
with short and predictable fruiting seasons, as observed in the fruiting
of modern plants in the vicinity of the site. It is also important to
understand that we cannot infer nonoccupation on the basis of plant remains,
in part because some seasons (most particularly, winter) have few, if
any, plant resources available for harvest.
28
At a minimum, the inhabitants of Yellow Jacket Pueblo were present during
the late spring sowing and fall harvesting of maize, and one can argue
that they were likely present throughout the summer to protect and weed
their crops (see Adams and
Bohrer [1998*1] for a discussion of the scheduling requirements of
growing maize in the Southwest, including a discussion of the implications
for the presence of people at given locations during different seasons).
We can also infer seasonality by the presence of other plant parts recovered
from the site, including ricegrass caryopses (grains), which usually ripen
in late spring to early summer, and groundcherry, purslane, cheno-am,
bulrush, and datil yucca seeds, which are available for harvest mid- to
late summer and into the fall (Adams
1988*2, 1993*1). The
occurrence, in two firepits (in Nonstructures 904 and 2601), of remains
of at least three of the above-mentioned, mid- to late-summer-fruiting
species, suggests that these firepits were used during the summer months.
Similarly, the presence of many of these seed types in the hearth of Structure
1201, the oversize kiva in the great tower, implies that this hearth was
last used in mid- to late summer or early fall. Because Structure 1201
is thought to have been one of the last structures occupied at Yellow
Jacket Pueblo, this same season might have been the season of last use
at the site.
Fuels and Construction Materials
29
Burned wood or woody plant parts account for the greatest quantity of
archaeobotanical remains found at Yellow Jacket Pueblo—at least 15
different trees, shrubs, and other plant types are represented (Table
5). Although some of this charcoal is the remains of wood that was
originally brought into the village for construction and then was eventually
burned, either intentionally or accidentally, most charcoal at the site
probably derives from fuelwood. Inferences regarding fuel choice were
drawn from charcoal found in hearths, ashpits, firepits, and middens.
By far the most ubiquitous fuelwood was Juniperus, which was recovered
in 43 of 84 (51 percent) of these contexts. In thermal features alone,
the recovery rate (58 percent) was similar. In particular, juniper charcoal
was found in de facto refuse in a pit feature (Nonstructure 2606, Feature
1) and as primary refuse in three firepits (in Nonstructures 203, 2601,
and 2605) and two hearths (Structures 1201, Feature 7, and Structure 1217,
Feature 1). Other woods commonly used for fuel were sagebrush (Artemisia),
pine (Pinus), oak (Quercus), serviceberry/peraphyllum (Amelanchier/Peraphyllum),
and mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus). Wood types more rarely recovered
from the site include rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus), cottonwood/willow
(Populus/Salix), cliff-rose/bitterbrush (Purshia), wolfberry
(Lycium(1)), Mormon tea (Ephedra),
saltbush (Atriplex), and chokecherry/rose (Prunus/Rosa).
Most of these trees and shrubs are common on the landscape around Yellow
Jacket Pueblo today.
30
In this discussion of wood fuels we also include the cupules, cob fragments
and segments, stalk segments, and stem sections (culm) of Zea mays
(see Table 5). Although
the kernels and kernel embryos were probably consumed as food, the remainder
of the cob might have been used as fuel or tinder (see Elmore
1944*1; Robbins et al.
1916*1). Maize cob fragments, cob segments, and cupules were found
in 48 of 120 contexts at Yellow Jacket Pueblo. Many of these contexts
were middens—both secondary refuse and recently disturbed deposits
(28 samples). Primary refuse from hearths, ashpits, and firepits (nine
samples) also contained charred cupules, cob fragments, and cob segments,
as did some roof-fall and wall-fall contexts (11 samples). Although the
presence of maize parts in roof fall and wall fall probably resulted from
the processing of maize on rooftops, the hearths and middens likely contained
maize refuse from the burning of cobs as fuel. Repeated cleaning of the
hearths would have resulted in the buildup of cob parts in midden deposits.
It is also possible that the cobs were consumed as food during periods
of food stress (see Buskirk
1986*1). Evidence of cob consumption as food might be seen archaeologically
as an abrupt decrease in the number of cob parts recovered, accompanied
by a continued presence of edible and nonedible (for example, shank and
stalk) parts. Evidence from human coprolites, absent at Yellow Jacket,
would best address such an argument (Minnis
1991*1).
31
The most useful contexts for documenting the use of plant materials in
construction are roof fall and wall fall. These two contexts were heavily
sampled in the great tower complex (Architectural Block 1200), and most
of this discussion is relevant only to that block. Overall, juniper (Juniperus)
was the most commonly recovered construction wood, occurring in 56 percent
of the analyzed samples from roof fall and wall fall (Table
5), and it was the preferred wood in most of the structures tested
in the great tower complex. Sagebrush (Artemisia) and pine (Pinus)
were found in 36 percent and 25 percent, respectively, of the analyzed
roof-fall and wall-fall samples. The presence of these species indicates
that pinyon-juniper and sagebrush woodland existed nearby. The presence
of pine bark scales and juniper twigs also suggests that the trees were
located not far from the village, as unnecessary parts would likely have
been stripped had the logs been transported long distances.
32
Charred wood from trees that are absent from the modern landscape surrounding
Yellow Jacket Pueblo were found in five structural contexts in the great
tower complex. Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and Douglas fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) are both tall, straight trees; beams from
these types of trees were found in the fill of three kivas (Structures
1201, 1206, and 1209) and two rooms (Structures 1208 and 1213), but were
not found in hearth, roof-fall deposits, or wall-fall debris. Rather,
these specimens were found in fill redeposited during excavations by the
Museum of Western State College in 1931; thus it is possible that they
were from construction beams that became mixed with other fill. Ponderosa
pine and Douglas fir have been recovered from structures at sites on Mesa
Verde, where they grow today in the higher or cooler elevations. Large
stands are currently available on Sleeping Ute Mountain, 25 km south of
Yellow Jacket Pueblo (Adams
1993*1). Smaller stands are also found in the Dolores River canyon,
about 8 km from Yellow Jacket Pueblo; it is likely that ponderosa pine
trees also grow in the cooler sections of Yellow Jacket Canyon. It is
possible that, in the past, ponderosa logs that floated down the Dolores
River during high rains and floods were carried overland to Yellow Jacket
Pueblo for use as construction beams.
33
Construction needs might also have been met by other woods. Oak (Quercus)
and serviceberry/peraphyllum (Amelanchier/Peraphyllum) were relatively
common in roof-fall contexts; mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus)
and cottonwood/willow (Populus/Salix) were found in only a few
contexts. Additional information about wood use at Yellow Jacket Pueblo
is presented in the following discussions of plant remains found in different
kinds of deposits.
Plants in Selected Contexts with Primary and De Facto Refuse
34
This section focuses on plant remains found in flotation and macrofossil
samples from selected hearths, pit features (including firepits), and
extramural surfaces with primary and de facto refuse. Analysis of these
remains provides evidence that may be used to infer feature and structure
use (Table 6 and Table
7). It is important to note that materials found in these features
are more likely to represent the last use or uses, rather than the longer
history and varied plant uses represented by the remains found in middens.
Hearths and firepits were periodically cleaned out, though perhaps incompletely,
such that it is unlikely one would find evidence of all the different
activities that may have been associated with those features throughout
their entire use lives.
35
The hearth (Feature 7) of Structure 1201, the oversize kiva in the great
tower, was deep, circular, and lined with masonry, and it contained at
least three distinct strata. The two lower strata (Strata 3 and 4) in
this hearth apparently had been left intact when overlying layers of ash
were periodically cleaned from the pit; these lower strata thus represented
earlier uses of the hearth than did the upper fill. The lowermost (earliest)
layer (Stratum 4) contained various types of seeds, such as hedgehog cactus
(Echinocereus fendleri), groundcherry (Physalis), cheno-am
(Chenopodium/Amaranthus), purslane (Portulaca), and
bulrush (Scirpus), but only three types of wood—juniper
(Juniperus), sagebrush (Artemisia), and an unknown,
diffuse porous-type wood. Stratum 3 contained some fine sand and four
types of seeds: cheno-am, purslane, and two unknown types. Six types of
charcoal were found in this stratum: serviceberry/peraphyllum (Amelanchier/Peraphyllum),
sagebrush, mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus), pine (Pinus),
cliff-rose/bitterbrush (Purshia), and oak (Quercus).
The only reproductive parts from the uppermost stratum of ash (Stratum
2) were oak nutshell and an unknown type of nutshell. However, more charcoal
types were recovered from this level than from any other stratum in this
hearth: juniper, chokecherry/rose (Prunus/Rosa), and maize (Zea
mays) cob parts were identified, in addition to the charcoal types
found in the earlier levels. Given the quantity and diversity of seeds
recovered, we infer that this hearth was used, at least in part, for food
preparation, perhaps for boiling or parching seeds and for roasting of
maize. The wide range of charcoal recovered may indicate that this hearth
had a special use or function.
36
Southwest of Structure 1201 was an extramural surface (Nonstructure 1217)
containing a very steep-sided hearth (Feature 1) that was partly lined
with rock. The excavated portion of this feature contained primary refuse
of sagebrush and juniper charcoal. A single seed of unknown type was also
found. The lack of reproductive parts recovered leads us to infer that
the last use of this hearth was probably for heat and light, rather than
for cooking food. This does not rule out use of this possible communal
feature in activities that were unrelated to plants, such as meat preparation
or pottery firing—activities best evaluated by examining other data
sets.
37
In Architectural Block 200, an extramural surface (Nonstructure 203)
that contained a firepit (Feature 1) was exposed. This surface was used
sometime after A.D. 1180. The firepit was shallow (a maximum depth of
10 cm) but contained seeds of cheno-am, groundcherry, and globemallow
(Sphaeralcea). The wood charcoal was identified as juniper, pine,
and oak. The last use of this firepit is likely to have been for the preparation
of food, but the fire would have also provided heat and light.
38
Nonstructure 506 was an extramural surface (with a pit feature and an
intact jar) used for an unknown length of time after A.D. 1100. De facto
refuse containing cheno-am seeds, maize cupules, and serviceberry/peraphyllum
charcoal was associated with the surface, and primary refuse containing
juniper and pine charcoal was located just above the surface. Although
no thermal features were found within the excavation unit, one or more
could have been present nearby. Alternatively, this surface could have
been used as a work space for processing food items.
39
Nonstructure 2403 was an extramural surface located just north of the
roomblock in Architectural Block 2400. This surface was probably used
sometime after A.D. 1150. No hearth or firepit was found within the excavation
unit, but on the surface was primary refuse containing sagebrush, juniper,
and cottonwood/willow (Populus/Salix) charcoal. No seeds or other
reproductive plant parts were identified in the sample collected from
this surface. It is possible that the charcoal was either secondary refuse
or the partial remains of a collapsed roof from an adjacent burned structure.
40
Two firepits and one pit feature containing primary and de facto refuse
were found in Architectural Block 2600 and date from sometime after A.D.
1100. A large firepit (Feature 1), which showed archaeological evidence
of heavy use and contained primary refuse, had been excavated into an
extramural surface (Nonstructure 2601). In the lower portion of the firepit
were three varieties of seeds—groundcherry, cheno-am, and ricegrass
(Stipa hymenoides). The firepit also contained sagebrush, rabbitbrush
(Chrysothamnus), Mormon tea (Ephedra), juniper, and
cottonwood/willow charcoal, as well as abundant maize parts ranging from
cupule and cob fragments to shank segments. A firepit (Feature 1) on Nonstructure
2605, another extramural surface, was not carefully constructed and apparently
was used very little. The primary refuse in this shallow firepit contained
purslane and cheno-am seeds, and serviceberry/peraphyllum, juniper, wolfberry
(Lycium), and cottonwood/willow charcoal, as well as maize cupules.
A pit feature (Feature 1) with no evidence of thermal alteration had been
excavated into an extramural surface (Nonstructure 2606). Inside this
pit was a complete pottery vessel containing maize cupules and serviceberry/peraphyllum
charcoal interpreted as possible primary refuse. Surrounding the bowl
was construction fill containing primarily juniper and sagebrush charcoal.
The pit apparently had been dug before the construction of the roomblock
in Architectural Block 2600 and might have been used for storage or refuse
disposal.
41
Our interpretation of the recovered plant remains suggests slightly different
uses for the three documented nonstructures in Architectural Block 2600.
Because of evidence of heavy use and numerous types of charred plant parts
recovered from the firepit of Nonstructure 2601, we suggest that this
pit was probably used many times for food preparation and to provide heat
and light. The firepit associated with Nonstructure 2605 was probably
used only a few times for cooking and other activities, as evidenced by
the shallowness of the pit and the apparent expedient construction. The
purpose of the pit feature associated with Nonstructure 2606 is more difficult
to ascertain. The maize and wood charcoal in the vessel may indicate ritual
or ceremonial activities, or these remains may have been refuse deposited
in the bowl after use.
42
Patterning of plant species among these features is not clear; however,
some taxa are more common than others. If one considers the three stratigraphic
levels of the hearth in Structure 1201 as a single context, maize was
present in 75 percent of the hearths, firepits, and other pit features
discussed in this section. Although some of the maize cob remains could
have been leftover from the summer roasting of green ears for food, much
of the maize refuse likely resulted from the burning of cobs as fuel.
Cheno-ams, representing food refuse, were present in 63 percent of all
features included in the study, whereas groundcherry seeds were present
in 38 percent. All other seed types were found in only one or two contexts.
The most commonly recovered charred wood in these features was juniper
(found in 100 percent of the samples); other types were sagebrush (63
percent), serviceberry/peraphyllum (50 percent), pine (38 percent), and
cottonwood/willow (38 percent).
43
The use of different excavation strategies makes it difficult to compare
the presence or absence of taxa between the great tower complex and the
other tested areas. Observed differences, such as the presence of several
taxa in one part of the site but not in another, can probably be attributed
to small sample size and to the different kinds of contexts sampled. Temporal
comparisons between areas are also difficult to make because the chronological
resolution of Yellow Jacket Pueblo is not especially fine-grained (see
"Chronology"). Small
sample size is also an obstacle to detecting changes in plant use over
time at this site.
44
Overall, the uses of the thermal features discussed in this section seem
oriented toward general activities such as food preparation and burning
of wood for warmth and light. Although other possible functions might
include ritual activity or medicinal preparation, these kinds of activities
are difficult to identify from plant remains. No exotic or rare plant
species were recovered from the excavations.
Plant Remains in Collapsed Roof and Wall Debris
45
Plant remains recovered from collapsed roofs and walls are good indicators
of the kinds of wood used in construction and the kinds of activities,
such as food processing, carried out on rooftops. These materials can
also yield information about items that were suspended from interior or
exterior beams. The contexts examined here include collapsed roof and
wall deposits inside structures, as well as materials found on kiva benches
and on some extramural surfaces (Table
8).
46
Our analysis indicates that certain species of trees were used more often
than others to provide the heavy beams used in structural support at Yellow
Jacket Pueblo. Juniper (Juniperus) was recovered as charcoal
in many constructional contexts and was the main wood used for roof beams.
Pine (Pinus) charcoal was found in Structure 704 (subterranean
structure, type unknown) and in Structure 1214 (a bi-wall room of the
great tower). In these structures, pine probably was used in conjunction
with juniper, but not where strong, structural roof support was needed,
as pine tends to fracture more easily than juniper.
47
In addition to the large, load-bearing beams used in roof construction,
smaller plant materials that provided fill and support for the outer layers
of plaster or adobe also would have been incorporated into the roofs of
most structures. At Yellow Jacket Pueblo, it appears that these smaller
materials most often consisted of smaller branches from shrubby plants
like serviceberry/peraphyllum (Amelanchier/Peraphyllum), sagebrush
(Artemisia), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus), and occasionally
rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus). In sites throughout the Southwest,
many roofs were lined with straight and narrow branches of willow (Salix)
that were secured with strips of willow or yucca (Yucca) fiber
(Gallagher 1977*1; Robbins
et al. 1916*1; Whiting
1966*1). Cottonwood (Populus) and/or willow were found in only
two structures (Structures 1214 and 704), and yucca was not recovered
in any of the contexts discussed here.
48
Juniper charcoal and a maize (Zea mays) stalk segment were found
in roofing debris that had collapsed, intact, onto the bench surface of
a blocked-in, aboveground kiva (Structure 1204) in the great tower complex.
This structure is thought to have been the lower story of a two-story
structure. It is possible that the charcoal and stalk segment originated
either in the roofing material of this structure or on the floor of the
upper structure.
49
Above a bi-wall room (Structure 1214) of the great tower, there was probably
a second story (Structure 1222) containing a heavily used hearth; there
was no evidence that either structure burned (Kuckelman
1997*1). It was probably from the upper-story hearth that much of
the charcoal in the fill of the lower room derived (numerous taxa, including
Zea mays, were represented). West of Structure 1214 was an outdoor
surface (Nonstructure 1219) that contained collapsed roof and wall debris.
All the charcoal types in this context were also found in the samples
from collapsed roof and wall material in Structure 1214, and they likely
derive from wood that was originally part of that structure.
50
The collapsed roof and wall debris in Structure 204, a masonry room,
contained several maize cob parts and a wide range of wood charcoal (five
different taxa). The cob parts might have been discarded on the intact
roof, or they might have been thrown into the collapsed roofing debris
after the roof was dismantled. The five wood types (juniper, serviceberry/peraphyllum,
sagebrush, mountain mahogany, and oak) recovered from this structure were
probably part of the various layers of construction, though some of the
charcoal might have been introduced as refuse.
51
Little is known about subterranean Structure 704. Tree-ring dating suggests
that this structure was built sometime after A.D. 974. The types of pottery
sherds found on the floor indicate that the structure was last used an
unknown length of time after A.D. 1100. The collapsed roof and wall debris
contained several different kinds of wood charcoal (probably roofing materials)
and maize kernel and cob parts. The maize was probably dried and shelled
on the roof, and the refuse discarded there, or the ears were, perhaps,
suspended from the roof beams. Alternatively, any or all of this material
could have been discarded into this depression as secondary refuse after
the roof collapsed.
52
The collapsed roofing debris in Structure 903, an earth-walled pit structure,
contained only maize cob fragments. As in Structure 704, these remains
could have been refuse associated with the processing of maize on the
rooftop, or they could have been refuse deposited after the roof collapsed.
The lack of charcoal in the roof debris might suggest that the wood beams
and support material were scavenged for use in other structures.
53
A handful of plant foods was also recovered from collapsed roof and wall
contexts at Yellow Jacket Pueblo. Although maize parts were found in every
context presented in Table
8, almost all other reproductive parts (fruits or seeds) were found
only in Structure 1214, the great tower bi-wall room located below Structure
1222. Structure 1214 contained material—including, probably, the
contents of a hearth—that had collapsed from Structure 1222 above.
The uneven distribution of reproductive plant parts as revealed in Table
8 leads to several inferences: (1) that a hearth in Structure 1222 had
been used for processing plants such as cheno-ams, beans (Phaseolus
vulgaris), maize, purslane, and bulrush; (2) that the roofs of Structures
1204, 204, 704, and 903 might have been used for the processing of maize
but not of other foods; (3) that Structure 1222 had some special use,
perhaps as a public space for cooking or as a place for ritual or medicinal
preparation; and (4) that perhaps Structures 1204, 204, 704, and 903 belonged
to individual families rather than to a larger group. The last inference
assumes that maize and structures were considered personal or family property
and that families would have dried maize on their own rooftops more often
than on public ones.
Proximity of Agricultural Fields
54
The proximity of agricultural fields to an ancient village can be inferred
by the kinds of plant parts found in the village. Hypothetically, if fields
were located far from a village, then parts that were heavy or bulky,
such as maize shanks or stalks, would more often be removed and left behind
in fields than carried back for processing. If, on the other hand, fields
were located nearby, then the remains of these bulkier plant parts should
be found at the site more often. Once such materials were transported
to villages, they might have been burned as waste or used as tinder or
fuel. Historically, the burning of cobs as fuel was common (see Elmore
1944*1; Robbins et al.
1916*1), and this activity no doubt also occurred in prehistory.
55
At Yellow Jacket Pueblo, maize shank and stalk parts were found in nine
contexts, suggesting that the fields were located nearby. If only kernels
and cobs had been recovered, we might infer transport over a longer distance,
with waste products left in the fields. Proximity to fields is also suggested
by Yellow Jacket Pueblo's location on a relatively flat point that is
surrounded by arable land and by the location nearby of at least two reliable
springs. The rolling uplands that surround the site on three sides would
probably have provided enough farmland to support the occupants of this
pueblo (Kristin Kuckelman, personal communication 1997). North and northeast
of the site are well-drained sagebrush flats that would have been easy
to access; second-choice locations for farming would have been across
the draw to the west and across the canyon to the east. Although the canyons
that border the site to the east, west, and south are rocky and steep
in places, these second-choice locations are relatively easy to access.
Possible third-choice farming locations would have included the more gradual
slopes of the canyon walls and perhaps the talus slopes below the site,
which could have been terraced by the people of Yellow Jacket Pueblo.
The first- and second-choice locations are commercially farmed today.
56
One definite and four possible dams, as well as a large depression that
probably was a reservoir, may have been used in part for agricultural
purposes. The reservoir and one of the possible dams are located just
north of Architectural Block 2400. At the west edge of the reservoir is
a somewhat poorly constructed berm that was probably a dam built to keep
runoff from draining out of the basin into the canyon. The reservoir appears
at present to collect water only rarely, but this could be because the
dam has been breached. The other four water-control features are located
near the east end of the great tower complex. This series of one definite
and three possible dams is associated with a natural drainage and with
a spring that today is productive even in the driest of seasons (Kristin
Kuckelman, personal communication 1997). Although some of this water might
have been used to irrigate small garden plots located near the pueblo,
most of it was probably used for domestic purposes.
Resource Depletion and Food Stress
57
In this section, we explore the possibility that resource depletion and
food stress increased during the latter (late Pueblo III) part of the
occupation of Yellow Jacket Pueblo. Kohler
and Matthews (1988*1) proposed local forest depletion for early Pueblo
sites in the Dolores River valley, resulting, perhaps, in greater residential
mobility. Adams and Bowyer
(2002*2) found minimal evidence of food stress when they examined
the changes in plant-food choice by residents of the Sand Canyon locality
in the century before the late-thirteenth-century regional depopulation.
58
Assessing changes in resource use for Yellow Jacket Pueblo is difficult
because of the low chronological resolution, the disturbed nature of some
of the archaeological deposits, and the different excavation strategies
employed in different areas of the site (that is, the great tower complex
vs. the other architectural blocks). It is possible, however, to broadly
examine plant diversity within the flotation record, comparing structures
dating from the late Pueblo II period with those in the late Pueblo III
great tower complex (Table
9). These specific contexts, representing a diversity of depositional
situations (for example, primary refuse, secondary refuse, and wall fall),
were chosen because they are the ones most securely limited to the time
periods in question. It is important to note that differences between
the plant remains found in the great tower complex and those found in
other structures or architectural blocks may not indicate changes over
time in resource availability but, rather, differences in how various
areas of the village were used. The great tower complex, in particular,
might have been a ceremonial or special-use area. Therefore, activities
conducted in this section of the village might have differed considerably
from those conducted in the parts of the village dating from the late
Pueblo II period. It is also possible that any dissimilarities in plant
taxa between the two time periods are due to the different numbers of
samples representing each of the time periods.
59
Differences in plant use between the late Pueblo II and late Pueblo III
time periods at Yellow Jacket Pueblo are not dramatic. The reproductive
plant parts in late Pueblo II and late Pueblo III contexts are similar,
as is the diversity of charcoal. A ranking of the different taxa indicates
that juniper (Juniperus) and sagebrush (Artemisia) were
the two most commonly used woods throughout the tested areas of the village
and for the duration of the occupation. This suggests that the availability
of wood in the surrounding environment was probably not significantly
different just before the last use of the site than when Yellow Jacket
Pueblo was first established and that fuel use probably did not change
much over time.
60
One potentially interesting difference between samples from contexts
dating from the late Pueblo II and late Pueblo III periods is the noticeable
drop in the number of late Pueblo III contexts containing maize (Zea
mays) cob cupules, cob fragments, and kernels. Though cupules and
cob fragments are, technically, maize reproductive parts, they can probably
be considered as fuel because their presence in certain contexts is likely
the result of intentional burning of maize cobs. This would suggest that
either cobs were burned or disposed of more rarely in the great tower
complex than in the late Pueblo II structures or the inhabitants of the
great tower did not have as much access to maize late in the occupation
(which might indicate that crops were poor). However, evidence of maize
cupules, cob fragments, and cob segments is preserved in three macrofossil
samples (not listed in Table 9) from the great tower complex (Structures
1201 and 1214), documenting some burning of cobs in hearths during the
late Pueblo III period.
61
Although, overall, the results of this comparison of plant remains across
time periods are inconclusive, the observed difference between the late
Pueblo II and late Pueblo III structures in recovery of maize cob parts
is interesting. These differences may represent changes in the availability
or use of maize through time. Alternatively, they may indicate that the
great tower complex was used in a different manner than were other parts
of the village.
Season of Last Use
62
The types of remains found in hearths can indicate the season(s) when
those hearths were last used. This evidence may be used to address the
question of the season of final use of Yellow Jacket Pueblo. Tree-ring
evidence indicates that the great tower complex was one of the last architectural
blocks to be built at Yellow Jacket Pueblo and that it was constructed
and used during the late Pueblo III period (see "Chronology").
The wide range of seed types found in one of the hearths (Feature 7, Structure
1201) sampled in the great tower complex represents more than one season
(Table 6). Of the
taxa listed in Table 6, groundcherry (Physalis) can be collected
by midsummer, but its seeds are often not mature until later in the summer
and early fall. The majority of plants identified in the samples from
this hearth mature in late summer and fall. It therefore seems likely
that this hearth in the great tower complex was last used sometime during
the fall, although some of the plants or plant parts could have been stored
from an earlier season. Ricegrass (Stipa hymenoides) is an early
summer grain-producer, and its presence in a nonstructure firepit hints
that, at some time, people were present in the area earlier in the growing
season.
Nature of the Past Environment
63
The environment around Yellow Jacket Pueblo during the prehistoric occupation
was probably very similar to what it is today. Although it is difficult
to reconstruct the relative proportions of different plants on the ancient
landscape, the species found in archaeological contexts at Yellow Jacket
Pueblo closely approximate those found in the area of the site today.
A notable exception is the presence of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)
and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga) in the archaeological record, as
discussed previously. Although today much of the land surrounding the
site is farmed, the site itself is covered with sagebrush (Artemisia)
and oak (Quercus). Juniper (Juniperus) and pine (Pinus)
are also present, as are patches of serviceberry/peraphyllum (Amelanchier
/Peraphyllum), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus), and chokecherry
(Prunus). Saltbush (Atriplex), cliff-rose (Purshia),
and ephedra (Ephedra) are scattered along the canyon edge.
64
Weedy wild plants found in the ancient deposits of Yellow Jacket Pueblo
are also common around the site today. Goosefoot (Chenopodium),
pigweed (Amaranthus), globemallow (Sphaeralcea), purslane
(Portulaca), and groundcherry (Physalis) grow particularly
well in disturbed soils and were probably abundant prehistorically around
habitation sites, especially if agricultural fields were near. We have
discovered, through modern experimental gardening on the Crow Canyon Archaeological
Center campus, that many of these species thrive in places where water
collects, even in small amounts, and ancient farmers might have used various
strategies to take advantage of this fact. Less-weedy plants such as datil
yucca (Yucca baccata), hedgehog cactus (Echinocereus fendleri),
needle-and-thread grass (Stipa comata), and ricegrass (Stipa
hymenoides) are also widely found throughout the area, whereas the
rushes (Scirpus, for example) prefer moister ground around springs
or watercourses; many of these plants were available in the ancient environment
as well.
Summary
65
In this chapter, we interpret the archaeobotanical remains found in 47
flotation and 444 macrofossil samples from Yellow Jacket Pueblo, the largest
ancestral Pueblo site in the Mesa Verde region. We found that the inhabitants
of Yellow Jacket Pueblo farmed maize, beans, and squash and collected
many different types of wild plant foods, including cheno-ams, purslane,
groundcherry, and yucca. Because the season of fruiting and harvesting
of these plants is known, we can infer from the archaeobotanical record
that ancestral Pueblo peoples were present at Yellow Jacket from at least
late spring through early fall.
66
Juniper, sagebrush, pine, oak, serviceberry/peraphyllum, and, to a lesser
extent, cottonwood/willow provided both fuel and construction materials
to the people of Yellow Jacket Pueblo. Juniper was probably the main wood
used for load-bearing beams. Woods used only occasionally by the inhabitants
for fuel or construction were ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, mountain mahogany,
and the woody parts of shrubby plants like cliff-rose/bitterbrush and
rabbitbrush. The ponderosa pine and Douglas fir trees possibly grew some
distance from the village, as they do today.
67
Analysis of primary and de facto refuse from hearths, firepits, and pit
features revealed that most thermal features were probably used for parching,
boiling, or other cooking of plant reproductive parts, mainly seeds. It
is likely that these thermal features were also used for burning wood
for heat and light. It appears that the hearth in the oversize kiva (Structure
1201) in the great tower complex served multiple purposes, including the
preparation or cooking of edible seeds. This use contrasts with the use
of a hearth on a surface (Nonstructure 1217) just outside Structure 1201
that contained no archaeobotanical evidence of food preparation. Other
firepits (in Nonstructures 203, 2601, and 2605) are likely to have been
used for cooking, heating, and lighting. Two surfaces (Nonstructures 506
and 2403) might have been work areas, and a pit feature (on Nonstructure
2606) outside the roomblock in Architectural Block 2600 may have been
used as a storage pit. Samples from collapsed roof and wall deposits suggest
that maize might have been processed on rooftops. The notable diversity
of seeds found in a great tower bi-wall room (Structure 1214) may indicate
that this room, or—more likely—the one above it (Structure 1222),
served some special use, perhaps as a public space where people had access
to a wide variety of foods.
68
On the basis of the site's location and the characteristics of the modern
landscape, we believe that ancient agricultural fields were located close
to Yellow Jacket Pueblo. We found no evidence for or against resource
depletion or food stress over time, but our studies were hampered by small
sample size and the lack of fine chronological resolution for the site.
Finally, it is probable that the great tower complex was last used sometime
in the fall, during or after a time when maize and many wild plants were
harvested.
1The identification of wolfberry (Lycium) is tentative, based on characteristics that only generally resemble modern Lycium specimens.
Copyright © 2003 by Crow Canyon Archaeological Center. All rights reserved.