Laying the Foundation for a Fremont Phytolith Typology Using Select Plant Species Native to Utah County

Madison Pearce

Archaeobotanical evidences for the presence of wild plants at Fremont archaeological sites are numerous. However, little can be positively argued for why those plants are present, if they were used by site inhabitants, and how they were used. Additionally, there are likely several wild plants that were used but that do not appear in the archaeobotanical record as pollen or macrobotanicals, the two most commonly identified plant remains. I argue that it is possible to provide better interpretations for how and why the Fremont used plants by researching how their historic counterparts, the Goshute, Shoshone, Ute, and Southern Paiute, used the same plants that are identified at prehistoric sites. I further argue that a phytolith typology for Fremont archaeology can provide more insight into prehistoric plant use. I demonstrate its utility through a phytolith analysis of ground stone tools from Wolf Village, a Fremont site in Utah County.

Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive All Theses and Dissertations 2017-12-01 Laying the Foundation for a Fremont Phytolith Typology Using Select Plant Species Native to Utah County Madison Natasha Pearce Brigham Young University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd Part of the Anthropology Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Pearce, Madison Natasha, "Laying the Foundation for a Fremont Phytolith Typology Using Select Plant Species Native to Utah County" (2017). All Theses and Dissertations. 6648. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/6648 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact scholarsarchive@byu.edu. Laying the Foundation for a Fremont Phytolith Typology Using Select Plant Species Native to Utah County Madison Natasha Mercer Pearce A thesis submitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Michael T. Searcy, Chair James R. Allison Terry Briggs Ball Department of Anthropology Brigham Young University Copyright © 2017 Madison Natasha Mercer Pearce All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT Laying the Foundation for a Fremont Phytolith Typology Using Select Plant Species Native to Utah County Madison Natasha Mercer Pearce Department of Anthropology, BYU Master of Arts Archaeobotanical evidences for the presence of wild plants at Fremont archaeological sites are numerous. However, little can be positively argued for why those plants are present, if they were used by site inhabitants, and how they were used. Additionally, there are likely several wild plants that were used but that do not appear in the archaeobotanical record as pollen or macrobotanicals, the two most commonly identified plant remains. I argue that it is possible to provide better interpretations for how and why the Fremont used plants by researching how their historic counterparts, the Goshute, Shoshone, Ute, and Southern Paiute, used the same plants that are identified at prehistoric sites. I further argue that a phytolith typology for Fremont archaeology can provide more insight into prehistoric plant use. I demonstrate its utility through a phytolith analysis of ground stone tools from Wolf Village, a Fremont site in Utah County. Keywords: ethnobotany, Fremont, phytoliths, Utah County, Goshute, Shoshone, Ute, Paiute, Wolf Village, ground stone tools. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge my committee, the botanists and gardeners who helped me identify plants, and my family and friends. I would like thank Michael Searcy who, when I approached him in August 2013 as a very stressed and vexed Master’s student in the Environmental Science program, cleared the way for my application and acceptance in an unprecedented manner into the Department of Anthropology. I’d also like to thank him for being my friend in Kanab in 2010. I’d like to thank James Allison for letting me pursue this project; his trust and sagacious apprehension. I would especially like to thank Terry B. Ball for being so welcoming when he first opened his office door to a student he had never met before. I am grateful for all his guidance and positive encouragement. I am grateful for funds received for this research from the Charles Redd Center and the Anthropology Department. Research funds came from the Summer Award for BYU Upper Division and Graduate Students and the Shallit Grant. I would like to thank Casey from Central Utah Garden, Robert Johnson from the BYU Herbarium, Heidi, Lindsey, Neal, and Fritz from Red Butte Gardens, Tony and Esther from Thanksgiving Point, and Kim and Gail from Sego Lily Gardens. I am grateful for Bradley Geary for allowing me to use his Nikon Optiphot 2 light microscope, and for Mike Standing in the McDonald microscopy lab. I would also like to thank Brooks B. Britt and Loreen Allphin for always believing in me. I am indebted to my husband for all his support, for listening to my crazy ideas, and for baking me cookies. I am grateful for my two children and the perspective they brought when times were tough. I am grateful for my mother for editing all my drafts. I am also grateful for all my babysitters: Tess, Lynn, Emily, Chloe, Jessica, Kara, Savannah, Britney, Aly, Izzy, Zoe, Kim, Chanae, Danielle, Miranda, April, and Kari. Finally, I am grateful for my God. I wouldn’t be in this program if He did not inspire me to be here. I would not have made it this far without His help. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................................. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. v LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ vii LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. viii Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Wolf Village .............................................................................................................................................. 2 Phytoliths .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Thesis Organization .................................................................................................................................. 6 2. Background ............................................................................................................................................. 8 The Fremont .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Ethnographies of Historic Indigenous Occupation in Utah Valley ........................................................ 17 The Shoshone .......................................................................................................................................... 19 The Goshute ............................................................................................................................................ 20 The Utes .................................................................................................................................................. 22 The Southern Paiute................................................................................................................................ 25 3. Methods.................................................................................................................................................. 28 Fremont Botanical Reports ..................................................................................................................... 28 Plant Species Native to Utah County and Documented Ethnographic Uses .......................................... 29 Plant Collection and Digestion ............................................................................................................... 31 Groundstone Slide Analysis .................................................................................................................... 36 4. Results of Typology ............................................................................................................................... 37 Calcium oxalates..................................................................................................................................... 39 Forbs ....................................................................................................................................................... 44 Trees and Shrubs..................................................................................................................................... 52 Grasses.................................................................................................................................................... 62 Discussion and Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 71 5. Results of Ground Stone Artifact Wash Analysis .............................................................................. 74 Ground Stone Artifact 219 ...................................................................................................................... 76 Ground Stone Artifact 2357 .................................................................................................................... 76 Ground Stone Artifact 11975 .................................................................................................................. 81 v Ground Stone Artifact 15814 .................................................................................................................. 81 Ground Stone Artifact 16494 .................................................................................................................. 82 Ground Stone Artifact 16642 .................................................................................................................. 87 Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 88 6. Discussion and Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 94 Phytolith Typology and Ground Stone Analysis ..................................................................................... 94 Indicators for Fremont Subsistence ........................................................................................................ 95 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 99 References Cited ....................................................................................................................................... 101 Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................... 122 Appendix B ............................................................................................................................................... 128 Appendix C ............................................................................................................................................... 141 Appendix D ............................................................................................................................................... 153 Appendix E ............................................................................................................................................... 207 Appendix F.................................................................................................................................................209 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1. Map of Utah Valley. ................................................................................................... 13 Figure 3.1. Common cross contaminates found in phytolith slides .............................................. 34 Figure 4.1. Calcium oxalates: raphides and styloids..................................................................... 42 Figure 4.2. Calcium oxalates: crystal sand, druses, prismatics, and rhombohedrals. ................... 43 Figure 4.3. Phytoliths: astrosclerids and hairs. ............................................................................. 48 Figure 4.4. Phytoliths: articulate epidermals, part one. ................................................................ 49 Figure 4.5. Phytoliths: articulate epidermals, part two. ................................................................ 50 Figure 4.6. Phytoliths: articulate epidermals part three, stomates, parenchyma, and trichomes. . 51 Figure 4.7. Phytoliths: tracheids. .................................................................................................. 59 Figure 4.8. Phytoliths: vascular tissue and papillae. ..................................................................... 60 Figure 4.9. Phytoliths: spheroids and polygonals. ........................................................................ 61 Figure 4.10. Phytoliths: elongates, part one. ................................................................................. 68 Figure 4.11. Phytoliths: elongates, part two. ................................................................................ 69 Figure 4.12. Phytoliths: grass short cell forms. ............................................................................ 70 Figure 5.1. Ground Stone FS 219, basalt metate fragment. .......................................................... 78 Figure 5.2. Ground Stone FS 2357, a worn and pecked central fragment of a vesicular basalt mano.............................................................................................................................................. 78 Figure 5.3. Ground Stone FS 11975, a complete quartzite basin mano........................................ 83 Figure 5.4. Ground Stone FS 15814, a complete rhyolite mano. .................................................. 84 Figure 5.5. Ground Stone FS 16494, fragment of a basalt Utah-style metate. ............................. 84 Figure 5.6. Ground Stone FS 16642, a platform for mashing roots and tubers. ........................... 88 Figure 5.7. Maize phytoliths observed on ground stone artifacts. ................................................ 90 Figure 5.8. Calcium oxalate crystals, chrysophyte cysts, diatoms, sponges, and epidermals. ..... 91 Figure 5.9. Grass phytoliths. ......................................................................................................... 92 Figure 5.10. Diagnostic forms, sedge, tracheids, and others. ....................................................... 93 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. The Frequency of Archaeobotanical Remains at Fremonts Sites in Utah County. ..... 14 Table 3.1. Examples of Changes in Plant Nomenclature.............................................................. 31 Table 4.1. Typology Code. ........................................................................................................... 38 Table 4.2. Presence and Frequency of Calcium Oxalate Crystals. ............................................... 41 Table 4.3. Presence and Frequency of Phytoliths in Tested Forbs. .............................................. 47 Table 4.4. Presence and Frequency of Phytoliths in Tested Shrubs and Trees ............ ................ 57 Table 4.5. Presence and Frequency of Phytoliths in Tested Grasses ........................................... 66 Table 4.6. Diagnostic and Non-diagnostic Phytoliths. ................................................................. 71 Table 5.1. Wolf Village (42UT273) Ground Stone Tool Provenience and Description. ............. 75 Table 5.2. Phytolith Grass Counts. ............................................................................................... 79 Table 5.3. Diagnostic Phytolith Counts. ....................................................................................... 80 Table 5.4. Redundant Forms, Total Phytolith Count, and Other Forms. ...................................... 85 Table 5.5. Calculated Percentages for Select Phytolith Counts. ................................................... 86 viii 1. Introduction Of the Fremont who lived in the Great Basin from about AD 300 to AD 1300, much is known about their architecture, artifacts, and other lifeways. However, knowledge of their plant use is lacking regarding what plants the Fremont used for food and/or medicine. Two methods have been commonly employed to evaluate plant use in the Great Basin: macrobotanicals and pollen analyses. Another method, phytolith analysis, has the ability to shed further light on Fremont plant use but is rarely used because phytolith typologies for the region are scarce or incomplete. There is also no collective database with which one can compare to identify all the species and tissues of plants that have been tested for the presence of phytoliths. To address this, I created a phytolith typology based on species from plant families and genera identified at Fremont Utah Valley sites that have documented ethnographic uses. While this typology is more specific to the Utah Valley Fremont, it can be expanded to surrounding areas and cultural groups in the eastern Great Basin and western Colorado Plateau. Due to time restraints, this typology is only a sample of species native to Utah County. I tested this typology by identifying phytoliths from six ground stone artifacts from Wolf Village, a Fremont village site located in Utah Valley. I hired a paleobotanist, Chad Yost, to analyze these samples first, after which I compared my results to his. Ethnographic records of the Shoshone, Goshute, Ute, and Southern Paiute were used to provide interpretations for how and why plants identified at Utah Valley Fremont sites may have been used. Such interpretations can aid in assessing the functionality of structures and use surfaces, as well as help justify why botanical studies are conducted at prehistoric sites. These groups were selected because although they are separated from the Fremont by time, they do 1 share with the Fremont similarities in architecture, artifacts, and other lifeways, in addition to living in and around Utah Valley. Wolf Village I chose to study Utah Valley in Utah County because of its convenient location. To test the viability of my phytolith typology, I selected artifacts from the Utah Valley Fremont site Wolf Village because of the large number of unwashed ground stone artifacts available to study. Wolf Village is a Fremont site located in the southern end of Utah Valley, a few miles south of Utah Lake. Radiocarbon dates from the excavated structures suggest that this site was occupied for a few decades around AD 1000-1100 (Johansson et al. 2014:33). At least seven pit structures and two surface structures have been excavated, with the largest pit structure and largest surface structure of the Fremont occupation of Utah Valley being found at this site. All structures have floors of varying degrees of discernibility, post-holes, and most have hearths (Johannson et al. 2014). A macro- and micro-botanical study of the site from 2011 revealed that the Wolf Village Fremont utilized, and likely farmed, Zea mays and Phaseolus sp. (Dahle 2011:33). They also utilized several wild, native species, such as Brassica (mustard), Stipa (ricegrass), Helianthus (sunflower), and Amelanchier (serviceberry), among others (Dahle 2011:37). Plant remains indicative of these and several other plants came from ground stone artifact pollen analysis and macrobotanicals collected from midden and hearth fill samples. To understand Fremont plant use, studies using multiple methods are ideal. A review of Utah Valley Fremont botanical reports reveal that plants remains preserve differently in the valley. Some only preserve as pollen or as seeds, and some do not preserve at all. For example, 2 few to no plant remains have been recovered from sites such as Seamons Mound near Utah Lake due to poor preservation because of damp soil. Furthermore, there are other plants, such as Polygonaceae Polygonum, that are found in Utah Valley archaeological contexts that have no records of use by historically documented groups. Several of these plants are invisible ethnographically because either no one recorded using those plants, or no one remembers those plants being used. Phytoliths Phytoliths, or plant opal silica, are the inorganic microfossil remains of plants which form as the plant uptakes monosilicic acid, Si(OH4), through its roots and deposits that silica in intracellular and extracellular locations (Pearsall et al. 1995:184). There the silica forms a solid deposit that takes the shape of the cell in which it forms; in some cases, this shaped silica, or phytolith, is taxonomically significant (Pearsall et al. 1995:184). Phytoliths have two characteristics that in some cases make them more useful than pollen and starch grains for archaeobotanical investigations. First, due to their inorganic nature, phytoliths preserve better in environments that would typically destroy organic remains, such as oxidized soils in places like Mesoamerica (Pearsall 1989:254). Second, spores, pollen, and seeds are primarily produced during specific seasons, while phytoliths can be produced year-long and are sometimes developed in plant structures that do not produce other forms of microfossils (Ball et al. 2015:11). Phytoliths are released once the plant producing them is destroyed through decay, burning, digestion, or grinding (Ball et al. 1999:1615; Shahack-Gross et al. 2014; Wallis et al. 2014). These microfossils can then be found in several different contexts: soil, coprolites, dental calculus, stomach contents, residue on artifacts, and lake cores (Berlin et al. 2003:115; Piperno 3 2006:81-86). They have also been found fossilized in significantly older contexts, with some samples dating to around nine million years B.P. (Schultz et al. 2014). Phytoliths found in these different settings have added to both prehistoric and present day environmental and ethnobotanical reconstruction (Ball et al. 2015). Prehistoric diet and subsistence can also be explored by analyzing phytoliths found on ground stone tools or on ceramic vessels (Liu et al. 2014; Peto et al 2013; Power et al. 2014). Recent phytolith research into Neanderthal diets indicates that they probably consumed just as many plant taxa as modern humans (Henry et al. 2014). In biology, coprolites of unobservable chimpanzee populations have been collected for phytolith analysis to determine how the population is faring based on their diet, since heavily digested plants will only be present in feces as phytoliths (Phillips and Lancelotti 2014). Changes in the environment are sometimes reflected in phytoliths. Since the photosynthetic pathways of plants affects their cell structures, researchers have been able to distinguish between the phytoliths created by C3 versus C4 grasses (Stromberg 2002). Because of this morphological difference, phytoliths have been used to track changes in the environment by tracking the diversity and richness of C3 and C4 grass phytoliths in prehistoric soils (Cotton et al. 2014). Climate patterns are tracked by studying vegetation changes as manifested by different phytoliths in lake cores (Veena et al. 2014). Phytolith analysis also adds to forestry research because once deposited, phytoliths contribute to the silica richness in soil systems (Blecker et al. 2006). Researching the silica cycle through how plants produce phytoliths provides insight into silica availability and the role of leaf litter in forests (Umemura and Takenaka 2014). Any analysis using phytoliths relies upon the ability to distinguish between the different taxa or genera the phytoliths represent. Distinguishing between phytoliths of closely related taxa 4 relies on morphometric analysis, which is the measurement of the shapes and sizes of phytoliths (Ball et al. 1999:1615-1616). Previous morphometric analysis has provided clear means for distinguishing between the phytoliths of closely related taxa (Ball et al. 1999; Vrydaghs et al. 2009). For example, phytoliths have been used to distinguish between wild and domestic rice, which adds to rice domestication research (Pearsall et al. 1995; Qui et al. 2014; Zhao et al. 1998). Phytoliths have also been used to distinguish between wild and domesticated millet in Eurasia (Zhang et al. 2011) and among banana taxa (Vrydaghs et al. 2009). There are several kinds of phytolith forms, some being produced only by specific species and others being more universal. Some family, genera, and species are better producers of phytoliths than others. Typically, monocots produce more phytoliths than dicots (Piperno 2006:37). An example of a major producer of diagnostic phytoliths is the tribe Triticeae, found in the grass family Poaceae (Pearsall et al. 1995:184; Sangster 1970:245; Twiss et al. 1969). Every taxa in Triticeae produces inflorescence bracts called glumes, lemmas, and paleas. Phytolith assemblages made up of articulated dendriform wave patterns are found in these bracts, and it has been argued that these wave patterns can be used to distinguish between Triticeae genera and taxa (Ball et al. 2015; Piperno 2006:76-78; Rosen 1992). Other phytolith forms include rondels from grasses, sclerids and tracheids from vascular tissue, and hairs and hair bases (Pearsall 2015:256-264). Another common form are amorphous silica bodies. These indicate that silica was absorbed by the plant but that either the silicification was incomplete or it does not reflect the shape of the parent cell (Pearsall 2015:254; Piperno 2006:24). In my study, I also expected to see plants that produce no phytoliths and plants that produce several different phytolith forms. 5 Not all plants produce phytoliths, and there may be one or two species in a genus that produce phytoliths, but the rest of the species within that taxa do not. There is no clear pattern regarding which plants do or do not produce phytoliths and to what degree. The biology behind why some plants are producers and others are not is not well understood. There are also variations among plants on when phytoliths are formed. For example, the older a grass leaf is, the more phytoliths will likely be produced (Piperno 2006:8, 15). While botanists can predict where in a plant phytoliths may be found, the exact locations are unknown until the various tissues of a plant have all been tested (Piperno 2006:18). In other words, any patterns observed in phytolith production and frequency apply only to species and plant tissues that have so far been analyzed, and such patterns can only be tentatively applied to species and plant tissues that have not been analyzed (Piperno 2006:18-19). Still, most phytoliths found within a given family, genus, or species will have similar shapes (Piperno 2006:24). My thesis fills gaps in phytolith knowledge on particular species regarding how and where they produce phytoliths, and then applies a regionally specific typology to archaeological samples. Thesis Organization In Chapter 2, I present a cursory background review of the Fremont and what is known about their plant use, followed by a historical review of ethnographies of the historic indigenous occupation in Utah Valley. The ethnographic literature reviewed for the Fremont are of peoples who shared similar geography, climate, resources, technologies, and subsistence strategies. The “use [of] ethnographic data to establish reliable correlations between archaeologically observable phenomena and archaeologically unobservable human behavior” (Trigger 2010:33) provides the 6 validity that some researchers need when making the statement that the Fremont utilized both domestic and wild resources. The historic groups I review are the Shoshone, the Goshute, the Ute, and the Southern Paiute. In Chapter 3, I describe my methods: the nature of the Utah Valley Fremont botanical reports that I reviewed and how I narrowed my data set to only be of plants with documented ethnographic use. I also explain the phytolith extraction methods I used to create the reference typology as well as provide a brief overview of the ground stone tool wash methods used, and the slide analysis methods employed. In Chapter 4, I present the results of the phytolith typology by plant life form: forb, trees and shrubs, and grasses. I also discuss probable diagnostic types. Detailed results are also presented in Appendix D. In Chapter 5, I compare the results of my ground stone tool slide identification to the results of Yost (Appendix F). I review what could be interpreted from those results, followed by a summary of the results overall. In Chapter 6, I discuss my research and conclusions. Specifically, I review how ethnographic data can provide interpretations for plants identified in archaeological contexts. 7 2. Background Before I explain my methods, I provide background information on the Fremont and the Shoshone, Goshute, Ute, and Southern Paiute. The Fremont The Fremont were a geographically widespread people living in diverse environments across most of Utah. They practiced a shared, albeit flexible, subsitence method of farming, and possessed distinct cultural traits, likely influenced by Southwestern cultures (Jennings 1978:150, 155; Madsen 1989; Madsen and Simms 1998; Martwitt 1986:161). Early scholars of the Fremont were Edward Palmer, Henry Montgomery, Neil Judd, Julian H. Steward, Noel Morss, and Jesse Jennings. These researchers recognized that while the Fremont as a whole practiced farming, that there were regionally unique variations of that farming (Janetski 2008). These regions, or regional traditions, have been defined as macro-regions of resource abundance: northern, central, southern, Uinta, and Snake Valley (Janetski and Talbot 2014:122; Madsen 1989). Trait lists, which run the risk of being too restrictive or overly general, do provide a foundation for the characterization of the Fremont as a cultural group (Talbot 2000; Searcy and Talbot 2015). General diagnostic, material culture traits of the Fremont are the Utah metate, clay figurines, one-rod-and-bundle basketry, the Fremont moccasin, and bone gaming pieces (Jennings 1978; Madsen 1989; Searcy and Talbot 2015; Simms 2010). Indirect evidence of social and ceremonial life comes from gaming pieces, large kill sites, exotic goods, rock art, mutilated human bones, burial practices, public architecture, and villages (Janetski 2008; Searcy and Talbot 2015; Simms 2010). The material cultural variants of the different regions and 8 borderlands have been based on ceramics, subsistence strategies, style variation in rock art and figurines, and architecture (Janetski and Talbot 2014:122; Searcy and Talbot 2015). An example of architectural variation includes differences between the west and east. In western Utah, late Fremont (post-900 AD) residences were typically pit houses often with adjoining or nearby adobe-walled storage structures, or surface residences and granaries made of adobe blocks (Janetski 2008). In eastern Utah, residences varied more, with living quarters and storage structures made of stone and mud masonry, or pit houses with slabs (Janetski 2008). Overall, late Fremont villages and hamlets were often located in ideal farmland, and residential structures may have been long-term. While several sites are located near water such as mountain runoffs and streams, other sites are in areas where local stories tell of once extant prehistoric ditches, suggesting that some Fremont irrigated their maize crops (Metcalfe and Larrabee 1985:244). Maize first appears in Fremont contexts as early as AD 1, but it is not until AD 600-700 that maize seems to play a more integral role in Fremont diet (Allison 2008; Talbot 2000; Winter 1973). “The spread of agriculture north of the Colorado River was likely accomplished, at least in part, by low- level migration of Basketmaker farmers over several centuries…This was facilitated by relatively low populations of foragers, and current thinking is that over time some foragers acculturated into this farming society” (Searcy and Talbot 2015:239). Evidently subsistence did not depend on maize alone, but on several different strategies that utilized wild resources, domesticates, cultivatable land, and trade (Janetski 2008; Search and Talbot 2015; Talbot 2000). These different subsistence strategies are referred to by some as Fremont adaptive diversity, where a strategy is made up of various subsistence patterns and/or where a group 9 utilizes multiple strategies (Madsen and Simms 1998; Simms 1986). These strategies include committed farmers who practiced varying degrees of hunting and gathering, seasonally mobile farmers, foragers who had access to maize, and perhaps mobile hunter-gatherers who while not wholly Fremont, extensively traded with the Fremont (Allison 2008; Simms 1986). Regarding these last three, “it is often difficult, archaeologically, to detect a difference between farmers occasionally acting as foragers and foragers and farmers acting interdependently, since many of the tools and even the rock art symbols they employ are the same” (Madsen and Simms 1998:286). This adaptive strategy view of the Fremont proffered by Madsen and Simms (1998) has been challenged more recently, especially as archaeologists work to better identify diachronic shifts in cultural practices, including evidence that suggest farming was adopted more widely by Fremont groups after AD 900 (Janetski and Talbot 2014; Searcy and Talbot 2015). Searcy and Talbot (2015:252-253) include agricultural shifts and artifacts manifesting a Late Fremont tradition as evidence for a shared heritage that was maintained by social distance from non-Fremont groups. “Evidence for this shared heritage is embedded in stylistic commonalities in artifacts, rock art, architecture, and farming” (Searcy and Talbot 2015:241). At the same time, diversity in transportable, regional variants of material culture like ceramics, architecture, and subsistence strategies suggest varied and regional adaptability to the environment (Janetski and Talbot 2014:118). The region I explore in this thesis is Utah Valley, roughly an 823-square mile valley, with Utah Lake comprising 148 square miles, located in Utah County, south of Salt Lake County (Janetski 2008) (Figure 2.1). Prior to European occupation in the 1800s, Utah Lake in Utah Valley played an important economic role due to an abundance of native fishes, many of which are now extinct (Janetski 1990b). Wild, edible plants such as chokecherries, and game animals such as jack 10 rabbits, were plentiful in both the uplands and lowlands of Utah Valley, providing prehistoric peoples with many natural resources (Janetski 1990b). Three archaeological periods have been identified in Utah Valley: the Archaic, Fremont, and Late Prehistoric. The Fremont people, the best archaeologically documented in Utah Valley, gathered, hunted, and farmed (Janetski 1990b). Numerous Fremont sites have been found and documented since the early 1900s; however, little attention was initially given to subsistence in this region by these researchers (Janetski 1990b). Evidence of farming comes from Zea mays kernels, pollen, starches, and cops found at nine Utah Valley sites: American Fork Cave, the Hinckley Mounds, Kay’s Cabin, Seamon’s Mound, Smoking Pipe, Spotten Cave, West Canyon, Wolf Village, and Woodard Mound (Table 2.1). Beans, also evidentiary of farming, are only found at three sites: Smoking Pipe, Spotten Cave, and Wolf Village. Evidence of foraging include botanical remains of pinyon pine, juniper, ephedra, and various wild grasses. Bones of fish, small and large game animals, and waterfowl have been found at the sites previously noted. Both horticulturalists and hunters-gatherers benefited from living near or along Utah Lake, and it is likely that all groups utilized the wetland resources in similar ways (Janetski 1990a). While exploitation of wetland resources was much the same, Fremont living nearer the wetlands practiced different subsistence strategies than Fremont living away from wetlands (Janetski 1990a). The subsistence practices of the Fremont in Utah Valley are, in large part, due to the rich wild resources available around Utah Lake. Several types of plant remains have been found at Utah Valley Fremont sites: pollen, phytoliths, starches, charcoal, charred and uncharred seeds, uncharred leaves and other plant fragments (Table 2.1). There are also a few sites where no plant remains have been identified due 11 to poor preservation conditions, such as damp soil near Utah Lake. These sites include the early excavations of Provo Mounds (Crellin 1967; Connor 1967; Madsen 1969; Miller 1969). Between 1250 and 1400 AD, the architectural and material culture defining characteristics of the Fremont disappear archaeologically (Madsen 1989:14). There are several theories used to explain why the Fremont disappeared between AD 1250 and 1350 (Allison 2010:148; Madsen 1989:14; Madsen and Simms 1998:313; Martwitt 1986:171-172). One suggestion is that there was an overall social disruption felt throughout the southwest which included the southern neighbors of the Fremont such as the Pueblo. There may have been a changing climate that was not conducive to farming and as such forced the Fremont to move or change their subsistence strategies and lifeways. The Fremont may have been displaced by Numic-speakers expanding into the area from southern California, or they left prior to this Numic expansion. Regardless of what happened to the Fremont, what is known is that around AD 1300, farming ended, depopulation likely occurred, and hunter-gatherers with links to the historical Ute and Southern Paiute moved into the Fremont and Virgin areas (Allison 2010:150; Jennings 1978:235). 12 Figure 2.1. Map of Utah Valley. Showing Spotten Cave, Woodard Mound, Wolf Village, Utah Lake, and Utah Valley (Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Provo. Courtesy Scott Ure). 13 Table 2.1. The Frequency of Archaeobotanical Remains at Fremonts Sites in Utah County. 14 Family Subfamily, genus Adoxaceae Amaranthacae Amaranthaceae Amaranthaceae Amaranthaceae Amaranthaceae Apiaceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Betulaceae Betulaceae Boraginaceae Boraginaceae Brassicaceae Brassicaceae Brassicaceae Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae Cleomaceae Cucurbitaceae Cupressaceae Cupressaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Ephedraceae Euphorbiaceae Fabaceae Sambucus Suaeda Amaranthus Atriplex Cheno-ams Chenopodium none specified Ambrosia Artemisia Chenopod. berlandieri Cirsium Helianthus High spine Iva axillaris Liguliflorae Low spine none specified Taraxacum Alnus none specified Amsinckia Cryptantha Brassica Lepidium none specified none specified Silene Cleome Cucurbita Juniperus Juniperus monosperma none specified Scirpus Ephedra nevadensis Euphorbia prostrate none specified American Fork Cave - Hinckley Mounds Kay's Cabin Seamon’s Mounds Smoking Pipe Spotten Cave West Canyon Wolf Village Woodard Mound Sum S S, P S P P P S P P P S, P P S - S S S S - T - P O, P P P P P P P P P P O - S S S O S - - S S S, P S P S S P P P P S S S P S S S, P P S P S P S S S P P S S S, P P S S 1 1 2 2 5 3 2 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 2 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 5 2 3 3 1 1 2 Table 2.1. contd., The Frequency of Archaeobotanical Remains at Fremonts Sites in Utah County. 15 Family Subfamily, genus Fabaceae Malvaceae Nyctaginaceae Papaveraceae Pinaceae Pinaceae Plantaginaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Portulacacea Quercus Ranunculus Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Salicaeae Sapindaceae Sarcobataceae Solanaceae Solanaceae Phaseolous Sphaeralcea Boerhaavia Argemone Abies Pinus Plantago Eragrostis Hordeum/Elymus none specified Panicum Phragmites Sporobolus Stipa hymenoides Zea mays Eriogonum Polygonum Polygonum bistortoides Poly. lapathifolium Rumex Portulaca Quercus none specified Ameliancher none specified Prunus Prunus virginiana Rosa Rubus Salix Acer Sarcobatus none specified Physalis American Fork Cave S - Hinckley Mounds p S S, P S S S P P P P P - Kay's Cabin S S S - Seamon’s Mounds T Y T, Y - Smoking Pipe S P P P P S, P P P P P P P - Spotten Cave S S O S S West Canyon O - Wolf Village S S S P P S, P P, T S S S S, P S, P P S S S P S S P P S Woodard Mound P S S S, P S P P - Sum 3 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 2 9 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 2 Table 2.1. contd., The Frequency of Archaeobotanical Remains at Fremonts Sites in Utah County. Family Solanaceae Typhaceae Typhaceae Total Subfamily, genus Solanum jamesii-type Typha Typha latifolia American Fork Cave 1 Hinckley Mounds S, P P 26 Kay's Cabin P 8 Seamon’s Mounds T 5 Smoking Pipe P 25 Spotten Cave 10 West Canyon 1 Wolf Village S P 47 Woodard Mound P 19 Sum 1 3 4 142 Key: O = fragments, other; P = pollen; S = seed, kernel, both whole and fragment; T = starch; Y = phytolith Note: Table created from American Fork Cave (Hansen 1941), the Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016; Puseman 2016), Kay’s Cabin (Puseman and Cummings 2001), the Seamon’s Mound burials (Yost 2009), Smoking Pipe (Billat 1985; Forsyth 1984; Scott 1984), West Canyon 42UT119 (Wheeler 1968), Wolf Village (Dahle 2011, Cummings 2011), and Woodard Mound (Richens 1983). 16 Ethnographies of Historic Indigenous Occupation in Utah Valley Statements by researchers that the Fremont utilized domestic and wild plant resources in their diets are tenuous when only based on archaeological findings. For example, the presence of charred seeds from wild plants found in the fill of sites are often used as evidence for dietary and other plant use. These seeds, though, could be charred because they were part of kindling, there was a nearby natural fire, or they were charred for ceremonial reasons. Another example is pollen of wild plants found on groundstone and other vessels. Archaeologists have yet to develop infallible methods that differentiate between pollen rain and pollen from plants intentionally brought to a site. Wild plant starches and phytoliths in teeth calculus could come from an individual using their teeth as a tool to process plant materials. The presence of plant material in coprolites and of carbon isotope ratios indicative of wild plants found in bone collagen are more difficult to dismiss as being caused by natural processes. Unfortunately, coprolites are far and few between and carbon isotopes do little more than define if the carbon was from a C3 or a C4 source. The coupling of archaeobotanical findings with ethnographic sources strengthens statements regarding the utilization of domestic and wild plant resources in prehistoric diets. There is no known group of prehistoric peoples in the New World that relied entirely upon domesticates. All prehistoric groups utilized both wild plants and domesticates. The degree to which they relied on these plants varies group to group. To survive, prehistoric groups had to rely upon wild resources as much as, and in some cases more than, domesticated resources. Knowing what these resources were is difficult to tease out of the archaeological record because of the poor preservation of organic material. Understanding how and why wild plant resources were used can be just as difficult. 17 I reviewed numerous ethnographic sources to determine plant use by more recent indigenous groups to identify ways in which plants may have been used for medicine and food. I applied my findings to the results of my ground stone phytolith analysis to better understand if, how, and why the Fremont may have used plants (see Chapter 5 and 6). For my ethnographic analogy, I focused on the Shoshone, Goshute, Ute, and Southern Paiute, because they lived in Utah Valley, nearby, or in similar geographical and environmental terrains. Sources on these historic groups come from Spanish exploration in the late 1700s, fur trappers in the early 1800s, followed by government explorers, immigrants and settlers in the mid-1800s, Indian agents in the later 1800s, and ethnographic studies in the early 1900s (Janetski 1983:28). The first to observe and record plant use by the indigenous groups living in the Great Basin include Silvestre Velez de Escalante in 1776, John C. Fremont in 1844 (Fowler 2000:100, 102); and in Utah, Jedidiah S. Smith, Daniel T. Potts, and William Clayton. Silvestre Velez de Escalante explored the Great Basin in 1776. He witnessed the consumption of black Manzanita berries by the Utes. He also observed the Timpanogotzis Ute, or Fish Eaters, in Utah Valley gather seeds that they turned into gruel (Velez de Escalante 1995:27, 72). John C. Fremont (1846:172), while traveling through Utah Valley in May of 1844, observed that there were two kinds of people which inhabited the valley: the Diggers and the Fish Eaters. The Diggers were “miserable and sparsely peopled,” eating seeds and roots, living in single family units (Fremont 1846:172), whereas the Fish Eaters were of a seemingly higher social status. Wild sage was the only wood in the valley, and Fremont (1846:172) thought the valley ideal for grazing. Fremont found yampah roots to be the most agreeably flavored for 18 eating, and noted that Convallaria stellata (false Solomon’s seal) was considered the best remedial plant among Indians, but he does not specify for what (Fremont 1846:87, 170). On his expedition through Utah from 1826-1827, Jedidiah S. Smith noted plants and animals used by the Ute surrounding Utah lake. The Ute harvested service berries and, when there was no game to hunt, dug roots for food (Brooks 1977:44, 45). Smith later encountered the Paiute and remarked that they seemed to subsist entirely on roots, which were dried and mashed into cakes (Brooks 1977:49). He also interacted with the Goshute, whom he called the “children of nature… [because of their] connecting link between the animal and intellectual creation…quite in keeping with the country in which they are located” (Brooks 1977:185). He did not mention, though, how they used plants. An acquaintance of Smith, Daniel T. Potts, in a letter dated July 8, 1827, said that those around and especially south of “Utaw Lake” lived in structures of bulrushes as there were no trees, and that their diet consisted of roots, grass seeds, and grass (Bagley 1964:136-137). Some of these groups even called themselves “Pie-Utaws” (Bagley 1964:137). An early Utah pioneer, William Clayton, noted in his journal in 1847 that the Indians south of Utah Lake “raise corn, wheat, and other kinds of grain and produce in abundance,” including pumpkins (Clayton 1921:278). The Shoshone Western Shoshone territory was vast, ranging from Death Valley, California, to Tooele Valley in northwestern Utah. The environment and resource availability of this territory was diverse, and boundaries between different tribes were often fluid (Thomas et al. 1986). Dietary and medicinal plant use among the Western Shoshone was perhaps more diverse than that of the 19 Ute (Thomas et al. 1986). They relied heavily on foraged plants, but also hunted and occasionally farmed (Lowie 1924; Thomas et al. 1986). Some of the first frontiersmen to interact with the Shoshone were Jedidiah Smith in 1827 and John C. Fremont in 1845. During early Euro-American contact, 43 different Shoshone subgroups were said to have existed at one time (Thomas et al. 1986). Percy Train, James R. Henrichs, and W. Andrew Archer visited with several Nevada Shoshone informants about medicinal plant use from 1937-1941 (Train et al. 1941). They recorded diverse uses of 200 plants, relying on the knowledge of older Shoshone, especially those credited with extensive medicinal plant knowledge (Train et al. 1941). They estimated that around 1,700 Shoshones then lived throughout Nevada in various colonies and reservations (Train et al. 1941). The love of and close contact to mountains and mountain flora likely led to the Shoshone possessing a wider knowledge of medicinal plants than the other contemporary Indian groups (Train et al. 1941). In the 1900s, Robert Lowie was one of the first to study the Northern Shoshone (Fowler 2000). The Wind River Shoshone of Wyoming did not farm, but were largely dependent on vegetable foods (Lowie 1924). They hunted bison, mountain sheep, groundhogs, and other small and large game (Lowie 1924). Women gathered roots, carrots, chokecherries, and other berries, and used metates to grind their seeds (Lowie 1924). They raised tobacco which they smoked along with substitutes such as kinnikinnick (Lowie 1924). The Goshute The Goshute, formerly spelled Gosiute, while a separate landholding entity, have been considered the impoverished cultural and ecological cousins of the Western Shoshone (Thomas 20 et al. 1986:262). Bands that are known to have traveled and/or lived in Utah are the Tooele Valley Goshute, Rush Valley Goshute, Cedar Valley Goshute, Skunk Valley Goshute, and Trout Creek Goshute (Thomas et al. 1986). Their lands and lifeways were deeply impacted by the Mormon settlers through displacement and the introduction of diseases (Thomas et al. 1986:263). Ralph V. Chamberlin studied the Goshute in the spring of 1901, and later in 1905 (Chamberlin 1909; Fowler 2000). He is credited as being one of the first to attempt “a thorough treatment of the uses of plants by a single Great Basin group” (Fowler 2000:103). One of his informants in 1901 was an Uintah Ute man named Tungaip who was living with the Goshute and who taught him several Ute names and Ute uses of plants. Chamberlin (1909:27) remarks that “[t]heir dependence upon the vegetable kingdom was, naturally, less intimate than with such tribes as the desert-dwelling Goshute.” Much of the Ute terminology corresponded to Shoshone and Goshute vocabulary, yet Chamberlin notes that Tungaip was the only Ute he consulted (Chamberlin 1909). In his later work in 1905, he more intimately studied Shoshonean plant use and catalogued over 300 plant species (Fowler 2000:103). The Goshute once lived in all the desert territory along the southern and western land bordering the Great Salt Lake (Chamberlin 1911). The environment and geography of this area includes mountain ranges interspersed with valleys of alkali flats, playas, and grasses (Chamberlin 1911). Plants often found in these terrains included the common greasewood, cheno-ams of various types, as well as junipers, pinyons, and many herbaceous and fruit bearing plants (Chamberlin 1911). Prior to the arrival of Mormon pioneers, Goshute numbers were said to have been in the thousands, but the introduction of foreign diseases, such as measles, reduced these numbers (Chamberlin 1908). When Chamberlin visited with them in 1901, he found that they had been living in Skull Creek and Toole County, Utah, for many years and that their 21 numbers had dwindled so much that they were no longer considered a tribe but a band (Chamberlin 1913). Despite their low numbers, Chamberlin (1913:2) believed the Goshute to be essentially self-sustaining. The Goshute hunted a wide range of animals, such as antelope, deer, ground squirrel, crickets, and rabbit (Chamberlin 1911). The large game animals were used for food, blankets, and clothing. However, the main Goshute food source was plants, as their nickname “Root Diggers” suggests (Chamberlin 1911:337). Medicines for ailments such as bruises, burns, and colds, materials for household supplies, and so forth, were all primarily derived from plants (Chamberlin 1911). The Utes The Utes were rapidly displaced in the 1850s, and so any records after the 1850s are tainted by displacement and poor memory (Janetski 1991). Sources on the Ute come from Spanish explorers, fur trappers, government explorers, immigrants and settlers, Indian agents, and ethnographic studies, ranging from 1775-1940 (Janetski 1991). Escalante was one of the first to acknowledge cultural differences among the Ute tribes (Smith 1974). Ute origins stem from the Numic-speaking people, which includes the Shoshone, and spans a geographical area from California to the Rockies (Smith 1974). In general, the Ute primarily inhabited areas in central and northeast Utah and western Colorado; they hunted and fished, as well as utilized wild plant resources (Smith 1974). The Ute, though, are not a homogenous people. They share similar traits, such as beliefs regarding marriage, death, and kinship, but ultimately there are distinct differences among the various tribes, such as the Uintah, Pahvant, Sanpits, Moanunts, Seuvarits, and Timpanogots of Utah 22 Valley (Janetski 1991; Smith 1974). For example, Western Ute bands, such as the Timpanogots, had access to more roots, nuts, lilies, and berries than their Eastern counterparts who had access to more grasses (Callaway et al. 1986:337). Differences in geography, geology, and ecology, has led to differences and diversity among the Ute bands. Boundaries of these groups were not static, but shifted with different events, history, and climate (Janetski 1991). The Timpanogot Ute were defined by their proximity to and use of Utah Lake, also referred to as Timpanogot Lake (Janetski 1983). They were often referred to as “Fish Eaters” because of their heavy reliance on and exploitation of lacustrine resources from Utah Lake (Janetski 1991). They were territorial regarding usufruct rights to resources within a geographic region. They cured ailments through shamans, songs, and smoke (Janetski 1991). The Timpanogots crafted objects out of wood, bone, antler, clay, stone, and animal hide, including beads, baskets, buckskin shirts, ceramics, and arrowheads (Janetski 1991). The Timpanogots subsisted by fishing, hunting, and gathering a variety of foods, berries, nuts, seeds, roots, and greens, including tobacco, several of which they stored for the winter (Janetski 1991). Waterfowl, sage grouse, ground squirrel, new shoots and roots were spring foods, and fish were both a spring and summer food (Janetski 1983). In the summer they consumed waterfowl, grasses, weeds, sunflowers, bulrushes, berries, and insects (Janetski 1983). During the fall, migrant waterfowl, pine nuts, large game, and rabbits were part of their diets (Janetski 1983). Then in winter, the Timpanogots ate cached foods, elk, deer, and bison (Janetski 1983). They appear to have lived in “numerous, small, essentially permanent villages located along the lower reaches of [Utah Lake] feeder streams and the eastern shores of Utah Lake” (Janetski 1983:67). In the smaller, seasonal camps located throughout the valley, dwellings were 23 domed wikiups or willow houses. During the winter, they were along river bottoms and in the spring, they were south of the lake (Janetski 1983). The archaeological presence of Ute in Utah Valley are manifest in American Fork Cave, the Beely Site, Spotten Cave, and the Spencer Site (Janetski 1983). Another tribe, the Ute of Navajo Springs, of Ignacio, Colorado, and of Whiterocks, Utah, hunted large and small game, including eagles and rabbits, and fished (Lowie 1924). They gathered grass seeds, berries, and chokecherries, which were dried and cached for winter. They used metates to grind their seeds, and often employed different types of metates (Lowie 1924). Another example of Ute dependence and use of plant foods come from the northern Ute group, the Uintah, and also the Uncompaghre and White River of northwest Colorado. Details of their lives come from oral histories of individuals living during the 1850’s-1880’s (Smith 1974). At this time, the northern Utes were no longer living on their native lands, having been driven out by Mormon settlers, and eked out a day-to-day living (Smith 1974). These Utes had lived on what may be considered the most productive land, where they practiced traditional hunting, fishing, and gathering. Regarding plant use, roots were collected, berries, leafy tops, and greens were gathered, pine nuts were popular, and quaking aspen tree sap was a delicacy (Smith 1974). Specifics on plant species names does not exist because Smith’s plant collection was destroyed in a car crash (Smith 1974). What plants she does identify are by their common name: blackberry, blueberry, buffalo berry, chokecherry, currant, gooseberry, juniper berry, raspberry, service berry, squaw berry, strawberry, rose hips, wintergreen, pinyon nuts, wild onion, Indian potatoes, edible roots, yampa, sego lily, and various seeds (Smith 1974). Plants also held cultural importance. For example, food taboos were common for pregnant women, such as yampa, which was said to 24 cause miscarriages, and eating beaver would prevent the water from breaking during labor. Another example are menstrual huts, which were made of willow in summer and cedar in winter (Smith 1974). Plants were also commonly used medicinally (Smith 1974). Other ways plants were used were for baskets, cordage, and in pipes for smoking (Smith 1974:118). The Southern Paiute Some speculate that the Paiute-Shoshone arrived in southern Utah between AD 1100 and 1200 (Holt 2006). The first record of European contact with the Southern Paiutes was by Escalante and Dominguez in October of 1776 (Holt 2006). In some instances, these records did not clearly distinguish between where the Ute ended and the Southern Paiute began; this is partially due to close cultural similarities (Euler 1966; Kelly and Fowler 1986). Early explorers found the Paiute to be peaceful foragers and horticulturalists (Holt 2006). Slave trade was a concern and fear among the Paiute. Despite their apprehensions, the Paiutes welcomed the first Mormons to Utah, providing them with food. Regrettably, these relations soured and many Mormons turned hostile or ambivalent to the Southern Paiute (Holt 2006). Many Mormon settlements, such as St. George, were on Paiute campsites and displaced the Paiute. By the 1860s the Paiute were “destitute and hungry. Whites were pouring into their land, and they could do nothing to stop them” (Holt 2006:34). While Mormon and federal government rhetoric was that of creating Paiute self-sufficiency, the opposite resulted from policies made by both groups (Holt 2006:xvii). Their ability to feed and care for themselves faltered as traditional resources were used up by the Mormons. Some traditional resources were still available, such as pine nuts, jackrabbits, and other wild plants (Holt 2006). 25 The climatic variation and varied ecologies of southern Utah initially led to Southern Paiute adaptive diversity: seminomadic mobility and seasonal migration, winter base camps, wild and domestic resources, windbreaks and brush shelters, and so forth (Euler 1966:13-14; Holt 2006; Kelly and Fowler 1986:371). They would travel by foot and often camped adjacent to water and juniper stands. To maintain mobility, tools and other items were often not complex in design or construction (Holt 2006). Clothes were made predominately from animal hides, both twined and coiled baskets were made, but not all groups made pottery (Kelly and Fowler 1986). The Southern Paiute subsisted by hunting, gathering numerous plant foods and cultivating native plants such as corn, squash, beans, and sunflower (Euler 1966:33; Kelly and Fowler 1986). They hunted small game, birds, insects, and large game, and fished where possible (Kelly and Fowler 1986:370). Prickly pear, potatoes, reeds, berries, melons, and wild grapes were also important food items (Euler 1966). Botanical explorer Edward Palmer collected several seed samples from the Southern Paiute in the 1870s; however, his samples were lost for some time and only a portion have resurfaced (Bye 1972). There are at least sixty plants in the relocated portion of the collection, each reportedly to be from plants used as food and/or medicinally. These plants include domesticates such as beans and squash, and wild plants such as amaranths, grasses, yucca, sunflower, and cliff rose (Bye 1972). Conclusion The presence of a plant in archaeological contexts does not always mean that the plant was used or consumed, unless found in a coprolite. Some plants, such as corn, were clearly cultivated to be consumed by prehistoric peoples. Yet the use of native plants by prehistoric 26 peoples is more difficult to interpret (Barlow and Metcalfe 1996; Doebly 1984). The study of archaeobotanical remains can indicate what plants were available at a site, and a review of ethnographic reports can provide interpretations for how and why those plants may have been used. To provide some interpretation for the presence of plants in archaeological contexts, I have created a geographically-specific ethnographic comparison between the prehistoric Utah Valley groups and historically documented peoples who lived near, around, or in Utah Valley. I wanted a narrow data set where there would be multiple shared traits between the groups because the fewer shared traits between the “ethnographic source and the prehistoric subject,” the greater the inability to expect them to have other traits in common (Wylie 1985:94, 98). I believe my interpretations are viable because some plants, such as corn, pinyon pine, and sunflowers, have inherent attributes that make their use easier to identify (Bye 1985:376). These plants would likely be used for food regardless of scarcity or abundance (Barlow and Metcalfe 1996; Bye 1985; Doebly 1984; Heiser 1951). Moreover, the study’s geographically narrow focus suitable considering the focus on Utah Valley Fremont. The Fremont, for example, are archaeologically unique and distinct from the Hohokam, the Patayan, and the Mississippian mound builders, and the same can be said of the Ute, the Apache, and the Sioux. It is likely, therefore, that while the interpretations presented are weakened by the separation of time, they are of value because of the shared geography, climate, and resources, and similar technologies, and subsistence strategies between prehistoric Utah Valley peoples and historic Utah Native Americans. 27 3. Methods The methods for this thesis included building a phytolith data base from plants with documented ethnographic uses identified from Fremont sites. I then tested the phytolith data base by analyzing groundstone from Wolf Village. The steps involved in the creation of my phytolith typology began with deciding parameters, specifically what kinds of plants would I sample and why. Utah Valley is home to hundreds of native plant species. To study all the plants in the Valley would require several years of full-time research. Such a study, in some ways, would also not be entirely productive because it is likely that not all plant species possessed the same economic, dietary, medicinal, or spiritual value for the Fremont. The plants I chose at the beginning of my research were those that likely had dietary and medicinal value. These plants were determined by reviewing ethnographic reports of historical groups who lived in and around Utah Valley after AD 1300 to the late 1800s. By choosing such plants and these groups, my goal was to create a bridge “to establish reliable correlations between archaeologically observable phenomena and archaeologically unobservable human behavior” (Trigger 2010:33). The unobserved human behavior was Fremont plant use, and the observed phenomena is evidence of these plant remains at Fremont sites. Fremont Botanical Reports To begin, I reviewed Utah Valley Fremont botanical reports to create a data set of all identified plants from archaeological sites. These reports are associated with the following sites: American Fork Cave (Hansen 1941), Kay’s Cabin (Puseman and Cummings 2001), Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016; Puseman 2016), the Seamon’s Mound burial (Yost 2009), Smoking 28 Pipe (Billat 1985; Forsyth 1984; Scott 1984), Spotten Cave (Pearce 2012), West Canyon 42UT119 (Wheeler 1968), Wolf Village (Dahle 2011, Cummings 2011), and Woodard Mound (Richens 1983) (Figure 2.1). With a few exceptions, all analytical reports of macrobotanicals, pollen, phytolith, and starches were included in the data set (Appendix A). These exceptions are as follows.  Uncharred macrobotanicals were not included because unless preservation conditions are favorable, such seeds are more likely modern than prehistoric (Minnis 1981:147).  Uncharred seeds from the Spotten Cave coprolites, however, were included because the coprolites are known to be prehistoric.  Pollen from floors, hearths, and middens were not included because these samples are not a clear indicators of plant consumption (Bryant and Holloway 1983; Dahle 2011:26; Pearsall 1989).  Pollen from the fill of Smoking Pipe was included because of the few botanical remains from this site.  Charcoal was excluded because it is unclear if the plant source was used for food or medicine.  All phytolith and starch reports were included because they are few in number. Plant Species Native to Utah County and Documented Ethnographic Uses I used Welsh et al. (1987, 2008) to identify the species within the genera and families I had recorded and evaluated which of those species were native to Utah Valley. The reason genera and families were expanded to include species was to better identify which plants to collect for the phytolith typology. The creation and uniqueness of phytoliths can vary from 29 species to species within a genera or family. Therefore, individual species of a genus or family should be analyzed separately. I did not include species that were used for ornamentation or that were represented in the valley by one specimen. Species that were adventive from outside the Americas were also not included because they likely come from European colonization. Adventive species from Central and South America were included, though, because the northward introduction of plants like corn, beans, and squash into the Great Basin likely included other plants. To narrow my data set further, I examined how peoples living in similar ecological and environmental terrains used the plants on my list for food and medicine. I also researched what part of the plant they used. I researched documented Native American groups that would have lived in, nearby, or traveled through Utah Valley, and had access to the same plant resources (D’Azevedo 1986). These groups, the Shoshone, Goshute, Ute, and Southern Paiute, also possessed similar technologies to the prehistoric Utah Valley inhabitants. In addition to the ethnographies, Fowler (1986), Palmer (1878), and Yanovsky (1936) provide further insight into how plants were used. My methods are like those employed by Rainey and Adams (2004), who created an American Southwest ethnobotanical database used for interpreting archaeological sites excavated by the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center. Regarding their work, they state: The purpose of this work is to summarize information from published and unpublished ethnographies that document how Native peoples of the American Southwest used—and, in some cases, continue to use—selected plant resources. The data contained herein have been used to suggest and support interpretations of archaeobotanical remains recovered from [archaeological] sites[.] [Rainey and Adams 2004] 30 All species in Appendix A that are native to Utah Valley, whether they have documented ethnographic uses or not, are included in Appendix B. A detailed list of how and why specific plants were used, and by whom, is in Appendix C. These data are incomplete because of the possibility that some plants listed in the ethnographic sources were not included due to plants having multiple scientific and common names (Table 3.1). In addition, there are many plants for which there are no ethnographic records, and there are ethnographic records I have not yet reviewed. Table 3.1. Examples of Changes in Plant Nomenclature. Previous or Alternative Family Name Family Name Used Chenopodiaceae Amaranthaceae Sarcobatus was in Chenopodiaceae now in Sarcobataceae Umbelliferae Apiaceae Compositae Asteraceae Graminae Poaceae Capparaceae Cleomaceae Leguminosae Fabaceae Plant Collection and Digestion After I compiled the lists of plants that had been identified at Utah Valley Fremont sites, which species were available in Utah Valley, and of those which had documented ethnographic use, I collected samples. I collected plant specimens from winter 2014 through the summer of 2015. This involved several visits to the BYU Herbarium, managed by the BYU Monte L. Bean Life Museum, and with permission from the curator, Robert Johnson. I was only allowed to sample material from the herbarium if it was loose, meaning the plant material had broken off the original sample. The summer 2015 sampling involved visits to several nurseries, gardens, and native locales in Utah and Salt Lake Counties. I called ahead and acquired permission before my 31 sample trips. At these centers, I contacted botanists to assist in the identification of plants. I collected 53 of the plants listed on my data set. I was unable to collect more due to time restraints. I collected plant specimens from Red Butte Gardens in Salt Lake, Sego Lily Gardens in Draper, Water Wise Nursery in Salt Lake City, Thanksgiving Point Gardens in Lehi, Central Utah Gardens in Orem, the BYU Herbarium, and from the following wildlife and recreation lands: Nine Mile Canyon, Spanish Fork Canyon, and Provo Canyon. In fall 2015, Dr. Terry Ball trained me in the digestion of plant materials (see Portillo et al 2006). Individual plant tissues or parts were treated separately through the entire digestive process. For example, the berries and leaves of Shepherdia canadensis (buffalo berry) have documented ethnographic uses, and as such the berries and the leaves were both analyzed, but separately. However, due to two problems—hardy plant material and diatoms—and access to different resources, my methods varied slightly. Plant tissues were sonicated in a Mettler Electronics Ultrasonic Cleaner for five minutes with Micro, a sodium ammonium triethanol ammonium laboratory cleaning solution. Afterward, the plant material was placed in a new beaker and sonicated for an additional five minutes in only distilled water. Sonicating the plant material removes any terrestrial diatoms, dust, and other debris attached to the outer surfaces. When possible, the plant tissues were then ground or cut into smaller pieces to create more surface area which enabled easier digestion. While wet plant tissue is not always conducive to being cut or ground, I did notice that they were easier to digest than non-sonicated, nonground, or -cut plant tissue. 32 Each plant tissue sample was placed in a glass beaker to which around 40 ml of chromic acid was added. This acid broke down and dissolved the organic matter, leaving behind only inorganic material, such as phytoliths. These beakers were stirred using a glass stir rod and were heated on a Corning Glass Works PC-35 hot plate for several minutes or until the acid started to foam, suggesting a chemical reaction was taking place. The beakers were then set aside for at least 24 hours, with a petri dish atop to protect the samples from contamination in the shared lab. All stages of the digestion involving acid, except centrifuging, were conducted under a fume hood. After at least 24 hours, the beakers were stirred once more and the acid-phytolith mixture was poured into 15 ml centrifuge tubes that were then placed in a swinging head bench-model centrifuge. Tubes were centrifuged for three to five minutes at 2400-2800 rpm. The supernatant was then removed with a disposable pipette. Distilled water was then added to the vials and the phytoliths and remaining organic precipitate matter thatcoalesced at the bottom of the vials were agitated with a new disposable pipette. Once resuspended in the water, the vials were centrifuged once more. This process of resuspension and centrifugation was often repeated four or five times until the samples were clean. On a few occasions with very clouded samples, I found that I had to resuspend and centrifuge samples seven or eight times. Clean samples were then stored in vials of 70% ethanol. I encountered two problems in the process. First, some plant material was hardier than others. In several cases, after plant material had been digesting in acid for over 24 hours, organic matter still remained. This suggested that not all possible phytoliths for that sample had been released. I found three solutions to this problem and performed them as I saw fit. First, I used a ceramic mortar and pestle to grind the plant material into smaller pieces as a preliminary break 33 down of organic matter. Second, I dried the material in a drying oven to remove excess water that would interfere with digestion. Third, I extracted the undigested material and placed it in a beaker with fresh chromic acid for an additional digestion. Some plants, such as the flower tops of Achillea millefolium, took two digestions, and others such as Abies concolor, Crataegus douglasii, and Shepherdia canadensis took three digestions. The second problem was the presence of diatoms. In some samples, the presence of diatoms was negligible. However, in several samples the presence of diatoms made it difficult to locate and identify the phytoliths. To counter this, I added sonication to my methods. Two diatom genera were frequently present: Fragilariaceae Fragilaria (sp.), and Aulacoseiraceae Aulacoseira (sp.) (Diatoms of the United States 2016) (Figure 3.1). Figure 3.1. Common cross contaminates found in phytolith slides: A. diatoms, B. spores The residual material following digestion was mounted using permount diluted with xylene, glass slides, and glass cover slips. As many phytoliths and residual material as possible were placed on a slide, dried, and then a few drops of a permount mixture were added, and the cover slip placed atop. I used two mounting mediums: one was of toluene and beta-pinene polymer and the second was of toluene and butyl benzyl phthalate. For both mediums, a few drops of xylene were added. Glass weights were used to ensure that the cover slip adhered flat. 34 Slides were left to set for at least 24 hours. If any permount mixture escaped from under the cover slip and dirtied the slide, xylene and a scalpel were used to remove excess permount mixture. Slides were reviewed at 10x, 20x, and 40x for phytoliths and other residual material, such as pollen, vascular tissue, and diatoms, and were imaged at magnification using a Zeiss Axiovert 135 light microscope and Nikon Optiphot-2 with an attached Infinity 2 camera. Images were often examined by Dr. Ball, and phytoliths were reimaged if needed. When searching for probable diagnostic phytoliths, I sought after common shapes. I also researched all the plants I digested to see if other botanists and archaeobotanists had also found phytoliths for the same plant (Appendix D). In several occasions, I used these reports and compared them to my images. To test the effectiveness of the typology, six pieces of groundstone from Wolf Village were sent to Chad Yost of Paleoscapes in Arizona (Table 5.1). These pieces were wrapped in aluminum foil when they were extracted to protect the ground surfaces from contamination. Yost’s methods for washing the ground stone artifacts and then analyzing the washed material is as follows. Loose dirt was brushed off the utilized surface of the groundstone, which was then washed in distilled water. Once as much dirt as possible was off the stone, a surfactant such as tepol was added to the clean, utilized surface. A sonicating toothbrush was then used to further clean the surface. Any material removed in this final cleaning was collected and set aside for analysis. The residue was centrifuged into a pellet, all water was removed, and the dry pellet stored in alcohol. To remove microfossils from residue, the sample was suspended in various heavy liquids for several hours at a time. After Yost analyzed the prepared slides for phytoliths, 35 he shipped the slides to me. This way I could analyze groundstone samples and compare my results to his. I did not review his results before I conducted my analysis. Groundstone Slide Analysis Slide analysis was conducted using the Nikon Optiphot 2 at 10x, 20x, and 40x magnifications. I created an analysis sheet based on the forms I observed in my typology, and I used Pearsall’s typology examples in Paleoethnobotany (2015), as well as traditional commonly identified phytoliths, such as the Panicoid cross (Appendix E). I made several passes across the slides, which were prepared by Chad Yost, until I had counted between 200 and 300 phytoliths. In some instances, I reviewed multiple slides from the same sample. The counting procedures resemble pollen counting. When counting pollen, botanists suggest higher counts around 1,000 grains for complex and diverse samples, and counts of 150-200 grains for samples of twenty taxa or less. A 200-grain count is estimated to provide “about 75-85 percent accuracy for common taxa”, which is considered sufficient (Pearsall 2015:222). This logic and counting process has been utilized by other phytolith analysts (Piperno 2006:115). After reaching the 200-300 phytolith count, I would make additional scans to identify forms from rare types and add those to my counts, following methods common among with other phytolith analysts (Piperno 2006:115). 36 4. Results of Typology Of the 52 plants that I processed, 23 produced discernable phytoliths, 22 primarily produced vascular tissue, seven produced no phytoliths, and 19 produced calcium oxalate crystals. After discussing calcium oxalate crystals, I present the results of my phytolith typology according to plant life form: forbs, trees and shrubs, and grasses (Granite Seed 2017; Utah State University 2017). I had no sedges or rushes in my samples. My results chapter is patterned after the results of Morris (2008), McCune (2014), and McNamee (2013). While these researchers only described phytoliths that were common or abundant, I have chosen to describe all forms observed because some forms they found in abundance I found to be uncommon, and some forms I found in abundance they did not record. This may be because they used the ashed material method which involves removing organic material with extreme heat, whereas I removed organic material with acid. All phytoliths, including tracheids and the like, were photographed and described using the International Code for Phytolith Nomenclature (ICPN) (Madella et al., 2005) and ICPN 2.0 (Terry Ball, personal communication January 2017) (Table 4.1). I also reviewed phytoliths on the PhytCore DB Images DB (2017). Slides were analyzed using 100x, 200x, and 400x magnifications. The abundance or production index (PI) of each phytolith form was assessed using a variation of the coding methods used by Wallis (2003) and McCune (2014): 1) Non-producer (NP): no phytoliths observed 2) Rare (R): one or two phytoliths observed for the entire slide 3) Uncommon (U): phytoliths sparse, about 3-30 per slide, with most fields empty 4) Common (C): a few phytoliths observed in most of the fields, about 30-100 per slide 5) Abundant (A): several phytoliths were observed in all the fields, >100 per entire slide 37 C. Sclerids (Figure 4.3) C1. Astrosclerid Table 4.1. Typology Code. E. Epidermal, Articulate (Figure 4.4, 4.5, 4.6) E1. Sinuate epidermal, psilate texture E1a. striate texture E1b. heavy or light striations E2. Polygonal epidermal, psilate texture E2a. granulate texture E3. Ligulate epidermal, psilate texture E3a. ligulate to collumnate E4. Entire epidermal, psilate texture. E4a. striate texture E5. Favose epidermal E6. Crenate epidermal E7. Blocky epidermal, lateral striations. Grass-type H. Hairs (Figure 4.3) H1. Lancelote hair H1a.striate texture, unsegmen. H1b. psilate texture, unsegmen. H1c. psilate texture, segmented H1d.granulate texture, unseg. H2. Acicular hair H2a. striate texture, unsegmen. H2b. psilate texture, unseg. H2c. ovoid base with tuberculate processes. Elymus type H2d. needle/rod like. O. Calcium Oxalates (Figure 4.1, 4.2) O1. Raphide, single: needle shaped w/ one end pointed O1a. bundle, same orientation O1b. bundle, differ. orientation O1c. small raphide-types connected together and of differ orientations O1d. “dunmbbell” bundle O2. Styloid, single O2a. cluster O3. Crystal sand O4. Druse: several facets radiating from a central core O4a. druse-like O5. Prismatic, rectangular, single O5a. rectangular cluster O5b. hexagon O5c. hexagon cluster O6. Rhombohedrals G. Grass Short Cell Forms (Figure 4.12) G1. Pooideae types G1a. round/oblong G1b. square/rectangular G1c. keeled G1d. pyramidal G1d1. aculeated G1e. trapeziform, sinuate G1f. reniform shape G2. Chloridoid types G2a. saddle G3. Stipa types G3a. bilobate G4. Panicoideae types G4a. cross G4b. bilobate G5. Zea mays types G5a. wavy top G5b. ruffle top G5c. IRP, rectangular G6. Trichomes G6a. lancelote style hairs G6b. hair bases G6c. bulliform G7. Rondel, general. G7a. circular/ovoid G7b. polylobes/bilobes V. Vascular Tissue V1. Tracheids (Figure 4.7) V2. Vascular tissue indeterminate (Figure 4.8) V3. Stomata (Figure 4.6) V4. Trichome (Figure 4.6) V4a. umbrella peltate Y. Parenchyma (Figure 4.6) Y1. Parenchyma 38 P. Papillae (Figure 4.8) P1. Papillae with ligulate margins P1a. tuberculated P1b. pitted edges. Grass-type. S. Spheroid, Polygonal (Figure 4.9) S1. Irregular sub-spheroid forms S1a. ruminate texture S1b. ruminate to facetate S1c. granulate texture S2. Blocky, psilate to facetate texture S2a. psilate to granulate S2b. facetate texture S3. Spheroids S3a. granulate texture S3b. ruminate texture S4. “crescents”, or half nuclei S5. Ellipsoids with tuberculate processes. Elymus type. L. Elongates (Figure 4.10, 4.11) L1. Elongate with pilate margins. Grass-type. L1a. Achillea type L1b. pilate to clavate margins. Grass-type. L2. Elongate with entire margins. Grass-type. L2a. granulate texture. L2b. psilate texture, needle like. Grass-type. L3. Elongate, dendritic margins. Grass-type L4. Elongate, crenate margins. Grass-type L5. Elongate, aculeate margins. Grass-type L5a. curled. Grass-type L5b. non-grass type. L5c. granulate texture Grass-type. L6. Elongate, sinuate margins. Grass-type Calcium oxalates Calcium oxalate crystals (CaOx) occur as monohydrated whewellites (CaC2O4-H2O) or as dihydrated weddellites (CaC2O4-(2+X)H2O) (Franceschi and Horner 1980). CaOx crystals are often formed in the idioblasts of plants of many taxonomic levels, from algae to giant gymnosperms (Franceschi and Nakata 2005). CaOx crystals, akin to phytoliths, serve as protection against herbivory and as calcium regulators (Franceschi and Nakata 2005). In some cases, the crystals are a substitute for sclerenchyma (Schneider 1901). Crystals that are formed in a cell wall are often either rhombohedral or prismatic, whereas crystals that form within a cell can take any form (Franceschi and Nakata 2005). No crystals have been reported in pollen, although the crystals can be found mixed with pollen (Anitha and Sandhiya 2014; Cote 2009). The size of these crystals vary greatly due to cell type, function, and environmental factors such as calcium availability (Franceschi and Nakata 2005). Several have reported that a plant species will only form just one crystal type or a subset of crystal forms (Franceschi and Nakata 2005; Monje and Baran 2002). CaOx crystals are abundantly produced in angiosperms and gymnosperms, but not all plants in these groups produce the crystals (Franceschi and Nakata 2005). Like silica phytoliths, then, the distribution and production of CaOx crystals is species dependent (Franceschi and Nakata 2005). There does seem to be greater production in leaves than in stems of most plants (Anitha and Sandhiya 2014). The development of CaOx crystals appears to be correlated with the development and maturity of a plant (Chairiyah et al. 2016; Cote 2009; Franceschi and Nakata 2005). The most common forms are druse, raphide, prismatic, styloid, and sand. Variations in crystals related to physiological maturity can include three druse states: solid, semi-solid, and loosely druse (Chairiyah et al. 2016). Raphides can be observed as single 39 needles or as bundles of needles, and can vary in length from 15 μm to 260 μm (Chairiyah et al. 2016). Single raphide crystals are rarely attached to each other and are transparent in color, whereas bundles can vary from black to reddish-brown in color (Chairiyah et al. 2016). Bundles of raphides can be of similar or different orientations (He et al. 2012). Prismatic crystals can be rectangular, square, or hexagonal (Chairiyah et al. 2016). Styloids can be observed in groups of transparent, irregularly shaped, small rectangles in bundles or in star-like clusters (Chairiyah et al. 2016). Crystal sand often appear as masses of small angular crystals (Franceschi and Nakata 2005). Other forms include raphide-style bundles and platy aggregations (He et al. 2016). CaOx crystals have been observed in species of Prunus, Cactus, Opuntia, Crataegus, Solanum, and in Typha latifolia (Anitha and Sandhiya 2014; Borrellii et al. 2010; Monje and Baran 2002; Schneider 1901). Plants that are known producers of silica phytoliths may not be producers of CaOx crystals and vice-versa. I observed CaOx crystals in nineteen plants (Table 4.2). Eight produced raphides, seven produced styloids, ten produced crystal sand, two produced druses, eight produced prismatic shapes, and one produced rhombohedrals (Figure 4.1 and 4.2). Diagnostic types were observed in Prunus virginiana and Opuntia polycantha, and probably Pinus edulis and Solanum jamesii. Only four were forbs, one was grass-like, and fourteen were shrubs and/or trees. Six species had crystals formed in their berries, nine in their leaves, one in its twigs, one in its flower head, one in its nuts, and the last were in the pads, bud, and spines of Opuntia. Of the nineteen species that produced CaOx crystals, two, Fragaria vesca and Sambucus cerulea, were not silica phytolith producers. No CaOx crystals were observed in the grasses I tested, and they have rarely been observed in other grass species (Prychid and Rudall 1999). Arctostaphylos patula may produce rectangular pristmatic forms. However, more observations are needed. 40 Species Amelanchier alnifolia Shrub/tree Amelanchier utahensis Shrub/tree Artemisia dracunculus Forb Artemisia ludoviciana Forb Artemisia tridentata Shrub 41 Cercocarpus ledifolius Shrub/tree Ephedra viridis Shrub Fragaria vesca* Forb Holodiscus dumosa Shrub Table 4.2. Presence and Frequency of Calcium Oxalate Crystals. Plant Tissue Berry Berry Berry Berry Berry Leaves Leaves Leaves Phytolith O2a O3 O1c O2 O5 O1c O3 O3 PI U U U U U U R U/R Figure 4.1.R 4.2.A 4.1.G 4.1.L 4.2.K 4.1.H none none Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Berry Berry Berry Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Berry O1a O1b O1c O3 O5 O5b O1b O1c O5 O1 O1c O2 O2a O5 O2 O2a O5 O5b O3 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U/R 4.1.C 4.1.E 4.1.I 4.2.B 4.2.L 4.2.R none 4.1.F 4.2.M 4.1.A 4.1.J 4.1.M 4.1.S 4.2.N 4.1.N 4.1.T 4.2.O 4.2.S none Juniperus osteosperma Tree *Denotes plant tissue that was not sonicated. Species Opuntia polycantha Shrub Pinus edulis Tree Pinus flexilis Tree Prunus virginia Shrub/tree Rosa woodsii Shrub Sambucus cerulea Tree Solanum jamesii Forb Typha latifolia Plant Tissue Pads Pads Buds Spines and hairs Twigs Phytolith O4 O4a O4a O4a O5a PI C A C C C Figure 4.2.H 4.2.H 4.2.H 4.2.H 4.2.Q Nuts Nuts Nuts Nuts Nuts leaves Leaves O2 O2a O4a? O3 O5 O1 O6 O5b C C U/R R R R C U 4.1.O 4.1.U 4.2.I 4.2.C 4.2.P none 4.2.V 4.2.T Berry O3 U 4.2.D Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Pollen head Pollen head Pollen head Pollen head Pollen head Pollen head O2 O2a O1d O3 O4 O1 O1a O2 O2a O3 O5b C C C U R U U U U U U 4.1.P 4.1.V 4.1.K 4.2.F 4.2.J 4.1.B 4.1.D 4.1.Q 4.1.W 4.2.G none Figure 4.1. Calcium oxalates: raphides and styloids. A-B: Single raphides (O1). A. Ephedra viridis, leafy green. B. Typha latifolia pollen head. C-D: Raphide bundle of same orientations (O1a). C. Artemisia tridentata leaves. D. Typha latifolia pollen head. E-F: Raphide bundles of different orientations (O1b). E. Artemisia tridentata leaves. F. Cercocarpus ledifolius leaves. G-J: Small raphide-types connected together and of different orientations (O1c). G. Amelanchier utahensis berry. H. Artemisia dracunculus leaves. I. Artemisia tridentata leaves. J. Ephedra viridis leaves. K: Raphide “dumbbell” bundle (Old). K: Solanum jamesii leaves. L-Q: Single styloid (O2). L. Amelanchier utahensis berries. M. Fragaria vesca berries. N. Holodiscus dumosa leaves. O. Pinus flexulis nuts. P. Solanum jamesii leaves. Q. Typha latifolia pollen head. R-W: Styloid cluster (O2a). R. Amelanchier alnifolia berry. S. Fragaria vesca berry. T. Holodiscus dumosa leaves. U. Pinus flexulis nuts. V. Solanum jamesii leaves. W. Typha latifolia pollen head. 42 Figure 4.2. Calcium oxalates: crystal sand, druses, prismatics, and rhombohedrals. A-G: Crystal sand (O3). A. Amelanchier alnifolia berry. B. Artemisia tridentata leaves. C. Pinus flexulis nuts. D. Sambucus cerulea berry. E. Sherpherdia argentea berry. F. Solanum jamesii leaves. G. Typha latifolia pollen head. H-J: Druse and druse-like (O4 and O4a). H. Opuntia polycantha pads. I. Pinus flexulis nuts. J. Solanum jamesii leaves. K-P: Rectangular, single prismatic (O5). K. Amelanchier utahensis berry. L. Artemisia tridentata leaves. M. Cercocarpus ledifolius leaves. N. Fragaria vesca berry. O. Holodiscus dumosa leaves. P. Pinus flexulis nuts. Q: Rectangular, prismatic cluster (O5a). Q. Pinus edulis twigs. R-T: Hexagon prismatic (O5b). R. Artemisia tridentata leaves. S. Holodiscus dumosa leaves. T. Rosa woodsii leaves. U: Rhombohedrals (O6). V. Prunus virginiana leaves. 43 Forbs Fifteen forbs were analyzed for this typology (Table 4.3). One, Nicotiana attenuata, will not be included because I was unable to collect or grow an acceptable sample to digest and had little success in trying to digest a few of the seeds. Two others, Fragaria vesca and Typha latifolia, were non-producers of silica phytoliths. The phytolith forms I observed most frequently were epidermals, spheroids, and hairs. No forms appeared to be diagnostic. Asteraceae Seven Asteraceae species were forbs, all seven produced tracheid phytoliths. Five were common producers of at least one phytolith form. Two were primarily uncommon producers of phytoliths. Achillea millefolium was a common producer of phytoliths. The leaves produced four phytoliths: sinuate striate epidermal (E1a), lanceolate unsegmented psilate hairs (H1b), irregular ruminate sub-spheroid phytoliths (S1a), and tracheids (V1). All four phytoliths were commonly found. The hair and epidermal phytoliths were often found articulated. It appears that the articulate epidermal converge to a point, the ultimate terminus of which is the hair. The inflorescence produced one common form: long thin pilate elongate phytoliths (L1a); and three phytoliths that were uncommon: papillae phytoliths with ligulate margins and occasional tuberculate processes (P1a), S1a, and V1. The Artemisia species I sampled all produced epidermal phytoliths and tracheid phytoliths, but there was variation in the epidermals between species (Figure 4.4 and 4.5). In the seeds and associated leaves, A. biennis commonly produced Ela, and rarely produced astrosclerid phytoliths (C1) (Figure 4.3), ligulate epidermal phytoliths with psilate texture (E3), ruminate spheroid phytoliths (S3b), and V1. The leaves of A. dracunculus commonly produced sinuate 44 epidermal that were either heavily or lightly striated (E1b) and V1. The leaves uncommonly produced E3, crenate epidermal phytoliths (E6), acicular unsegmented striated hair phytoliths (H2a), S1a, psilate to facetate texture blocky phytoliths (S2) that appear to be disarticulated psilate polygonal phytoliths, and stomata (V3) in the articulate epidermals. A. ludoviciana leaves commonly produced psilate sinuate epidermal phytoliths (E1), blocky phytoliths that were either granulate or psilate (S2a), andV1. The leaves also uncommonly produced parenchyma (Y1). The inflorescence tops commonly produced V1. This forb also produced some CaOx crystals. Balsamorhiza sagittata was a common producer of one phytolith form and two uncommon forms in the leaves and an uncommon producer of two forms in the inflorescence. Lancelote psilate segmented hairs (H1c) were commonly produced in the leaves, and irregular sub-spheroid phytoliths with facetate to ruminate texture (S1b), facetate blocky phytolithss (S2b), and Y1 were uncommonly produced. Irregular sub-spheroid phytoliths with granulate texture (Slc) and V1were uncommon in the inflorescence. Solidago canadensis was an uncommon producer of S1c, Hlc, V1 and indeterminate vascular tissue (V2). Vigueiera multiflora uncommonly produced entire epidermal phytoliths with psilate texture (E4), H1c, and V1. Fabaceae Entire epidermal phytoliths with striated texture (E4a) were rarely observed in the roots of Hedysarum boreale. 45 Malvaceae Sphaeralcea munroana leaves uncommonly produced polygonal epidermal phytoliths with granulate texture (E2a), entire epidermal phytoliths with striate texture (E4a), V1, V3, and Y1. Polygonaceae S1c were commonly observed in the leaves of Eriogonum ovalifolium. V2 was uncommonly observed in the roots of E. ovalifolium. S1a was commonly observed in the leaves of Eriogonum umbellatum. Uncommonly observed in the leaves were fragments of E1, favose epidermal (E5), and V1. Rosaceae: For Fragaria vesca, see the section on calcium oxalate crystals. Solanaceae V1 and V2 were commonly observed in the leaves of Solanum jamesii. Spheroids with granulate texture (S3a) and S1b were uncommonly observed in the leaves. V1 was rarely observed in the tubers. See the section on calcium oxalate crystals for additional forms. Typhaceae Typha latifolia was found to be a non-producer of silica phytoliths. It did produce CaOx crystals. 46 Species Achillea millefolium Artemisia biennis* Artemisia dracunculus 47 Artemisia ludoviciana Basalmhoriza sagittata Table 4.3. Presence and Frequency of Phytoliths in Tested Forbs. Plant Tissue Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Inflorescence Inflorescence Inflorescence Inflorescence Leafy seeds Leafy seeds Leafy seeds Leafy seeds Leafy seeds Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves New growth Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Inflorescence Leafy tops Leafy tops Leafy tops Leafy tops Inflorescence Inflorescence Phytolith E1a H1b S1a V1 L1a P1a S1a V1 E1a C1 E3 S3b V1 E1b V1 E3 E6 H2a S1a S2 V3 E1b E1 S2a V1 Y1 V1 H1c S1b S2b Y1 S1c V1 *Denotes plant tissue that was not sonicated. PI C C C C C U U U C U U U U C C U U U U U U U C C C U C C U U U U U Figures 4.4.F 4.3.C 4.9.A 4.7.A 4.10.F 4.8.J 4.9.A 4.7.A 4.4.G 4.3.A none 4.9.bb none 4.4.J 4.7.C none 4.5.M 4.3.I 4.9.B 4.9.Q 4.6.C 4.4.J 4.4.A 4.9.S 4.7.D 4.6.E 4.7.D 4.3.E none none 4.6.G 4.9.G 4.7.F Species Eriogonum ovalifolium* Eriogonum umbellatum* Fragaria vesca* Hedysarum boreale* Solanum jamesii Solidago canadensis Sphaeralcea munroano Typha latifolia Viguiera multiflora Plant Tissue Roots Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Berries Roots Tubers Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Inflorescence Inflorescence Inflorescence Inflorescence Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Entire stalk Inflorescence Inflorescence Inflorescence Phytolith V2 S1c S1a E1 E5 V1 E4a V1 S1b S3a V1 V2 H1c S1c V1 V2 E2a E4a V1 V3 Y1 E4 H1c V1 PI U U C U U U NP R R U U U U U U U U U U U U U NP U U U Figures 4.8.C 4.9.I 4.9.C 4.4.C 4.5.L 4.7.L 4.5.I 4.7.U none 4.9.aa 4.7.U 4.8.G 4.3.F 4.9.P 4.7.V none 4.4.M 4.5.K none 4.6.D 4.6.O 4.5.H 4.3.G 4.7.W Figure 4.3. Phytoliths: astrosclerids and hairs. A-B: Astrosclerid (C1). A. Artemisia biennis seeds with leaves. B. Gutierezia sarothrae tops with leaves. C: Lancelote hair with psilate texture, unsegmented (H1b). C. Achillea millefolium leaves. D-G: Lancelote hair with psilate texture, segmented (H1c). D. Amelanchier alnifolia berries. E. Basalmhoriza sagittata leafy tops. F. Solidago candensis inflorescence. G. Viguiera multiflora inflorescence. H: Lancelote hair with granulate texture, unsegmented (H1d). H. Poa fendleriana florets. I: Acicular hair with striate texture, unsegmented (H2a). I: Artemisia dracunculus leaves. J-K: Acicular hair with psilate texture, unsegmented (H2b). J. Elymus cinereus florets. K. Holodiscus dumosa inflorescence and leaves. L-M: Acicular hair with an ovoid base with tuberculate processes (H2c). L. Elymus cinereus florets. M. Elymus glaucus florets. N: Acicular hair that is needle-like (H2d). N. Festuca ovina florets. 48 Figure 4.4. Phytoliths: articulate epidermals, part one. A-E: Sinuate epidermal with psilate texture (E1). A. Artemisia ludovicianna leaves. B. Artemisia tridentata leaves. C. Erigonum umbellatum leaves. D. Rosa woodsii leaves. E. Sporobolus airoides florets. F-I: Sinuate epidermal with striate texture (E1a). F. Achillea millefolium leaves. G. Artemisia biennis seeds with leaves. H. Gutierezia sarothrae tops with leaves. I. Holodiscus dumosa leaves. J: Sinuate epidermal with heavy or light striations (E1b). J. Artemisia dracunculus leaves and new growth plant tops. K-L: Polygonal epidermal with psilate texture (E2). K. Rosa woodsii leaves. L. Shepherdia argentea leaves. M: Polygonal epidermal with granulate texture (E2a). M. Sphaeralcea munroano leaves. N: Ligulate epidermal with psilate texture (E3). N. Prunus virginiana leaves. O-P: Ligulate epidermal with ligulate to collumnate margins (E3b). O. Elymus cinereus florets. P. Elymus glaucus florets. 49 Figure 4.5. Phytoliths: articulate epidermals, part two. A-H: Entire epidermal with psilate texture (E4). A. Deschampia cespitosa florets. B. Elymus cinereus florets. C. Elymus glaucus florets. D. Holodiscus dumosa leaves. E. Juniperus communis young shoots. F. Shepherdia argentea berries. G. Stipa hymenoides florets. H. Viguiera multiflora inflorescence. I-K: Entire epidermal with striate texture (E4a). I. Hedysarum boreale roots. J. Rhus aromatica leaves. K. Sphaeralcea munroano leaves. L: Favose epidermal (E5). L. Erigonum umbellatum leaves. M-O: Crenate epidermal (E6). M. Artemisia dracunculus leaves. N. Holodiscus dumosa leaves. O. Sporobolus airoides florets 50 Figure 4.6. Phytoliths: articulate epidermals part three, stomates, parenchyma, and trichomes. A-B: Blocky epidermal, lateral striations (E7). A. Stipa hymenoides florets. B. Sporobolus airoides florets. C-D: Stomata (V3). C. Artemisia dracunculus leaves and inflorescence. D. Sphaeralcea munroano leaves. E-O: Parenchyma (Y1). E. Artemisia ludoviciana leaves. F. Artemisia tridentata leaves. G. Basalmhoriza sagittata leafy tops. H. Deschampia cespitosa florets. I. Festuca ovina florets. J. Gutierezia sarothrae tops with leaves. K. Holodiscus dumosa leaves. L. Prunus virginiana leaves. M. Rhus aromatic berries and leaves. N. Rosa woodsii leaves. O. Sphaeralcea munroano leaves. P: Umbrella peltate trichome (V4a). P. Shepherdia argentea leaves and berries. 51 Trees and Shrubs Thirty-three of the plants sampled for this study were trees and shrubs (Table 4.4). Four species produced no phytoliths, twenty-two produced at least one form that was uncommon or rarely produced, and fifteen commonly produced at least one phytolith form, often tracheids. The phytoliths that were produced most frequently observed were tracheids and spheroids. A lack in silificiation in woody species has been noted by others (Morris 2008). Adoxaceae No phytoliths of any kind were observed in the berries of Sambucus cerulea or in the berries of Sambucus racemosa. See the section on calcium oxalate crystals for the berries of Sambucus cerulea. Amaranthaceae V1 were commonly observed in the inflorescence of Atriplex truncata. Uncommonly produced S2 amd S2b were also observed. Anacardiaceae E4a, S1c, V1, and Y1 were uncommonly observed in the leaves of Rhus aromatica. V2 and Y1 were uncommonly observed in the berries of R. aromatica. Asteraceae While other Artemisia species are forbs, Artemisia tridentata is a shrub. Unlike other Artemisia species, I found that A. tridentata uncommonly produced epidermal phytoliths in the 52 leaves. These took the form of E1, and a few were in the process of breaking apart. These broken epidermal phytoliths are likely the source of the S2b phytoliths that were uncommonly observed in the leaves. S1b were uncommonly produced in the leaves and were commonly produced in the inflorescence. V1 were uncommon in the inflorescence, and V2 was common in the wood. Y1 was rarely observed in the leaves. In the inflorescence and leaves of Chrysothamnus nauseosus, Slc, S2a, S2b, and V1 were commonly observed. Ela, entire elongate phytoliths with granulate texture (L2a), and Slc, V1, Y1 were uncommonly observed in the leafy tops of Gutierrezia sarothrae. There is also a probable C1 phytolith that was rarely observed. Cactaceae V1 was uncommon in the pads of Opuntia polycantha. V1 was common and V2 was uncommon in the bud, and S1b was uncommon in the spines and hairs. For additional forms, see the section on calcium oxalate crystals. Cupressaceae I observed no phytoliths in Juniperus scopulorum. E4 and V1 were rare in the young shoots of J. communis. S3a and V1 were uncommonly observed in, respectively, the berries and leaves of J. osteosperma. 53 Elaeagnaceae E4 were rarely observed in the berries of Shepherdia argentea. Umbrella shaped peltate trichomes (V4a) were commonly observed in the berries. For additional forms, see the section on calcium oxalate crystals. Polygonal epidermal phytoliths with psilate texture (E2), V1, and V4a, were uncommon in the leaves of Shepherdia argentea. In the berries of Shepherdia canadensis, S2b were uncommon. In the leaves, S1c and V1 were uncommon. Ericaceae I found no phytoliths in Arctostaphylos patula. Ephedraceae V1 were commonly observed in the leafy greens of Ephedra nevadensis. S2b were uncommonly observed in the leafy greens. V1 were commonly observed in the leafy greens of Ephedra viridis¸ and S1a and S2b were uncommonly observed in the woody twigs. For additional forms, see the section on calcium oxalate crystals. Pinaceae The needles of Abies concolor are non-producers of phytoliths. Other Abies species have been known to produce phytoliths (Appendix D). No phytoliths were found in the needles or sap of Pinus edulis. Thick crescent phytoliths, or half spherical granulated outlines (S4) were uncommonly observed in the shells of the nuts of P. edulis. This phytolith may be diagnostic of pinyon pine nuts. For additional forms, see the section on calcium oxalate crystals. V2 was uncommonly observed in the twigs. 54 Pinus flexulis produced V1 uncommonly in the nuts. See the section on calcium oxalate crystals for more forms. I found no phytolithss in the sap of Pinus monophylla. I did observe that elongates with aculeate margins (L5b), and V1 were uncommon in the needles. Rosaceae Of the nine Rosaceae shrub and tree species, only two were common producers of phytoliths: Prunus virginiana and Rosa woodsii. I observed uncommon H1c in the berries of Amelanchier alnifolia. For additional forms, see the section on calcium oxalate crystals. In the berries of Amelanchier utahensis, V1 are uncommon. In the wood of A. utahensis, V1 was uncommon, and V2 that compares favorably to E2 were common. For additional forms, see the section on calcium oxalate crystals. Cercocarpus ledifolius produced uncommon V2 that compares favorably to E2 in the wood. For additional forms, see the section on calcium oxalate crystals. S2 and V2 were uncommonly observed in the berries of Crataegus douglasii. V2 was uncommon and H2b was commonly observed in the flowers of Holodiscus dumosus. E1a, E3, E4, E6, H2b, V1 and Y1 were uncommonly observed in the leaves. For additional forms, see the section on calcium oxalate crystals. Prunus virginiana commonly produced E3, V1, V2, and Y1 in the leaves and V2 were commonly observed in the berries of P. virginiana. S1c and V2 were commonly observed in the roots. See calcium oxalate crystals for rhombohedrals. V2 was uncommon and S1c rare in the leaves of Purshia mexicana. No phytoliths were observed in the inflorescence. S1c and S2b were uncommonly observed in the leaves of Purshia 55 tridentata. S3b were uncommonly observed in the berries of Rosa woodsii. Y1 were uncommonly observed in the leaves, and E1, E2, and V1 were commonly produced. CaOx crystals were also observed. Sarcobataceae S2b and V1 were uncommonly observed in the leaves of Sarcobatus vermiculatus. Saxifragaceae S1a were uncommonly produced in the berries of Ribes aureum. 56 Table 4.4. Presence and Frequency of Phytoliths in Tested Shrubs and Trees, Part I. Species Abies concolor Tree Amelanchier alnifolia* Shrub/tree Amelanchier utahensis Shrub/tree Arctostaphylos patula Shrub Artemisia tridentata* Shrub 57 Atriplex truncata* Shrub Cercocarpus ledifolius Shrub/tree Chrysothamnus nauseous Shrub Craetaegus douglasii* Tree Ephedra nevadensis Shrub Plant Tissue Needles Phytolith PI NP Figures Berries H1c U 4.3.D Berries Wood Wood Leaves V1 V1 V2 U U C NP 4.7.B 4.7.B 4.8.A Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Inflorescence Inflorescence Twigs Inflorescence Inflorescence Inflorescence Leaves Wood Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Inflorescence Inflorescence Inflorescence Inflorescence Berry Berry Green stems Green stems E1 S1b S2b Y1 S1b V1 V2 S2 S2b V1 U U U R C U C U U C NP U C C C C C C C C U U U C 4.4.B 4.9.E none 4.6.F 4.9.E 4.7.E none none 4.9.U none V2 S1c S2a S2b V1 S1c S2a S2b V1 S2 V2 S2b V1 *Denotes plant tissue that was not sonicated. 4.8.B 4.9.H 4.9.T 4.9.V 4.7.G 4.9.H 4.9.T 4.9.V 4.7.G 4.9.R none 4.9.W 4.7.J Species Ephedra nevadensis Ephedra viridis Shrub Gutierezia sarothrae* Shrub Holodiscus dumosa Shrub Juniperus communis Shrub/tree Juniperus osteosperma Tree Juniperus scoporulum Shrub/tree Opuntia polycantha Shrub Pinus edulis* Tree Plant Tissue Wooden twigs Green stems Wooden twigs Wooden twigs Leafy tops Leafy tops Leafy tops Leafy tops Leafy tops Leafy tops Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Inflorescence Inflorescence Twigs Young growth Berries Leaves Twigs Bud Bud Pad Spines/hairs Nuts Sap Needles Twigs Phytolith V1 S1a S2b E1a L2a S1c V1 Y1 C1 E1a E4 E6 H2b V1 Y1 H2b V2 E4 V1 V1 S3a V1 V2 V1 S1b S4 V2 PI NP C U U U U U U U R U U U U U U C U NP R R U U NP Figures C U U U U NP NP U 4.7.O none 4.7.O 4.9.F 4.9.cc 4.7.K none none 4.4.H 4.10.N 4.9.J 4.7.M 4.6.J 4.3.B 4.4.I 4.5.D 4.5.N 4.3.K 4.7.N 4.6.K 4.3.K 4.8.D 4.5.E none none 4.9.Z 4.8.E Species Pinus flexulis Tree Pinus monophylla Tree Table 4.4 Presence and Frequency of Phytoliths in Tested Shrubs and Trees, Part II. Prunus virginiana Shrub/tree Purshia mexicana Shrub/tree 58 Purshia tridenta Shrub Rhus aromatic* Shrub/tree Ribes aureum Shrub Rosa woodsii Shrub Sambucus caerulea* Shrub Plant Tissue Seeds Resin Needles Needles Berries Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Roots roots Inflorescence Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Berries Berries Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Berries Berries Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Berries Phytolith V1 L5b V1 V2 E3 V1 V2 Y1 S1c V2 S1c V2 S1c S2b V2 Y1 E4a S1c V1 Y1 S1a S3b E1 E2 V1 Y1 PI U NP U U C C C C C C C NP R U U U U U U U U U U U C C C U NP *Denotes plant tissue that was not sonicated. Figures none 4.11.N none none 4.4.N 4.7.P none 4.6.L 4.9.K none 4.9.L none 4.9.M 4.9.X 4.8.F 4.6.M 4.5.J 4.9.N 4.7.Q 4.6.M 4.9.D none 4.4.D 4.4.K 4.7.R 4.6.N Species Sambucus racemosa Shrub Sarcobatus vermiculatus shrub Shepherdia argentea Tree Shepherdia canadensis Shrub Plant Tissue Berries Phytolith PI NP Figures Leaves Leaves Berries Berries Leaves Leaves Leaves Berries Leaves Leaves S2b V1 E4 V4a E2 V1 V4a S2b S1c V1 U U R C U U U U U U none 4.7.S 4.5.F 4.6.P 4.4.L 4.7.T 4.6.P 4.9.Y 4.9.O none Figure 4.7. Phytoliths: tracheids. A-W: Tracheids (V1). A. Achillea millefolium leaves and inflorescence. B. Amelanchier utahensus berries and wood. C. Artemisia dracunculus leaves. D. Artemisia ludoviciana leaves and inflorescence. E. Artemisia tridentata inflorescence. F. Basalmhoriza sagittata inflorescence. G. Chrysothamnus nauseous leaves and inflorescence. H. Deschampia cespitosa florets. I. Elymus cinereus florets. J. Ephedra nevadensis green stems. K. Ephedra viridis green stems. L. Eriogonum umbellatum leaves. M. Gutierezia sarothrae tops with leaves. N. Holodiscus dumosa leaves. O. Opuntia polycantha bud and pad. P. Prunus virginiana leaves. Q. Rhus aromatic leaves. R. Rosa woodsii leaves. S. Sarcobatus vermiculatus leaves. T. Shepherdia argentea leaves. U. Solanum jamesii tubers and leaves. V. Solidago canadensis inflorescence. W. Viguiera multiflora inflorescence. 59 Figure 4.8. Phytoliths: vascular tissue and papillae. A-G: Vascular tissue, unknown (V2): A. Amelanchier utahensis wood. B. Cercocarpus ledifolius wood. C. Eriogonum ovalifolium roots. D. Holodiscus dumosa inflorescence. E. Pinus edulis twigs. F. Rhus aromatic berries. G. Solanum jamesii leaves. H-I: Papillae with ligulate margins (P1). H. Elymus cinereus. I. Poa fendleriana. J: Papillae with ligulate margins, tuberculated (P1a). J. Achillea millefolium inflorescence. K-L: Papillae with pitted edges. Grass-type. (P1b). K. Elymus cinereus florets. L. Elymus glaucus florets. 60 Figure 4.9. Phytoliths: spheroids and polygonals. A-D: Irregular sub-spheroid forms with ruminate texture (S1a). A. Achillea millefolium leaves and inflorescence. B. Artemisia dracunculus leaves. C. Eriogonum umbellatum leaves. D. Ribes aureum berries. E-F: Irregular sub-spheroid forms with ruminate to facetate texture (S1b). E. Artemisia tridentata leaves and inflorescence. F. Opuntia polycantha spines and hairs. G-P: Irregular sub-spheroid forms with granulate texture (S1c). G. Basalmhoriza sagittata inflorescence. H. Chrysothamnus nauseous leaves and inflorescence. I. Eriogonum ovalifolium leaves. J. Gutierezia sarothrae tops with leaves. K. Prunus virginiana roots. L. Purshia Mexicana leaves. M. Purshia tridenta leaves. N. Rhus aromatic leaves and berries. O. Shepherdia canadensis leaves. P. Solidago canadensis inflorescence. Q-R: Blocky with psilate to facetate texture (S2). Q. Artemisia dracunculus leaves. R. Craetaegus douglasii berries. S-T: Blocky with psilate to granulate textures (S2a). S. Artemisia ludoviciana leaves. T.Chrysothamnus nauseous inflorescence and leaves. U-Y: Blocky with facetate texture (S2b). U. Atriplex truncata inflorescence with seeds. V. Chrysothamnus nauseous leaves and inflorescence. W. Ephedra nevadensis green stems. X. Purshia tridenta leaves. Y. Shepherdia canadensis berries. Z-aa: Spheroids with granulate texture (S3a). Z. Juniperus osteosperma leaves. aa. Solanum jamesii leaves. bb: Spheroids with ruminate texture (S3b). bb. Artemisia biennis seeds with leaves. cc: “crescents”, or half nuclei (S4). cc. Pinus edulis nuts. dd-ee: Ellipsoids with tuberculate processes (S5). dd. Elymus cinerus florets. ee. Elymus glaucus florets. 61 Grasses Seven grasses were analyzed for the typology. The seven grasses were uncommon, common and abundant phytolith producers in the florets (Table 4.5). Grasses produce short-cell and long-cell phytoliths (Figure 4.9-4.12). The three major types of grass short-cell phytoliths include pooidoid, chloridoid, and panicoid. The short cell phytoliths include saddles, trapeziforms, and rondels. In descriptions of these short cells, the base of short cells is the largest and flattest surface, and the top is the side opposite (Mulholland 1989). Long-cells include elongates, epidermals, and tracheary elements. Other forms often observed are trichomes, such as papillae, hair cells, and buliforms (Piperno 2006:34-35). Pooideae, such as Festuca, Poa, Bromus, Elymus, to name a few, produce rondels, and pyramids (Brown 1984; Kearns 2001:286). These cool-season grasses produce rondel shapes such as circular, rectangular, elliptical, crescent, and oblong (Twiss et al. 1969). They also sometimes produce bilobates and polylobates. The warm season grasses found in arid to semi-arid areas in the subfamily Chlorideae typically produce saddles (Kearns 2001:286). There are two saddle types, one being the thinner version of the other (Twiss et al. 1969). Of all the grasses in the southwest, Chloridoid grasses are most abundant (Gould and Shaw 1983:120). However, some in this subfamily also produce bilobate and pooideae phytoliths (Twiss 1987:181). Panicoids are warm-season and/or tall grasses that grow in many habitats. Panicoideae, such as Panicum and Schizayrium produce panicoid lobates (Kearns 2001:286), as well as bilobates and polylobates. Panicoid phytolith shapes include: bilobate, cross, body oblong with oblong platform, small bilobate, Zea mays rondel, and Zea mays saddle. 62 Long cell phytoliths are found in all grasses and while diagnostic of the grass family, these phytoliths are not often diagnostic of a subfamily, tribe, and so forth (Twiss et al. 1969). Diagnostic phytoliths do exist, in particular the elongate with dendritic margins. Additionally, current studies on the elongate with dendritic margins found in the Triticeae tribe suggest that it may be possible to differentiate between the different genera of this tribe based on morphometry (Ball et al. 1999). Pooideae Five of the grass species I tested are in the Pooideae subfamily. Compared to the two other tested subfamilies, there were more long cell types observed in the the Stipea and Chloridoid subfamilies than in the Pooideae subfamily. In Deschampia cespitosa I observed 17 phytoliths: eight long cells, and nine short cells. The long cells were E1, E4, elongates with pilate margins (L1), elongates with entire margins (L2), elongates with aculeate margins (L5), elongates with aculeate margins that are curled (L5a), V1, and blocky epidermal with lateral striations (E7). The short cells were round to oblong rondels (G1a), square to rectangular rondels (G1b), keeled rondels (G1c), and pyramidal rondels (Gld), some of which had aculeate processes (G1d1), and polylobes (G7b). I also observed were Y1, and trichomes, including lancelote-style hairs and hair bases (G6a, G6b). None of the forms were diagnostic. There were 17 phytoliths in Elymus cinereus: seven long cell types, and ten short cell types. Long cell phytoliths include E4, ligulate to collumnate epidermal (E3a), dendritic elongates (L3), elongate with crenate margins (L4), L5, aculeate elongates with granulate texture (L5c), and V1. Short cell phytoliths include G1b, G1c, G1d, P1, some with pitted edges (P1b), 63 G6a, G6b, an acicular hair with an ovoid base with tuberculate processes (H2c), and ellipsoids with tuberculate processes (S5) that were likely hair bases for the acicular hairs with psilate texture (H2b). L3 and H2c are diagnostic. In Elymus glaucus, there were 15 phyoliths: six long cell types, and nine short cell typess. The long cells were E3a, E4, E7, L3, L4, and L5. The short cells were G1c, G1d, G1d1, reniform shaped rondels (G1f), G6a, H2c, P1, P1b, and S5. A few of the H2c phytoliths had granulate texture. L3 and H2c are diagnostic. There were 16 phytoliths in Festuca ovina: eight long cell types and eight short cell types. Long cell types were L1, elongates with clavate to pilate processes (L1b), L2, elongates with entire margins and granulate texture (L2a), L5, L5a, L5c, and V1. Short cells were G1a, G1c, G1d, G1d1, G6a, G6b, needle-like acicular hairs (H2d), and Y1. I observed 15 phytoliths in Poa fendleriana: six long cell types, and nine short cell types. The long cells were L1, L2, L4, articulate L4, L5, L5c, articulate L5 with P1, and V1. The short cells were G1a, G1b, G1c, trapeziforms (Gle), G7b, P1, P1b, G6a, and H1d. In an intensive study of nine Poa species, 31 morphotypes were identified and biogenic silica content was found to average 16.8% of dry weight per species. No correlation, though, was found between the number of phytoliths identified and the biogenic silica content (Lisztes-Szabo et al. 2015:371). Elongate long cells and short cells were common in each of the species, but there was variation between the species with respect to texture and ornamentation, frequency, and number of types. Psilate and sinuate textures were observed in all species. Rondeltrapeziforms and lancelote trichomes were also observed in all species (Lisztes-Szabo et al. 2015:371). Papillae were only observed in one of the species, and the trigonal pyramid type was also rarely observed (Lisztes-Szabo et al. 2015:371). Statistical analysis revealed that the various 64 Poa species clustered together in different groups, and that there are interspecific variations between the different species (Lisztes-Szabo et al. 2015:377). Yet there were three types that characterize this genus: elongate psilate, rondel trapeziform, and lancelote or scuitform types (Lisztes-Szabo et al. 2015:377). In the Poa species I tested, I did observe the psilate elongates and what I believe were the lancelote types. Trapeziform rondels were uncommon. Stipea While in the Pooideae sub-family, the only species in this tribe that I analyzed was Stipa hymenoides. Species in the Stipea tribe produce a diagnostic phytolith: the Stipa-type bilobe (G3a). I observed this short cell type, as well as seven other short cells, and eleven long cells, totaling 19 phyoliths total. Short cells were G3a, G1a, G1e, H1d with a prickly-base, H2d, G6a, G6b, and probable bulliform phytoliths (G6c). Long cells were E4, E7, L1, L2, L2a, elongates with entire margins that were needle-like (L2b), L4, L5, L5c, elongates with sinuate margins that were articulate (L6). Chloridoid I only tested one species in the Chloridoid sub-family: Sporobolus airoides. I observed 13 phytoliths: ten long cell types, and three short cell types. Short cells include chloridoid type saddles (G2a), polylobes (G7b), and circular to ovoid shaped rondels (G7a). Long cells were L1, L2, L2a, L2b, L5, L5c, and articulate L5, E1, E6, E7, and V1. 65 Table 4.5. Presence and Frequency of Phytoliths in Tested Grasses, Part I. 66 Species Subfamily/Tribe Cell Type Phytolith PI Figure Species Subfamily/Tribe Deschampia cespitosa* Pooideae Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Short E1 E4 E7 L1 L2 L5 L5a V1 G1a G1b G1c G1d G1d1 G6a G6b G7b Y1 E3a E4 L3 L4 L5 L5c V1 G1b G1c G1d G6a G6b H2b H2c P1 P1b S5 U C U C C C C U C C C C C U U U U U U A U C C U C C C U U U U C C U none 4.5.A none 4.10.A 4.10.H 4.11.E 4.11.L 4.7.H 4.12.A 4.12.E 4.12.H 4.12.M 4.12.P 4.12.Y none 4.12.jj 4.6.H 4.4.O 4.5.B 4.10.S 4.11.A 4.11.F 4.11.O 4.7.I 4.12.F 4.12.I 4.12.Q 4.12.Z none 4.3.J 4.3.L 4.8.H 4.8.K 4.9.dd Elymus glaucus Pooideae Festuca ovina* Pooideae Elymus cinereus Pooideae *Denotes plant tissue that was not sonicated. Cell type Long Long Long Long Long Long Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Phytolith PI Figure E3a E4 E7 L3 L4 L5 G1c G1d G1d1 G1f G6a H2c P1 P1b S5 L1 L1b L2 L2a L5 L5a L5c V1 G1a G1c G1d G1d1 G6a G6b H2d Y1 U U U A C C C C C C C C C C C C U C C A A C U C U U U C U U U 4.4.P 4.5.C none 4.10.T 4.11.B 4.11.G 4.12.J 4.12.N 4.12.R 4.12.V 4.12.aa 4.3.M none 4.8.L 4.9.ee 4.10.B 4.10.G 4.10.I 4.10.M 4.11.H 4.11.M 4.11.P none 4.12.B 4.12.K 4.12.O 4.12.S 4.12.bb none 4.3.N 4.6.I Table 4.5 Presence and Frequency of Phytoliths in Tested Grasses, Part II. Species Poa fendleriana* Subfamily/Tribe Pooideae Sporobolus airoides* Chloridoid 67 Cell Type Long Long Long Long Long Long Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Short Short Short Phytolith L1 L2 L4 L5 L5c V1 G1a G1b G1c G1e G6a G7b H1d P1 P1b E1 E6 E7 L1 L2 L2a L2b L5 L5c V1 G2a G7a G7b *Denotes plant tissue that was not sonicated. PI C C C C C U C C C C C U C U U C C C A A A A A A U C C C Figure 4.10.C 4.10.J 4.11.C 4.11.I 4.11.Q none 4.11.C 4.11.G 4.11.L 4.11.T 4.11.cc 4.11.jj 4.3.H 4.8.I none 4.4.E 4.5.O 4.6.B 4.10.D 4.10.K 4.10.O 4.10.Q 4.11.J 4.11.R none 4.12.W 4.12.ff 4.12ii Species Stipa hymenoides* Subfamily/Tribe Stipea Cell type Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Phytolith E4 E7 L1 L2 L2a L2b L4 L5 L5c L6 V1 G1a G1e G3a G6a G6b G6c H1d H2d PI U U C C C U C C C C U A A A C C C C C Figure 4.5.G 4.6.A 4.10.E 4.10.L 4.10.P 4.10.R 4.11.D 4.11.K 4.11.S 4.11.T none 4.12.D 4.12.U 4.12.X 4.12.dd none 4.12.ee none none Figure 4.10. Phytoliths: elongates, part one. A-E: Elongate with pilate margins. Grass-type. (L1). A. Deschampia cespitosa florets. B. Festuca ovina florets. C. Poa fendleriana florets. D. Sporobolus airoides florets. E. Stipa hymenoides florets. F: Elongate with pilate margins. Achillea type (L1a). F. Achillea millefolium inflorescence. G: Elongate with pilate to clavate margins. Grass-type. (L1b). G. Festuca ovina florets. H-L: Elongate with entire margins. Grass-type. (L2). H. Deschampia cespitosa florets. I. Festuca ovina florets. J. Poa fendleriana florets. K. Sporobolus airoides florets. L. Stipa hymenoides florets. M-P: Elongate with entire margins, granulate texture. (L2a). M. Festuca ovina florets. N. Gutierezia sarothrae tops with leaves O. Sporobolus airoides florets. P. Stipa hymenoides floret. Q-R: Elongate with entire margins, psilate texture, rod-needle like. Grass-type (L2b). Q. Sporobolus airoides florets. R. Stipa hymenoides florets. S-T: Elongate, dendritic margins. Grass-type (L3). S. Elymus cinereus florets. T. Elymus glaucus florets. 68 Figure 4.11. Phytoliths: elongates, part two. A-D: Elongate, crenate margins. Grass-type (L4). A. Elymus cinereus florets. B. Elymus glaucus florets. C. Poa fendleriana florets. D. Stipa hymenoides florets. E-K: Elongate, aculeate margins. Grass-type (L5). E. Deschampia cespitosa, florets. F. Elymus cinereus florets. G. Elymus glaucus florets. H. Festuca ovina florets. I. Poa fendleriana florets. J. Sporobolus airoides florets. K. Stipa hymenoides florets. L-M: Elongate, aculeate margin, curled. Grass-type (L5a). L. Deschampia cespitosa florets. M. Festuca ovina florets. N: Elongate, aculeate margin, non-grass type (L5b). N. Pinus monophylla needles. O-S: Elongate, aculeate margin, granulate texture. Grass-type (L5c). O. Elymus cinereus florets. P. Festuca ovina florets. Q. Poa fendleriana florets. R. Sporobolus airoides florets. S. Stipa hymenoides florets. T: Elongate, sinuate margins. Grass-type (L6). T. Stipa hymenoides florets. 69 Figure 4.12. Phytoliths: grass short cell forms. A-D: Pooideae type- round/oblong (G1a). A. Deschampia cespitosa florets. B. Festuca ovina florets. C. Poa fendleriana florets. D. Stipa hymenoides florets. E-G: Square/rectangular (G1b). E. Deschampia cespitosa florets. F. Elymus cinereus florets. G. Poa fendleriana florets. H-L: keeled (G1c). H. Deschampia cespitosa florets. I. Elymus cinereus florets. J. Elymus glaucus florets. K. Festuca ovina florets. L. Poa fendleriana florets. M-O: Pyramidal (G1d). M. Deschampia cespitosa florets. N. Elymus glaucus florets. O. Festuca ovina florets. P-S: Aculeated (G1d1). P. Deschampia cespitosa florets. Q. Elymus cinereus florets. R. Elymus glaucus florets. S. Festuca ovina florets. T-U: trapeziform, sinuate (compares favorably) (G1e). T. Poa fendleriana florets. U. Stipa hymenoides florets. V. Reniform shape (G1f). V. Elymus glaucus florets. W: Chloridoid types- saddle (G2a). W. Sporobolus airoides florets. X: Stipa types-bilobate (G3a). X. Stipa hymenoides florets. Y-dd: lancelote style hairs (G6a). Y. Deschampia cespitosa florets. Z. Elymus cinereus florets. aa. Elymus glaucus florets. bb. Festuca ovina florets. cc. Poa fendleriana florets. dd. Stipa hymenoides florets. ee: bulliform cf (G6c). ee. Stipa hymenoides florets. ff: Rondel, general- circular/ovoid (G7a). ff. Sporobolus airoides florets. jj-ll: polylobes/bilobes (G7b). jj. Deschampia cespitosa florets. kk. Poa fendleriana florets. ll. Sporobolus airoides florets. 70 Discussion and Conclusion The species that were the most common and abundant producers of phytoliths were grasses and forbs. Shrubs and trees were the most frequent non-producers or rare and uncommon producers of phytoliths. Common and abundant phytoliths were most observed in the leaves of these species. Of the tested species and plant material, root and wood samples produced close to no phytoliths. Nine produced probable diagnostic types, and ten forms are non-indicators and non-diagnostic (Table 4.6). I believe it can be safely stated that the diagnostic types may be specific to the genus-level, but more testing is needed. Table 4.6. Diagnostic and Non-diagnostic Phytoliths. PhytolithForm Elongate with psilate margins Umbrella peltate trichome Crescent, half-nuclei Elongate with dendritic margins Druse Rhombohedrals Prismatic clusters Raphide “dumbbell” bundle Unsegmented acicular hair, psilate texture, knobby base Saddle Stipa bilobate Pooideae rondel types Panicoideae rondel types Zea mays rondel types Astrosclerid Hairs Articulate epidermals Styloids, raphides, sand, prismatic Spheroids Trichomes Stomates, Papillae Parenchyma Elongates Tracheids Diagnostic level Achillea genus Shepherdia genus Pinus genus Triticea tribe Opuntia genus Prunus genus Pinus genus Solanum genus Elymus genus Chloridoid tribe Stipa Pooidoids Panicoids Zea mays Uncertain none none Non-grasses, tree and shrub None Grasses None None Grasses Non-grasses Plant Part Inflorescence Berries, leaves Nut shells florets Pad, bud Leaves Twigs leaves Florets Florets Florets Florets Florets Cob uncertain Florets Florets - Hairs were observed in five of the forbs, four of which are from the Asteraceae family. Hairs were only observed in three of the tested shrubs and trees, with their occurrence only being 71 common in the inflorescence of Holodiscus dumosa. The other two species were uncommon producers. Only one observed hair morphotype could be diagnostic, and that was the unsegmented acicular hair with psilate texture and a knobby base produced by Elymus glaucus. Articulated epidermals were observed in all Artemisia species tested regardless of plant form, although frequency and style varied. These phytoliths were also observed in five other forbs and seven trees and shrubs, and in four grasses. None of the species tested produced diagnostic articulated epidermals. Tracheids were observed in ten forbs and twenty trees and shrubs. Tracheids are perhaps the least diagnostic of all the phytoliths observed since so many plants produce them, including grasses. However, McNamee (2013:120) observed that when tracheids are found in the soil record that they are an indicator of non-grasses. Indicators of grass species are elongates, most of which were produced only by grasses save for the Achillea millefolium type. While elongates are primarily produced by grasses, individual grasses cannot yet be identified by this phytolith form except for grasses from the Triticeae tribe. Elymus cinereus and Elymus glaucus both produced elongates with dendritic margins. This form is diagnostic of the Triticeae tribe. A probable indicator of trees and shrubs may be calcium oxalate crystals. Of the seventeen plants that produced these crystals, thirteen were trees and shrubs. Morris (2008:127160) also noted that trees and shrubs more often produced calcium oxalates than their forb and grass counterparts. Of the phytoliths I observed, there were two species that produced diagnostic forms and two with a probable diagnostic form. These were the druses from Opuntia polycantha, the rhombohedrals from Prunus virginia, and the prismatic clusters of Pinus edulis and dumbbell 72 raphide bundle from Solanum jamesii are the probable diagnostic forms. No CaOx crystals were observed in the grasses. Clear non-diagnostic forms include papillae, stomates, indeterminate vascular tissue, and spheroids. In contrast, the umbrella peltate trichomes may be diagnostic of Shepherdia species, and the crescent, or half-nuclei spheroid may be diagnostic of Pinus edulis. Regarding grass types, other than the elongates with dendritic margins and Zea mays rondel-types, no other grass phytoliths are diagnostic to a genus or species level. Some phytolithss, such as the Stipa-type bilobate, are indicative of subfamilies, but nothing more. 73 5. Results of Ground Stone Artifact Wash Analysis Six ground stone artifacts (Table 5.1) from Wolf Village (42UT273) were selected for analysis and for the testing of the typology I created for the Utah Valley area. In this chapter, I discuss the ground stone artifacts and the phytoliths identified thereon. For Field Specimens (FS) 219, 2357, 15814, and 16494, I counted the same slides as Yost; however, I also scanned all additional slides. For FS 11975 and 16642, I counted and scanned both slides, whereas Yost only counted and scanned the first slide. I employed Yost to identify phytoliths on the ground stones to test my accuracy in counting and the viability of the typology I created. If I found the same types at a similar frequency as Yost, then that would suggest that my counting was accurate and the typology functional. What I found was that despite minor differences in specific phytolith counts, the overall story of what plants were used on what ground stone artifacts was similar between Yost and myself. What this demonstrates is that the regional typology created for the Utah Valley Fremont, as based on plants with documented medicinal and dietary ethnographic uses, is reliable and valid, and that my counting was sufficient. Tables 5.2-5.4 present phytolith counts and Table 5.5 calculated percentages, with Yost’s counts and percentages being denoted with a Y. The terms used by both Yost and myself were standardized for greater consistency in the tables. For example, all grass bilobates and crosses are included in the Zea mays counts and not in the C4 grass counts. Zea mays and C4 grasses are panicoids, all of which make crosses and bilobates (Terry Ball, personal communication, May 13, 2017). However, I found the transitional forms among panicoids between crosses and bilobates difficult to differentiate into separate Zea mays and C4 categories. Therefore, I have 74 included all such forms under evidences for Zea mays (Figure 5.7). I also included the scanned observations from Yost’s in his overall counts since I had included scanned observations in my totals. Not included was the Commelina domed cylinder Yost observed in FS 219, the Cucurbita scalloped hemispherical in FS 2357, and the Tradescantia pyramidal in FS 16494 (Appendix F). Table 5.1. Wolf Village (42UT273) Ground Stone Tool Provenience and Description. Sample No. 219 2357 11975 Feature Size assoc. Description F48 in 15cm by 10 F5 cm, 7.5cm thick, 1362.4g F111 in 7 by 7.25, F130 in 4.5cm thick, F110 534.3g F866 in 18 by 6.25, F864 8 cm thick, 1715.7g 15814 F1119 in F923 17.5 by 9.5, 5 cm thick, 1059.2g 16494 F1158 in F522 25 by 9, 11.5 cm thick, 12360.4 g 16642 F882 in F864 17 by 11, 7cm thick, 2778.25g Artifact Description A fragment of a flat metate made of basalt. One side is clearly worked/shaped. This appears to be a central fragment of a vesicular basalt trough mano. The edges of the surface are well curved. A complete, quartzite basin mano. The distal ends could have been used for pounding. Although pecking was used to shape the stone and to sharpen grinding surfaces, only one side has clear evidence of grinding. Complete ovoid-shaped rhyolite mano. There is no ground surface. The edges have been shaped, and one surface is flat and another is more convex. Likely a mano preform. This fragmented, proximal end of a basalt metate has what appears to be a shelf on the ventral side that is often associated with Utah style metates. The sides seem to have been shaped, and the bottom near the break appears to have been used for grinding. There is faint evidence of a red stain. The entire stone is smooth. Quartzite slab used as a surface to mash fruits and roots. 75 Wear Form Worn, pecked, ground Worn, pecked Slab without formed trough Loaf shaped Worn, pecked, ground Loaf shaped Ground One handed, flat/tabular loaf Worn, pecked, ground Trough with secondary shelf Minor ground wear, mashed Slab Ground Stone Artifact 219 FS 219 is a basalt metate fragment, with a discernible ground and pecked use surface (Figure 5.1). It was located in the fill outside of Structure 3, a pit house with well-preserved floor, side benches, and post holes (Johansson et al 2014:39). Two slides were prepared from this sample; both Yost and I counted and scanned the first slide, additionally I also scanned the second slide. Minor variations in some of the counts may be attributed to my scanning of the second slide and Yost not. However, we both found similar forms at a similar frequency. Compared to the other ground stone artifacts, FS 219 has a high maize and sedge phytolith recovery. This artifact’s phytolith assemblage is characterized by 55.1-57.8% grasses, which include rondels from C3 and C4 grasses, particularly Pooideae, Stipea, Chloridoid, and Phalaris grasses, and elongates and ellipsoids indicative of Elymus. Phragmites was also observed. Sedges accounted for 21.3-27.1% of the sample, and Zea mays types, such as double-walled and wavy-top rondels, made up 15.1-21.3% of the sample. No other diagnostic phytoliths were observed. Non-phytolith forms observed were calcium oxalate crystals, diatoms, and sponge (Figure 5.8). Additionally, FS 219 was characterized by a low starch granule recovery, with sedges, grasses, Zea mays, Elymus, Typha, and Calochortus/Fritillaria (Liliaceae) represented (Appendix F:7). Ground Stone Artifact 2357 FS 2357 is a worn and pecked central fragment of a vesicular basalt mano that was likely used on a trough metate (Figure 5.2). It was found in a stratum of Structure 5, which was a subrectangular pit house. 76 Eight slides were prepared from this sample. Yost and I both counted and scanned slide one. Yost then scanned slides two and three, whereas I scanned all the remains slides, two through eight. I believe that variations in some of the counts can be attributed to this. Additionally, these were the first slides that I chose to analyze using my typology. Variations between counts, though, were never greater than the 13.1% difference observed in the total C3/C4 grass count. Compared to the other ground stone artifacts, FS 2357 is characterized by having a high grass phytolith recovery. The phytolith assemblages observed are made up of 77.3-89.6% grasses, including rondels from C3 and C4 grasses, particularly Pooideae, Stipea, Chloridoid, and Phalaris grasses, and elongates and ellipsoids indicative of Elymus. Phragmites was also observed. Sedges accounted for 2.3-5.8% of the sample, and Zea mays types, such as double-walled and wavy-top rondels, made up 7.8-9.7% of the sample. Other diagnostic types observed include epidermal indicative of Prunus, Pinus crescents, and a microfossil that closely resembled Cucurbita forms (Figure 5.10). Diatoms and sponge microfossils were also observed. FS 2357 had the second highest starch granule recovery, with grasses, sedge, maize, Elymus-type, Typha, Apiaceae, Calochortus/Fritillaria (Liliaceae) represented. Yost suggests that the straight-line brakes observed on several of the grass elongates and epidermis are indicative of anthropomorphic cutting and/or rolling pressure from being ground (Appendix F:8). The dark coloring of several of the grass microfossils is likely indicative of exposure to fire, for example, for parching. 77 Figure 5.1. Ground Stone FS 219, basalt metate fragment. Figure 5.2. Ground Stone FS 2357, a worn and pecked central fragment of a vesicular basalt mano. 78 Table 5.2. Phytolith Grass Counts. 79 SAMPLE (FS #) 219 219-Y 2357 2357-Y 11975 11975-Y 15814 15814-Y 16494 16494-Y 16642 16642-Y Trapeziform sinuate: Pooideae 82 91 173 140 125 92 177 145 152 84 163 100 Rondel-keeled: Pooideae 2 8 9 16 3 40 15 23 3 39 2 33 Rondel-square/rectangular: Pooideae 5 0 9 0 4 0 9 0 5 0 7 0 Rondel-angular keel: Phalaris 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Rondel-plateau saddle: Phragmites 0 4 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Bilobate-Stipa type (cf): Stipea 0 8 5 4 0 5 2 14 0 8 0 0 TOTAL C3 Short Cells 89 112 196 167 132 139 203 183 160 132 172 135 TOTAL C4 Chloridoid Saddle 2 6 16 2 0 17 1 3 0 4 0 9 Rondel-all forms: C3 & C4 Grasses 21 25 23 39 29 37 25 47 33 42 57 41 Grass epidermis, general 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Epidermal-crenate/sinuate margins 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Bulliform (cf) 8 4 12 3 5 4 0 0 4 3 5 0 Trichome, general 1 13 2 24 0 32 0 8 1 27 1 19 Trichome base (hair) 8 1 2 0 9 2 7 1 5 1 12 0 Elongate-entire margins, 11 9 16 41 17 38 4 29 7 43 18 32 Elongate-crenate margins 2 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Elongate-aculeate margins 2 13 22 20 8 25 6 11 5 14 6 24 Elongate-charred 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Elongates-articulate 8 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 TOTAL redundant Grass types 65 66 103 131 68 138 44 96 61 130 101 116 156 184 315 300 200 294 248 282 221 266 273 260 Total (cf) = compares favorably. Samples Yost identified are listed directly after the samples I identified. My counts are demarcated with the ground stone artifact (FS) number, and Yost’s (Appendix F) are demarcated by a Y. See Figure 5.9. Table 5.3. Diagnostic Phytolith Counts. SAMPLE (FS #) 219 219-Y 2357 2357-Y 11975 11975-Y 15814 15814-Y 16494 16494-Y 16642 16642-Y Rondel-Wavy top: cf. Maize 21 14 13 5 9 4 7 5 21 21 10 12 Rondel-ruffle top: cf. Maize 3 0 1 1 4 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 Rondel-half decorated: cf. Maize 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rondel-charred/double wall (cf) 11 10 8 14 2 5 5 12 14 9 6 7 Rondel cluster/epidermis: Maize 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 4 2 1 0 0 Cross: Panicoideae/Maize (cf) 18 9 5 2 3 1 4 2 23 10 7 9 Rondel-cross/bilobe: cf. Maize 8 17 8 2 3 11 2 2 9 14 12 17 IRP-type: Maize glume 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 TOTAL Maize types observed 61 50 40 27 21 21 22 26 70 57 35 46 Elongate-dendritic 0 8 0 9 0 1 1 2 1 4 2 2 Ellipsoid Elymus type 2 0 4 0 2 0 1 0 4 0 6 0 80 TOTAL Elymus types 2 8 4 9 2 1 2 2 5 4 8 2 Thin w/ridges: Sedge stem 61 88 24 7 52 30 7 4 38 12 56 42 Sedge: root and cone cell 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 3 Epidermal-Prunus type 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crescent/Nuclei-Pinus type 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 124 148 74 44 75 55 31 32 116 74 101 93 Total diagnostic types (cf) = compares favorably. Samples Yost identified are listed directly after the samples I identified. My counts are demarcated with the ground stone artifact (FS) number, and Yost’s are demarcated by a Y. See Figure 5.7. Ground Stone Artifact 11975 FS 11975 is a complete quartzite basin mano that has been pecked and ground (Figure 5.3). The mano was likely shaped before use, and was found in a midden associated with Structure 9 and its associated vent tunnel. Two slides were prepared from this sample. Yost counted and scanned slide one, and I counted and scanned both slides one and two. I believe variations in our counts may be attributed to this. The greatest variations were observed between redundant grass form totals and the totals for all grasses combined. Compared to the other ground stones, FS 11975 is characterized by a low Zea mays phytolith recovery. This stone’s phytolith assemblage was made up of 70.1-83.1% grasses, including rondels from C3 and C4 grasses, particularly Pooideae, Stipea, Chloridoid, and Phalaris grasses, and elongates and ellipsoids indicative of Elymus. Phragmites was also observed. Sedges accounted for 9.3-18.1% of the sample, and Zea mays types, such as double-walled and wavy-top rondels, made up 5.9-7.3% of the sample. No other diagnostic types were observed. Diatoms and sponge microfossils were present. FS 11975 had a relatively low starch granule recovery, with grasses, maize, Elymus, and Calochortus/Fritillaria (Liliaceae) represented. Ground Stone Artifact 15814 FS 15814 is another complete mano (Figure 5.4). This one was made of rhyolite and seems to be one-handed. It was found in the vent tunnel associated with Structure 9. Only one slide was prepared for this sample, which was counted and scanned by both Yost and myself. The phytolith counts for this stone have some of the least variation between 81 counts when compared to the other ground stones. Additionally, this ground stone is characterized by a high grass phytolith and a low sedge and Zea mays phytolith recovery. The phytolith assemblage observed for FS 15814 is made up of 85.9-88.7% grasses, including rondels from C3 and C4 grasses, particularly Pooideae, Stipea, Chloridoid, and Phalaris grasses, and elongates and ellipsoids indicative of Elymus. Sedges accounted for 1.32.4% of the sample, and Zea mays types, such as double-walled and wavy-top rondels, made up 7.6-8.1% of the sample. No other diagnostic types were observed. Sponge microfossils, diatoms, Chrysophyte cysts, and CaOx crystals were also present. FS 15814 had the third highest starch grain count, with grasses, maize, Elymus, sedges, and Liliaceae represented. Ground Stone Artifact 16494 FS 16494 is a fragment of what appears to be a Utah-style metate (Figure 5.5). This artifact as been shaped, worn, pecked, and ground. It was found in the vent shaft fill associated with Structure 8. Two slides were prepared from this sample; Yost counted and scanned just the first slide, I did the same but also scanned the second slide. I do not believe that the additional scanned slide adequately accounts for the variations between counts. The greatest variation was observed between the redundant grass forms. When compared to the other stones, FS 16494 is characterized by a high Chrysophyte cyst and a high Zea mays phytolith recovery. The phytolith assemblages observed are made up of 65.7-78.3% grasses, including rondels from C3 and C4 grasses, particularly Pooideae, Stipea, Chloridoid, and Phalaris grasses, and elongates and ellipsoids indicative of Elymus. Sedges accounted for 3.8-11.0% of the sample, and Zea mays types, such as double-walled and wavy-top rondels, made up 16.5-20.3% 82 of the sample. Other diagnostic types observed include the Pinus crescent. Diatoms, sponge microfossils, CaOx crystals, and Chrysophyte cysts were also observed. FS 16494 had the second lowest starch granule recovery, with most coming from grasses and sedge, with maize and Elymus being diagnostic. Corn smut spores were recovered as well. Yost speculates that the high presence of Chrysophyte cysts may be attributed to the processing of fibrous roots from aquatic plants (Appendix F:9). Chrysophyte cysts are algae much like diatoms, but are different in that they are more ecologically restricted. They are often found in freshwater habitats, such as montane lakes, ephemeral ponds, and snowmelts, and can survive some winter freezing (Appendix F:2). I did not note cysts on other groundstones because I did not yet understand what to look for. I noted them for FS 16494 and FS 16642 because I had learned what the cysts looked like. Figure 5.3. Ground Stone FS 11975, a complete quartzite basin mano. 83 Figure 5.4. Ground Stone FS 15814, a complete rhyolite mano. Figure 5.5. Ground Stone FS 16494, fragment of a basalt Utah-style metate. 84 Table 5.4. Redundant Forms, Total Phytolith Count, and Other Forms. SAMPLE (FS #) 85 219 219-Y 2357 2357-Y 11975 11975-Y 15814 15814-Y 16494 16494-Y 16642 16642-Y Epidermal-ligulate margins 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 Epidermal-sinuate margins 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Epidermal-lattice 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Epidermal-entire margins 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Parenchyma 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spheroids, general-ruminate texture 0 0 0 1 1 6 4 6 3 5 7 2 Tracheids 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 Astrosclerid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Stomates 2 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Hair, segmented & acicular 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Hair, general 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Hair bases, general 0 0 2 0 3 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 Total general types 7 0 24 1 13 6 12 6 7 5 21 2 TOTAL Phytoliths 287 332 413 345 288 355 291 320 344 345 395 355 Chrysophyte cysts 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 13 200 137 60 13 CaOx-raphide, single (cf) 3 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 2 - CaOx-druse cf 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 6 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 4 - 2 - 0 - Sponge 3 6 0 4 11 20 3 1 12 8 23 8 Diatoms (observed) x x x x x x x x x x x x CaOx-rectangular/ hexagon prismatic (cf) (cf) = compares favorably. Samples Yost (Appendix F) identified are listed directly after the samples I identified. My counts are demarcated with the ground stone artifact (FS) number, and Yost’s are demarcated by a Y. See Figure 5.8. Table 5.5. Calculated Percentages for Select Phytolith Counts. SAMPLE (FS #) 219 219-Y 2357 2357-Y 11975 11975-Y 15814 15814-Y 16494 16494-Y 16642 16642-Y Total C3 grasses 31.0 33.7 47.5 48.4 45.8 39.2 69.8 57.2 46.5 38.3 43.5 38.0 Chloridoid saddle 0.7 1.8 3.9 0.6 0.0 4.8 0.3 0.9 0.0 1.2 0.0 2.5 Redundant grass forms 22.6 19.9 24.9 38.0 23.6 38.9 15.1 30.0 17.7 37.7 25.6 32.7 Total C3/C4 grass types* 54.4 55.4 76.3 87.0 69.4 82.8 85.2 88.1 64.2 77.1 69.1 73.2 Total Zea mays types 21.3 15.1 9.7 7.8 7.3 5.9 7.6 8.1 20.3 16.5 8.9 13.0 Total Elymus 0.7 2.4 1.0 2.6 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.6 1.5 1.2 2.0 0.6 Total sedge 21.3 27.1 5.8 2.3 18.1 9.3 2.4 1.3 11.0 3.8 14.2 12.7 All diagnostic 43.2 44.6 17.9 12.8 26.0 15.5 10.7 10.0 33.7 21.4 25.6 26.2 All general 2.4 0.0 5.8 0.3 4.5 1.7 4.1 1.9 2.0 1.4 5.3 0.6 *does not include Elymus or Zea mays. Samples Yost (Appendix F) identified are listed directly after the samples I identified. My counts are demarcated with the ground stone artifact (FS) number, and Yost’s are demarcated by a Y. 86 Ground Stone Artifact 16642 The function of this artifact was not wholly apparent until after microfossil analysis. Initial observations of the stone were that there was no discernable ground surface, but further investigation coupled with what the microfossils revealed suggest that this stone was used as a platform upon which tubers, fruits, and the like, were mashed. FS 16642 was found in a midden associated with Structure 9 (Figure 5.6). Two slides were prepared from this stone. Yost only counted and scanned the first, I counted and scanned both slides. The variation between counts never exceeded 7.1%. Compared to the other ground stone artifacts, FS 16642 is characterized by having a high Chrysophyte cyst and high CaOx crystal recovery. The phytolith assemblages observed are made up of 72.1-73.8% grasses, including rondels from C3 and C4 grasses, particularly Pooideae, Stipea, Chloridoid, and Phalaris grasses, and elongates and ellipsoids indicative of Elymus. Phragmites was also observed. Sedges accounted for 12.7-14.2% of the sample, and Zea mays types, such as double-walled and wavytop rondels, made up 8.9-13.0% of the sample. Other diagnostic types observed include the Pinus crescent. Diatoms and sponge microfossils were also observed. Maize starch counts were higher from FS 16642 than from all the other artifacts combined. Additional starch grains came from grasses, sedges, Elymus, Apiaceae, Triteleia, and Calochortus/Fritillaria (Liliaceae) were all represented. A corn smut spore was also recovered. The CaOx crystals observed seem to be damaged druses (Figure 5.8). This crystal form is commonly observed in cacti and opuntia species. In the plants sampled for the typology, the only species to abundantly and commonly produce druses was Opuntia polycantha. Given that the 87 interpretation of the function of this stone artifact is a surface that fruits and roots were mashed upon, it may be likely that cacti may have also been mashed upon the stone. Figure 5.6. Ground Stone FS 16642, a platform for mashing roots and tubers. Summary The Fremont of Wolf Village used their ground stone artifacts, in particular manos and metates, to process C3 and C4 grasses such as Stipa hymenoides, Elymus glaucus, and several 88 other species. They also processed maize, sedges, and also probably pine nuts, chokecherry fruits, and cacti. Based on the starches recovered, several roots and tubers, especially those belonging to the Apiaceae and Liliaceae families, were also used. Several of these plants may have been previously processed through parching or baking prior to being ground on the stones. Evidence of this is derived from the presence of burnt grass and maize phytoliths. 89 Figure 5.7. Maize phytoliths observed on ground stone artifacts. 1. Wavy top rondel. 2. Ruffle top rondel. 3. Double-wall rondel. 4. Panicoid cross. 5. Panicoid bilobe. 6. Maize rondel cluster. 7. Half-decorated rondel. 8. Probable IRP. a. FS 219. b. FS 2357. c. FS 11975. d. FS 15814. e. FS 16494. f. FS16642. 90 Figure 5.8. Calcium oxalate crystals, chrysophyte cysts, diatoms, sponges, and epidermals. Calcium Oxalates: A. FS 219 calcium oxalate raphide. B. FS 219 calcium oxalate prism. C. FS 11975 calcium oxalate prismatic. D. FS 16494 calcium oxalate prism. E. FS 16642 calcium oxalate druse. Cysts: F. FS 16494 chrysophyte cyst. Diatoms: G. FS 2357 diatoms. H. FS 16642 diatom. Sponge: I. FS 219 sponge microfossil. J. FS 16494 sponge microfossil. K. FS 16642 sponge microfossil. Epidermal phytoliths: L. 11975, lattice epidermal. M. 219, epidermal with entire margins. N. 16642, epidermal with entire margins. O. 2357, epidermal with sinuate margins. (219 not pictured). P. 16642, epidermal with ligulate margins (2357 and 16494 not pictured). Hairs and hair bases: Q. 2357, hair base. R. 15814, hair base (11975 not pictured). S. 219, segmented hair. T. 2357, segmented hair. U. 2357, hair. V. 16642 hair. W. 16642, segmented hair. 91 Figure 5.9. Grass phytoliths. A. FS 219, bulliform. B. FS 2357, bulliform. C. FS 11975, bulliform. D. FS 16642, bulliform. E. 219, trichome. F. 16494 trichome. G. 16642, trichome. H. 2357, articulate elongates with aculeate margins. I. 16642, elongates with aculeate margins. J. 219, elongate with entire margins. K. 2357, elongate with entire margins. L. 16642, elongate with entire margins. M. 2357, Elongate with crenate margins. N. 2357, sinuate Pooideae trapeziform. O. 15814, sinuate Pooideae trapeziform. P. 16494, sinuate Pooideae trapeziform. Q. 16642, sinuate Pooideae trapeziform. Rondels: R. 2357, keeled rondel. S. 15814, keeled rondel. T. 16642, keeled rondel. U. 2357, square rondel. V. 15814, square rondel. W. 16642, square rondel. X. 2357, stipea rondel. Y. 15814, stipea rondel. Z. 219, chloridoid saddle. aa. 2357, chloridoid saddle. bb. 15814, chloridoid saddle. cc. 2357, round rondel. dd. 15814, round rondel. ee. 16642 round rondel. Other forms: ff. 219, polylobe. gg. 2357, probable bulliform. hh. 2357, probable bulliform. ii. 16642, rondel cluster. jj. 16642, polylobe. 92 Figure 5.10. Diagnostic forms, sedge, tracheids, and others. A. 2357, Prunus epidermal. B. 2357, Pinus crescent. C. 16494, Pinus crescent. D. 16642, Pinus crescent. E. 2357, Elymus ellipsoid. F. 15814, Elymus ellipsoid. G. 16642, Elymus ellipsoid. H. 16642, dendritic elongates. I. 219, sedge. J. 2357, sedge. K. 11975, sedge. L. 15814, sedge. M. 16494, sedge. N. 16642, sedge. O. 16494, astrosclerid. P. 16642, astrosclerid. Q. 15814, spheroids. R. 16642, spheroid. S. 2357, stomates. T. 219, parenchyma. U. 2357, tracheids. V. 16494, tracheids. W. 16642, tracheids. X. 219, burned articulates. Y. 2357, unclassified epidermal. Z. 2357, unclassified hair. 93 6. Discussion and Conclusion This thesis research has sought to fills gaps in phytolith knowledge on particular species regarding how and where they produce phytoliths, and then apply a regionally specific typology to archaeological samples. I conclude by discussing the results of the typology, what the groundstone analysis adds to our understanding of Utah Valley Fremont plant use, and how ethnographic resources can provide further interpretation. Phytolith Typology and Ground Stone Analysis I employed Yost to identify phytoliths on the ground stones to test the viability of the typology I created and my accuracy in counting. Despite minor differences in specific phytolith counts, the overall story of what plants were used on what ground stone artifacts was similar between Yost and myself. This demonstrates that the regional typology created for the Utah Valley Fremont based on plants with documented medicinal and dietary ethnographic uses is reliable and valid, and that my counting was sufficient. Regarding the typology, I believe that there may be benefits in creating regionallyspecific typologies. For example, if it can be concluded that in the Utah Valley region the only species to produce tuberculated ovoid forms are those in the Elymus genus, then when such a form is found it can be concluded that it is from Elymus. Regarding counting, differences greater than five-percent between counts were most commonly observed among the grass counts. This difference never exceeded 15.3 percent. I believe the counts vary because I found it difficult to differentiate effectively between the Stipa- 94 bilobe, the panicoid cross, the maize cross, chloridoid saddles, and notched bilobates, as well as between rondel forms such as pyramid, keeled, and forms indicative of C3 and C4 grasses. Some types while uncommon to find are not indicators of any specific plant. These phytolith forms include stomates, articulate epidermal, astrosclerids, hairs, spheroids, and parenchyma. Several forms were more commonly observed, but were ultimately just indicators of general types. For example, tracheids, which were observed on three of the stones, are indicators of non-grass plants. Other examples include trichomes (hairs, hair bases, and buliforms) and elongates as indicators of grasses, and calcium-oxalate crystals as indicators of non-grasses, particularly trees and shrubs. Indicators for Fremont Subsistence The phytolith and starch analysis of six ground stone artifacts from Wolf Village has added the following family to Utah Valley Fremont plant use: the Liliaceae family (specifically Calochortus and Fritillaria). Liliaceae has previously not been found in archaeological contexts in Utah Valley. If we accept the validity of regionally specific typologies, the following specific plants can be added to current understanding of Utah Valley Fremont plant use: Poaceae Elymus grasses, Rosaceae Prunus berries, Pinyon pine nuts and Cactaceae. Additional evidence supporting the use of Cucurbita in Utah Valley was also found. Previously, there was only one recording of Cucurbita from a rind at Spotten Cave, of one Prunus from a seed at Wolf Village, and of one Elymus starch from Seamons Mounds teeth tartar. The presence of the Chrysophyte cysts on ground stones FS 16494 and 16642 suggests the use of lakeside vegetation as well. These plants are suggestive of diets that included foraging and farming, or at least of wild and domestic plant use. When interpreting how these plants may have been used, I focus on 95 plants that would have likely been processed on a ground stone. I would not expect to find plants that have no ethnographic documentation for being ground or crushed on ground stones. This is likely why plants, such as Achillea millefolium, that have diagnostic phytoliths were not found in the ground stone samples. Achillea millefolium was primarily prepared by boiling, not grinding. Specifics regarding suggested interpretations for how the Fremont may have used these plants, as well as what species would have been available are as follows. Apiaceae starch was found on FS 2357 and FS 16642. Prior to this, Apiacea starch had been found in teeth tartar from Seamon’s mound (Yost 2009:6), and as pollen on ground stone from Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016). I did not test any Apiaceae species for my phytolith typology. There are 24 Apiaceae species in the valley (Welsh et al. 1987:613-637), and ten have documented ethnographic uses. Of these ten, seven have preparation processes that involve grinding: Angelica pinnata, Carum gairdneri, Cymopterus globosus, Ferula multifida, Heracleum maximum, Ligusticum filicinum, and Osmorhiza occidentalis (see Appendix C). The use of these plants was primarily medicinal, and often the roots were used. Three Apiaceae species were used as food. It may be that the Fremont may have ground roots of Apiaceae species on their ground stones medicinally for ailments such as rheumatism, swellings, sore throats, and coughs (Appendix C). Cyperacae sedge phytoliths and starches were found on all ground stones tested. Sedge pollen has been found on ground stones from Woodard Mound (Richens 1983) and Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016). Additionally, seeds indicative of the Cyperaceae family have been found in the fill of Hinckley Mounds, Wolf Village, and Woodard Mound. I did not test any Cyperaceae species for my typology. There are 48 Cyperaceae species found in Utah Valley (Welsh et al. 1987:653-684), three of which of have documented ethnographic uses. Microfossils likely coming from sedge roots were observed by Yost, and the roots of Scirpus acutus and 96 Scirpus maritimus were both consumed by the Goshute. It may be that the Fremont were also processing Scirpus roots for food. Carex (sp) is a common sedge in the Utah Valley area, but there is no documented evidence of its use. This does not mean that it may not have been used prehistorically by the Fremont, only that none of the more historic groups who lived in the valley and surrounding areas have any recollection of using this plant. Evidence of Liliaceae was recovered as starch from all stones except for FS 16494. Specifically, these starches may likely be from Calochortus or Fritillaria. There have been no previous findings of this family in the valley from Fremont archaeological contexts. I did not test any Liliaceae species for phytoliths. In the valley, there are 15 species that may have been available to prehistoric and historic peoples (Welsh et al. 1987:800-811). Ten of these have documented uses. In particular, the processing of the bulbs of Smilacina stellata, Veratrum californicum, Zigadenus paniculatus, and Zigadenus venenosus were reported as being crushed, often for medicinal purposes. It may be that the Fremont were crushing bulbs of Liliaceae species on their stones for medicinal purposes, to cure ailment such as sprains, burns, and rheumatism (Appendix C). Pinaceae Pinus phytoliths were identified on FS 2357, 16494, and 16642. Pinus pollen has been found on both ground stones and fill, coming from the sites Hinckley Mounds, Smoking Pipe, Wolf Village, and Woodard Mound (see Appendix A). There are five species found in the valley, three with documented ethnographic uses. I tested all three for the typology. The nuts of Pinus edulis and Pinus monophylla were often ground into a flour, the primary purpose of which was for food (Appendix D). An epidermal phytolith indicative of Rosaceae Prunus was found on FS 2357. A seed of Rosaceae Prunus had been found in the fill of Wolf Village (Dahle 2011). There are two Prunus 97 species in the valley (Welsh et al. 1987:537-539), and only one has documented ethnographic uses: Prunus virginiana. I was able to test this plant for the typology. Prunus virginiana was used both medicinally and for food. The bark would be ground medicinally to treat headaches and head colds, and the berries would be mashed for food (Appendix D). Poaceae phytoliths and starches were found on all six ground stones. Specifics include Elymus, Stipea, Chloridoid, and Zea mays. Elymus starch has been found in teeth tartar from Seamon’s Mound, Stipa caryopses have been found in the fill of Wolf Village and Woodard Mound, and Zea mays kernels, pollen, and starches have been found throughout the valley in fills, on ground stones, and even on teeth tartar (Appendix A). Eragrosis, Panicum, Phragmites, and Sporobolus have also been identified at sites throughout the valley. Eighty-six grass species are found in the valley (Welsh et al. 1987:684-788). Only sixteen species have documented ethnographic uses (Appendix C). I tested seven of these species for phytoliths. Ethnographically, three species were ground into flour for use in bread or mush: Panicum crus-galli, Sporobolus airoides, Sporobolus cryptandrus Phytoliths indicative of Elymus were found on the ground stones, yet there are no records of historic groups grinding Elymus for flour. Same with Stipea and most Chloridoids. All Poaceae species were used for food. The sugary exudate from Phragmites communis was also used medicinally. The Fremont likely used grasses for food as well. Typhaceae Typha starches were found on FS 219 and 2357. Typha pollen has been recovered from ground stone, a ceramic bowl, and fill from sites such as Kay’s Cabin, Smoking Pipe, and Woodard Mound (Appendix A). Two Typha species are found in the valley, and both have documented ethnographic uses. I tested Typha latifolia for the typology. None of the ethnographic sources record if Typha was ever ground or mashed, only that it was often prepared 98 roasted (Appendix E), which may have been a food source prepared by the Fremont using grinding stones. Conclusion The creation of a regional phytolith typology and the use of ethnographic sources to provide interpretations for plant use can improve our understanding of plant use by prehistoric peoples. Specifically, the creation of a Utah Valley regional phytolith typology for the Utah Valley Fremont that is based on plants with documented ethnographic medicinal and dietary properties has added to what is known about Fremont plant use in the valley. Through this ground stone analysis, additional evidences for the Fremont use of squash, chokecherry, and pinyon pine have been found. The use of cacti has also been found. Furthermore, this typology is valuable because it is narrow in scope, and the forms observed in the typology have a higher chance of appearing in prehistoric contexts than forms that have no known medicinal or dietary properties. There were few phytolith forms that I observed on the ground stone that were not among the forms in the typology. The unrecognized forms were often rare in count, and when shared with other archeobotanists, were also not recognized. Regional phytolith typologies, such as the one created for the Utah Valley Fremont, can increase understanding of prehistoric plant use. If this work were to continue, Dr. Loreen Allphin in the Plant and Wildlife Sciences Department and Scott Jensen with the Utah Valley BLM Shrub Science Lab would both be able to assist in the gathering of plants to expand the phytolith typology. I do not believe that the methods need to be changed. 99 Suggested future directions would be to test more native plants for phytoliths, to increase what is known about plant phytolith production, to expand the typology, and to further explore diagnostic forms. These plant types include those used by historic native groups listed in Appendix C. Specific genera and species that come to mind are plants from the Elymus and Prunus genera, as well as plants from the Apiaceae and Liliaceae family. Starches from this family were found on several ground stones, yet I tested no plants from this family for the phytolith typology. There may be phytoliths from species in this family that could be found archaeologically. Other future directions include testing more ground stone artifacts to see if the patterns observed continue: that plants which were not ground would not be seen on ground stone artifacts, in other words, that patterns in the presence and absence of particular plants continue, especially on artifacts from sites throughout Utah Valley. It will also be important to test other archaeological remains, such as soil samples and ceramic sherds, to see if the phytoliths observed are different than those observed on the ground stone artifacts. 100 References Cited Aleksoff, Keith C. 1999 Achillea millefolium, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/achmil/all.html, accessed January 26, 2016. Allison, James R. 2008 Human Ecology and Social Theory in Utah Archaeology. Utah Archaeology 1:57-88. 2010 The End of Farming in the Northern Periphery of the Southwest. In Leaving Mesa Verde: Peril and Change in the 13th Century Southwest, edited by Timothy A. Kohler, Mark D. Varien, and Aaron Wright, pp. 128-155. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Anderson, Michelle D. 2001 Ephedra viridis, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/ephvir/all.html, accessed November 8, 2016. 2002a Leymus cinereus, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/leycin/all.html, accessed February 18, 2017. 2002b Pinus edulis, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinedu/all.html, accessed November 11, 2016. 2004a Ephedra nevadensis, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/ephnev/all.html, accessed November 8, 2016. 2004b Sarcobatus vermiculatus, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/sarver/all.html, accessed November 11, 2016. 2005 Artemisia ludoviciana, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/artlud/all.html, accessed November 6, 2016. Anderson, Berniece A., and Arthur H. Holmgren 1996 Mountain Plants of Northeastern Utah. Utah State University Extension, Logan. Anitha, Rajasekaran, and T. Sandhiya 2014 Occurrence of Calcium Oxalate Crystals in the Leaves of Medicinal Plants. International Journal of Pharmacognosy 1:389-393. 101 Bagley, Gerald C. 1964 Daniel T. Potts, Chronicles of the Fur Trade, 1822-1828, and the Earliest Confirmed Explorer of Yellowstone Park. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of History, Brigham Young University, Provo. Ball, Terry B., John S. Gardner, and Nicole Anderson 1999 Identifying Inflorescence Phytoliths from Selected Species of Wheat (Triticum monococcum,T. dicoccon, T. dicoccoides, and T. aestivum) and Barley (Hordeum vulgare and H. spontaneum(Gramineae). American Journal of Botany 86:1615-1623. Ball, Terry, Karol Chandler-Ezell, Ruth Dickau, Neil Duncan, Thomas C. Hart, Jose Iriarte, Carol Lentfer, Amanda Logan, Houyan Lu, Marco Madella, Deborah M. Pearsall, Dolores R. Piperno, Arlene M. Rosen, Luc Vrydaghs, Alison Weisskopf, and Jianping Zhang 2015 Phytoliths as a Tool for Investigations of Agricultural Origins and Dispersals Around the World. Journal of Archaeological Science 1:1-14. Ball, Terry B., Luc Vrydaghs, Tess Mercer, Madison Pearce, Spencer Snyder, Zsuzsa LisztesSzabo, and Akos Peto 2015 A Morphometric Study of Variance in Articulated Dendritic Phytolith Wave Lobes Within Selected Species of Triticeae and Aveneae. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 26:85-97. Barlow, K. Renee, and Duncan Metcalfe 1996 Plant Utility Indices: Two Great Basin Examples. Journal of Archaeological Science 23:351-371. Berlin, Andrea M., Terry B. Ball, Robert Thompson, and Sharon C. Herbert 2003 Ptolemaic Agriculture, “Syrian Wheat”, and Triticum aestivum. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:115-121. Billat, Scott E. 1985 A Study of Fremont Subsistence at the Smoking Pipe Site. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo. Binford, Lewis R. 1983 Working at Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Blackman, Elizabeth 1970 Opaline Silica Bodies in the Range Grasses of Southern Alberta. Canada Journal of Botany 49:769-781. Blecker, Steven W., Rebecca L. McCulley, Oliver A. Chadwick, and Eugene F. Kelly 2006 Biologic Cycling of Silica Across a Grassland Bioclimosequence. Global Biogeochemical Cycles GB3023 20:1-111. 102 Blinnikov, Mikhail S. 2005 Phytoliths in Plants and Soils of the Interior Pacific Northwest, USA. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 135:71-98. Blinnikov, Mikhail S., Chelsey M. Bagent, and Paul E. Reyerson 2013 Phytolith Assemblages and Opal Concentrations from Modern Soils Differentiate Temperate Grasslands of Controlled Composition on Experimental Plots at Cedar Creek, Minnesota. Quaternary International 281:101-113. Borrelli, Natalia, Marian Fernandez Honaine, Stella Maris Altamirano, and Margarita Osterrieth 2011 Calcium and Silica Biomineralizations in Leaves of Eleven Aquatic Species of the Pampean Plain, Argentina. Aquatic Botany 94:29-36. Bozarth, Steven R. 1990 Diagnostic Opal Phytoliths from Pods of Selected Varieties of Common Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). American Antiquity 1:98-104. 1992 Classification of Opal Phytoliths Formed in Selected Dicotyledons Native to the Great Plains. In Phytolith Systematics. Emerging Issues, Advances in Archaeological and Museum Science, vol. 1, edited by Rapp Jr., George, and Susan C. Mulholland, pp. 193214. Plenum Press, New York. 1993 Biosilicate Assemblages of Boreal Forests and Aspen Parklands. In Current Research in Phytolith Analysis: Applications in Archaeology and Paleoecology, edited by Deborah M. Pearsall and Dolores R. Piperno, pp. 95– 105. University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 1997 Appendix 12: Description and Taxonomic Evaluation of Phytoliths Formed in Cultigens and Selected Wild Edible Plant Species. In The Lower Verde Archaeological Project, edited by Jeffrey Homburg, and Richard S. Ciolek-Torrellopp, pp. I-5 to I-7. SRI Press, Tucson. Brooks, George R. 1977 The Southwest Expedition of Jedediah S. Smith. His Personal Account of the Journey to California, 1826-1827. Arthur H. Clark Company, Glendale, California. Brown, Dwight A. 1984 Prospects and Limits of a Phytolith Key for Grasses in the Central United States. Journal of Archaeological Science 11:345-368. Bryant, Vaughn M and Richard G. Holloway 1983 The Role of Palynology in Archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 6:191-224. Bye, Robert A., Jr. 1972 Ethnobotany of the Southern Paiute Indians in the 1870’s: with a Note on the Early Ethnobotanical Contributions of Dr. Edward Palmer. In Great Basin Cultural Ecology: A Symposium, edited by Don. D. Fowler, pp.87-104. Desert Research Institute. Publications in the Social Sciences Series, University of Nevada. 103 Bye, Robert A., Jr. 1985 Botanical Perspectives of Ethnobotany of the Greater Southwest. Economic Botany 39:375-386. CalFlora 2005 Artemisia Biennis. Electronic document, http://www.calflora.org/cgibin/species_query.cgi?where-taxon=Artemisia+biennis, accessed January 6, 2017. 2008 Eriogonum ovalifolium. Electronic document, http://www.calflora.org/cgibin/species_query.cgi?where-calrecnum=3336, accessed January 6, 2017. 2009 Nicotiana acuminata. Electronic document, http://www.calflora.org/cgibin/species_query.cgi?where-calrecnum=9167, accessed January 6, 2017. 2013 Eriogonum umbellatum. Electronic document, http://www.calflora.org/cgibin/species_query.cgi?where-calrecnum=3385, accessed January 6, 2017. 2015 Atriplex truncata. Electronic document, http://www.calflora.org/cgibin/species_query.cgi?where-calrecnum=1011, accessed January 6, 2017. Callaway, Donald, Joel Janetski, and Omer C. Stewart 1986 Ute. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D’Azevedo, pp. 336-367. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Carnelli, Adriana L., Jean-Paul Theurillat, and M. Madella 2003 Phytolith Types and Type-Frequencies in Subalpine-Alpine Plant Species of the European Alps. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 129:39-65. Chairiya, Nurual, Nunung Harijati, and Retno Mastuti 2016 Variation of Calcium Oxalate (CaOx) Crystals in Porang Corms (Amorphophallus muelleri Blume) at Different Harvest Time. American Journal of Plant Sciences 7:306315. Chamberlin, Ralph V. 1908 Animal Names and Anatomical Terms of the Goshute Indians. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 60:74-103. 1909 Some Plant Names of the Ute Indians. American Anthropologist 11:27-40. 1911 Ethno-botany of the Gosiute Indians of Utah. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association 2:329-405. 1913 Place and Personal Names of the Gosiute Indians of Utah. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 52(208):1-20. 1964 The Ethno-Botany of the Gosiute Indians of Utah. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association 2:329-405. Clayton, William 1921 William Clayton’s Journal: A Daily Recording of the Journey of the Original Company of “Mormon” Pioneers from Nauvoo, Illinois, to the Valley of the Great Salt Lake. Clayton Family Association, Deseret News, Salt Lake City. 104 Coladonato, Milo 1993 Solidago canadensis, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/solcan/all.html, accessed November 11, 2016. Connor, Judith 1967 Notes on Archaeological Investigation Near Utah Lake: A Field Report on the Excavation of 42UT110, 1966-67. Manuscript on file, Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Brigham Young University, Provo. Cote, Gary G. 2009 Diversity and Distribution of Idioblasts Producing Calcium Oxalate Crystals in Dieffenbachia seguine (Araceae). American Journal of Botany 96:1245-1254. Cotton, Jennifer M., Ethan G. Hyland and Nathan D. Sheldon 2014 Multi-Proxy Evidence for Tectonic Control on the Expansion of C-4 Grasses in Northwest Argentina. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 395:41-50. Crane, M. F. 1989 Sambucus nigra subsp. cerulea, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/samnigc/all.html, accessed November 11, 2016. Crellin, Henry G. 1967 Field Report for 42UT110 (Hinckley Farm) or Sex and the Single Hinckley: Term Project for Archaeology 471. Manuscript on file, Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Brigham Young University, Provo Cummings, Linda Scott, Kathryn Puseman, and Laura Ruggiero 2004 Pollen and Macrofloral Analysis. In The Right Place – Fremont and Early Pioneer Archaeology in Salt Lake City, edited by Richard K. Talbot, Shane A. Baker, and Lane D. Richens, pp. 293-334. Brigham Young University, Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Technical Series No. 03-07, Provo, Utah. Cummings, Linda Scott 2011 Pollen Analysis of Samples from Wolf Village, Goshen Canyon, Utah. In Macrobotanical Evidence of Diet and Plant Use at Wolf Village (42UT273), Utah Valley, Utah, unpublished Master’s thesis, edited by Wendy C. Dahle, pp. 87-101. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. D’Azevedo, Warren L. (editor) 1986 Great Basin. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 105 Dahle, Wendy C. 2011 Macrobotanical Evidence of Diet and Plant Use at Wolf Village (42UT273), Utah Valley, Utah. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo. Diatoms of the United States 2016 Diatom Identification Guide and Ecological Resource, Taxa by Morphology. Interactive electronic webpage and document, http://westerndiatoms.colorado.edu/taxa, accessed August 2, 2016. Doebly, John F. 1984 “Seeds” of Wild Grasses: A Major Food of Southwestern Indians. Economic Botany 38:52-64. Ebeling, Walter 1986 Handbook of Indian Foods and Fibers of Arid America. University of California Press, Los Angeles. eFloras 2017 Atriplex truncata. Electronic document, http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=242415122, accessed January 6, 2017. Esser, Lora L. 1995 Shepherdia argentea, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/shearg/all.html, November 11, 2016. Euler, Robert C. 1966 Southern Paiute Ethnohistory. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Evett, Rand R., Roy A. Woodward, Wayne Harrison, James Suero, Patricia Raggio, and James W. Bartolome 2006 Phytolith Evidence for the Lack of a Grass Understory in a Sequoiadendron Giganteum (Taxodiaceae) Stand in the Central Sierra Nevada, California. California Botanical Society 53:351-363. Favorite, Jammie 2003 Plant Guide: Buffaloberry. Electronic document. http://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/cs_shca.pdf, accessed Oct. 21, 2015 Forsyth, Donald W. 1984 Preliminary Report of Archeological Investigations at the Smoking Pipe Site (42UT150), Utah Valley, Utah: The 1983 and 1984 Seasons. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 84-92. Brigham Young University, Provo. 106 Fowler, Catherine S. 1986 Subsistence. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D’Azevedo, pp. 64-97. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 2000 “We Live by Them”: Native Knowledge of Biodiversity in the Great Basin of Western North America. In Biodiversity and Native America, edited by Paul E. Minnis and Wayne J. Elisens, pp. 99-132. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma. Franceschi, Vincent R., and Harry T. Horner, Jr. 1980 Calcium Oxalate Crystals in Plants. Botanical Review 46:361–427. Franceschi, Vincent R., and Paul A. Nakata 2005 Calcium Oxalate in Plants: Formation and Function. Annual Review of Plant Biology 56:41-71. Fremont, John C. 1846 Narrative of the Exploring Expedition to the Rocky Mountains in the Year 1842; and to Oregon and North California in the Years 1843-1844. Wiley and Putnam, London. Fryer, Janet L. 1997 Amelanchier alnifolia, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/amealn/all.html, accessed January 26, 2016. 2008 Sambucus racemosa, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/samrac/all.html, accessed November 11, 2016. 2010 Holodiscus dumosus, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/holdum/all.html, accessed November 8, 2016. Gould, Frank W., and Robert B. Shaw 1983 Grass Systematics. 2nd ed. Texas A & M University Press, College Station, Texas. Granite Seed 2017 Seed. Electronic document, http://www.graniteseed.com/products/seeds, accessed March 20, 2017. Groen, Amy H. 2005 Artemisia dracunculus, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/artdra/all.html, accessed November 6, 2016. 107 Gucker, Corey L. 2006 Cercocarpus ledifolius, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/cerled/all.html, accessed November 7, 2016. 2008 Typha latifolia, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/typlat/all.html, accessed November 11, 2016. Habeck, R. J. 1991 Crataegus douglasii, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/cradou/all.html, accessed November 8, 2016. Hansen, George H. 1941 An Ancient Cave in American Fork Canyon. Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 18:3-13. Hanson, Beth 2007 Buried Treasures: Tasty Tubers of the World. Brooklyn Botanic Garden, Brooklyn, New York. Hauser, A. Scott. 2006 Rosa woodsii, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/roswoo/all.html, accessed November 11, 2016. 2007 Arctostaphylos patula, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/arcpat/all.html, accessed November 4, 2016. He, Honghua, Timothy M. Bleby, Erik J. Veneklaas, Hans Lambers, and John Kuo 2012 Morphologies and Elemental Compositions of Calcium Crystals in Phyllodes and Branchlets of Acacia robeorum (Leguminosae: Mimosoideae). Annals of Botany 109:887-896. Hegji, Steve 2010 Wasatch Wildflowers. Cedar Fort Inc., Springville, Utah. Heiser, Charles B. Jr. 1951 The Sunflower Among the North American Indians. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 95:432-448. 108 Henry, Amanda G., Alison S. Brooks and Dolores R. Piperno 2014 Plant Foods and the Dietary Ecology of Neanderthals and Early Modern Humans. Journal of Human Evolution 69:44-54. Holt, Ronald L. 2006 Beneath These Red Cliffs: An Ethnohistory of the Utah Paiutes. Utah State University Press, Logan. Howard, Janet L. 1995 Purshia mexicana var. stansburiana, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/purmexs/all.html, accessed November 11, 2016. 1997 Poa fendleriana, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/poafen/all.html, accessed November 11, 2016. Janetski, Joel C. 1983 Prehistoric settlement and subsistence of the Western Ute of Utah Valley, Utah. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. 1990a Wetlands in Utah Valley Prehistory. In Wetland Adaptations in the Great Basin, edited by Joel C. Janetski and David B. Madsen, pp. 233-257. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Paper No. 1, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 1990b Utah Lake: Its Role in the Prehistory of Utah Valley. Utah Historical Quarterly 58:5-31. 1991 The Ute of Utah Lake. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2008 The Enigmatic Fremont. In The Great Basin: People and Place in Ancient Times, edited by C. S. Fowler and D. D. Fowler, pp. 105-115. School for Advance Research Press, Santa Fe, Arizona. Janetski, Joel C., and Richard K. Talbot 2014 Fremont Social Organization: A Southwestern Perspective. In Archaeology in the Great Basin and Southwest: Papers in Honor of Don D. Fowler, edited by Nancy J. Parezo and Joel C. Janetski, pp. 118-129. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Jennings, Jesse D. 1978 Prehistory of Utah and the Eastern Great Basin. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 98, Salt Lake City. Johansson, Lindsay D., Katie K. Richards, and James R. Allison 2014 Wolf Village (42UT273): A Case Study in Fremont Architectural Variability. Utah Archaeology 27:33-56. 109 Johnson, Kathleen A. 1999 Elymus glaucus, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/elygla/all.html, accessed November 8, 2016. 2000a Opuntia polycantha, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/cactus/opupol/all.html, accessed November 11, 2016. 2000b Prunus virginiana, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pruvir/all.html, accessed November 11, 2016. 2000c Sporobolus airoides, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/spoair/all.html, accessed November 11, 2016. 2001 Pinus flexilis, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinfle/all.html, accessed November 11, 2016. Jones, John G. and Vaughn M. Bryant, Jr. 1992 Phytolith Taxonomy in Selected Species of Texas Cacti. In Phytolith Systematics: Emerging Issues, Advances in Archaeological and Museum Science, edited by George Rapp, Jr. and Susan C. Mulholland, pp. 215-238. Plenum Press, New York. Kearns, Becky K. 2001 Diagnostic Phytoliths for a Ponderosa Pine-Bunchgrass Community Near Flagstaff, Arizona. The Southwestern Naturalist 46:282-294. Kelly, Isabel T., and Catherine S. Fowler 1986 Southern Paiute. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D’Azevedo, pp. 368-397. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Khuns, Mike 2012 Firewise Plants for Utah Landscapes. Electronic document. https://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/publication/NR_FF_002.pdf, accessed October 21, 2015. Lisztes-Szabó, Zsuzsa, Szilvia Kovács, Péter Balogh, Lajos Darócz3, Károly Penksza, and Ákos Pető 2014 Quantifiable Differences Between Phytolith Assemblages Detected at Species Level: Analysis of the Leaves of Nine Poa Species (Poaceae). Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 84:369-383. 110 Liu, Li, Lisa Kealhofer, Xingcan Chen and, Ping Ji 2014 A Broad-Spectrum Subsistence Economy in Neolithic Inner Mongolia, China: Evidence from Grinding Stones. Holocene 24:726-742. Lowie, Robert H. 1924 Notes on Shoshonean Ethnography. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 10(3):185-314. Madella, Marco, Anne Alexandre, and Terry Ball 2005 International Code for Phytolith Nomenclature 1.0. Annals of Botany 96:253-260. Madsen, David B. 1989 Exploring the Fremont. University of Utah Occasional Publication No. 8, Utah Museum of Natural History, Salt Lake City. Madsen, Rex 1969 The Seamons Mound: a Fremont Site in Utah Valley. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Madsen, David B. and Steven R. Simms 1998 The Fremont Complex: A Behavioral Perspective. Journal of World Prehistory 12(3):255–336. Marwitt, John P. 1986 Fremont Cultures. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d’Azevado, pp 161-172. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Marshall, K. Anna 1995 Ribes aureum, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/ribaur/all.html, accessed November 11, 2016. McCune, Jenny Lyn 2013 The Long-term History of Plant Communities on Southeastern Vancouver Island Based on Vegetation Resurveys and Phytolith Analysis. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Botany, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver. McCune, Jenny L. and Marlow G. Pellatt 2013 Phytoliths of Southeastern Vancouver Island, Canada, and Their Potential Use to Reconstruct Shifting Boundaries Between Douglas-fir Forest and Oak Savannah. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 383-384:59-71. 111 McClaran, Mitchel P. and Marcelle Coder 2003 Phytolith Shape and Chemical Composition in Desert Grassland Plants. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 36:21-33. McNamee, Calla 2013 Soil Phytolith Assemblages of the American Southwest: The Use of Historical Ecology in Taphonomic Studies. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Alberta. McWilliams, Jack 2002 Balsamorhiza sagittata, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/balsag/all.html, accessed November 7, 2016. Metcalfe, Duncan and Lisa V. Larrabee 1985 Fremont Irrigation: Evidence from Gooseberry Valley, Central Utah. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 7:244-254. Miller, Dick 1969 Field Report of Excavations at Mound 42UT271, Seamons Farm, Provo, Utah. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Minnis, Paul E. 1981 Seeds in Archaeological Sites: Sources and Some Interpretive Problems. American Antiquity 46:143-152. 2004 People and Plants in Ancient Western North America. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C. Monje, Paula V., and Enrique J. Baran 2002 Characterization of Calcium Oxalates Generated as Biominerals in Cacti. Plant Physiology 128:707-173. Morris, Lesley 2008 Combining Environmental History and Soil Phytolith Analysis at the City of Rocks National Reserve: Developing New Methods in Historical Ecology. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Ecology, Utah State University, Logan. Morris, Lesley R., Fred A. Baker, Christo Morris, and Ronald J. Ryel 2009 Phytolith Types and Type-Frequencies in Native and Introduced Species of the Sagebrush Steppe and Pinyon–Juniper Woodlands of the Great Basin, USA. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 157:339-357. 112 Mulholland, Susan C. 1989 Phytolith Shape Frequencies in North Dakota Grasses: A Comparison to General Patterns. Journal of Archaeological Science 16:489-5. Munger, Gregory T. 2006 Fragaria vesca, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/fraves/all.html, accessed November 8, 2016. Murphey, Edith Van Allen 1990 Indian Uses of Native Plants. Meyerbooks, Glenwood, Illinois. Ogle, Dan, Mark Stannard, Pamela L. Scheinost, and Loren St John 2010 Plant guide for sheep fescue (Festuca ovina L.). USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Idaho and Washington Plant Materials Program, Boise, Idaho. Palmer, Edward 1878 Plants Used by the Indians of the United States. The American Naturalist 12(9):593-606. Pavek, Pamela L.S., James H. Cane, Olga A. Kildisheva and Anthony S. Davis 2011 Plant guide for Munro’s globemallow (Sphaeralcea munroana). USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Pullman, Washington. Pearce, Madison N. M. 2012 Prehistoric Diets and Medicines of the Utah Great Basin: Using Ethnohistory to Explore Botanical Remains from Spotten Cave Human Coprolites. Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo. Pearsall, Deborah M. 1989 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures. Academic Press, San Diego. 2015 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures. 3rd ed. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek. Pearsall, Deborah M., Karol Chandler-Ezell, Alex Chandler-Ezell 2003 Identifying Maize in Neotropical Sediments and Soils Using Cob Phytoliths. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:611–627. Pearsall, Deborah M., Dolores R. Piperno, Elizabeth H Dinan, Marcelle Umlauf, Zhijun Zhao, and Robert A. Benfer Jr. 1995 Distinguishing Rice (Oryza sativa Poaceae) from Wild Oryza Taxa Through Phytolith Analysis: Results of Preliminary Research. Economic Botany 49:183-196. Peterson, Kenneth Lee 2016 Pollen Analysis for the Department of Anthropology, Site 42UT111. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 113 Peto, Akos, Ferenc Gyulai, Daniel Popity and Arpad Kenez 2013 Macro- and Micro-Archaeobotanical Study of a Vessel Content from a Late Neolithic Structured Deposition from Southeastern Hungary. Journal of Archaeological Science 40:58-71. PhytCore DB 2017 Images Data Base. ArchaeoScience. Electronic document, http://www.phytcore.org/phytolith/index.php?rdm=2gOoCO92VN&action=searchphyt, accessed January 2017. Piperno, Dolores R. 2006 Phytoliths: A Comprehensive Guide for Archaeologists and Paeloecologists. AltaMira Press, Lanham. Piperno, Dolores R., Thomas C. Andres, and Karen E. Stothert 2000 Phytoliths in Cucurbita and other Neotropical Cucurbitaceae and their Occurrence in Early Archaeological Sites from the Lowland American Tropics. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:193–208. Phillips, Caroline and Carla Lancelotti 2014 Chimpanzee Diet: Phytolithic Analysis of Coprolites. American Journal of Primatology 76(8):757-773. Poveda-Diaz, Nataly, Maria Eugenia Morales-Puentes, and Gregory Vaughn. 2016 Phytoliths Produced by Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), Achira (Canna indica L.), and Squash (Cucurbita ficifolia Bouché), Crop Species from Boyacá, Colombia. Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales 40:137146. Prychid, Christina J., and Paula J. Rudall 1999 Calcium Oxalate Crystals in Monocotyledons: A Review of their Structure and Systematics. Annals of Botany 84:725-739. Puseman, Kathryn 2016 Macrofloral Analysis of Samples from the Hinkley Mounds, Site 42UT111, Utah. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Puseman, Kathryn, and Linda Scott Cummings 1999 Pollen and Macrofloral Analysis at Sites in the Utah Valley, Utah. Paleo Research Institute Technical Report 99-86. Paleo Research Institute, Golden, Colorado. 2001 Pollen, Phytolith, and Macrofloral Analysis of Samples from Kay’s Cabin (42UT813), Utah. Paleo Research Institute Technical Report 00-95. Paleo Research Institute, Golden, Colorado. 114 Portillo, Marta, Terry Ball, and Jason Manwaring 2006 Morphometric Analysis of Inflorescence Phytoliths Produced by Avena sativa L. and Avena strigosa Schreb. Economic Botany 60(2):121-129. Power, Robert C., Arlene M. Rosen and Dani Nadel 2014 The Economic and Ritual Utilization of Plants at the Raqefet Cave Natufian Site: The Evidence from Phytoliths. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 33:49-65. Qiu, Zhenwei, Hongen Jiang, Jinlong Ding, Yaowu Hu, and Xue Shang 2014 Pollen and Phytolith Evidence for Rice Cultivation and Vegetation Change during the Mid-Late Holocene at the Jiangli Site, Suzhou, East China. PLoS ONE 9(1): e86816. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0086816. Rainey, Katharine D., and Karen R. Adams 2004 Plant Use by Native Peoples of the American Southwest: Ethnographic Documentation Electronic document, http://www.crowcanyon.org/plantuses, accessed January 15, 2015. Richens, Lane D. 1983 Woodard Mound: Excavations at a Fremont Site in Goshen Valley, Utah County, Utah 1980-1981. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo. Rosales, Manuel 2017 Hedysarum Boreale. USDA NRCS Upper Colorado Environmental Plant Center, Meeker, Colorado. Electronic document, https://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/pg_hebo.pdf, accessed March 1, 2017. Rosen, Arlene Miller 1992 Preliminary Identification of Silica Skeletons from Near Eastern Archaeological Sites: an Anatomical Approach. In Phytolith Systematics. Emerging Issues, Advances in Archaeological and Museum Science, vol. 1, edited by George Rapp, Jr. and Susan C. Mulholland, pp. 129-147. Plenum Press, New York. Sangster, Allan G. 1970 Intracellular Silica Deposition in Immature Leaves in Three Taxa of the Graminae. Annals of Botany 34:245–257. Sangster, Allan G., and Martin J. Hodson 1992 Silica Deposition in Subterranean Organs. In Phytolith Systematics. Emerging Issues, Advances in Archeological and Museum Science, vol. 1, edited by George Rapp Jr. and Susan C. Mulholland, pp. 239-251. Plenum Press, New York. 115 Scher, Janette S. 2002 Juniperus scopulorum, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/junsco/all.html, accessed November 11, 2016. Schneider, Albert 1901 The Probable Function of Calcium Oxalate Crystals in Plants. Botanical Gazette 32(2):142-144. Schultz, Peter H., R. Scott Harris, Simon J. Clemett, Kathie L. Thomas-Keprta and Marcelo Zarate 2014 Preserved Flora and Organics in Impact Melt Breccias. Geology 42(6):515-518. Scott, Linda 1984 Pollen Analysis at Fort Utah (42UTl50), A Prehistoric Component. PaleoResearch Institute. PRI Technical Report, 1984-007. tDAR id: 376650); doi:10.6067/XCV8GX49VD. Searcy, Michael T., and Richard K. Talbot 2015 Late Fremont Cultural Identities and Borderland Processes. In Late Holocene Research on Foragers and Early Farmers in the Desert West, edited by Barbara Roth and Maxine McBrinn, pp. 234-264. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Selland, Larry G. 2003 Landscaping with Native Plants of the Intermountain Region. Technical Reference 17303. U.S. Department of the Interior. Boise State, Boise. Serpa, Katy 2008 Cultigens of the American Northeast: A Phytolith Study. In Current Northeast Paleoethnobotany II, edited by John P. Hart, pp. 101-110. New York State Museum Bulletin Series 512, New York. Shahack-Gross, Ruth, Elisabetta Boaretto, Dan Cabanes, Ofir Katz and Israel Finkelstein 2014 Subsistence Economy in the Negev Highlands: the Iron Age and the Byzantine/Early Islamic Period. Levant 46(1):98-117. Simms, Steven R. 1986 New Evidence for Fremont Adaptive Diversity. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 8(2):204-216. 2010 Traces of Fremont. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City Smith, Anne M. 1974 Ethnography of the Northern Utes. Papers in Anthropology No. 17, University of New Mexico Printing Plant, New Mexico. 116 Stewart, Omer C. 1942 Culture Element Distributions: XVIII Ute-Southern Paiute. Anthropological Records 6(4):231-360. Stromberg, Caroline A.E. 2002 Using Phytolith Assemblages to Reconstruct the Origin and Spread of Grass-Dominated Habitats in the Great Plains of North America During the Late Eocene to Early Miocene. Palaeogrepgraphy, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 27:239-275. Sutton, Mark Q. 1989 Ethnobiological Inferences from Great Basin Oral Tradition. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 11(2):240-267. Talbot, Richard K. 2000 Fremont Farmers: The Search for Context. In The Archaeology of Regional Interaction: Religion, Warfare, and Exchange Across the American Southwest and Beyond, edited by Michelle Hegmon, pp.275–293. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Taylor, Jane E. 2004 Rhus aromatica, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/rhuaro/all.html, accessed November 11, 2016. Tedford, Rebecca Ann 2003 A Multi-proxy Approach to Investigating the Latest Holocene (~4,500 YRS. BP) Vegetational History of Catahoula Lake, Louisiana. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Geology and Geophysics, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Thomas, David Hurst, Lorann S. A. Pendleton, and Stephen C. Cappannari 1986 Western Shoshone. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D’Azevedo, pp. 262-283. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Tilley, Derek 2012 Plant Guide for showy goldeneye (Heliomeris multiflora). USDA-Natural Resources Conservation, ID Plant Materials, Aberdeen, Maryland. Tirmenstein, D. 1999a Achnatherum hymenoides, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/achhym/all.html, accessed November 11, 2016. 117 Tirmenstein, D. 1999b Artemisia tridentata subsp. tridentata, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/arttrit/all.html, accessed November 7, 2016. 1999c Gutierrezia sarothrae, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/gutsar/all.html, accessed November 8, 2016. 1999d Juniperus communis, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/juncom/all.html, accessed November 8, 2016. 1999e Ericameria nauseosa, Fire Effects Information System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/, accessed February 18, 2017. Train, Percy, James R. Henrichs and W. Andrew Archer 1941 Medicinal Uses of Plants by Indian Tribes of Nevada. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C. Trigger, Bruce G. 2010 A History of Archaeological Thought. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, New York. Twiss, P. C., Erwin Suess and R.M. Smith 1969 Morphological Classification of Grass Phytoliths. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 33(1):109-115. 1987 Grass-Opal Phytoliths as Climatic Indicators of the Great Plains Pleistocene. In, Quaternary environments of Kansas, edited by WC Johnson, pp. 179-188. Kansas Geological Survey, Lawrence. Umemura, Mitsutoshi and Chisato Takenaka 2014 Biological Cycle of Silicon in Moso Bamboo (Phyllostachys pubescens) Forests in Central Japan. Ecological Research 29(3):501-510. USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program 2002 Abies concolor Plant fact sheet. Electronic document, https://plants.usda.gov/factsheet/pdf/fs_abco.pdf, accessed November 8, 2016. Utah State University 2017 Range Plants of Utah. Electronic document, http://extension.usu.edu/rangeplants/, accessed March 20, 2017. 118 Van Buren, Renee, Janet G. Cooper, Leila M. Shultz, and Kimball T. Harper 2011 Woody Plants of Utah: A Field Guide with Identification Keys to Native and Naturalized Trees, Shrubs, Cacti, and Vines. Utah State University Press, Logan. Vélez de Escalante, Silvestre 1995 The Dominguez-Escalante Journal: Their Expedition through Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico in 1776. Edited by Ted Warner. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Veena, M. P., Hema Achyuthan, Christopher Eastoe and Anjum Farooquic 2014 A Multi-Proxy Reconstruction of Monsoon Variability in the Late Holocene, South India. Quaternary International 325:63-73. Vrydaghs Luc, Terry B. Ball, Hugo Volkaert, I. Van den Houwe, Jason Manwaring, and Edmond De Langhe 2009 Differentiating the Volcaniform Phytoliths of Bananas: Musa acuminate. Ethnobotany Research and Applications 7:239-246 Walkup, Crystal J. 1991 Shepherdia canadensis, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/shecan/all.html, accessed October 21, 2015. Wallis, Lynley 2003 An Overview of Leaf Phytolith Production Patterns in Selected Northwest Australian flora. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 125(3-4):201-248. Wallis, Neill J., Ann S. Cordell, Kathleen A. Deagan and Michael J. Sullivan 2014 Inter-Ethnic Social Interactions in 16th Century La Florida: Sourcing Pottery Using Siliceous Microfossils. Journal of Archaeological Science 43:127-140. Warner, Barry G. 1989 Methods in Quaternary Ecology #10. Other Fossils. Geoscience Canada 16(4):231-242. Walsh, Roberta A. 1995 Deschampia cespitosa, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/desces/all.html, accessed November 8, 2016. Welsh, Stanley L., N. Duane Atwood, Sherel Goodrich, and Larry C. Higgins 1987 A Utah Flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs No. 9. Brigham Young University, Provo. 2008 A Utah Flora. 4th ed. Revised. Brigham Young University, Provo. 119 Wheeler, Edward A., II 1968 An Archaeological Survey of West Canyon and Vicinity, Utah County Utah. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo. Winter, Joseph 1973 The Distribution and Development of Fremont Maize Agriculture: Some Preliminary Interpretations. American Antiquity 38(40):439-452. Witty, John Edward 1962 Grass Opal in Some Chestnut and Forested Soils of Wasco County, Oregon., Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Soils, Oregon State University, Corvallis. Wylie, Alison 1985 The Reaction Against Analogy. In, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 8, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 63-111. Academic Press, Orlando. Yanovsky, Elias 1936 Food Plants of the North American Indians. United States Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication No. 237, Washington D.C. Yost, Chad 2009 Phytolith and Starch Analysis of a Tooth Tartar Sample from Seamons Mound, Utah. Paleo Research Institute Technical Report 09-131, PaleoResearch Institute, Golden, Colorado. Zarrillo, Sonia and Brian Kooyman 2006 Evidence for Berry and Maize Processing on the Canadian Plains from Starch Grain Analysis. American Antiquity (71):473-499. Zhang, Jianping, Houyuan Lu, Naiqin Wu, Xiaoyan Yang, Xianmin Diao 2011 Phytolith Analysis for Differentiating between Foxtail Millet (Setaria italica) and Green Foxtail (Setaria viridis). PLoS ONE 6(5):e19726. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019726. Zhao, Zhijun, Deborah M. Pearsall, Robert A. Benefer Jr., and Dolores R. Piperno. 1998 Distinguishing Rice (Oryza sativa Poaceae) from Wild Oryza Taxa Through Phytolith Analysis, II: Finalized Method. Economic Botany 52:134-135. Zlatnik, Elena 1999a Amelanchier utahensis, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/ameuta/all.html, accessed November 4, 2016. 120 Zlatnik, Elena 1999b Juniperus osteosperma, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/junost/all.html, accessed November 8, 2016. 1999c Purshia tridentata, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/purtri/all.html, accessed November 11, 2016. Zouhar, K. 2001a Abies concolor, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/abicon/all.html, accessed January 26, 2016. 2001b Pinus monophylla, Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Electronic document, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinmon/all.html, accessed November 11, 2016. 121 Appendix A This data table is an amalgamation of the archaeobotanical reports of twelve Utah Valley Fremont archaeological sites. I list the identified plant as noted in the reports, and in a few cases rectified discrepancies in naming. I note the nature of the remain, where the remain was found at the site, the site the remain is from, and the botanical report where I found this information. For consistency, all botanical remains akin to seeds, such as sunflower achenes and grass caryopsis, are referred to as seeds. See Table 2.1. Family/subfamily, genus, Common Name Adoxaceae Sambucus, Elderberry Amaranthaceae Amaranthus, Pigweed Amaranthaceae Atriplex, Saltbush, orache Botanical Remain Seed Provenience Site Source Fill Richens 1983 Seed Seed Fruit and seed Seed Coprolite Fill Fill Amaranthaceae Cheno-ams, Species and genus unidentifiable Pollen Ground stone artifact (GS) Fill Fill GS, and Fill Woodard Mound Spotten Cave Wolf Village Hinckley Mounds Woodard Mound Wolf Village Wolf Village Smoking Pipe Hinckley Mounds Woodard Mound Kay’s Cabin Dahle 2011 Scott 1984 Peterson 2016; Puseman 2016 Richens 1983 Seed Pollen Pollen, seed Seed Fill Fill Seed Fill Amaranthaceae Chenopodium, Goosefoot Seed Seed Fill Fill Seed Fill Wolf Village Hinckley Mounds Kay’s Cabin Amaranthaceae Suaeda, Seepweed Apiaceae, Parsley/carrot Seed Fill Wolf Village Starch Pollen Teeth GS Asteraceae Pollen Fill Seamons Mound Hinckley Mounds Smoking Pipe 122 Pearce 2012 Dahle 2011 Puseman 2016 Richens 1983 Cummings 2011 Puseman and Cummings 2001 Dahle 2011 Puseman 2016 Puseman and Cummings 2001 Dahle 2011 Yost 2009:6 Peterson 2016 Scott 1984 Family/subfamily, genus, Common Name Botanical Remain Pollen Provenience Site Source Fill and GS Peterson 2016 Asteraceae Ambrosia, ragweed Asteraceae Artemisia, Sagebrush Pollen Fill and GS Pollen Pollen Pollen GS Fill Fill and GS Asteraceae, Artemisia tridentata, sagebrush Asteraceae, Chenopodium berlandieri, pigweed Asteraceae Cirsium, Thistle Asteraceae/ Compositae Helianthus, Sunflower Fragments fill Hinckley Mounds Hinckley Mounds Wolf Village Smoking Pipe Hinckley Mounds Smoking Pipe Seed Fill Puseman 2016 Seed Fill Hinckley Mounds Wolf Village Seed Fill Wolf Village Dahle 2011 Seed Seed Coprolite Fill Spotten Cave Kay’s Cabin Asteraceae, High-spine Aster, rabbitbrush, snakeweed, sunflower Pollen Pollen Pollen GS Fill Metate Asteraceae Iva axillaris, Poverty Weed Asteraceae Liguliflorae, dandelion Asteraceae Low-spine Ragweed, cocklebur Seed Coprolite Wolf Village Smoking Pipe Woodard Mound Spotten Cave Pearce 2012 Puseman and Cummings 2001 Cummings 2011 Scott 1984 Richens 1983 Pollen Pollen Pollen Pollen Pollen GS Fill GS Fill Metate Asteraceae Taraxacum, dandelion Betulaceae, Birch Betulaceae Alnus, Alder Boraginaceae Amsinckia, Fiddleneck Boraginaceae Cryptantha, popcorn flowers Brassicaceae, mustard Pollen Fill and GS Pollen Pollen Pollen Seed Fill GS Fill Fill Seed Fill Pollen Pollen Pollen GS Fill GS Brassicaceae Brassica, Mustard Seed Fill 123 Peterson 2016 Cummings 2011 Scott 1984 Peterson 2016 Billat 1985 Dahle 2011 Pearce 2012 Wolf Village Smoking Pipe Wolf Village Smoking Pipe Woodard Mound Hinckley Mounds Smoking Pipe Wolf Village Smoking Pipe Wolf Village Cummings 2011 Scott 1984 Cummings 2011 Scott 1984 Richens 1983 Woodard Mound Wolf Village Smoking Pipe Hinckley Mounds Wolf Village Richens 1983 Peterson 2016 Scott 1984 Cummings 2011 Scott 1984 Dahle 2011 Cummings 2011 Scott 1984 Peterson 2016 Dahle 2011 Family/subfamily, genus, Common Name Brassicaceae Lepidium, Pepperweed Caryophyllaceae, carnation family Caryophyllaceae Silene, Campion, catchfly Cleomaceae Cleome, Beeweed Cucurbitaceae Cucurbita, Squash Cupressaceae Juniperus, Juniper Cupressaceae Juniperus monosperma One-seeded Juniper Cyperaceae, sedge Cyperaceae Scirpus, Bulrush, tule Ephedraceae Ephedra nevadensis, Mormon Tea Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia prostrata, Creaping spurge Fabaceae Leguminosae Phaseolus, bean Fabaceae Leguminosae Botanical Remain Seed Provenience Site Source Fill Wolf Village Dahle 2011 Seed Fill Richens 1983 Seed Fill Woodard Mound Wolf Village Seed Pollen Uncharred Rind Pollen Pollen Pollen Fill Fill Zone III Wolf Village Smoking Pipe Spotten Cave Dahle 2011 Scott 1984 Mock 1971 GS Fill Metate Cummings 2011 Scott 1984 Richens 1983 Seed and pollen Seed Seed Fill and GS Seed Fill Wolf Village Smoking Pipe Woodard Mound Hinckley Mounds Wolf Village Woodard Mound Kay’s Cabin Pollen Fragments GS Fill Wolf Village Smoking Pipe Pollen Metate Richens 1983 Pollen Fill and GS Seed Seed Coprolite Fill Seed Seed Fill Fill Pollen GS Woodard Mound Hinckley Mounds Spotten Cave Hinckley Mounds Wolf Village Woodard Mound Wolf Village Seed Fill Likely introduced Wolf Village Dahle 2011 Welsh et al. 1987:303 Bean Fill Smoking Pipe Charred Pollen Seed Fill GS Fill Wolf Village Wolf Village Woodard Mound Billat 19851; Forsyth 1984 Dahle 2011 Cummings 2011 Richens 1983 Fill Fill 124 Dahle 2011 Peterson 2016; Puseman 2016 Dahle 2011 Richens 1983 Puseman and Cummings 2001 Cummings 2011 Billat 1985 Peterson 2016 Pearce 2012 Puseman 2016 Dahle 2011 Richens 1983: 111 Cummings 2011 Family/subfamily, genus, Common Name Fagaceae Quercus, Oak Malvaceae Sphaeralcea, Globemallow Nyctaginaceae Boerhaavia, Spiderling Papaveraceae Argemone, Prickly poppy Pinaceae Abies, fir Pinaceae Pinus, pine Plantaginaceae Plantago, plantain Poaceae, Grass Poaceae Eragrostis, loveweed Poaceae Panicum, Panic grass Poaceae Sporobolus, dropseed Poaceae Hordeum/Elymus, wildrye Poaceae Oryzopsis hymenoides, Indian rice grass Poaceae Phragmites, reed Poaceae Stipa hymenoides Indian rice grass Poaceae Zea mays, corn Botanical Remain Uncharred bean Pollen Provenience Site Source Coprolite Spotten Cave Pearce 2012 Fill Smoking Pipe Scott 1984 Seed Fill Wolf Village Dahle 2011 Pollen Fill Smoking Pipe Scott 1984 Seed Fill Wolf Village Dahle 2011 Pollen Pollen Pollen Pollen Pollen GS Fill GS Fill Fill and GS Cummings 2011 Scott 1984 Cummings 2011 Scott 1984 Peterson 2016 Pollen Metate Pollen Seed Phytoliths Pollen Pollen Seed and pollen Starch Uncharred seed Seed GS Fill Teeth GS Fill Fill and GS Wolf Village Smoking Pipe Wolf Village Smoking Pipe Hinckley Mounds Woodard Mound Wolf Village Wolf Village Seamons Mound Wolf Village Smoking Pipe Hinckley Mounds Wolf Village Spotten Cave Puseman 2016 Seed Fill Hinckley Mounds Wolf Village Seed Fill Wolf Village Dahle 2011 Starch Teeth Seamons Mound Yost 2009:6 Seed Fill Richens 1983 Seed Fill Seed Fill Woodard Mound Woodard Mound Wolf Village Kernels, cobs, stalk Pollen Kernels Fill Smoking Pipe Fill Fill Smoking Pipe Hinckley Mounds Billat 1985; Forsyth 1984 Scott 1984 Puseman 2016 GS Coprolite Fill 125 Richens 1983 Cummings 2011 Dahle 2011 Yost 2009 Cummings 2011 Scott 1984 Peterson 2016; Puseman 2016 Cummings 2011 Pearce 2012 Dahle 2011 Richens 1983 Dahle 2011 Family/subfamily, genus, Common Name Botanical Remain Kernels Kernels Provenience Site Source Fill Fill Dahle 2011 Richens 1983 Kernels, cupule Pollen Pollen Fill Wolf Village Woodard Mound Kay’s Cabin Kernels Fill Starch, phytoliths Cob Pollen Pollen Seed Seed Teeth Seed Fill Uncharred seed Pollen Coprolite Wolf Village Woodard Mound American Fork Cave Seamon’s Mound West Canyon Wolf Village Smoking Pipe Wolf Village Woodard Mound Hinckley Mounds Spotten Cave GS Wolf Village Cummings 2011 Seed Fill Wolf Village Dahle 2011 Seed Seed Fill Fill Dahle 2011 Puseman 2016 Portulacacea Portulaca, Purslane Ranunculus, Buttercup Seed Fill Wolf Village Hinckley Mounds Wolf Village Pollen GS Peterson 2016 Rosaceae, Rose Pollen Pollen Pollen GS Fill GS Rosaceae Amelanchier, Service berry Rosaceae Prunus, Chokecherry, cherry, plum Rosaceae Prunus Virginiana, chokecherry Rosaceae Rosa, rose Seed Fill Hinckley Mounds Wolf Village Smoking Pipe Hinckley Mounds Wolf Village Seed Fill Kay’s Cabin Puseman and Cummings 2001 Seed Fill Wolf Village Dahle 2011 Seed Fill Kay’s Cabin Puseman and Cummings 2001 Polygonaceae Eriogonum, Wild buckwheat Polygonaceae Polygonum, Knotweed Polygonaceae Polygonum bistortoides, American bistort, Pursh Polygonaceae Polygonum lapathifolium, willowweed Polygonaceae Rumex, Dock GS Metate Fill GS Fill Fill Fill 126 Puseman and Cummings 2001 Cummings 2011 Richens 1983 Hansen 1941 Yost 2009 Wheeler 1968 Cummings 2011 Scott 1984 Dahle 2011 Richens 1983 Puseman 2016 Pearce 2012 Dahle 2011 Cummings 2011 Scott 1984 Peterson 2016 Dahle 2011 Family/subfamily, genus, Common Name Rosaceae Rubus, Wild raspberry Salicaeae Salix, Willow Botanical Remain Seed Provenience Site Source Fill Wolf Village Dahle 2011 Pollen Metate Richens 1983 Pollen Pollen Fill Fill Sapindaceae Acer, Maple Pollen Pollen GS GS Pollen Metate Sarcobataceae, formerly Chenopodiaceae Sarcobatus, greasewood Pollen Pollen Pollen GS Fill Fill and GS Solanaceae, Potato Solanaceae Physalis, Ground cherry Pollen Seed Uncharred seed Starch Fill Fill Coprolite Woodard Mound Smoking Pipe Hinckley Mounds Wolf Village Hinckley Mounds Woodard Mound Wolf Village Smoking Pipe Hinckley Mounds Smoking Pipe Wolf Village Spotten Cave Teeth Seamons Mound Yost 2009 Pollen Kay’s Cabin Pollen, seed Seed Pollen Pollen Ceramic bowl Fill and GS Fill GS GS Puseman and Cummings 2001 Peterson 2016; Puseman 2016 Dahle 2011 Cummings 2011 Peterson 2016 Pollen Pollen Fill Metate Solanaceae Solanum jamesiitype, Wild potato Typhaceae Typha, Cattail Typhaceae Typha latifolia, Cattail 127 Hinckley Mounds Wolf Village Wolf Village Hinckley Mounds Smoking Pipe Woodard Mound Scott 1984 Peterson 2016 Cummings 2011 Peterson 2016 Richens 1983 Cummings 2011 Scott 1984 Peterson 2016 Scott 1984 Dahle 2011 Pearce 2012 Scott 1984 Richens 1983 Appendix B I researched the plants listed in the first column of the table in Appendix A to see if any of the genera and families identified at Utah Valley Fremont archaeological sites had species that were native to Utah County. In this table, I list all the species that are native to Utah County, and what a cursory review of ethnographic reports say on whether or not that plant was used by historic indigenous groups. Additionally, I include a source of where to find that plant in Welsh et al. (1987, 2008). Plants demarcated with a ^ are plants that were not identified at archaeological sites in Utah Valley, but do appear significantly in ethnographies. Plants demarcated with a * represent archaeobotanical remains that were identified at the species level at archaeological sites in Utah Valley. No name synonyms are recorded in this appendix. Scientific Name, Common Name Adoxaceae Sambucus, elderberry 1987:100 Alismataceae Sagittaria^, arrowweed 1987:651 Amaranthaceae Suaeda, seepweed 1987:130 Amaranthaceae Amaranthus, pigweed 1987:44-45 Amaranthaceae Atriplex, saltbush, orache 1987:118-122 Amaranthaceae Cheno-ams, species and genus unidentifiable 1987:44-46, 116-130 Amaranthaceae Chenopodium, goosefoot, 1987:124-130 Used Sambucus cerulea Sambucus racemosa Sagittaria latifolia Not used Suaeda calceoliformis Suaeda torreyana Amaranthus albus Amaranthus hypochondriacus Amaranthus retroflexus Atriplex canescens Atriplex confertifolia Atriplex powellii Atriplex truncata Allenrolfea occidentalis, Ceratoides lanata Salicornia europaea Suaeda occidentalis Chenopodium capitum var. parvicapitum Chenopodium fremontii var. fremontii 128 Sagittaria cuneata Amaranthus blitoides Atriplex hortensis Atriplex patula var. patula Atriplex rosea Grayia Spinosa Kochia Americana Monolepis nuttaliiana Salicornia utahensis Salsola iberica Sarcobatus vermiculatus Chenopodium ambrosioides Chenopodium atrovirens Chenopodium dessicatum Chenopodium glaucum Scientific Name, Common Name Amaranthus Chenopodium berlandieri* pigweed 2008:131 Anacardiaceae Rhus ^, skunk bush 1987:46-47 Apiaceae, parsley/carrot 1987:613-637 Asteraceae, aster, daisy, sunflower 1987:131-240 Used Chenopodium rubrum Chenopodium berlandieri Not used Chenopodium hybridum Aromatic var. trilobata Angelica pinnata, Carum/Perideridia gairdneri Cymopterus globosus Cymopterus longpipe Cymopterus purparascens, Ferula multifida Heracleum maximum/lanatum, Ligusticum filicinum Orogenia linearifolia Osmorhiza occidentalis Achillea millefolium, Agoseris aurantiaca var. aurantiaca Aster leucanthemifolius (Machaerantherea canescnes var. leucanthemfolia) Balsamorhiza hookeri var. hispidula Balsamorhiza sagittata Brickellia grandiflora Brickellia oblongifolia Chaenactic alpine Chaenactic douglasii Chrysothamnus nauseosus Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus var. viscidiflorus Crepis acuminata Crepis runcinata var. glauca & var. hispidulosa & var. Runcinata Erigeron caespitosus Erigeron speciosus var. macranthus Grindelia squarrosa var. Squarossa Gutierrezia sarothrae Lactuca ludoviciana 129 Angelica roseana Angelica wheekeri Cicuta maculata Conium maculatum – poisonous Cymopterus hendersonii Ligusticum porter Lomatium ambiguum Lomaticum grayi var. grayi Lomatium juniperum Lomatium kingii var. kingii Lomatium triternatum var. platycarpum Osmorhiza chilensis Sium suave Zizia aptera Agoseris glauca var. dasycephala, & var. laciniata Antennaria alpina Antennaria dimorpha Antennaria microphylla Antennaria neglecta Antennaria parviflora Anthemis cotula Arnica cordifolia Arnica diversifolia Arnica latifolia Arnica longifolia Arnica mollis Arnica rydbergii Aster brachyactis Aster chilensis Aster eatonii Aster engelmannii Aster falcatus Aster foliaceus var. canbyi & var. parryi Aster frondosus Aster glaucodes var. glaucodes Aster hesperius Aster kingii Aster pauciflorus Balsamorrhiza macrophylla Bidens comosa Bidens frondosa Scientific Name, Common Name Used Lygodesmia grandiflora var. dianthopsis “Senecio” Tetradymia canescens Wyethia amplexicaulis 130 Not used Brickellia californica Brickellia microphylla var. watsonii Chrysothamnus depressus Chrysothamnus greenei Chrysothamnus parryi var. attenuatus Chrysothamnus vaseyi Conyza canadensis Crepis atrabarba Crepis intermedia Crepis modocensis Crepis nana Crepis occidentalis var. costata Erigeron arenoides Erigeron argentatus Erigeron composites Erigeron coulteri Erigeron divergens Erigeron eatonii Erigeron engelmannii Erigeron garrettii Erigeron glabellus Erigeron goodrichii Erigeron kachinensis Erigeron lonchophyllus Erigeron pumilus Erigeron tener Erigeron ursinus Eupatorium maculatum Gnaphalium chilense Gnaphalium palustre Gutierrezia microcephala Haplopappus acaulis var. acaulis, var. glabratus Haplopappus lanceolatus Haplopappus macronema Haplopappus racemosus Helenium autumnale Helenium hoopesii Heterotheca villosa var. foliosa, var. hispida Hieracium albiflorum Hieracium cynoglossoides Hymenopappus filifolius var. nudipes Hymenoxys grandiflora Iva xanthifolia Lactuca tatarica Layia glandulosa Leucelene ericoides Scientific Name, Common Name Used Asteraceae Artemisia, sagebrush 1987:145-150 Artemisia biennis Artemisia carruthii Artemisia dracunculus Artemisia ludoviciana var. incompta & var. latilopa Artemisia michauxiana Artemisia spinescens Artemisia tridentate var. pauciflora & var. tridentata Cirsium eatonii var eatonii Cirsium undulatum var. undulatum Asteraceae Cirsium, thistle 1987:171-175 Asteraceae Helianthus, sunflower 1987:202-203 Helianthus annus Helianthus uniflora, 131 Not used Machaeranthera grindelioides var. grindeliodes Machaeranthera tanacetifolia Madia glomerata Microseris nutans Perityle stansburyi Rudbeckia occidentalis Senecio amplectens Senecio canus Senecio crassulus Senecio crocatus Senecio dimorphophyllus var. dimorphophyullus Senecio eremophilus Senecio fremontii var fremontii Senecio hydrophilus Senecio integerrimus Senecio mulilopatus Senecio serra var serra Senecio streptanthifolius Senecio triangularis Senecio werneriifolius Solidago multiradiata Solidago nana Solidago occidentalis Solidago parryi Solidago sparsiflora Sphaeromeria diversifolia) Stephanomeria exigua Tetradymia spinosa Townsendia florifer Viguiera ciliata Viguiera multiflora var. multiflora Artemisia cana, Artemisia frigid Cirsium neomexicanum var. utahense Cirsium scariosum var. scariosum Cirsium vulgare Helianthus nuttallii Scientific Name, Common Name Asteraceae Iva axillaris*, poverty weed 1987:209 Asteraceae Liguliflorae, Cichorioideae Asteraceae Ambrosia, ragweed 2008:148-150 Asteraceae Taraxacum, dandelion 2008:270 Betulaceae, birch 2008:49-52 Betulaceae Alnus, alder 1987:57 Boraginaceae Amsinckia, fiddleneck 1987:60-61,84 Boraginaceae Cryptantha, popcorn flowers 1987:64-75 Brassicaceae, mustard 2008:289-348 Used Iva axillaris Not used Subfamily in Asteraceae. See general Astereaceae listing. Ambrosia psilostachya Not found in Welsh et al. 1987 or 2008 Amsinckia tessellata Descurainia pinnata var. filipes, Descurainia richardsonii var. sonnei Descurainia richardsonii var. sonnei Draba nemorsa 132 Ambrosia acanthicarpa Ambrosia artemisiifolia Taraxacum laevigatum Betula glandulosa Betula occidentalis Alnus incana Alnus serrulata Amsinckia menziesii Cryptantha affinis Cryptantha flavoculata Cryptantha gracilis Cryptantha humilis Cryptantha mensana Cryptantha torreyana Cryptantha watsoni Arabis drummondii Arabis glabra Arabis hirsuta Arabis holboellii var. pinetorum, var. secunda Arabis lyallii Arabis microphylla Arabis perannans Arabis selbyi Arabis sparsiflora Barbarea orthoceras Cardamine breweri Cardamine cordifolia Chlorocrambe hastatus Descurainia californica Draba aurea Draba brachystylis Draba cunefolia Draba denisfolia Draba lanceolata Draba lonchocarpa Draba oligosperma var. oligosperma Drapa reptans Draba stenoloba Draba verna Erysium asperum Scientific Name, Common Name Brassicaceae Brassica, mustard 1987:254-255,259 Brassicaceae Lepidium, pepperweed 1987:257, 271-274 Used Not used Hutchinsia procumbens Lesquerella garretti Lesquerella hemiphysaria var. hemiphysaria Lesquerella utahensis Rorippa curvipes var. alpina, var. curvipes, var. integra Rorippa islandica var. glabra, var. hispida Rorippa sphaerocarpa Smelowskia calycina Strephtanthus cordatus Thelypodiopsis sagittata var. sagittata Thelypodiopsis vermicularis Thelypodium integrifolium var. integrifolium Thelypodium laxiflorum Thlaspi montanum According to Welsh et al., all species are introduced. Lepidium lasiocarpum var. lasiocarpum Cactaceae Opuntia^, prickly pear 1987:88-91 Caryophyllaceae, carnation 1987:101-114 Opuntia polycantha var. polycantha Arenaria congesta var. congesta Caryophyllaceae Silene, campion, catchfly 1987:108-112 Cleomaceae Cleome, beeweed 1987:97-98,284 Cucurbitaceae Cucurbita, squash 1987:290-291 Silene acaulis Silene douglasii Silene menziesii Cleome serrulata var. serrulata Cleome pinnata Cucurbita maxima Cucurbita moschata 133 Lepidium campestre Lepidium densiflorum var. densiflorum, var. pubicarpum, var. ramosum Lepidium integrifolium Lepidium monatum var. jonesii, var. montanum Lepidium virginicum Opuntia erinaceae var. utahensis Opuntia fragilis Arenaria fendleri var. glabrescens Arenaria hookeri Arenaria macradenia Arenaria nuttallii Arenaria rubella Cerastium arvense Cerastium beeringianum Stellaria jamesiana Stellaria longifolia Stellaria obtuse Cleome docecandra Scientific Name, Common Name Cupressaceae Juniperus, juniper 1987:26-27 Cupressaceae Juniperus monosperma*, one-seeded juniper 1987:26 Cyperaceae, sedge 1987:653-684 Cyperaceae Scirpus, bulrush, tule 1987:680-684 Used Juniperus communis Juniperus osteosperma Juniperus scopulorum Scirpus acutus Scirpus maritimus Scirpus validus 134 Not used Juniperus horizontalis Juniperus monosperma Carex aquatilis Carex atherodes Carex athrostachya Carex atrata var. chalciolepis Carex aurea Carex backii Carex capillaries Carex disperma Carex douglasii Carex egglestonii Carex elynoides Carex geyeri Carex haydeniana Carex hoodii Carex lanuginosa Carex lenticularis Carex microptera Carex nebrascensis Carex nova Carex obtusata Carex occidentalis Carex parryana Carex petasata Carex phaeocephala Carex praegracilis Carex raynoldsii Carex rossii Carex rostrata Carex stenophylla Carex straminiformis Carex vallicola Cyperus aristatus Cyperus erythrorhizos Eleocharis acicularis Eleocharis parishii Eleocharis pauciflora Scirpus americanus Scirpus microcarpus Scirpus ovatus Scirpus palustris Scirpus parvulus Scirpus rostellatus Scirpus spadiceus Scientific Name, Common Name Used Elaeagnaceae^ Shepherdia^, buffaloberry 1987:295 Ephedraceae Ephedra nevadensis*, Mormon tea 1987:28-29 Ericaceae Arctostaphylos, manzanita 1987:297 Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia prostrata*, creeping spurge 2008:358-364 Shepherdia canadensis Shepherdia argentea Ephedra nevadensis – not found in Utah County Ephedra virdis var. virdis Arctostaphylos patula Fabaceae, bean, 1987:336-411 Glycyrrhiza lepidota Hedysarum var. boreale Astragalus agrophyllus var. agrophyllus, var. martini Euphorbia prostrata (pp. 360-361) was introduced from the eastern U.S. 135 Not used Scirpus pallidus Scirpus pungens Euphorbia brachycera Euphorbia dentata Euphorbia glyptosperma Euphorbia maculata Euphorbia occellata Euphorbia serpyllifolia Astragalus agrestis Astragalus beckwithii var. beckwithii Astragalus bisculatus var. haydenianus Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus Astragalus canadensis var. canadensis Astragalus cibarius Astragalus drummondii Astragalus eurekensis Astragalus kentrophyta var. implexus Astragalus lutosus Astragalus miser var. oblongifolius (poisonous) Astragalus oophorus var. caulescens Astragalus scopulorum Astragalus tenellus Gleditsia triacanthos Lathyrus brachycalyx var. brachycalyx Lathyrus lanszwertii var. laetivirens, var. lanszwertii Lathyrus pauciflorus Lotus utahensis Lupinus var. argenteus, var. rubricaulis Lupinus brevicaulis Lupinus caudatus var. utahensis Lupinus Lepidus var. utahensis Lupinus polyphyllus var. prunophilus Scientific Name, Common Name Used Not used Lupinus sericeus var. sericeus Oxytropis viscida Thermopsis montana Trifolium gymnocarpon Trifolium kingie Trifolium longpipes var. reflexum Vicia americana var. americana Fabaceae Phaseolus, bean 1987:400 Fagaceae Quercus, oak 1987:304-306 Liliaceae^, lily, 1987:800-811 Phaseolus vulgaris Malvaceae Sphaeralcea, globemallow 1987:420-424 Nyctaginaceae Boerhaavia, spiderling 2008:516 Papaveraceae Argemone, prickly poppy 1987:451 Pinaceae Abies, fir 1987:29-31 Pinaceae Pinus, pine 1987:31-33 Pinaceae Pinus edulis*, pinyon pine 1987:32 Plantaginaceae Plantago, plantain 1987:454-455 Poaceae Eragrostis, lovegrass 2008:852-854 Poaceae, Graminae, grass 1987:684-788 Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia var. grossulariifolia Sphaeralcea rivularis No species found in Utah County. Quercus gambelii Quercus pacuiloba Allium acuminatum Allium biceptrum Calochortus nuttallii Fritillaria atropurpurea Fritillaria pudica Smilacina racemosa Smilacina stellate Veratrum californicum Zigadenus paniculatus Zigadenus venenosus Sphaeralcea coccinea Sphaeralcea munroana Androstephium breviflorm Disporum trachycarpum Erythronium grandiflorum Triteleia grandiflora Zigadenus elegans Argemone munita Abies concolor Abies lasiocarpa Pinus flexilis Pinus monophylla Pinus edulis Bromus carinatus Cinna latifolia Deschampia cespitosa Festuca octoflora Festuca ovina Poa fendleriana Puccinellia nuttalliana Trisetum spicatum 136 Abies engelmanii (Picea engelmanii; Picea glauca) Pinus longaeva Pinus ponderosa Plantago elongata Plantago eripoda Plantago tweedyi Eragrostis hypnoides Eragrostis Mexicana Eragrostis pectinaceae Agrostis exarata Agrostis humilis Alopecurus aequalis Aristida purpurea Bouteloua gracilis Bromus anomalus Bromus catharticus Bromus ciliates Calamagrostis canadensis Scientific Name, Common Name Used Poaceae Hordeum/Elymus, wildrye, wheatgrass, 1987:723-728, 740-742 Elymus cinerus Elymus glaucus Hordeum jubatum Poaceae Oryzopsis, Indian rice grass 137 Not used Calamagrostis scorpulorum Calamagrostis stricta Cenchrus longispinus Danthonia californica Danthonia intermedia Deschampsia elongate Distichlis spicata Festuca rubra Festuca sororia Festuca thurberi Glyceria borealis Glyceria grandis Glyceria striata Koeleria macrantha Leersia oryzoides Leptochloa fascicularis Leucopoa kingie Melica bulbosa Melica spectablis Muhlenbergia andina Muhlenbergia filiformis Muhlenbergia mexicana Muhlenbergia racemosa Muhlenbergia richardsonis Paspalum distichum Phalaris arundinaceae Phleum alpinum Poa alpine Poa curta Poa glauca var. glauca Poa leptocoma Poa nervosa Poa palustris Poa reflexa Poa secunda Polypogon interruptus Spartina gracilis Sphenopholis obtusata Trisetum wolfii Elymus lanceolatus Elymus salinus Elymus scribneri Elymus smithii Elymus spicatus Elymus traachycaulus Elymus tritcoides Elymus virginicus Hordeum brachyantherum Oryzopsis bloomerii Stipa comata Scientific Name, Common Name 1987:754,782-786 Used Poaceae Panicum, panic grass 1987:755-757,776,720, 719,701 Panicum crus-galli Poaceae Phragmites, reed 1987:759 Poaceae Sporobolus, dropseed 1987:779-781,752,749 Poaceae Stipa hymenoides*, Indian rice grass 1987:783 Poaceae Zea mays*, Corn, Not found in Welsh et al. Polygonaceae Eriogonum, wild buckwheat 1987:474-487 Phragmites australis (Phragmites communis) Sporobolus airoides var. airoides Sporobolus cryptandrus Stipa hymenoides (Oryzopsis hymenoides) Zea mays Eriogonum microthecum Eriogonum ovalifolium, Eriogonum umbellatum var. umbellatum Polygonaceae Polygonum, knotweed 1987:487-490 Polygonaceae Polygonum bistortoides*, American bistort 1987:489 Polygonaceae Polygonum lapathifolium*, willowweed 1987:490 Polygonaceae Rumex, dock 1987:491-493,487 Portulacacea Portulaca, purslane 1987:496 Ranunculus, buttercup 2008:610-628 Not used Stipa nelsonii Stipa pinetorum Panicum acuminatum Panicum capillare Panicum syzigachne Panicum virgatum Sporobolus asper Sporobolus giganteaus Eriogonum brevicaule var. brevicaule var.laxifolium, var. nanum Eriogonum heracleoides Eriogonum hookeri Eriogonum jamesii Eriogonum racemosum var. racemosum Polygonum amphibium Polygonum aviculare Polygonum douglasii var. douglasii Polygonum persicaria Polygonum ramosissimum Polygonum sawatchense (Polygonum douglasii var. johnstonii) Polygonum bistortoides Adventive from Europe Rumex salicifolus Rumex venosus Aquilegia coerulea Ranunculus aqualitis var. diffusus Thalictrum fendleri 138 Portulaca oleracea Aconitum columbianum Actaea rubra Anemone multifida Aquilegia barnebyi Aquilegia flavescens Caltha leptosepala Clematis columbiana Clematis hirsutissima Scientific Name, Common Name Used Rosaceae, rose 1987:519-543 Cercocarpus ledifolius Crataegus douglassii var. rivularis Fragaria vesca Geum macrophyllum Holodiscus dumosus Petrophytum caespitosum Potentilla glandulosa var. intermedia Purshia Mexicana Purshia tridentata Rosaceae Ameliancher, service berry 1987:521 Rosaceae Prunus, chokecherry, cherry, plum 1987:537-539 Rosaceae Prunus Virginiana*, chokecherry 1987:539 Rosaceae Rosa, rose 1987:540-541 Rosaceae Rubus, wild raspberry 1987:541-542,528 Salicaeae Salix, willow Ameliancher alnifolia Ameliancher utahensis Not used Clematis occidentalis Delphinium barbeyi Delphinium nuttallianum Delphinium occidentale Delphinium scaposum var. andersonii Myosurus apetalus Ranunculus adoneus Ranunculus flammula Ranunculus jovis Ranunculus macounii Ranunculus orthorhynchus Ranunculus sceleratus Thalictrum occidentale Thalictrum sparsiflorum Cercocarpus intricatus Cercocarpus montanus Crataegus succulent Fragaria virginiana Geum aleppicum Geum rossii Ivesia gordonii Ivesia utahensis Physocarpus alternans Physocarpus malvaceus Physocarpus monogynus Potentilla anserine Potentialla arguta Potentialla fruticosa Potentialla gracilis var. brunnescens, var.elmeri, var. pulcherrima Potentialla norvegiiva Potentialla paradoxa Sibbaldia procumbens Sorbus scopulina Prunus emarginata Prunus virginiana Rosa woodsii Rubus leucodermis Rubus parviflorus Salix amygdaloides Salix exigua 139 Rosa eglanteria Rosa nutkana Rubus idaeus Salix artica Salix bebbiana Scientific Name, Common Name 1987:551-556 Used Sapindaceae Acer, maple 1987:41-42 Sarcobataceae Sarcobatus, greasewood 1987:129 Solanaceae, night shade, potato 2008:726-733 Acer negundo Solanaceae Physalis, ground cherry 1987:607-608 Solanaceae Solanum jamesii-type*, wild potato 1987:609-610 Typhaceae Typha, cattail 1987:823 Typhaceae Typha latifolia*, cattail 1987:823 Physalis longifolia Sarcobatus vermiculatus Nicotiana attenuata Solanum tuberosum Solanum jamesii-type (not found in Utah valley) Typha angustifolia var. domingensis Typha latifolia 140 Not used Salix boothii Salix brachycarpa Salix drummondiana Salix geyeriana Salix lasiandra Salix lasiolepis Salix lutea Salix reticulata Salix scouleriana Acer glabrum Acer grandidentatum Petunia hybrid Solanum rostratum Solanum sarrachoides Solanum triflorum Appendix C This table is of the plants with documented ethnographic use by historic indigenous groups who occupied Utah Valley and the surrounding regions. Specifically, this table is of plants that I did not sample for the phytolith typology. See Appendix D for ethnographic uses of the plants I sampled for the typology. Select species name synonyms are noted in parenthesis. Family, Species Alismataceae Sagittaria latifolia^ Amaranthaceae Allenrolfea occidentalis Amaranthaceae Amaranthus albus Amaranthaceae Amaranthus hypochondriacus Amaranthaceae Amaranthus retroflexus Common Name, Source arrowweed 1987:651 iodine bush, pickelweed 1987:117 pale amaranth, 1987:44 grain amaranth, princes feather 1987:45 redroot pigweed 1987:45 Amaranthaceae Atriplex canescens four-wing saltbush 1987:118 Amaranthaceae Atriplex confertifolia shadscale 1987:118 Amaranthaceae Atriplex powellii powell orach 1987:121 Amaranthaceae Ceratoides lanata (Erotia lanata) Amaranthaceae Chenopodium capitum var. parvicapitum Amaranthaceae Chenopodium fremontii var. fremontii winterfat, white sage 1987:123 strawberry spinach 1987:124 Fremont goosefoot 1987:125 Documented Ethnographic Use Goshute used the fruit for food (Fowler 1986:69). Tubers were eaten boiled or roasted (Yanovsky 1936:7). Seeds used for food by the Goshute and Southern Paiute (Fowler 1986:72). Seeds were ground and made into bread or mush (Yanovsky 1936:21). Seeds used for food by the Utah Southern Paiute (Fowler 1986:69; Rainey and Adams 2004). Seeds used for food by the Western Shoshone, and Southern Paiute (Fowler 1986:70; Rainey and Adams 2004). Seeds collected in autumn were eaten raw or ground into flour for cakes, or boiled. Young shoots and stems were eaten raw or boiled by the Ute (Callaway et al. 1986:338). Seeds used for food and above ground plant eaten as greens by Utah Southern Paiute (Fowler 1986:70; Rainey and Adams 2004). Seeds used for food by the Goshute and Southern Paiute (Chamberlin 1964:363; Fowler 1986:72). Fresh roots and salt used as a medicinal physic by the Shoshone (Train et al. 1941:50). Seeds used for food by the Goshute and Southern Paiute (Chamberlin 1964:340, 363; Fowler 1986:72; Rainey and Adams 2004). Seeds used for food, often ground into a meal for bread or mush, by the Southern Paiute (Fowler 1986:72; Rainey and Adams 2004). Used medicinally for intermittent fevers by the Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:352, 369). Seeds gathered in large supplies and used for food by the Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:366). Leaves used as greens (Yanovsky 1936:22). Seeds and leaves used for food by the Southern Paiute (Fowler 1986:73). 141 Family, Species Amaranthaceae Chenopodium rubrum Amaranthaceae Salicornia europaea Common Name, Source red goosefoot 1987:126 annual samphire 1987:128 Amaranthaceae Suaeda calceoliformis broom seepweed 1987:130 Amaranthaceae Suaeda torreyana torrey seepweed 1987:130 Apiaceae Angelica pinnata small-leaved angelica 1987:617 false yarrow 1987:636 Apiaceae Carum gairdneri (Perideridia gairdneri) Apiaceae Cicuta maculata Apiaceae Conium maculatum Apiaceae Cymopterus globosus (C. montanus) water hemlock 1987:618 poison hemlock 1987:619 golfball springparsley 1987:622 Apiaceae Cymopterus longpipe long-stalk springparsley 1987:623 widewing springparsley 1987:624 giant lomatium 1987:629 Apiaceae Cymopterus purparascens Apiaceae Ferula multifida (Leptotaenia multifida; Lomatium dissectum) Documented Ethnographic Use Gathered and eaten by the Goshute like Chenopodium capitum (Chamberlin 1964:366). Seeds used for food by the Goshute who cooked meal from seeds tasted like “sweet bread” (Fowler 1986:73; Chamberlin 1964:380). Seeds used for food by the Goshute and Paiute, the latter would clean and grind the seeds into flour for biscuits (Chamberlin 1964:383; Palmer 1878:653). Seeds used for food by the Utah Southern Paiute (Fowler 1986:73). The Shoshone and Paiute made a tea out of leaves for bladder and kidney troubles. The fresh plants were crushed and rubbed on itchy sores like chicken pox (Train et al. 1941:95). Roots used as medicine by the Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:361). The sweet, pleasant, nutritious, and starchy roots were eaten cooked in pits overnight or boiled, and were also cached for winter, Goshute (Chamberlin 1964: 339, 365). Roots were also eaten by the western, northern, and eastern Shoshone (Fowler 1986:71). No data yet – poisonous. No data yet – poisonous. Seeds and underground parts eaten, but not the leaves, by the Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:367). Boiled root water used as insecticide by the Paiute to kill mites on chickens (Train et al. 1941: 42). Leaves of the early spring plant were consumed, often boiled by the Goshute and Ute (Chamberlain 1909:33; 1964:338, 367). Seeds used for food by the Goshute (Fowler 1986:70). The Ute would apply the pulped root to wounds and bruises, and would create smoke of the root for distemper in horses (Chamberlin 1909:34). The Goshute used this plant medicinally and for food. Medicinally, the mashed roots were used for wounds and bruises, and for distemper in horses. The seeds were eaten, but the mature plant was deemed inedible because it was “too strong to taste” (Chamberlin 1964:338, 348, 369). Some considered this plant poisonous, and others ate the young sprouts (Yanovsky 1936:48). 142 Family, Species Common Name, Source Apiaceae Heracleum maximum (H. lanatum) cow parsnip 1987:626 Apiaceae Ligusticum filicinum fernleaf ligusticum 1987:627 Indian potato 1987:634 western sweetcicely 1987:635 Apiaceae Orogenia linearifolia Apiaceae Osmorhiza occidentalis Documented Ethnographic Use The root was seen as a panacea among the Paiute and Shoshone, who used it for coughs, colds, hay fevers, bronchitis, influenza, pneumonia, and tuberculosis. The root was peeled, sliced, and dried for winter months. They would mix the roots with Osmorhiza occidentalis to make a decoction drunk as a tea for colds, sore throat, and influenza. When boiled with the terminal twigs of Juniperus utahensis, it became a tea for influenza. Raw root was chewed for sore throats. When combined with Leptotaenia roots and Achillea lanulosa, it became a tea for gonorrhea. When boiled alone, or with Osmorhiza occidentalis, or Rumex venosus, it was a tea for veneral diseases. The roots were used as an antiseptic, an external wash for smallpox, as a healing agent for rashes, cuts, or sores. The pulped raw root pulped was applied directly to cuts, umbilical cords of newborns, or fresh slices placed on sores. A poultice of raw or boiled roots was applied to swellings sprains, or rheumatism. An oily sap from fresh roots was used for trachoma or gonorrheal infections of the eye. Dried root, sometimes mixed with Pinus monophylla root, was smoked for congestion and asthma (Train et al. 1941:65-67). This plant was used by the Shoshone and Paiute. These groups used the raw root for toothache and cavity pain, or they would mash the root, soak it in water, and then gargle the water for a sore throat while applying the poultice around the throat. Mashed roots were also used for rheumatism, and root slave for healing wounds. A root tea was taken for diarrhea or for longer for tuberculosis. A root decoction when mixed with burnt whiskey was taken for coughs and chest colds. The inhaling of smoke from the root coupled with Pinus monophylla pitch was for head colds (Train et al. 1941:57). Root occasionally used as a cough remedy by the Paiute (Train et al. 1941:67). Bears sometimes eat the bulbs of this plant, according to the Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:375) Used much like Leptotaenia multifida. The Paiute and Shoshone primarily used the roots of this plant. A root decoction was made for fevers, to regulate menstrual disorder, for colds, pulmonary disorders, pneumonia, influenza, and when consumed for a long period of time, for venereal disease. A decoction was sometimes prepared by soaking the roots in cold water. 143 Family, Species Asteraceae Agoseris aurantiaca var. aurantiaca (Troximon aurantiacum) Asteraceae Ambrosia psilostachya Asteraceae Artemisia carruthii Asteraceae Artemisia michauxiana (Artemisia discolor) Asteraceae Artemisia spinescens Asteraceae Aster leucanthemifolius (Machaerantherea canescens var. leucanthemfolia) Common Name, Source orange agoseris 1987:137 Documented Ethnographic Use Hot teas of the root were for fever, diarrhea, a palliative for stomachaches, gas pains, indigestion, and as a physic, with strength depending on brew concentration. A root tonic was for boils, and when sugar was added for colds and sore throats. This hot tea was also used for whooping cough. The treatments were enhanced by adding Artemisia gnaphalodes and Leptotaenia multifida. A hot wash applied externally for lice on humans, or chicken lice. An external antiseptic for measles, venereal sores, skin rashes, and eyewash. Raw roots were applied for sores, cuts, bruises, swellings, snake bites. Raw roots were chewed for sore throat, applied to toothaches, smoked for colds, or inserted into nostrils for headaches (Train et al. 1941:73-74). Leaves used for food by the Goshute, Ute, and Northern Ute (Chamberlin 1964:338, 383; 1909:36; Fowler 1986:71). western rageweed The Goshute would make remedies for sore eyes by 1987:139 steeping leaves in hot water and bandaging them over the eye (Chamberlin 1964:361). carruth Seeds used for food by the Utah Southern Paiute wormwood (Fowler 1986:71). 1987:147 michaux Seeds used for food by the Goshute (Fowler 1986:71; wormwood Chamberlain 1964:362). 1987:148 budsage This plant was used medicinally by the Paiute and 1987:150 Shoshone. They would make a green leaf or young branch poultice for swellings. Green leaves were mixed and mashed with chewing tobacco for sores or bruises, and bedridden individuals were rubbed daily. Additionally, this poultice was used for nosebleeds. A whole plant poultice, fresh or boiled, was used for rashes and itches. Mashed leaves were used to draw out boils. A boiled branch tea was for hemorrhages, especially from tuberculosis. A fresh flower and leaf cold tea was for the bladder, and a similar hot tea for stomach troubles, cramps, or indigestion. A root hot tea for chest congestion, coughs, or colds. A whole plant tea for influenza or as a wash. Boiled stems and leaves were used as a wash for rheumatism, rashes, or skin irritations (Train et al. 1941:28). hoary tansy aster The Shoshone would boil the whole plant and take it 1987:213 twice a week as a blood tonic. They brewed the tops into physics (Train et al. 1941:31). 144 Family, Species Asteraceae Balsamorhiza hookeri var. hispidula Asteraceae Brickellia grandiflora Asteraceae Brickellia oblongifolia Asteraceae Chaenactic douglasii Asteraceae Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus var. viscidiflorus Common Name, Source hooker balsamroot 1987:158 tasselflower 1987:160 Mohave brickellbush 1987:161 Douglas dustymaiden 1987:163 Documented Ethnographic Use Seeds used for food by the Goshute and Eastern Shoshone (Chamberlin 1964:363; Fowler 1986:71). The Goshute would mix these seeds with meal made of seeds from other plants made cakes better because they acted as a baking powder. However, use with care as overuse can be poisonous. The roots were also used as a medicine (Chamberlin 1964:364). Stems and leaves boiled and taken as a stomach medicine by the Shoshone (Train et al. 1941:34). The Goshute used this plant as follows: “Minced or mashed and rubbed on limbs, etc., for soreness or aching” (Chamberlin 1964:365). The Paiute and Shoshone used crushed the leaves into a poultice against swelling. They would boil leaves or the whole plant into a drink for coughs or colds, or for indigestion or sour stomach. Leaves were also used for snake bites (Train et al. 1941:36-37). viscid rabbitbrush The Shoshone and Paiute boiled young shoots, or 1987:169 crushed and soaked leaves, for a drink for colds. The boiled plant with roots of Leptotaenia multifida used for influenza. A stem and leaf poultice made for rheumatism, and mashed leaves for tooth cavities and toothaches (Train et al. 1941:38). Chewing gum made from roots (Yanovsky 1936:60). Asteraceae Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus var. stenophyllus (Bigelovia douglasii) Asteraceae Cirsium eatonii var eatonii (Cnicus eatonii) Asteraceae Cirsium undulatum var. undulatum Asteraceae Crepis acuminata viscid rabbitbrush Chewing gum made from roots by the Goshute 1987:169 (Chamberlin 1964:344, 364). Asteraceae Crepis runcinata var. glauca & var. meadow hawksbeard 1987:177-78 Eaton thistle 1987:172 gray thistle 1987:174 mountain hawksbeard 1987:176 Stems were used for food by the Goshute (Fowler 71). They also used this plant on wounds, cuts, or sores (Chamberlin 1964:349, 366). Stems used for food by the Goshute and Eastern Shoshone (Fowler 71986:1). The Shoshone believed that the fine dust from the ground root when sprinkled into eye would remove foreign objects. The crushed the whole into a poultice that would be applied on breasts induce milk flow after childbirth, or to relieve sore breasts (Train et al. 1941:41). Leaves used for food by the Goshute (Fowler 1986:71). 145 Family, Species hispidulosa & var. runcinata Asteraceae Erigeron caespitosus Common Name, Source Documented Ethnographic Use tufted flea bane 1987:184 Asteraceae Erigeron speciosus var. macranthus (Erigeron grandifloras) Asteraceae Grindelia squarrosa var. squarrosa Asteraceae Helianthella uniflora Oregon daisy 1987:190 A cool solution from the boiled roots was applied as an eyewash among the Paiute. They also made a boiled root tea to stop diarrhea (Train et al. 1941:46). Roots used in arrow poison and used as a fleabane among the Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:368). curly gumweed 1987:197 Roots made into cough medicine by the Utes (Chamberlin 1909:34, 1964:371). onehead sunflower 1987:203 Asteraceae Helianthus annus common sunflower 1987:203 Asteraceae Iva axillaris* poverty weed, devil’s weed* 1987:209 Asteraceae Lactuca ludoviciana (Sonchus ludoviciana) Asteraceae Lygodesmia grandiflora (Erthremia grandiflora) var. dianthopsis Asteraceae Senecio amplectens S. canus S. crassulus S. crocatus S. dimorphophyllus S. eremophilus prairie lettuce 1987:210 A root poultice, sometimes heated, was applied on swellings and sprains, and when not heated was used for rheumatism of shoulder or knee. A mashed root cold water infusion was used as a wash or cold compress for headaches by the Paiute and Shoshone (Train et al. 1941:56). Seeds were highly prized food source that was often made into oil made (Chamberlin 1964:371). Seeds were eaten parched, raw, or into cakes by the Eastern Shoshone, Utah Southern Paiute (Fowler 1986:71; Rainey and Adams 2004). The Paiute made a root decoction for rheumatism (Train et al. 1941:56). Occasionally used as medicine by the Ute (Chamberlin 1909:35). For the Shoshone and Paiute, this was a favorite stomachache or cramp remedy, especially for young children. They would boil or steep whole plant, the roots, or the leafy stems in a tea. The same decoction was used for diarrhea and children’s colds. Roots were eaten raw, roasted, or boiled for indigestion. Mashed leaves were applied externally for sores, and boiled as a wash for sores, rashes, and itches (Train et al. 1941:61). Leaves used for food by the Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:373) and Western Shoshone (Fowler 1986:71). showy rushpink 1987:212 A horse medicine for the Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:374). groundsel 1987:222-227 No species was specified, only that Senecio was used by the Goshute as chewing gum (Chamberlin 1964:344, 381), and by the Ute as medicine (Chamberlin 1909:36). 146 Family, Species S. fremontii S. hydrophilus S. integerrimus S. mulilopatus S. serra var serra S. streptanthifolius S. triangularis S. werneriifolius Asteraceae Solidago nana Asteraceae Tetradymia canescens Asteraceae Wyethia amplexicaulis Common Name, Source Documented Ethnographic Use dwarf goldenrod 1987:228 common horsebrush 1987:233 mule ears 1987:238 Seeds eaten (Yanovsky 1936:63). Boraginaceae Amsinckia tessellata Brassicaceae Descurainia pinnata var. filipes bristly fiddleneck 1987:61 tansy mustard 1987:260 Brassicaceae Descurainia richardsonii var. sonnei gray tansymustard 1987:261 Brassicaceae Draba nemorosa Brassicaceae Lepidium lasiocarpum var. lasiocarpum Caryophyllaceae Arenaria congesta var. congesta mustard 1987:266 hairy pod pepperwort 1987:272 ballhead sandwort 1987:102 Caryophyllaceae Silene acaulis moss campion 1987:110 When soaked or boiled dried, the plant used as a physic. A boiled solution was also taken for venereal diseases by the Shoshone (Train et al. 1941:96). Seeds gathered for food by the Goshute, who also applied the roots externally as a remedy for bruises and swollen limbs. They also made a root tea and found the leaves edible (Chamberlin 1964:341, 349, 384). The Shoshone and Paiute would grind the roots, soak them in water, and drink it as an emetic. A pulped root poultice was used for swellings. This plant was also used like Purshia tridentata as a wash for measles (Train et al. 1941:99). Seeds used for food by the Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:361). Seeds used for food by the Utah Southern Paiute (Fowler 1986:72). Greens were boiled and eaten, seeds ground into a meal for mush or made into soup, by the Southern Paiute (Rainey and Adams 2004). Used as medicine by the Ute (Chamberlin 1909:36). Seeds used as an in-season food or stored for winter, or made into a mush, by the Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:340, 382). Seeds used for food by the Utah Southern Paiute Fowler 1986:72). Seeds used for food by the Northern Ute (Fowler 1986:72). Seeds used for food by the Utah Southern Paiute (Fowler 1986:72). Used as bowel medicine for the Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:362) A steeped leaf poultice used for swellings, and when coupled with blossoms for sun exposure and gonorrheal ulcers by the Shoshone (Murphey 1990:42, 47). Infusion of flowers and seeds for a blood purifier by the Shoshone (Nickerson 1966:47). Used for colic in children by Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:381). 147 Family, Species Caryophyllaceae Silene douglasii (multicaulis) Caryophyllaceae Silene menziesii Cleomaceae Cleome pinnata (Stanleya pinnata) Common Name, Source Douglas’s catchfly 1987:110 Menzie’s catchfly 1987:111 prince’s plume 1987:284 Cleomaceae Cleome serrulata var. serrulata Cyperaceae Scirpus acutus rocky mountain beeplant 1987:97 hardstem bulrush 1987:682 Cyperaceae Scirpus maritimus alkali bulrush saltmarsh bulrush 1987:683 Cyperaceae Scirpus validus Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia prostrata Fabaceae Astragalus convallarius var convallarius (A. junceus) Fabaceae Glycyrrhiza lepidota Fagaceae Quercus gambelii (undulata) great Bulrush 1987:684 prostrate spurge 1987:303 lesser rushy milk vetch 1987:359 Liliaceae^ Allium acuminatum hooker’s onion 1987:802 American licorice 1987:384 gambel oak^ 1987:305 Documented Ethnographic Use Used as an emetic for stomach pain. The Goshute would mash it and put into warm water as a drink. Also used as a horse medicine (Chamberlin 1964:381). Leaves smoked as a tobacco once dried and powdered by the Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:345, 381). Leaves, stems, and seeds used for food by the Western Shoshone and Utah Southern Paiute (Fowler 1986:72). The leaves and young stems were washed and boiled before eating. Seeds were ground into mush (Yanovsky 1936:28). The Shoshone and Paiute used the root used medicinally. A tonic tea was given for debilities after an illness. The pulped root was used in the mouth for cavities or toothaches, applied hot for earaches, and rheumatic pains, and when mashed was applied externally for throat pain and congestion (Train et al. 1941:94-95). Leaves used for food by the Goshute and Eastern Shoshone (Fowler 1986:72) Seeds and roots used for food by the Goshute and Utah Southern Paiute (Fowler 1986:73). Seed used for food by the Southern Paiute (Rainey and Adams 2004). Rootstocks eaten raw or used to make bread. Seeds and young shoots were also eaten (Yanovsky 1936:10). Seeds used for food by the Utah Southern Paiute (Fowler 1986:73). Root and stems when tender (the lower portions) used for food by the Goshute (Rainey and Adams 2004). Lower, tender portions eaten by the Ute (Chamberlin 1909:36). Introduced from the eastern U.S. A horse medicine for the Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:363). Paiute noted tonic effects when eaten (Palmer 1878:653). Fruit used for food by the Northern Ute (Fowler 1986:74). Acorns used for food in season and were not preserved for winter by the Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:343, 379). Acorns eaten, raw, roasted, parched, or ground and boiled for mush, by the Ute and Shoshone (Stewart 1942:250). Leaves used for food by the Goshute, Western Shoshone, Eastern Shoshone, and Northern Ute (Fowler 1986:75). Bulbs were eaten in spring and early 148 Family, Species Common Name, Source Liliaceae^ Allium bisceptrum twincrest onion 1987:802 Liliaceae^ Calochortus nuttallii sego lily 1987:805 Liliaceae^ Fritillaria atropurpurea spotted fritillaria 1987:807 Liliaceae^ Fritillaria pudica yellow fritillaria 1987:807 Liliaceae^ Smilacina racemosa (S. amplexicaulis) Liliaceae^ Smilacina stellata false spikenard 1987:809 Liliaceae^ Veratrum californicum skunk cabbage, California false hellebore 1987:810 false Solomon’s seal 1987:809 Documented Ethnographic Use summer by the Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:360). Bulbs and leaves eaten by the Ute (Chamberlin 1909:32). Bulb of wild onions eaten in season but not saved for winter by the Goshute (Chamberlain 1964:339, 360). Bulbs and leaves eaten for food by Northern Ute and Ute (Fowler 1986:75; Chamberlin 1909:32). Bulbs gathered for food, eaten in season, eaten raw, or dried for winter. When dried they were cooked with meat in the form of stews by the Goshute (Chamberlain 1964:339, 364). Bulbs eaten for food by the Western Shoshone, Eastern Shoshone, Utah Southern Paiute, and Ute (Fowler 1986:75; Chamberlin 1909:33). Bulbs eaten for food by the Utah Southern Paiute (Fowler 1986:75). Ute used the bulbs and roots used as a medicinal decoction but used sparingly because large quantities were poisonous (Chamberlin 1909:34). Less important than the sego lily, but the bulb was edible (Chamberlin 1964 339, 370). Bulb used for food by the Eastern Shoshone, Northern Ute, and Ute (Fowler 1986:75; Chamberlin 1909:34). Goshute considered this a “bear food plant” (Chamberlin 1964:382). Goshute would pound the roots and rub on limbs for rheumatism. Bears ate the berries (Chamberlin 1964:382). The Shoshone and Goshute had several uses for this plant. A fresh root poultice used for boils, sprains, swellings. Pulverized root powder for bleeding wounds. Liquid from soaked mashed roots as wash for eye inflammations. The same liquid used was as an antiseptic for blood poisoning. The pulped root eased earaches. A boiled root tea used for menstrual disorders, venereal diseases, and stomach trouble, and in high concentrations used as a tonic. Exudate from plant eaten as candy or used as cough syrup (Train et al. 1941:92-93). The Shoshone and Paiute used this plant as a contraceptive. The boiled root, drunk three times a day, for three weeks, insured sterility. Was taken by both sexes. A root decoction also taken for venereal diseases. The raw root was chewed for sore throats, inflamed tonsils, and heavy colds. The mashed root was applied externally for swellings, sore throat, enlarged neck glands, rheumatism, boils, sores, cuts, sore nipples, infections, and blood poisoning. The pulped substance served as a liniment for snake bites. 149 Family, Species Common Name, Source Liliaceae^ Zigadenus paniculatus death camas 1987:811 Liliaceae^ Zigadenus venenosus elegant death camas 1987:811 Malvaceae Sphaeralcea coccinea (Malvastrum coccineum) globemallow 1987:422 Pinaceae Abies lasiocarpa Poaceae Bromus carinatus Poaceae Cinna latifolia (Agrostis latifolia) Poaceae Festuca octoflora Poaceae Hordeum jubatum Poaceae Panicum crus-galli (Echinochloa crus-gali) Poaceae Phragmites australis (Phragmites communis) subalpine fir 1987:29 mountain brome 1987:707 drooping woodreed 1987:715 six-week fescue 1987:735 foxtail barley 1987:741 barnyard grass cockspur grass 1987:720 common reed 1987:759 Poaceae Puccinellia nuttalliana Poaceae Sporobolus cryptandrus alkali grass 1987:771 prairie grass sand dropseed 1987:780 Poaceae Trisetum spicatum bristle grass 1987:787 Documented Ethnographic Use Th dried root powder was sprinkled on sores (Train et al. 1941:98-99). A crushed bulb poultice or wet dressing was applied by the Shoshone and Paiute for rheumatism, sprains, lameness, neuralgia, toothache, or swelling. Bulbs were sometimes roasted, crushed, and applied as a hot poultice. Boiled bulbs were used as an emetic tea. The plant, though, is poisonous (Train et al. 1941:99-100). Used much like Zigadenus paniculatus by the Paiute. A crushed bulb poultice or wet dressing was used for burns, rattlesnake bites, rheumatic pains, and swellings. Plant is poisonous (Train et al. 1941:100). The Goshute would pound the plant in water into a gummy paste, then apply the paste over the rough inner surfaces of earthen dishes. Also, sometimes was used on wicker vessels after they had been pitched with pine gum (Chamberlin 1964:374). Infusion of needles or of resin blisters taken for colds by the Shoshone (Murphey 1990:37). Seeds used for pinole (Yanovsky 1936:7). Seeds used for food (Yanovsky 1936:7). Seeds used for food (Yanovsky 1936:8). Seeds used for food by the Goshute (Fowler 1986:76). Bread or mush made from flour of ground seeds (Yanovsky 1936:7). Honey dew formed on leaves by aphides used as a sugar by the Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:376). Sweet gum from stems used for food (Yanovsky 1936:8). Paiute considered this plant as a source of sugar that they collected in fall. The sugary exudate was eaten as a candy, but also used to loosen phlegm of pneumonia patients or to sooth lung pains (Train et al. 1941:77) Seeds used for food by the Goshute (Yanovsky 1936:9 – noted in Chamberlin 1964:370 as Glyceria distans). Seeds parched, ground, mixed with water or milk, or made into a mush or biscuit (Yanovsky 1936:9). Seeds used as food by the Utah Southern Paiute (Fowler 1986:77). Seeds used for food by the Goshute (Yanovsky 1936:9 –noted in Chamberlin 1964:383 as Trisetum subspicatum). 150 Family, Species Polygonaceae Eriogonum microthecum Common Name, Source wild buckwheat 1987:482 Polygonaceae Rumex salicifolus (R. mexicanus) Mexican dock 1987:492 Polygonaceae Rumex venosus veined dock 1987:493 Ranunculus Aquilegia coerulea Colorado columbine 2008:613 Ranunculus Ranunculus aquatilis water crowfoot, thread waterbuttercup 2008:623 Fendler’s meadowrue 2008:627 black hawthorn 1987:524 Ranunculus Thalictrum fendleri Rosaceae Crataegus douglasii var. rivularis Rosaceae Geum macrophyllum Rosaceae Petrophytum caespitosum (Spiraea caespitosum) Rosaceae Potentilla glandulosa var. intermedia Rosaceae Rosa nutkana Documented Ethnographic Use The Shoshone and Paiute would make a tea of boiled roots, and sometimes plant tops, for tuberculosis. The dried roots and tops were boiled and drunk for tubercular cough. The liquid keeps and was stored in quantity. Tea of boiled stems and leaves for bladder trouble. Boiled whole plant for a wash or hot compress for lameness or rheumatism (Train et al. 1941:47-48). A remedy referred to as “blood medicine.” A root decoction was used as an injection in the rectum for severe constipation by the Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:380). Root considered in standard treatments for burns, wounds, sores, and swellings by the Shoshone and Paiute. The roots were also dried, pulverized, and applied as a powder, or mashed and applied as a wet dressing or poultice. Root sometimes boiled and applied as an antiseptic wash for drying sores, such as from syphilis. A boiled root tea was used for venereal diseases, as a blood purifier, for rheumatism, pneumonia, influenza, coughs, colds, kidney disorders, inflamed gall bladder, stomach aches and troubles, and diarrhea (Train et al. 1941:88). The Goshute said this was a medicinal plant for the heart. Seeds were chewed as medicine. A tea was made from the roots for abdominal pains and when one was “sick all over” (Chamberlin 1964:362). The Goshute would sometimes eat the entire plant after boiling the plant to remove any acridity (Chamberlin 1964:379). Shoshone believed that a weak tea of the roots, taken over a long time, would cure gonorrhea. (Train et al. 1941:07). Fruits eaten (Yanovsky 1936:31). big leaf avens 1987:526 rock spiraea tufted rockmat 1987:529 “Decoction from roots used as medicine” by the Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:370). Roots boiled and reduced to a pulpy mass were applied to burns. The leaves were used as bowel medicine by the Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:349-350, 382-383). cinquefoil 1987:533 Roots used medicinally in a poultice applied to swellings. Also used internally, by the Goshute (Chamberlin 1964 378). According to the Goshute, this plant is poisonous (Chamberlin 1964:379). nootka rose 1987:540 151 Family, Species Rosaceae Rubus leucodermis Rosaceae Rubus parviflorus (R. nutkanus) Salicaeae Salix amygdaloides Salicaeae Salix exigua (Salix interior Rowlee) Sapindaceae Acer negundo, (Negundo aceroides) Solanaceae Physalis longifolia Solanaceae Solanum jamesii-type* Solanaceae Solanum tuberosum Typhaceae Typha angustifolia var. domingensis Common Name, Source blackcap raspberry 1987:542 Documented Ethnographic Use Berries were eaten in season by the Goshute, but not preserved (Chamberlin 1964:344, 380). Fruits used as food by the Western Shoshone (Fowler 1986:78). Stems pounded into a powder and used as a dressing for cuts and wounds by the Shoshone (Train et al. 1941:87). Berries used for food by the Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:380). salmonberry; thimbleberry 1987:542 peach-leaf willow Wood used for baskets and fishing weirs by the 1987:551 Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:380), and Ute (Chamberlin 1909:36). coyote willow; It is unclear if Indian groups distinguished between the sandbar willow different species. The Paiute and Shoshone used this 1987:553 plant for various, non-uniform remedies. A sitz bath of twigs or a boiled root and bark tea was for venereal disease. Gonorrhea was treated with a potion made of ashes from burnt stems mixed with water. The powdered, dried root was used to dry sores. A root decoction was used as a blood purifier or for stomach aches. The roots were burned to charcoal, powdered, and made into a pill for dysentery, intestinal influenza, failure to urinate, diarrhea. Boiled bark was used as a spring tonic. The young twigs steeped in water with salt used as a laxative, and the boiled woody stems for a physic. Powdered, dried bark was used as a healing agent for navels of young babies. A mashed root poultice for toothaches. A solution of boiled leaves and young twigs was rubbed onto scalp to deter dandruff. (Train et al. 1941:89-90). The Ute used this tree in basketry (Chamberlin 1909:360). ash-leaf maple, Sugar made from tree sap (Yanovsky 1936:41). box elder 1987:42 ground cherry Fruit consumed raw, boiled, made into a sauce, or 1987:608 cooked (Yanovsky 1936: 56); or made into preserves (Krochmal et al. 1954: 14). A common food source in the Great Basin (Cummings 2004: 208-216). wild potato No data yet (not found in Utah valley). 1987:609 wild potato Spring beauty-bulbs were eaten by the Goshute. This 1987:610 plant was also cultivated by Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:382). lesser bulrush; Used like Typha latifolia (Yanovsky 1936:6). narrowleaf cattail 1987:823 152 Appendix D These are not all the plants that were identified in the archaeological record or in the ethnobotanical research, but those that I was able to collect. I also included frequent associations, meaning plants or plant communities a particular species is frequently found among or with. For plant descriptions, see Welsh et al. 2008, plant identification manuals, such as Woody Plants of Utah (Van Buren et al. 2011) or Wasatch Wildflowers: A Field Guide (Hegji 2010), and plants.usda.gov. Two notes on the ethnographic sources: Ebeling (1986:73) often referenced the Diggers, which was a name given to bands of Ute, Paiute, Shoshone, and Goshute. Plant use in Yanovsky (1936) was only included if the plant was used by indigenous groups in Utah. ABIES CONCOLOR Family: Pinaceae Genus: Abies Species: concolor Common Name: white fir (Welsh et al. 2008:18). Alternate Names: Piceae concolor, Pinus concolor (Welsh et al. 2008:18). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES23 Fir-spruce FRES26 Lodgepole pine FRES28 Western hardwoods FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES37 Mountain meadow (Zouhara 2001a). Production Time: Seeds are shed from late September to early October. Good crops occur every two to five years. Seeds germinate in spring (USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program 2002). About 185 to 295 seeds are produced per cone (Zouhara 2001a). Frequent Associations: Can be found in stands with other white firs, or alone amid other trees such as oak and maple (Welsh et al. 2008:18). Grows where precipitation exceeds 20 inches annually and can grow on soils from almost any parent material (USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program 2002). Archaeological Artifacts: Abies pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Dahle 2011) and in fill from Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984). 153 Ethnographic Use: This plant was mainly used by the Shoshone and Paiute for several uses. The bark was boiled and drunk in a tea, or the soft resin of the bark was eaten, as a cure for tuberculosis. The pitch was warmed and made into a poultice for sores and boils. Fresh pitch was applied to cuts. A tea of needles and sometimes resin was used for pulmonary troubles (Train et al. 1941:19). Collected: I collected needles of this plant from Red Butte Gardens during the summer of 2015. The needles required three digestions. This sample was sonicated. Microfossiles Production: Evett et al. (2006:356) found no diagnostic morphotypes in Abies concolor, with leaf silica percentage measuring 0.1%. I also found no diagnostic morphotypes in the needles I digested. There was some residual organic matter, but it is doubtful such residue would survive in soils later to be found in archaeological contexts. Elongate polyhedrons have been found in the needles of Abies balsamea (Bozarth 1993:100), and polyhedrons, silicified transfusion cells, and tracheids been found in the wood and needles of Abies alba (Carnelli et al. 2003). Abies grandis has been found to produce common yet poorly silicified blocky mesophyll and epidermal cells in the needles, and sporadic tracheids in the twigs (McCune 2014:105). No phytoliths have been found in Abies amabilis, and tracheids, blocky types, and epidermal polygonals have been found in Abies lasiocarpa (Blinnikov 2005:78). ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM Family: Asteraceae Genus: Achillea Species: millefolium (Welsh et al. 2008:145). Common Name: common yarrow, filfoil yarrow Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES23 Fir-spruce FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES39 Prairie FRES41 Wet grasslands FRES44 Alpine (Aleksoff 1999). Production Time: Yarrow has a long flowering season in Utah. At higher elevations the flowers bloom from June to July, and seeds are ripe and disseminated from September to October, at which point the plant has dried out. In lower elevations, flowers bloom as early as April until July, seeds can ripen as early as August and will disseminate in September. By October the plant has dried (Aleksoff 1999). The yarrow I grew in a pot stayed in bloom until October. Archaeological Artifacts: 154 Asteraceae pollen has been found in fill from Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984), in fill and on groundstone from Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011), and on groundstone from Woodard Mound (Richens 1983:116). Ethnographic Use: The Goshute would make a tea of yarrow for biliousness and headaches. Externally they applied it for rheumatism or bruises (Chamberlin 1964:350, 360). The Ute also externally applied yarrow on bruises and used yarrow as a tea for sickness (Chamberlin 1909:32). The Paiutes would make yarrow into a tea for stomach problems (Palmer 1878:651). The Paiute and Shoshone would make a poultice of the boiled plant that they applied to pains, sores, or swellings, and a poultice of fresh roots used to deaden pain, or as an anesthetic to painful wounds. A decoction of flowers was brewed for stomachaches, itching, or indigestion, or as a liniment for muscle pains. A decoction of leaves was taken for colic or dyspepsia. A decoction of roots was used as a preliminary soak to extract splinters. A decoction of the plant was taken for diarrhea, or upset stomach, or for colds; and a decoction of leaves, or smelling of the crushed green plant for headaches or toothaches (Train et al. 1941:20). The Shoshone also made a poultice of the whole plant for abscess or boils (Murphey 1990:43). Collected: Samples from this plant came from Spanish Fork Canyon and from a specimen I grew myself. I collected and digested the flower tops and leaves. This sample was sonicated. Microfossil Production: Yarrow is considered a common producer of phytoliths (Morris et al. 2009:342). The leaves produce the majority of phytoliths while the stems are not highly silicified. In the leaves are found hairs, such as acicular psilate unsegmented hairs, as well as polyhedral epidermal sheets and anticlinal epidermal sheets, some of which have striations, and lastly tracheids (Morris 2008: Plate Ia and Plate Ib; Morris et al. 2009:342). Blocky forms have also been found in Yarrow (Blinnikov et al. 2013:108). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Achillea millefolium Plant Tissue Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Inflorescence Inflorescence Inflorescence Inflorescence Phytolith Sinuate epidermal with striate texture, E1a Lancelote hair with psilate texture, unsegmented, H1b Irregular sub-spheroid form with ruminate texture, S1b Tracheid, V1 Elongate with pilate margins, Achillea type, L1a Papillate with liguate margins, tuberculated, P1a Irregular sub-spheroid form with ruminate texture, S1b Tracheid, V1 AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA Family: Rosaceae Genus: Amelanchier Species: alnifolia Common Name: juneberry, dwarf shadbush, saskatoon (Welsh et al. 2008:632). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES10 White-red-jack pine FRES11 Spruce-fir 155 PI C C C C C U U U Figures 4.4.F 4.3.C 4.9.A 4.7.A 4.10.F 4.8.J 4.9.A 4.7.A FRES15 Oak-hickory FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood FRES19 Aspen-birch FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES22 Western white pine FRES23 Fir-spruce FRES24 Hemlock-Sitka spruce FRES25 Larch FRES26 Lodgepole pine FRES28 Western hardwoods FRES29 Sagebrush FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES39 Prairie (Fryer 1997). Production Time: Fragrant white flowers bloom from April to May and are followed in late summer by purple fruits that resemble blueberries (Andersen and Holmgren 1996; Selland 2003). Frequent Associations: Commonly found in riparian areas (Fryer 1997). Flowers and fruits “are borne in terminal clusters” (Fryer 1997). Archaeological Artifacts: Service berry seeds were identified in the fill of Wolf Village (Dahle 2011). Ethnographic Use: For the Goshute, the berries were an important food source that they collected and ate in season, boiled, or raw. They also preserved the berries, as mashed and/or dried, for later (Chamberlin 1964:343, 361; Rainey and Adams 2004). The Northern Ute and Utah Southern Paiute ate the fruit (Fowler 1986:78; Rainey and Adams 2004). The berries were important for the Ute as well; they were used in season or dried for winter (Chamberlin 1909:32). A tea would also sometimes be made from dried leaves (Yanovsky 1936:30). Collected: Plant material was collected from the Sego Lily Gardens and Central Utah Gardens. I digested the berries of Juneberry after removing the seeds. This sample was not sonicated. Microfossil Production: I found no scholarly articles on the production of phytoliths in this species. Amelanchier alnifolia does produce abundant starch grains that range in size from 2.8-8.4 um (mean 3.5 um), with an open central hilum, a small red dot, and a visible cross-polarization (Zarrillo and Kooyman 2006:488). Other Amelanchier species, such as A. arborea, do not produce phytoliths (Tedford 2009:191). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Amelanchier Berry alnifolia Berry Berry Phytolith Styloid cluster, O2a Crystal sand, O3 Lancelote hair with psilate texture, segmented, H1c AMELANCHIER UTAHENSIS Family: Rosaceae Genus: Amelanchier Species: utahensis 156 PI U U U Figure 4.1.R 4.2.A 4.3.D Common Name: Utah serviceberry (Welsh et al. 2008:632). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES28 Western hardwoods FRES29 Sagebrush FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper (Zlatnik 1999a). Production Time: Leafs and blooms earlier than other species (Zlatnik 1999a). Is very similar to the Saskatoon serviceberry. Frequent Associations: “Utah service berry hybridizes with Saskatoon serviceberry” and is often found associated with Gambel oak or mountain mahogany (Zlatnik 1999a). Archaeological Artifacts: Service berry seeds were identified in the fill of Wolf Village (Dahle 2011). Ethnographic Use: The Utah Southern Paiute ate the fruit for food (Fowler 1986:78). The Shoshone and Paiute would boil the green, inner bark and drink it for snow blindness (Train et al. 1941:21). Collected: Berries and wood were collected from Central Utah Gardens. Both required two digestions. These samples were sonicated. Microfossil Production: I found no scholarly articles on the production of phytoliths in this species. Other Amelanchier species, such as A. arborea, do not produce phytoliths (Tedford 2009:191). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Amelanchier utahensis Plant Tissue Berry Berry Berry Berry Wood Wood Phytolith PI Figures Small raphide-types connected, different orientations, O1c Styloid, single, O2 Single, rectangular, prismatic O5 Tracheid, V1 Tracheid, V1 Indeterminate vascular tissue V2 U U U U U C ARCTOSTAPHYLOS PATULA Family: Ericaceae Genus: Arctostaphylos Species: patula Common Name: greenleaf manzanita (Welsh et al. 2008:356). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES23 Fir-spruce FRES26 Lodgepole pine FRES27 Redwood FRES28 Western hardwoods FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper (Hauser 2007). 157 4.1.G 4.1.L 4.2.K 4.7.B 4.7.B 4.8.A Production Time: Large seed crops are produced almost yearly. Flowers bloom from April to June (Hauser 2007). Archaeological Artifacts Seeds were found in the fill from South Temple (Cummings et al. 2004). Ethnographic Use: Leaves were boiled and drunk for venereal disease by the Shoshone (Train et al. 1941:24). Collected: Leaves were collected from Grow Wild Nursery, Salt Lake City. This sample was sonicated. Microfossil Production: Evett et al. (2006:356) found no diagnostic morphotypes in Arctostaphylos patula, with leaf silica percentage measuring less than 0.1%. Very few phytoliths have been found in A. pungens leaves, such as ovoid forms with radiation striations, polygonal epidermals, blocky crystalline, and tracheid shapes (McNamee 2013:36, 48, 63). A. uva-ursi also produces phytoliths, including polyhedrals, jigsaw epidermal cells, and trichomes in the leaves (Carnelli et al 2003). I found no phytoliths in the leaves of this sample. ARTEMISIA BIENNIS Family: Asteraceae, Compositae Genus: Artemisia Species: biennis Common Name: biennial wormwood (Welsh et al. 2008:158). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: Grows in most plant communities, especially those that have been disturbed or are of a wetland-riparian nature (CalFlora 2005). Production Time: Blooms in the fall (CalFlora 2005). Archaeological Artifacts: Artemisia pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011), on groundstone and in fill from the Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), and in fill from Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984). Ethnographic Use: The Goshute extensively gathered the seeds of biennis and used them for food (Chamberlin 1964:362). Collected: Seeds were collected from the Brigham Young University Monte L. Bean Herbarium. This sample was not sonicated. Microfossil Production: I found no scholarly sources on microfossil production in this species. Other Artemisia species do produce phytoliths. The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). 158 Species Plant Tissue Artemisia Leafy seeds biennis* Leafy seeds Leafy seeds Leafy seeds Leafy seeds Phytolith PI Figures Sinuate epidermal with striate texture, E1a C 4.4.G Astrosclerid, C1 U 4.3.A Ligulate epidermal, psilate texture, E3 U none Spheroids with ruminate texture, S3b U 4.9.bb Tracheid, V1 U none ARTEMISIA DRACUNCULUS Family: Asteraceae, Compositae Genus: Artemisia Species: dracunculus Common Name: tarragon (Welsh et al. 2008:159). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES23 Fir-spruce FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES39 Prairie (Groen 2005). Production Time: Infrequent seed production. Flowers from July to October (Groen 2005). Frequent Associations: Often associated with quaking aspen, firs and spruces, rabbitbrush, sagebrush, and wildrye (Groen 2005). Archaeological Artifacts: Artemisia pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011), on groundstone and in fill from the Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), and in fill from Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984). Ethnographic Use: The oily and nutritious seeds of Artemisia dracunculoides, another Tarragon, were a favorite dish for the Goshute and were extensively gathered (Chamberlin 1964:363). The Southern Paiute would make a tea for colds, headaches, worms, and as a stimulant for women in childbirth. They used the leaves to stop nosebleeds, and the seeds were ground into mush (Rainey and Adams 2004). The Shoshone would make a hot decoction of branches as a physic for colds. Steam from boiling the plant was used for eye trouble. A decoction of the whole plant was a wash for nettle stings and for venereal diseases. A poultice of pulped, green plant was applied externally for sore throat or neck glands (Train et al. 1941:25-26). They also steeped the seeds added to dishes to provide flavor (Murphey 1990:29). Collected: Leaves and plant tops were collected from the Red Butte Gardens, Salt Lake City. This sample was sonicated. Microfossil Production: Abundant blocky-form phytoliths in the leaves, minimal amounts in the branches, and none present in the seeds (McNamee 2013:34, 45). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). 159 Species Plant Tissue Artemisia Leaves dracunculus Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves New growth Phytolith PI Figures Small raphide-types connected, different orientations, O1c Crystal sand, O3 Sinuate epidermal with heavy to light striate texture E1b Tracheid V1 Ligulate epidermal with psilate exture, E3 Crenate epidermal, E6 Acicular hair, with striate texture, unsegmented, H2a Irregular sub-spheroid form with ruminate texture, S1b Blocky with psilate to facetate texture, S2 Stomates, V3 Sinuate epidermal with heavy to light striate texture E1b U R C C U U U U U U U 4.1.H none 4.4.J 4.7.C none 4.5.M 4.3.I 4.9.B 4.9.Q 4.6.C 4.4.J ARTEMISIA LUDOVICIANA Family: Asteraceae, Compositae Genus: Artemisia Species: ludoviciana Common Name: Louisiana wormwood (Welsh et al. 2008:160). Variations: Five variations are present in Utah, with variations incompta, latiloba, and ludoviciana present in Utah Valley. Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES14 Oak-pine FRES15 Oak-hickory FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES23 Fir-spruce FRES28 Western hardwoods FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES37 Mountain meadows FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES39 Prairie FRES40 Desert grasslands FRES44 Alpine (Anderson 2005) Production Time: Small green flowers bloom from late July to early September (Selland 2003). Seeds mature and disseminate from October to December (Anderson 2005). Frequent Associations: Includes other sagebrush, grasses, and junipers (Anderson 2005). Archaeological Artifacts: Artemisia pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011), on groundstone and in fill from the Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), and in fill from Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984). Ethnographic Use: The Utah Southern Paiute used the seeds for food (Fowler 1986:71). The Paiute saw medicinal virtue in this plant and made it into a tea or stuffed it into their nostrils (Palmer 1878:652). The Southern Paiute would make a tea for colds, worms, and headaches, and as a stimulant for women in childbirth. The leaves were used to stop nosebleeds and seeds were ground into mush (Rainey and Adams 2004). The Paiute and the Shoshone 160 would make a decoction of leaves for headaches, colds, and coughs, and a decoction of branches for colds, coughs, influenza. A decoction of tops, sometimes with roots, for colds, diarrhea, coughs, and severe infection. A decoction of the whole plant, or sometimes shoots, as a physic for heavy colds, coughs, fevers, and stomach aches, or as a wash for rashes, itching, or skin eruptions. The steeped leaves would be made into a poultice used to compress fevers, especially for babies. An infusion of leaves was used to regulate menstrual disorders or as an eyewash. (Train et al. 1941:26-27) Collected: Leaves and flower tops were collected from the Sego Lily Gardens, Sandy City. This sample was sonicated. Microfossil Production: Has been found to produce anticlinal epidermal sheets, sometimes with striations, as well as tracheids (Morris 2008:131). Polyhedrals and jigsaw-puzzle pieces have also been found, as well as branched tracheary elements (Bozarth 1992:194). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Artemisia Leaves ludoviciana Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Inflorescence Phytolith Crystal sand, O3 Sinuate epidermal with psilate texture, E1 Blocky with psilate to granulate texture, S2a Tracheid, V1 Parenchyma, Y1 Tracheid, V1 PI U/R C C C U C Figures none 4.4.A 4.9.S 4.7.D 4.6.E 4.7.D ARTEMISIA TRIDENTATA Family: Asteraceae, Compositae Genus: Artemisia Species: tridentata Common Name: big dagebrush, common sagebrush (Welsh et al. 2008:162). Variations: Four variations are found in Utah, with variations tridentata and vaseyana both present in Utah Valley. Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES40 Desert grasslands (Tirmenstein 1999b). Production Time: Small yellow blossoms bloom in late summer to fall (Anderson and Holmgren 1996; Selland 2003). Plants need to be at least two years old to produce seed, and seeds are produced from October to December (Tirmenstein 1999b). Frequent Associations: Often hybridizes with its subspecies. Often grows alongside cheatgrass and other grasses, broom snakeweed, and rabbitbrush (Tirmenstein 1999b). Archaeological Artifacts: 161 Various fragments of tridentata were found in the fill of Smoking Pipe (Billat 1985:91). Additionally, Artemisia pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011), on groundstone and in fill from the Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), and in fill from Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984). Ethnographic Use: The Goshute would make a tea of leaves that they used as medicine in feverish conditions. They also used the leaves to cover food preserved in caches (Chamberlin 1964:351, 363). The Ute also used the leaves medicinally (Chamberlin 1909:32). Great Basin peoples in general used the seeds (Sutton 1989:245-246). Specifically, the Utah Southern Paiute and Western Shoshone (Fowler 1986:71). The Paiutes would make a tea for colds, headaches, and worms, or as a stimulant (Palmer 1878:651; Rainey and Adams 2004). The Shoshone would chew the leaves for indigestion (Murphey 1990:45). They would also make a decoction of branches for stomach cramps, red ant bites, and take with salt for coughs, or used as a wash for lumbago or muscular cramps. A hot poultice of branches was made for aches and pains, and rheumatism. A headache wash was made of a decoction of leaves, and a poultice of crushed leaves for headaches. Steeped leaves were made into a poultice for inflamed eyes or sores, cuts, and wounds (powdered branches were also used). A decoction of leaves was taken to cause sweating, to break a fever, or as an antiseptic wash for cuts and as an antiseptic bath for newborns, wounds, sores, or taken with salt for pneumonia coughs. A decoction of leaves, or leaves chewed for a poison antidote or for colds. Raw leaves were chewed for indigestion. A poultice of mashed leaves for toothaches. A decoction of plant tops for colds, and an over dosage serves as an emetic. A decoction of plant taken as a tonic after childbirth (Train et al. 1941:44-47). Collected: Leaves, flower tops, and twigs were collected from Rock Canyon Park, Provo. This sample was partially sonicated. Microfossil Production: The leaves have been found to produce a few blocky shapes, and the stems produce several small blocky forms, usually less than 20mu (Morris 2008:145). Leaf phytoliths were minimal, and stem phytoliths were common (Morris 2008:168, 178). Produces tracheids, as well as smooth (psilate) or cavate blocky cubic or globose shapes and smooth epidermal polygonal irregular shapes (Blinnikov 2005:78-79). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Artemisia Leaves tridentata Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Inflorescence Phytolith Raphide bundle of same orientation, O1a Raphide bundle of different orientation, O1b Small raphide-types connected, different orientations, O1c Crystal sanad, O3 Prismatic, single, rectangle, O5 Prismatic, hexagon, single, O5b Sinuate epidermal with psilate texture, E1 Irregular sub-spheroid form, ruminate to facetate texture, S1b Blocky with facetate texture, S2b Parenchyma Y1 Irregular sub-spheroid form, ruminate to facetate texture, S1b 162 PI U U U U U U U U U R C Figures 4.1.C 4.1.E 4.1.I 4.2.B 4.2.L 4.2.R 4.4.B 4.9.E none 4.6.F 4.9.E Species Plant Tissue Inflorescence Twigs Phytolith Tracheid V1 Indeterminate vascular tissue V2 PI Figures U 4.7.E C none ATRIPLEX TRUNCATA Family: Amaranthaceae, Chenopodiaceae Genus: Atriplex Species: truncata Common Name: wedge orach (Welsh et al. 2008:128). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: Often in saline salt-grass-greasewood-rabbitbrush communities, and in palustrine or lacustrine habitats (eFlroas 2017). Creosote Bush Scrub, Pinyon-Juniper Woodland, Yellow Pine Forest, Red Fir Forest, Lodgepole Forest, Subalpine Forest, or wetlandriparian zones (CalFlora 2015). Production Time: Blooms in the summer and fall (CalFlora 2015). Archaeological Artifacts: The fruit and seeds of Atriplex were found in the fill of Hinckley Mound (Puseman 2016) and Woodard Mound (Richens 1983:111). Ethnographic Use: The Goshute would collect and eat the seeds (Chamberlin 1964:340, 363) Collected: A flower head with seeds was collected from Thanksgiving Point Gardens, Lehi. This sample was not sonicated. Microfossil Production: I found no scholarly articles on the production of phytoliths in this species. No phytoliths have been found in Atriplex canescens (McNamee 2013:36). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Atriplex Inflorescence truncata Inflorescence Inflorescence Phytolith Blocky with psilate to facetate texture, S2 Blocky with facetate texture, S2b Tracheid, V1 BALSAMORHIZA SAGITTATA Family: Asteraceae, Compositae Genus: Balsamorhiza Species: sagittata Common Name: arrowleaf balsamroot (Welsh et al. 2008:172). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES23 Fir-spruce FRES25 Larch FRES26 Lodgepole pine FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper 163 PI U U C Figures none 4.9.U none FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES37 Mountain meadows FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES44 Alpine (McWilliams 2002). Production Time: Shoots sprout in April or May from a large taproot, and in summer the plant goes dormant. Balsamroots need to be at least five years old before they produce flowers (Selland 2003). Frequent Associations: Often grows alongside Balsamorhiza macrophylla (Anderson and Holmgren 1996), and singleleaf pinyon and curl-leaf mountain mahogany (McWilliams 2002). Archaeological Artifacts: Asteraceae pollen has been found in fill from Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984), in fill and on groundstone from Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011), and on groundstone from Woodard Mound (Richens 1983:116). Ethnographic Use: The Goshute would gather the leaves and petioles in the early season and eat them as a green or boiled in water. They gathered and ate the seeds late in year. The root was used as remedy for fresh wounds, and was also chewed or pounded into a paste (Chamberlain 1964:338, 348, 363). The Eastern Shoshone, Northern Ute, Utah Southern Paiute would use the seeds, roots, young leaves as food (Fowler 1986:71). The Shoshone would make a root decoction as an eyewash, and a mashed root poultice for insect bites, and syphilitic sores (Train et al. 1941:50-51). The Ute would eat the young shoots and leaves, and sometimes roots (Chamberlin 1909:32-33). Collected: Leaves, tops, and flowers were collected from Red Butte Gardens, Salt Lake City. This sample was sonicated. Microfossil Production: Segmented hairs commonly found in the leaf and flowering head. These hairs are thinly silicified and tend to break and disfigure. They also produce tracheids (Morris 2008:132). Siliceous hairs have been found in the roots (Witty 1962:25). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Basalmhoriza Leafy tops sagittata Leafy tops Phytolith Lancelote hair with psilate texture, segmented, H1c Irregular sub-spheroid form, ruminate to facetate texture, S1b Leafy tops Blocky with facetate texture, S2b Leafy tops Parenchyma, Y1 Inflorescence Irregular sub-spheroid form with granulate texture, S1c Inflorescence Tracheid, V1 CERCOCARPUS LEDIFOLIUS Family: Rosaceae Genus: Cercocarpus Species: ledifolius Common Name: curl-leaf mountain mahogany (Welsh et al. 2008:633). 164 PI Figures C 4.3.E U none U U U U none 4.6.G 4.9.G 4.7.F Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES26 Lodgepole pine FRES29 Sagebrush FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper (Gucker 2006). Production Time: Pale yellow or cream blossoms bloom from May to June, and seeds ripen in the fall (Anderson and Holmgren 1996; Selland 2003). Trees are usually mature when at least ten years old (Gucker 2006). Frequent Associations: Often hybridizes with other mountain mahogany species (Gucker 2006). Archaeological Artifacts: Rosaceae pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011) and Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), and in fill from Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984). Ethnographic Use: The Goshute would use the wood for bows, and the charcoal of the wood mixed with water was used for burns (Chamberlin 1964:350, 365). The Shoshone would use this plant for pulmonary disorders and tuberculosis. The bark would be dried and then boiled for decoctions, and sometimes boiled with Purshia tridentata or Populus trichocarp. The dried bark or steeped leaves would be made into a decoction taken for coughs and colds. The dried bark was made into a paste and applied to sores, cuts, burns, and wounds, and leaves and bark made into a poultice for swellings. The leaves and bark in decoction for heart disorders. A bark decoction also used for stomachache, venereal disease, diarrhea, stomach ulcers, pneumonia, diphtheria, and eye disease (Train et al. 1941:35-36). Collected: Leaves and wood were collected from Central Utah Gardens, Orem. Both required two digestions. This sample was sonicated. Microfossil Production: Found to produce abundant blocky, prismatic and elongate rectangular styloid forms (Morris 2008:144). Phytoliths were observed in minimal amounts (Morris 2008:168, 178). McNamee (2013:38) found no phytoliths in Cercocarpus spp. The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Cercocarpus Leaves ledifolius Wood Leaves Leaves Leaves Phytolith Inderterminate vascular tissue V2 Raphide bundle of different orientation, O1b Small raphide-types connected together and of different orientations, O1c Prismatic, rectangle, single, O5 CHRYSOTHAMNUS NAUSEOSUS Family: Asteraceae, Compositae Genus: Chrysothamnus Species: nauseosus Synonym: Ericameria nauseosa 165 PI NP U U U Figures U 4.2.M 4.8.B none 4.1.F Common Name: rubber rabbitbrush (Welsh et al. 2008:184). Variations: Fifteen variations are found in Utah. Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES15 Oak-hickory FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES40 Desert grasslands (Tirmenstein 1999e). Production Time: Clusters of yellow blossoms bloom in late summer and can continue into the fall; mature seeds follow a few days later (Anderson and Holmgren 1996; Selland 2003) Archaeological Artifacts: Asteraceae pollen has been found in fill from Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984), in fill and on groundstone from Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011), and on groundstone from Woodard Mound (Richens 1983:116). Ethnographic Use: The Shoshone and the Paiute would steep the leaves into a tea that was drunk for stomach disorders and colds. The dried leaves and flowers would be steeped as a general tonic. A tea from the roots and tops for diarrhea. Boiled stems and leaves for a cough medicine (Train et al. 1941:37). Collected: Leaves and flower tops were collected from Red Butte Gardens, Salt Lake City. This sample was sonicated. Microfossil Production: Poorly silicifies and only produces a limited amount of segmented hairs (Blinnikov 2005:78, 82). C. viscidiflorus was found to produce minimal amounts of phytoliths (Morris 2008:168). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Chrysothamnus Leaves nauseous Leaves Leaves Leaves Inflorescence Inflorescence Inflorescence Inflorescence Phytolith Irregular sub-spheroid form, granulate texture, S1c Blocky with psilate to granulate texture, S2a Blocky with facetate texture, S2b Tracheid, V1 Irregular sub-spheroid form, granulate texture, S1c Blocky with psilate to granulate texture, S2a Blocky with facetate texture, S2b Tracheid, V1 PI C C C C C C C C CRATAEGUS DOUGLASII Family: Rosaceae Genus: Crataegus Species: douglasii Common Name: river hawthorn (Welsh et al. 2008:637). Variations: Two variations exist, with variation rivularis being found in Utah Valley. 166 Figures 4.9.H 4.9.T 4.9.V 4.7.G 4.9.H 4.9.T 4.9.V 4.7.G Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES28 Western hardwoods FRES29 Sagebrush FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon – juniper FRES36 Mountain grasslands (Habeck 1991). Production Time: White fragrant blossoms bloom in April and May, fruits follow later in the summer (Anderson and Holmgren 1996). Frequent Associations: Cottonwoods, aspens, pines, Wood’s rose, and chokecherry (Habeck 1991). Archaeological Artifacts: Rosaceae pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011) and Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), and in the fill of Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984). Ethnographic Use: The fruits were eaten (Yanovsky 1936:31). Collected: Berries were collected from Sego Lily Gardens, Sandy City. They required three digestions. This sample was not sonicated. Microfossil Production: I found no scholarly articles on the production of phytoliths in this species. On PhytCore (2017) there are hair bases, parenchyma, epidermal ground-mass polyhedrals, and blocky shapes recorded for Crataegus aronia. The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Phytolith PI Figures Craetaegus douglasii* Berry Blocky with psilate to facetate texture, S2 U 4.9.R Berry Indeterminate vasculare tissue, V2 U none CUCURBITA Family: Cucurbitaceae Genus: Cucurbita Species: maxima and moschata Common Name: fall squash, winter squash, pumpkin, zucchini, and cushaw, butternut, winter crookneck (Welsh et al. 2008:349). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: This cultivated species prefers well-drained soils and full sun. Production Time: Since squashes are highly susceptible to frost, plant when soil temperatures are above 60oF. The fruits are usually ready for harvesting about seven to eight weeks after planting. Archaeological Artifacts: Uncharred squash rinds were found in the fill of the Fremont Zone of Spotten Cave (Pearce 2012). Ethnographic Use: The Plateau Shoshoneans would consume this plant (Lowie 1924:200). 167 Collected: No samples were collected for this study given the prolific publication and analysis that currently exists on Cucurbita. Microfossil Production: All parts of squash plants produce phytoliths, with the most useful being found in the rinds (Piperno 2006:65). Squash rinds produce deeply scalloped spheroidal phytoliths that is diagnostic of Cucurbita (Piperno et al. 2000). DESCHAMPIA CESPITOSA Family: Poaceae, Graminae Genus: Deschampia Species: cespitosa Common Name: tufted hairgrass (Welsh et al. 2008:841). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES10 White-red-jack pine FRES11 Spruce-fir FRES13 Loblolly-shortleaf pine FRES15 Oak-hickory FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood FRES18 Maple-beech-birch FRES19 Aspen-birch FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES22 Western white pine FRES23 Fir-spruce FRES24 Hemlock-Sitka spruce FRES25 Larch FRES26 Lodgepole pine FRES27 Redwood FRES28 Western hardwoods FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES37 Mountain meadows FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES39 Prairie FRES40 Desert grasslands FRES41 Wet grasslands FRES42 Annual grasslands FRES44 Alpine (Walsh 1995). Production Time: Growth begins in early spring and grass remains green through summer, and seeds tend to mature towards the end of summer (Walsh 1995). Archaeological Artifacts: Poaceae phytoliths were found in teeth tartar from the Provo Mounds (Yost 2009:6), as pollen on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011), and Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), and as starch on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011). Additionally, Poaceae seeds and caryopsis were found in coprolites from Spotten Cave (Pearce 2012), and in the fill of Hinckley Mounds (Puseman 2016). Ethnographic Use: The Goshute would eat the seeds (Chamberlin 1964:367). Collected: Florets with seeds were collected from Central Utah Gardens, Orem. This sample was not sonicated. Microfossil Production: 168 In the basal leaf sheath and in the culm leaf blade are papillae and elongates (Blackman 1971:771). No scutiform opals were found (Blackman 1971:778). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Cell Type Deschampia Long cespitosa Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Phytolith PI Figures Sinuate epidermal with psilate texture, E1 U none Entire epidermal with psilate texture, E4 C 4.5.A Blocky epidermal, lateral striations, E7 U none Elongate with pilate margins, L1 C 4.10.A Elongate with entire margins, L2 C 4.10.H Elongate, aculeate margins, L5 C 4.11.E Elongate, aculeate margins, curled, L5a C 4.11.L Tracheid, V1 U 4.7.H Round/oblong rondels, G1a C 4.12.A Square/rectangular rondels, G1b C 4.12.E Keeled rondels, G1c C 4.12.H Pyramidal rondel, G1d C 4.12.M Pyramidal rondel, aculeated, G1d1 C 4.12.P Lancelote style hair trichomes, G6a U 4.12.Y Hair base trichome, G6b U none General, polylobe/bilobe rondel, G7b U 4.12.jj Parenchyma, Y1 U 4.6.H ELYMUS CINEREUS Family: Poaceae, Graminae Genus: Elymus Species: cinereus Common Name: Great Basin wildrye (Welsh et al. 2008:846). Synonym: Leymus cinereus Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES23 Fir-spruce FRES26 Lodgepole pine FRES28 Western hardwoods FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES40 Desert grasslands (Anderson 2002a). Production Time: Starts to grow in early spring, flowers in the summer, seeds ripen as early as July and as late as September (Anderson 2002a). Archaeological Artifacts: Elymus starch grains were found in teeth tartar from Provo Mounds (Yost 2009:6). Ethnographic Use: The Eastern Shoshone, Goshute, and Utah Southern Paiute ate the seeds (Fowler 1986:76). Collected: 169 Florets with seeds were gathered from Red Butte Gardens, Salt Lake City. This sample was sonicated. Microfossil Production: According to Kerns (2001:286), Elymus species are in the subfamily Pooideae and produce crenates, rondels, and pyramids. There is reason to believe that the morphotypes in the genus Elymus do not group together (Morris 2008:140). Elymus spp. have been found to produce distinct articulated dendritic phytoliths. Noted to have a high research potential (Serpa 2008:104, 108) Specifically, E. cinereus has been found to be an abundant producer of phytoliths, dominated by long, deeply indented and long indented cells, also oblong knobby hair bases and keeled rondels (Morris et al. 2009:341, 346). Blinnikov (2005:84) found “smooth rods,” or rectangular long cells, in cinereus. Blackman (1971:772) found intercostal, costal, and abaxial Hats in the basal leaf sheath and blade, and culm leaf sheath and blade. Thin, elongate phytoliths have been found in the roots of Elymus canadensis (Sangster and Hodson 1992:242). Square plates, along with several other forms such tracheids, long cells, trichomes, and rondels, have been found in E. elymoides (McNamee 2013:90, 9899). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Cell Type Elymus Long Cinereus Long Long Long Long Long Long Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Phytolith Ligulate to collumnate epidermal with psilate texture, E3a Entire epidermal with psilate texture, E4 Elongate, dendritic margins, L3 Elongate, crenate margins, L4 Elongate, aculeate margins, L5 Elongate, aculeate margins, granulate texture, L5c Tracheid, V1 Square/rectangular rondels, G1b Keeled rondels, G1c Pyramidal rondel, G1d Lancelote style hair trichomes, G6a Hair base trichome, G6b Acicular hair with psilate texture, unsegmented, H2b Acicular hair with ovoid base with tubucurlate processes, H2b Papillae with ligulate margins, P1 Papillae with pitted edges, P1b Ellipsoids with tuberculate processes, S5 ELYMUS GLAUCUS Family: Poaceae, Graminae Genus: Elymus Species: glaucus Common Name: blue wildrye (Welsh et al. 2008:847). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES23 Fir-spruce 170 PI U U A U C C U C C C U U U U C C U Figures 4.4.O 4.5.b 4.10.S 4.11.A 4.11.F 4.11.O 4.7.I 4.12.F 4.12.I 4.12.Q 4.12.Z None 4.3.J 4.3.L 4.8.H 4.8.K 4.9.dd FRES26 Lodgepole pine FRES28 Western hardwoods FRES29 Sagebrush FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES37 Mountain meadows FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES39 Prairie FRES42 Annual grasslands (Johnson 1999). Production Time: Flowers from June to August (Johnson 1999). Frequent Associations: Often hybridizes with other Elymus species, and often found alongside alders, maples, sage grass, strawberry, yarrow, asters, and other grasses (Johnson 1999). Archaeological Artifacts: Elymus starch grains were found in teeth tartar from Provo Mounds (Yost 2009:6). Ethnographic Use: The seeds were eaten (Yanovsky 1936:8). Collected: Florets with seeds were gathered from Red Butte Gardens, Salt Lake City. This sample was sonicated. Microfossil Production: According to Kerns (2001:286), Elymus species are in the subfamily Pooideae and produce crenates, rondels, and pyramids. McCune (2014:100) found rondels (10um), papillae, and dendriform elongate shapes in abundance, and echinate elongate and polygonal epidermal/hairbases shapes common, and tuberculate/echinate elongate and scrobiculate elongate (>50um) shapes sporadic in the inflorescences. In the vegetation, rondels (10um) and globular ovate shapes were abundant, with echinate elongate and crenate elongate shapes common, and scrobiculate elongate (>50um) shapes rare (McCune 2014:100). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Cell type Elymus Long glaucus Long Long Long Long Long Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Phytolith Ligulate to collumnate epidermal with psilate texture, E3a Entire epidermal with psilate texture, E4 Blocky epidermal, lateral striations, E7 Elongate, dendritic margins, L3 Elongate, crenate margins, L4 Elongate, aculeate margins, L5 Keeled rondels, G1c Pyramidal rondel, G1d Pyramidal rondel, aculeated, G1d1 Reniform shape, G1f Lancelote style hair trichomes, G6a Acicular hair with ovoid base with tubucurlate processes, H2b Papillae with ligulate margins, P1 Papillae with pitted edges, P1b Ellipsoids with tuberculate processes, S5 171 PI U U U A C C C C C C C C C C C Figure 4.4.P 4.5.C none 4.10.T 4.11.B 4.11.G 4.12.J 4.12.N 4.12.R 4.12.V 4.12.aa 4.3.M none 4.8.L 4.9.ee EPHEDRA NEVADENSIS Family: Ephedraceae Genus: Ephedra Species: nevadensis Common Name: Nevada ephedra (Welsh et al. 2008:17). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES40 Desert grasslands (Anderson 2004a). Production Time: Produces leaves in spring and again in September after rains; forms buds in spring, and cones open from March to May, with seeds maturing in early summer (Anderson 2004a). Archaeological Artifacts: Ephedra nevadensis pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011). However, nevadensis is not commonly found in Utah Valley, but E. viridis is. Both species were included. Ethnographic Use: The Shoshone and Paiute also would brew a tea twigs and branches for venereal diseases. Gilia congesta was sometimes boiled with the twigs. A tea was also taken as urination stimulant, and a poultice from powdered twigs and branches used for sores (Rainey and Adams 2004; Train et al. 1941:45). Collected: Green stem tops and woody twigs were gathered from Red Butte Gardens, Salt Lake City. This sample was sonicated and required two and three digestions, respectively. Microfossil Production: I found no scholarly articles on the production of phytoliths in this species. The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Ephedra nevadensis Green stems Green stems Wooden twigs Phytolith Blocky with facetate texture, S2b Tracheid, V1 - PI Figures U 4.9.W C 4.7.J NP EPHEDRA VIRIDIS Family: Ephedraceae Genus: Ephedra Species: viridis Common Name: green tea, Mormon tea, Brigham’s tea (Welsh et al. 2008:17). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES33 Southwestern shrub steppe FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES40 Desert grasslands (Anderson 2001). 172 Production Time Vegetative growth occurs during the cool season, although seeds start to develop in spring and mature in late summer (Anderson 2001). Frequent Associations: Creosote bush, shadscale, fourwing saltbush, sagebrush, dropseed, serviceberry, and junipers (Anderson 2001). Archaeological Artifacts: Ephedra nevadensis pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011). However, nevadensis is not commonly found in Utah Valley, but E. viridis is. Ethnographic Use: The Shoshone and Paiute would make a tea of small stems for syphilis that was also a physic if boiled in salted water. A tea of roots was also a physic. A tea of twigs or stems was made for venereal disesases, bladder disorders, kidney regulation, and colds, and as a tonic or blood purifier. The tea once boiled down into a thick consistency was used for colds as well. The tea was believed to aid blood circulation, and so was given to the elderly. A tea was also made for stomach disorders and ulcers, and rheumatism. A tea of dried twigs and the bark of Purshia tridentata for gonorrhea. A warm water tea of scraped bark from Cercocarpus ledifolius and Ephedra root for diarrhea. The powder from dried and pulverized stem applied to sores, or mixed with Pinus monophylla pitch to make a salve. The moistened powder was applied to burns (Rainey and Adams 2004; Train et al. 1941:45-46) Collected: Green stem tops and wooden twigs were gathered from Central Utah Gardens, Orem. This sample was partially sonicated and required one and two digestions, respectively. Microfossil Production: I found no scholarly articles on the production of phytoliths in this species. The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Ephedra Green stems viridis Wooden twigs Wooden twigs Leaves Leaves Phytolith Tracheid, V1 Irregular sub-spheroid form with ruminate texture, S1b Blocky with facetate texture, S2b Single raphide, O1 Small raphide-types connected together and of different orientations, O1c PI C U U U U Figures 4.7.K none none 4.1.A 4.1.J ERIOGONUM OVALIFOLIUM Family: Polygonaceae Genus: Eriogonum Species: ovalifolium Common Name: cushion buckwheat (Welsh et al. 2008:586). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: Sagebrush Scrub, Northern Juniper Woodland, Pinyon-Juniper Woodland, Red Fir Forest, Lodgepole Forest, Subalpine Forest, and Alpine Fell-fields (CalFlora 2008). Production Time: Blooms in the summer (CalFlora 2008). 173 Archaeological Artifacts: Eriogonum pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011), and in fill from Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984). Seeds were also found in the fill of Wolf Village (Dahle 2011). Ethnographic Use: The Goshute used this plant as an eye medicine, for stomach aches, and for venereal diseases and other afflictions of sexual organs in the form of a wash or poultice (Chamberlin 1964:351, 369). The Paiute and Shoshone would make a tea for colds made from boiled roots (Train et al. 1941:48). The Ute also used this plant medicinally (Chamberlin 1909:34). Collected: Roots and leaves were collected from Central Utah Gardens, Orem. These samples were not sonicated. Microfossil Production: These phytoliths were minimally observed by Morris (2008:168). Minimal amounts of phytoliths were also found in E. heracleoides, E. microthecum, E. racemosum and E. wrightii (McNamee 2013:40; Morris 2008:168). These took the form of globular rugulate echinates and cystoliths with attached hairs, with the cystoliths considered as a diagnostic form for E. racemosum (McNamee 2013:30, 33, 40). Other forms in these species include polygonal epidermals, blocky, and blocky angled, globulars, tracheids, segmented hairs, and hair bases. The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Phytolith PI Figures Eriogonum Roots U 4.8.C Vascular tissue indeterminate,V2 ovalifolium Leaves Irregular sub-spheroid form with granulate texture, S1c U 4.9.I ERIOGONUM UMBELLATUM Family: Polygonaceae Genus: Eriogonum Species: umbellatum Common Name: sulfur buckwheat (Welsh et al. 2008:590). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: Sagebrush Scrub, Northern Juniper Woodland, Yellow Pine Forest, Subalpine Forest, Alpine Fell-fields, Pinyon-Juniper Woodland, Lodgepole Forest, Red Fir Forest, and Foothill Woodland (CalFlora 2013). Production Time: Red-orange or cream hinted yellow flowers bloom in June and July (Selland 2003). Archaeological Artifacts: Eriogonum pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011), and in fill from Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984). Seeds were also found in the fill of Wolf Village (Dahle 2011). Ethnographic Use: 174 The Shoshone and Paiute would mash the leaves which, sometimes combined with boiled roots, was used for poultices for lameness or rheumatism. A decoction of roots was taken hot for colds or for stomach aches (Train et al. 1941:48). Collected: Leaves were collected from Red Butte Gardens, Salt Lake City. This sample was not sonicated, but was rinsed in distilled water. Microfossil Production: I found no scholarly articles on the production of phytoliths in this species. Minimal amounts of phytoliths have been found in Eriogonum ovalifolium, E. racemosum and E. wrightii (McNamee 2013:40; Morris 2008:168). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Eriogonum Leaves umbellatum Leaves Leaves Leaves Phytolith Irregular sub-spheroid form with ruminate texture, S1b Sinuate epidermal with psilate texture, E1 Favose epidermal, E5 Tracheid, V1 PI C U U U Figures 4.9.C 4.4.C 4.5.L 4.7.L FESTUCA OVINA Family: Poaceae, Graminae Genus: Festuca Species: ovina Common Name: sheep fescue (Welsh et al. 2008:857). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: Grows between 1,000 and 13,000 feet above sea level in almost any habitat. Production Time: Blooms in late spring, matures in mid-summer (Ogle et al. 2010). Frequent Associations: Can hybridize with Idaho fescue and western fescue (Ogle et al. 2010). Often found alongside other grasses such as bromes and wheatgrasses, as well as ponderosa pine and sagebrush (Ogle et al. 2010). Archaeological Artifacts: Poaceae phytoliths were found in teeth tartar from the Provo Mounds (Yost 2009:6), as pollen on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011), and Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), and as starch on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011). Additionally, Poaceae seeds and caryopsis were found in coprolites from Spotten Cave (Pearce 2012), and in the fill of Hinckley Mounds (Puseman 2016). Ethnographic Use: The Goshute ate the seeds (Chamberlin 1964:369). Collected: Florets with seeds were collected from Grow Wild Nursery, Salt Lake City. This sample was not sonicated. Microfossil Production: According to Kerns (2001:286), Festuca species are in the subfamily Pooideae and produce rondels. They should also produce pyramids. In the inflorescence and vegetation of F. occidentalis, F. roemeri, F. rubra, and F. subulata, rondels and papillae were 175 abundant, crenate longates were abundant in most of the samples, and various elongates were found in some of the samples ranging from rare to abundant, hairbases and scorbiculate elongates were the most uncommon (McCune and Pellatt 2013:63). In F. arizonica, long cells, trichomes, plates, and rondels have been found (McNamee 2013:99). In F. idahoensis, long wavy plates made up half the morphotypes, the rest being long cells and keeled rondels (Morris 2008:285). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Cell type Festuca Long ovina* Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Phytolith Elongate with pilate margins, L1 Elongate with pilate to clavate margins, L1b Elongate with entire margins, L2 Elongate with entire margins, granulate texture, L2a Elongate, aculeate margins, L5 Elongate, aculeate margins, curled, L5a Elongate, aculeate margins, granulate texture, L5c Tracheid, V1 Round/oblong rondels, G1a Keeled rondels, G1c Pyramidal rondel, G1d Pyramidal rondel, aculeated, G1d1 Lancelote style hair trichomes, G6a Hair base trichome, G6b Acicular hair, needle/rod like, H2d Parenchyma, Y1 PI C U C C A A C U C U U U C U U U FRAGARIA VESCA Family: Rosaceae Genus: Fragaria Species: vesca Common Name: starvling strawberry (Welsh et al. 2008:638). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES10 White-red-jack pine FRES11 Spruce-fir FRES13 Loblolly-shortleaf pine FRES14 Oak-pine FRES15 Oak-hickory FRES16 Oak-gum-cypress FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood FRES18 Maple-beech-birch FRES19 Aspen-birch FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES22 Western white pine FRES23 Fir-spruce FRES24 Hemlock-Sitka spruce FRES25 Larch FRES26 Lodgepole pine FRES27 Redwood FRES28 Western hardwoods FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES37 Mountain meadows FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES39 Prairie FRES40 Desert grasslands FRES41 Wet grasslands FRES44 Alpine (Munger 2006). 176 Figure 4.10.B 4.10.G 4.10.I 4.10.M 4.11.H 4.11.M 4.11.P none 4.12.B 4.12.K 4.12.O 4.12.S 4.12.bb none 4.3.N 4.6.I Production Time: White flowers bloom in May and red fruit ripens in early summer (Anderson and Holmgren 1996). Archaeological Artifacts: Rosaceae pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011) and Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), and in the fill of Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984). Ethnographic Use: The Goshute at the fruit when it was in season (Chamberlin 1964:344, 370) Collected: Berries were collected from Red Butte Gardens, Salt Lake City. They were sonicated. Microfossil Production: Evett et al. (2006:356) found no diagnostic morphotypes in Fragaria vesca, with leaf silica percentage measuring 0.2%. The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Fragaria vesca Berry Berry Berry Berry Phytolith Styloid, single, O2 Styloid cluster, O2a Prismatic, rectangle, single O5 - PI U U U NP Figures 4.1.M 4.1.S 4.2.N GUTIERREZIA SAROTHRAE Family: Asteraceae, Compositae Genus: Gutierrezia Species: sarothrae Common Name: broom snakeweed, common matchweed (Welsh et al. 2008:225). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES15 Oak-hickory FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES39 Prairie FRES40 Desert grasslands FRES28 Western hardwoods FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe (Tirmenstein 1999c). Production Time: Yellow flowers bloom from May to October (Anderson and Holmgren 1996). Archaeological Artifacts: Asteraceae pollen has been found in fill from Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984), in fill and on groundstone from Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016) on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011), and on groundstone from Woodard Mound (Richens 1983:116). Ethnographic Use: The Shoshone and Paiute would boil the leaves, wrap them in a cloth, and apply them as a poultice for sprains and rheumatism. The application, though, could burn skin. A decoction of the plant was taken to cure a cold. An antiseptic measles wash was made 177 when the plant was boiled with the needles of Pinus monophylla. The boiled leaves applied in a wet cloth to top of head will stop a nosebleed (Train et al. 1941:55). Collected: The tops with leaves were gathered from Red Butte Gardens. This sample was sonicated. Microfossil Production: McLaren and Coder (2003:28) report the absence of phytoliths in the flora and seeds, but the presence of phytoliths in the vegetative parts, such as the leaves. In particular, they found phytoliths that can be described as “spherical, rugalose to grainy texture” and “Subrectangular rounded ends; grainy textures lightly silicified; distinguished from grass phytoliths by absence of visible cell nucleus” (McLaren and Coder 2003:23). These phytoliths were minimally observed by Morris (2008:167). Yet McNamee (2013:35) found no phytoliths when the whole plant was sampled. The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Gutierezia Leafy tops sarothrae Leafy tops Leafy tops Leafy tops Leafy tops Leafy tops Phytolith Sinuate epidermal with striate texture E1a Elongate with entire margins, granulate texture, L2a Irregular sub-spheroid form with granulate texture, S1c Tracheid, V1 Parenchyma, Y1 Astrosclerid, C1 PI U U U U U R Figures 4.4.H 4.10.N 4.9.J 4.7.M 4.6.J 4.3.B HEDYSARUM BOREALE Family: Fabaceae, Leguminosae Genus: Hedysarum Species: boreale Common Name: northern sweetvetch (Welsh et al.2008:457). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: Found in “mountain brush, ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper, and big sage brush vegetative zones” (Rosales 2017). Production Time: In the first season of growth, no seeds are produced. Maximum yields can be acquired on the third year, and then again every other year (Rosales 2017). Archaeological Artifacts: Fabaceae pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011), as a seed in the fill of Woodard Mound (Richens 1983:111), and in a coprolite from Spotten Cave (Pearce 2012.). Ethnographic Use: The root was used as a medicine by the Ute (Chamberlin 1909:35). Collected: Roots were collected from Red Butte Gardens, Salt Lake City. They were rinsed in distilled water and needed two digestions. Microfossil Production: I found no scholarly articles on the production of phytoliths in this species. I observed entire epidermal with striate texture (E4) produced rarely in the roots. See figure 4.5.I. 178 HOLODISCUS DUMOSA Family: Rosaceae Genus: Holodiscus Species: dumosus Common Name: mountain spray, rockspirea (Welsh et al. 2008:640). Synonym: Spiraeae dumosa, Holodiscus discolor Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: Cold- to warm-temperate coniferous, hardwood, and shrubland communities, particularly Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir communities, and in curl-leaf mountain mahogany communities (Fryer 2010). Production Time: Tiny, cream-white flowers bloom from June to August (Anderson and Holmgren 1996). Fruits ripen late in summer and are dispersed by November (Fryer 2010). Archaeological Artifacts: Rosaceae pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011) and Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), and in the fill of Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984). Ethnographic Use: The Paiute and Shoshone would boil the leaf or the stem in a decoction for venereal disease. This treatment was needed for a long period of time. A decoction of leaves and stems for stomachaches, and a boiled root decoction for stomach disorders and diarrhea. A leaf decoction was made as an emetic, and a tea of boiled stems for colds. An external antiseptic wash was made from boiled leaves, flowers, and upper stems (Train et al. 1941:59). Collected: Leaves and flowers were collected from Sego Lily Gardens, Sandy City, and Red Butte Gardens, Salt Lake City. They were sonicated. Microfossil Production: I found no scholarly articles on the production of phytoliths in this species. The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Holodiscus Leaves dumosa Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Inflorescence Inflorescence Phytolith Styloid, single, O2 Styloid cluster, O2a Prismatic, rectangular, single, O5 Prismatic, hexagon, single, O5b Sinuate epidermal with striate texture, E1a Entire epidermal with psilate texture, E4 Crenate epidermal, E6 Acicular hair with psilate texture, unsegmented, H2b Tracheid, V1 Parenchyma, Y1 Acicular hair with psilate texture, unsegmented, H2b Vascular tissue indeterminate, V2 179 PI U U U U U U U U U U C U Figures 4.1.N 4.1.T 4.2.O 4.2.S 4.4.I 4.5.D 4.5.N 4.3.K 4.7.N 4.6.K 4.3.K 4.8.D JUNIPERUS COMMUNIS Family: Cupressaceae Genus: Juniperus Species: communis Common Name: common juniper (Welsh et al. 2008:15). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES11 Spruce-fir FRES15 Oak-hickory FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood FRES19 Aspen-birch FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES23 Fir-spruce FRES26 Lodgepole pine FRES28 Western hardwoods FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES37 Mountain meadows FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES44 Alpine (Tirmenstein 1999d). Production Time: Junipers begin new growth in the spring, and flowers develop later from April to June. These flowers, or cones, will remain on the plant for two years, often dropping during August (Tirmenstein 1999d). Frequent Associations: Common snowberry, gooseberry currant, Oregon-grape, hairy telegraphplant, timber milkvetch, silvery lupine, Thurber fescue, elk sedge, and bottlebrush squirreltail (Tirmenstein 1999d). Archaeological Artifacts: Juniper pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011) and Woodard Mound (Richens 1983:116), on groundstone and in fill from Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016). Juniper seeds were found in the fill of Kay’s Cabin (Puseman and Cummings 2001), Woodard Mound (Richens 1983:111), Wolf Village (Dahle 2011), andHinckley Mounds (Puseman 2016). Ethnographic Use: The Shoshone and Paiute would boil the younger growth at branch ends, which would produce a reddish liquid that was drunk as a blood tonic. A cold tea from boiled twigs was drunk for venereal diseases. The seeds were eaten as a blood tonic, and for lumbago (Train et al. 1941:61). Collected: Twigs and young shoots were gathered from Red Butte Gardens, Salt Lake City. This sample was sonicated, and the twigs required two digestions. Microfossil Production: I found no scholarly articles on the production of phytoliths in this species. I observed no phytoliths in the twigs, but in the young shoots I rarely observed entire epidermal with psilate texture (E4), and tracheids (V1). See Figure 4.5.E for E4 JUNIPERUS OSTEOSPERMA Family: Cupressaceae Genus: Juniperus 180 Species: osteosperma Common Name: Utah juniper, Utah cedar (Welsh et al. 2008:15). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES28 Western hardwoods FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES40 Desert grasslands (Zlatnik 1999b). Production Time: Seeds germinate and cones open in spring (Zlatnik 1999b). Frequent Associations: Can hybridize with other Juniper species (Zlatnik 1999b). Archaeological Artifacts: Juniper pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011) and Woodard Mound (Richens 1983:116), on groundstone and in fill from Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016). Juniper seeds were found in the fill of Kay’s Cabin (Puseman and Cummings 2001), Woodard Mound (Richens 1983:111), and Wolf Village (Dahle 2011), Hinckley Mounds (Puseman 2016). Ethnographic Use: The Southern Paiute ate the seeds and berries (Fowler 1986:73; Rainey and Adams 2004). The Goshute used the bark to line pits that stored dried fruit. The leaves were used in a tea for coughs and colds, and the berries eaten in fall and winter after boiling (Chamberlin 1964:372). The Ute used this plant for kindling and slow matches (Chamberlin 1909:35) Collected: Berries and leaves were gathered from Red Butte Gardens, Salt Lake City. This sample was sonicated and the berries needed two digestions. Microfossil Production: Morris (2008:168) and McNamee (2013:43) found J. osteosperma to be a non-producer of phytoliths. J. deppeana also produced no phytoliths in the bark, berries, or needles (McNamee 2013:43). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Juniperus Berry osteosperma Berries Leaves Phytolith Crystal sand, O3 Tracheid, V1 Spheroids with granulate texture, S3a JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM Family: Cupressaceae Genus: Juniperus Species: scopulorum Common Name: rocky mountain juniper (Welsh et al. 2008:16). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES23 Fir-spruce 181 PI U/R U U Figures none none 4.9.Z FRES25 Larch FRES26 Lodgepole pine FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES32 Texas savanna FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES39 Prairie FRES40 Desert grasslands (Scher 2002). Production Time: Flowers develop in late summer and bloom in April, with the berries ripening by Autumn and maturing in November or December before falling the following spring (Scher 2002). Frequent Associations: Can hybridize with other Juniper species (Scher 2002). Archaeological Artifacts: Juniper pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011) and Woodard Mound (Richens 1983:116), on groundstone and in fill from Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016). Juniper seeds were found in the fill of Kay’s Cabin (Puseman and Cummings 2001), Woodard Mound (Richens 1983:111), Wolf Village (Dahle 2011), and Hinckley Mounds (Puseman 2016). Ethnographic Use: The Shoshone and Paiute would make a tea of boiled terminal twigs used for venereal disease (Train et al. 1941:62). Collected: Twigs were gathered from Sego Lily Gardens, Sandy City. This sample was sonicated. Microfossil Production: I found no scholarly articles on the production of phytoliths in this species. I also observed no forms in the twigs. NICOTIANA ATTENUATA Family: Solanaceae Genus: Nicotiana Species: attenuata Common Name: coyote tobacco (Welsh et al. 2008:729). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: Yellow Pine Forest, Red Fir Forest, Lodgepole Forest, Subalpine Forest, Foothill Woodland, Chaparral, Valley Grassland, wetland-riparian (CalFlora 2009). Production Time: Blooms from May to October (CalFlora 2009). Archaeological Artifacts: Solanaceae pollen was found in the fill of Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984). Ethnographic Use: The Shoshone and Paiute employed this plant as a smoking tobacco. Often applied externally, rarely taken internally. A tablespoonful of boiled leaves was taken internally three times a day for worms. A weak solution of leaves, boiled or raw, for a physic or emetic. A wet dressing of crushed leaves plus tubers of Cyperus esculentus was applied for athlete’s foot. A decoction of boiled leaves for hives or other skin irritations. Smoked 182 leave when mixed with dried Salvia carnosa or Leptotaenia multifida for colds, asthma, or tuberculosis. The crushed leaves were applied as is or as a poultice for swellings, rheumatism, toothache, eczema and similar skin conditions. The chewed leaves were applied to cuts, or bound on snakebites after poison has been sucked out. Pulverized tobacco was applied to sores (Rainey and Adams 2004; Train et al. 1941:71-72). The Goshute also use this plant as a source of tobacco. They used the leaves dried and alone or with kinnikinick, Cornus stolonifera, bark (Chamberlin 1964:375). The Ute and Shoshone also gathered tobacco from previously burned areas (Stewart 1942:251). Collected: A packet of seeds was received at a research conference. I attempted to grow some, but did not produce a sufficient sample to test. Microfossil Production: I found no scholarly articles on the production of phytoliths in this species. McNamee (2013:42) reports no phytoliths produced in Nicotiana obtusifolia. Bozarth (1997) reports that in N. rustica leaves that large plates with irregular curvilinear edges can be found, although they are rare. OPUNTIA POLYCANTHA Family: Cactaceae Genus: Opuntia Species: polycantha Common Name: central prickly pear (Welsh et al. 2008:86). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES32 Texas savanna FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES40 Desert grasslands (Johnson 2000a). Production Time: Yellow, pink, or red flowers bloom in June and July (Selland 2003). Fruit ripens about two or more months after flowering (Johnson 2000a). Frequent Associations: Pinyon, juniper, mountain-mahogany, oak, serviceberry, sage brushes, and several grasses, among others (Johnson 2000a). Archaeological Artifacts: Evidences of this plant were not found in any Fremont Utah Valley sites. This plant was included, however, because of its use by Native Historic groups and because it is found in Utah Valley. Ethnographic Use: The Goshute and Utah Southern Paiute use the stems and buds for food once the spines were removed (Chamberlin 1964:375; Fowler 1986:72). Collected: A pad and a bud were collected from Red Butte Gardens, Salt Lake City. This sample was sonicated and required two digestions. Microfossil Production: 183 I found no scholarly articles on the production of phytoliths in this species. However, small and large druse phytoliths have been found in other Opuntia species in the piths, cortexes, and epidermis/hypodermis (Jones and Bryant 1992). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Opuntia Bud polycantha Bud Pad Spines/hairs Pads Pads Buds Spines/hairs Phytolith Tracheid, V1 Vascular tissue indeterminate, V2 Tracheid, V1 Irregular sub-spheroid form, ruminate to facetate texture, S1b Druse, O4 Druse-like, O4a Druse-like, O4a Druse-like, O4a PI C U U U Figures 4.7.O none 4.7.O 4.9.F C A C C 4.2.H 4.2.H 4.2.H 4.2.H PHASEOLUS VULGARIS Family: Fabaceae, Leguminosae Genus: Phaseolus Species: vulgaris Common Name: kidney bean, green bean, snap bean (Welsh et al. 2008:477). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: A cultivated species that prefers well drained soil and full sun. Production Time: Often planted once soil temperatures are above 60oF, and matures 50-60 days after planting. Archaeological Artifacts: Beans were found in the fill of Smoking Pipe (Billat 1985:91; Forsyth 1984:18), and in the fill of Wolf Village (Dahle 2011). Ethnographic Use: The Utah Southern Paiute ate the beans (Fowler 1986:73). Collected: No samples were collected for this study given the prolific publication and analysis that currently exists on Phaseolus. Microfossil Production: Produces hook-shaped, silicified hairs (Bozarth 1990; Poveda-Diaz et al. 2016) PINUS EDULIS Family: Pinaceae Genus: Pinus Species: edulis Common Name: pinyon, two-needle pinyon, Colorado pinyon (Welsh et al. 2008:21). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES23 Fir-spruce FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub 184 FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES40 Desert grasslands (Anderson 2002). Production Time: Cones emerge in May or June and grow until the end of August when growth is paused until the following May. Cones and seeds are fully mature by the September of their second year of growth, after which they open (Anderson 2002). Frequent Associations: Often grows above or overlapping Juniperus osteosperma (Anderson 2002; Anderson and Holmgren 1996). Archaeological Artifacts: Pine pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011), Woodard Mound (Richens 1983:116), and Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), and in the fill from Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984). Ethnographic Use: When accessible, pinyon nuts were gathered, often in the fall, by most all groups, including the Goshute, Shoshone, Ute, and Paiute (Chamberlin 1964:377; Fowler 1986:76). A few groups would travel to known groves to harvest them (Lowie 1924:201). The nuts would be consumed raw or roasted, or ground into flour (Janetski 1991:39; Stewart 1942:251; Yanovsky 1936:5). The inner bark was also sometimes used for food, and the sap as a chewing gum, by the Southern Paiute (Rainey and Adams 2004). The pitch was also sometimes made into medicine (Janetski 1991:39; Stewart 1942:251). Collected: Nuts, sap, and needles were collected at Red Butte Gardens, Salt Lake City. This sample was not sonicated and required up to three digestions. Microfossil Production: McNamee (2013:25, 43) found no phytoliths in the needles, wood, bark, or cones, but did find globular psilate central nuclei, half spherical psilate outline, and half spherical granulate outline phytolith forms in the shells. Bozarth (1997) identified thick, crescent shaped phytoliths in the pine nuts. Leaf cell types in pines are either weakly or heavily silicified, and the phytoliths are often distinguished from other plants by the presence of bordered pit impressions on tracheary elements (Bozarth 1993:96). I also observed the half nuclei/crescent shapes in the nuts. The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Pinus edulis Twigs Nuts Sap Needles Twigs Phytolith Prismatic, rectangular, clusters, O5a Crescents, half-nucleir, S4 Vascular tissue indeterminate, V2 PINUS FLEXILIS Family: Pinaceae Genus: Pinus Species: flexilis 185 PI C U NP NP U Figures 4.2.Q 4.9.cc 4.8.E Common Name: limber pine (Welsh et al. 2008:21). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES23 Fir-spruce FRES26 Lodgepole pine FRES29 Sagebrush FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper (Johnson 2001). Production Time: Cones ripen from August to September and seeds are dispersed shortly thereafter (Johnson 2001). Frequent Associations: Bristlecones, ponderosa, lodgepole, pinyons, and other pines, as well as firs, junipers, aspens, maples, oaks, and sagebrush, among others (Johnson 2001). Archaeological Artifacts: Pine pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011), Woodard Mound (Richens 1983:116), and Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), and in the fill from Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984). Ethnographic Use: The Western Shoshone ate the seeds (Fowler 1986:76). Collected: An entire cone with seeds came from Grow Wild Nursery, Salt Lake City. This sample was sonicated. Microfossil Production: I found no scholarly articles on the production of phytoliths in this species. Phytoliths have been found in P. monophylla. Spiny body phytoliths have been reported in P. ponderosa, but not in P. edulis (Kerns 2001:286, 292). McNamee (2013:28, 43) reports blocky forms, elongates, globulars, and tracheary elements for P. ponderosa needles, and no phytoliths from P. leiophylla stems or needles. In P. contorta, there were sporadic tracheary elements, and abundant pilates and scorbiculate in the needles, and abundant scorbiculate in the twigs (McCune and Pellatt 2013:64). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Pinus flexulis Seeds Nuts Nuts Nuts Nuts Nuts Phytolith Tracheid, V1 Styloid, single, O2 Styloid cluster, O2a Druse-like, O4a? Crystal sand, O3 Prismatic, rectangular, single, O5 PI U C C U/R R R PINUS MONOPHYLLA Family: Pinaceae Genus: Pinus Species: monophylla Common Name: singleleaf pinyon (Welsh et al. 2008:21). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES28 Western hardwoods 186 Figures none 4.1.O 4.1.U 4.2.I 4.2.C 4.2.P FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES40 Desert grasslands (Zouhar 2001b). Production Time: Cones slowly develop in the first growing season, and grow rapidly be the second growing season, with the seeds maturing in late summer (Zouhar 2001b). Frequent Associations: Can hybridize with other Pinus species. Often grows alongside junipers, sage brushes, and other shrubs (Zouhar 2001b). Archaeological Artifacts: Pine pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011), Woodard Mound (Richens 1983:116), and Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), and in the fill from Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984). Ethnographic Use: The Ute would turn pinyon nuts into a mush that was stored for winter (Sutton 1989:245). The Western Shoshone and Utah Southern Paiute ate the nuts (Fowler 1986:76). The tree resin was an important remedy for both groups. A tea of boiled resin was taken for colds, venereal diseases, rheumatism, tuberculosis, influenza, chronic indigestion, bowel trouble, fevers, nausea, diarrhea, for general debility, postpartum, and as a tonic. The terminal twigs of Juniperus utahensis were sometimes added to the boiled resin tea to improve flavor, and as a kidney medicine. Needles or young twigs could be used in place of resin. The resin was also chewed for sore throats or swallowed as a pill to stop diarrhea. A dressing of heated resin was used to draw out boils or embedded slivers, and also used, when combined with crushed plants of Psathyrotes ramosissima or finely chopped terminal twigs of Juniperus utahensis, for sores, cuts, swellings, and insect bites. The pulverized resin was used as a drying agent for syphilitic sores. The heated resin when smeared on a cloth was used to treat pneumonia, ruptures, sciatic pains, and muscular soreness. This same hot resin poultice mixed with crushed Salvia carnos leaves was used for chest congestion (Train et al. 1941:78-79). The Goshute would boil the gum in water and drink it hot to fight intestinal parasites (Chamberlin 1964:350, 377). This tree was also an important food source and a pine-nut harvest was a great event. Nuts were consumed raw or roasted (Yanovsky 1936:5). Collected: Resin and needles were collected from Sego Lily Gardens, Sandy City. This sample was sonicated and the needles required two digestions. Microfossil Production: Pinus monophylla was found to produce abundant blocky, prismatic and elongate rectangular styloid forms (Plate III) (Morris 2008:144). Phytoliths were minimally observed by Morris (2008:168). McNamee (2013:25, 43) found globular psilate central nuclei, half spherical psilate outline, and half spherical granulate outline phytolith forms in the shells. I did not test any shells. The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Phytolith Pinus monophylla Resin Tree Needles Elongate with aculeate margins, non grass, L5b Needles Tracheid, V1 187 PI Figures NP U 4.11.N U none POA FENDLERIANA Family: Poaceae, Graminae Genus: Poa Species: fendleriana Common Name: muttongrass (Welsh et al. 2008:884). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES23 Fir-spruce FRES28 Western hardwoods FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES37 Mountain meadows FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES40 Desert grasslands FRES44 Alpine (Howard 1997). Production Time: Flowers during the spring and summer, with seeds ripening shortly thereafter (Howard 1997). Frequent Associations: Can hybridize with other Poa species (Howard 1997). Archaeological Artifacts: Poaceae phytoliths were found in teeth tartar from the Provo Mounds (Yost 2009:6), as pollen on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011), and Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), and as starch on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011). Additionally, Poaceae seeds and caryopsis were found in coprolites from Spotten Cave (Pearce 2012), and in the fill of Hinckley Mounds (Puseman 2016). Ethnographic Use: Seeds were eaten (Yanovsky 1936:9). Collected: Florets with seeds were collected at Sego Lily Gardens, Sandy City. This sample was not sonicated. Microfossil Production: According to Kerns (2001:286), Poa species are in the subfamily Pooideae and produce rondels. They should also produce pyramids. Of a 100-short cell count of phytoliths from leaf epidermis, 96 rondels, 3 pyramids, and one crenate were found (Kerns 2001:287). In P. bulbosa and P. pratensis, rondels were abundant in the inflorescence and vegetation, elongates were also frequently found, tuberculates were rare, papillae were only found in the inflorescence of P. pratensis. Crentates and scorbiculate were rare (McCune and Pellatt 2013:63). P. secunda produced abundant phytoliths that took the form of long cells, plates, hair bases, papillae, and rondels (Morris 2008:171). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Cell Type Poa Long fendleriana Long Long Long Phytolith Elongate with pilate margins, L1 Elongate with entire margins, L2 Elongate, crenate margins, L4 Elongate, aculeate margins, L5 188 PI C C C C Figure 4.10.C 4.10.J 4.11.C 4.11.I Long Long Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Elongate, aculeate margins, granulate texture, L5c Tracheid, V1 Round/oblong rondels, G1a Square/rectangular rondels, G1b Keeled rondels, G1c Trapeziform, G1e Lancelote style hair trichomes, G6a General, polylobe/bilobe rondel, G7b Lancelote style hair, granulate texture, unsegmented, H1d Papillae with ligulate margins, p1 Papillae with pitted edges, P1b C U C C C C C U C U U 4.11.Q none 4.11.C 4.11.G 4.11.L 4.11.T 4.11.cc 4.11.jj 4.3.H 4.8.I none PRUNUS VIRGINIANA Family: Rosaceae Genus: Prunus Species: virginiana Common Name: chokecherry (Welsh et al. 2008:654). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES10 White-red-jack pine FRES11 Spruce-fir FRES13 Loblolly-shortleaf pine FRES14 Oak-pine FRES15 Oak-hickory FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood FRES18 Maple-beech-birch FRES19 Aspen-birch FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES23 Fir-spruce FRES26 Lodgepole pine FRES28 Western hardwoods FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES39 Prairie (Johnson 2000b). Production Time: White flowers bloom in late spring, and red fruits ripen into a deep purple in late summer (Selland 2003; Johnson 2000b). Frequent Associations: Sagebrush, serviceberry, shadscale, rabbitbrushes, oaks, wood’s rose, mahogany, juniper, and firs, among others (Johnson 2000b). Archaeological Artifacts: Chokecherry seeds were found in the fill of Kay’s Cabin (Puseman and Cummings 2001) and in the fill of Wolf Village (Dahle 2011). Ethnographic Use: The Eastern Shoshone, Goshute, Utah Southern Paiute, and Western Shoshone ate the fruit (Fowler 1986:78; Sutton 1989:249). The Ute gathered berries which were mashed, formed into lumps, dried, and stored until spring (Lowie 1924:202). The Goshute would use scrapings of wood in a decoction for bowel trouble (Chamberlin 1964:350). The Paiute and Shoshone would make a tea from leaves or bark, or dried root for tuberculosis, coughs and colds. A decoction of bark for indigestion and upset stomach. Holding the head over boiling bark with steam rising into eyes was a cure for snow 189 blindness. The dried, pulverized bark was smoked for headaches and head colds, or used as a drying powder for sores (Train et al. 1941:82-83). Collected: Berries, leaves, and roots were collected from Sego Lily Gardens, Sandy City, and Red Butte Gardens, Salt Lake City. This sample was sonicated. Microfossil Production: Leaves have been found to produce silicified anticlinal epidermal cells, tracheids, and a unique rhombohedral calcium oxalate crystal (Morris 2008:145, 168). The forms in the leaves were common and the stem phytoliths were minimal. Calcium oxalate crystals have also been found in P. laurocerasus in the form of blocky mesophyll/epidermal cells in the leaves and stems, both of which were poorly silicified. Tracheids were also found in the leaves, and rhombohedral CaOx crystals in the stems (McCune and Pellatt 2013:65). I also observed the rhombohedral CaOx crystals. The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Prunus Berries virginiana Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Roots Roots Leaves Leaves Phytolith Vascular tissue indeterminate, V2 Ligulate epidermal with psilate texture, E3 Tracheid, V1 Vascular tissue indeterminate, V2 Parenchyma, Y1 Irregular sub-spheroid form with granulate texture, S1c Vascular tissue indeterminate, V2 Single raphide, O1 Rhombohedral, O6 PI C C C C C C C R C Figures none 4.4.N 4.7.P none 4.6.L 4.9.K none none 4.2.V PURSHIA MEXICANA Family: Rosaceae Genus: Purshia Species: mexicana Common Name: cliff-rose (Welsh et al. 2008:655). Synonym: Cowania mexicana Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES28 Western hardwoods FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper (Howard 1995). Production Time: Yellow and white blossoms bloom from April to September (Anderson and Holmgren 1996). Seeds mature and disperse in summer up to October (Howard 1995). Frequent Associations: Can hybridize with other Purshia species (Howard 1995). Archaeological Artifacts: Rosaceae pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011) and Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), and in the fill of Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984). Ethnographic Use: 190 The Goshute used the leaves medicinally (Chamberlin 1964:367). The Paiute and Shoshone would boil the leaves, powdered rock lichens, and another plant into a tea that was taken twice daily as a smallpox cure. Another smallpox remedy was made by boiling the plant tops with pitch of Pinus monophylla. An antiseptic wash was made by bowling young tops, flowers, and leaves, or by boiling leaves with pine pitch. A tea was made from leaves, young stems, and flowers for venereal diseases, as a physic, for colds, or for back pains over the kidneys (Train et al. 1941:40). Collected: Flowers and leaves were collected from Sego Lily Gardens, Sandy City, and Central Utah Gardens, Orem. This sample was partially sonicated. Microfossil Production: McNamee (2013:40) tested the whole plant and found it to be a non-producer of phytoliths. Yet in P. subintegra, there were abundant phytoliths in the leaves and inflorescence (none in the bark) that took the forms of tracheids, pitted vessels, and wavy single celled hairs (McNamee 2013:41). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Purshia Inflorescence mexicana Leaves Leaves Phytolith Irregular sub-spheroid form with granulate texture, S1c Vascular tissue indeterminate, V2 PI Figures NP R 4.9.L U none PURSHIA TRIDENTATA Family: Rosaceae Genus: Purshia Species: tridentata Common Name: bitterbrush (Welsh et al. 2008:655). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES23 Fir-spruce FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper (Zlatnik 1999c). Production Time: Yellow blossoms bloom in spring (Anderson and Holmgren 1996) to July, fruits ripen from July to September (Zlatnik 1999c). Frequent Associations: Often grows alongside sagebrush (Anderson and Holmgren 1996). Can hybridize with other Purshia species (Zlatnik 1999c), and grow with firs, pinyons, pines, sage brushes, and spruces. Archaeological Artifacts: Rosaceae pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011) and Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), and in the fill of Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984). Ethnographic Use: This plant was used extensively by the Paiute and Shoshone, in particular to treat smallpox, chicken pox, and measles by an internal mendicant by boiling leaves, and sometimes young branches and flowers. Sometimes it quickened the appearance of the 191 measles rash. A decoction was applied as a wash that also treated these three diseases. A decoction of the plant as an external wash was used as an antiseptic for itches, rashes, skin eruptions, scratches, or insect bites. The green leaves were mashed and applied as a wet dressing for sores, or dried leaves dusted as a powder for sores. A tea of a boiled leaf decoction, inner trunk bark, or roots for venereal disease and gonorrhea. This tea would be prepared in quantity and stored. A tea of boiled leaves for colds, pneumonia, liver trouble, or as a blood or general tonic. An inner bark tea for internal rupture. The inner bark strips were used in a wash over swellings. An external wash made of boiled young twigs for rashes. A tea of inner white or outer dried bark for tuberculosis. A tea of boiled leaves, and/or twigs used as a physic or emetic. The strength of the physic or emetic was determined by water to leaf ratio. A physic was also made by boiling unground seeds (Train et al. 1941:86-87). Collected: Leaves were collected from Red Butte Gardens, Salt Lake City. This sample was sonicated. Microfossil Production: Produces minimal amounts of phytoliths in the leaf and no phytoliths in the stem (Morris 2008:168). Blinnikov (2005:82) found no phytoliths in P. tridentata at all. The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Phytolith PI Figures Purshia Leaves Irregular sub-spheroid form with granulate texture, S1c U 4.9.M tridenta Leaves Blocky with facetate texture, S2b U 4.9.X RHUS AROMATICA Family: Anacardiaceae Genus: Rhus Species: aromatica Common Name: skunkbush (Welsh et al. 2008:36-37). Variation: Two variations exist in Utah, with variation trilobata present in Utah Valley. Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES14 Oak-pine FRES13 Loblolly-shortleaf pine FRES15 Oak-hickory FRES18 Maple-beech-birch FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES39 Prairie (Taylor 2004). Production Time: Yellow blossoms bloom before leaves emerge in March or April (Anderson and Holmgren 1996). Fruits develop and mature about eight to nine weeks later (Taylor 2004). Archaeological Artifacts: Evidences of this plant were not found in any Fremont Utah Valley sites. This plant was included, however, because of its use by Native Historic groups and because it is found in Utah Valley. Ethnographic Use: 192 The Shoshone, Goshute, Northern Ute, Ute, and Utah Southern Paiute ate the berries (Chamberlin 1964:883; Chamberlin 1909:36; Fowler 1986:70). Both green and ripe berries were eaten, and dried berries were also gathered. The berries were also stored for winter. A drink was made with fresh berries (Ebeling 1986:126). The Paiute would make an astringent for smallpox sores used the dried and powdered fruits (Train et al. 1941:86). The root was used as a yellow dye. The leaf was sometimes mixed with tobacco (Rainey and Adams 2004). Collected: Berries and leaves were collected from Central Utah Gardens, Orem, and Sego Lily Gardens, Sandy City. This sample was not sonicated. Microfossil Production: Other Rhus species, such as choriophylla, have been found to be non-producers of phytoliths (McNamee 2013:32). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Rhus aromatic Berries Berries Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Phytolith Vascular tissue indeterminate, V2 Parenchyma, Y1 Entire epidermal with striate texture, E4a Irregular sub-spheroid form with granulate texture, S1c Tracheid, V1 Parenchyma, Y1 PI U U U U U U Figures 4.8.F 4.6.M 4.5.J 4.9.N 4.7.Q 4.6.M RIBES AUREUM Family: Saxifragaceae Genus: Ribes Species: aureum Common Name: golden currant, Lewis’ currant (Welsh et al. 2008:684). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES23 Fir-spruce FRES25 Larch FRES26 Lodgepole pine FRES28 Western hardwoods FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES40 Desert grasslands (Marshall 1995). Production Time: Bright yellow flowers bloom in early spring, as early as March (Selland 2003). Seeds mature in summer (Marshall 1995). Archaeological Artifacts: Evidences of this plant were not found in any Fremont Utah Valley sites. This plant was included, however, because of its use by Native Historic groups and because it is found in Utah Valley. Ethnographic Use: The Goshute ate the fruits, which they also dried in quantity and preserved for winter (Chamberlin 1964:379). The Ute ate the berries (Chamberlin 1909:36). The Paiute and 193 Shoshone would use the inner bark, dried, pulverized, and applied as a powder for sores, or made into a tea for leg swellings (Train et al. 1941:86). Collected: Berries were collected from Central Utah Gardens, Orem. This sample was sonicated. Microfossil Production: I found no scholarly articles on the production of phytoliths in this species. I observed irregular sub-spheroid form with ruminate texture (S1b) produced uncommonyl in the berries. See Figure 4.9.D. ROSA WOODSII Family: Rosaceae Genus: Rosa Species: woodsii Common Name: Wood’s rose (Welsh et al. 2008:657), mountain rose, wild rose Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood FRES19 Aspen-birch FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES22 Western white pine FRES23 Fir-spruce FRES24 Hemlock-Sitka spruce FRES25 Larch FRES26 Lodgepole pine FRES27 Redwood FRES28 Western hardwoods FRES29 Sagebrush FRES31 Shinnery FRES32 Texas savanna FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES37 Mountain meadows FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES39 Prairie FRES40 Desert grasslands FRES44 Alpine (Hauser 2006). Production Time: Pale to dark pink flowers bloom in late May (Selland 2003) up to July (Hauser 2006). Rose hips that contain seeds turn bright red and mature in the fall (Anderson and Holmgren 1996). Archaeological Artifacts: Rosa seeds were found in the fill of Kay’s Cabin (Puseman and Cummings 2001). Rosaceae pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011) and Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), and in the fill of Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984). Ethnographic Use: The Goshute, Eastern Shoshone, Utah Southern Paiute, Southern Ute, and Ute ate the berries (Chamberlin 1909:36; Chamberlin 1964:379; Fowler 1986:78). The Paiute and Shoshone used the ripe fruits as food. The pulpy seed was also used to soothe the lower intestinal tract. A tea of steeped leaves was a popular beverage. A tea of boiled roots or inner stem bark was used for colds. The plant was used as a tonic or cold remedy as a physic. A root decoction was effective in stopping diarrhea and used for intestinal influenza and bloody diarrhea, and for urination failure. The plant was used to dress sores, cuts, wounds, burns, and swellings. Parts of the plant, roots, wood, or inner bark stem were applied dry or moistened, or scraped into a fine powder and then inserted into 194 a wound and covered with a bandage. Claims were made that this improved healing (Train et al. 1941:88-89). Collected: Berries and leaves were gathered from Central Utah Gardens, Orem, and Red Butte Gardens, Salt Lake City. This sample was sonicated and the berries needed two digestions. Microfossil Production: Produces phytoliths in the leaves, and production can be considered common; there is no phytolith production in the stems or thorns (McNamee 2013:42; Morris 2008:144, 168). The leaves were found to produce polygonal epidermal, polygonal thick epidermal, hair base or hair base fragments, and stomates (McNamee 2013:24, 26, 41). Calcium oxalates have been found in the leaves and stems of R. gymnocarpa, both spherical and blocky forms. Puzzle piece epidermal forms were also found in the leaves (McCune and Pellatt 2013:65). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Rosa woodsii Plant Tissue Berries Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Phytolith PI Figures Spheroids with ruminate texture, S3b Sinuate epidermal with psilate texture, E1 Polygonal epidermal with psilate texture, E2 Tracheid, V1 Parenchyma, Y1 Prismatic, hexagon, single, O5b U C C C U U none 4.4.D 4.4.K 4.7.R 4.6.N 4.2.T SAMBUCUS CAERULEA Family: Caprifoliaceae, Adoxaceae Genus: Sambucus Species: caerulea Common Name: blue elderberry (Welsh et al. 2008:98). Alternate: A profusion of synonyms and alternate spellings create a confusing taxonomy (Crane 1989). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES22 Western white pine FRES23 Fir - spruce FRES24 Hemlock - Sitka spruce FRES25 Larch FRES26 Lodgepole pine FRES27 Redwood FRES28 Western hardwoods FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon – juniper (Crane 1989) Production Time: Small white flowers bloom in late spring and early summer (Selland 2003). Powdercovered dark-blue fruit develops in late summer (Anderson and Holmgren 1996). Frequent Associations: Serviceberries, chokecherries, roses, sage brushes, among others (Crane 1989). Archaeological Artifacts: 195 Seeds were found in the fill of Woodard Mound (Richens 1983:111). Ethnographic Use: The Goshute ate the berries fresh, dried, or cooked (Chamberlin 1964:380; Yanovsky 1936:57). Collected: Berries were gathered from Central Utah Gardens, Orem. This sample was not sonicated. Microfossil Production: I found no scholarly articles on the production of phytoliths in this species. I observed no phytolith forms in the berries. I did observe CaOx crystal sand (O3) as uncommonly produced in the berries. See Figure 4.2.D. SAMBUCUS RACEMOSA Family: Caprifoliaceae, Adoxaceae Genus: Sambucus Species: racemosa Common Name: red elderberry (Welsh et al. 2008:99). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: Quaking aspen/red elderberry communities, in riparian zones, in fir-spruce conifer communities (Fryer 2008). Production Time: Flowers bloom in June and July, fruits and seeds mature in late July to mid-August (Fryer 2008). Archaeological Artifacts: Seeds were found in the fill of Woodard Mound (Richens 1983:111). Ethnographic Use: The Eastern Shoshone, Utah Southern Paiute, Western Shoshone and Goshute ate the berries in season (Chamberlin 1964:380; Fowler 1986:72). Collected: Berries were gathered from the BYU Herbarium. This sample was sonicated. Microfossil Production: I found no scholarly articles on the production of phytoliths in this species. No phytoliths have been found in S. canadensis (Tedford 2009:189). I found no silica phytoliths in the berries. SARCOBATUS VERMICULATUS Family: Amaranthaceae, Chenopodiaceae Genus: Sarcobatus Species: vermiculatus Common Name: greasewood (Welsh et al. 2008:138). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES40 Desert grasslands 196 (Anderson 2004b). Production Time: Flowers in May up to August, seeds mature from September to November (Anderson 2004b). Frequent Associations: Saltbushes, rabbitbrushes, sage brushes, wildryes, sacatons, wheatgrasses, among others (Anderson 2004b). Archaeological Artifacts: Sarcobatus pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011) and Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), as well as in the fill of Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984) and Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016). Ethnographic Use: The Utah Southern Paiute ate the seeds (Fowler 1986:73). The Paiute claimed this was a remedy plant of past generations. They burnt the whole plant to charcoal, mixed the charcoal with water, and drank it three times daily for diarrhea. A charcoal of branches was made into a drink for diarrhea or rectal bleeding (Train et al. 1941:92). Collected: Leaves were gathered from Nine Mile Canyon. This plant was sonicated. Microfossil Production: I found no scholarly articles on the production of phytoliths in this species. I observed tracheids (V1; Figure 4.7.S) and blocky forms with facetate texture (S2b) produced uncommonly in the leaves. SHEPHERDIA ARGENTEA Family: Elaeagnaceae Genus: Shepherdia Species: argentea Common Name: silver buffaloberry (Welsh et al. 2008:354). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES28 Western hardwoods FRES29 Sagebrush FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES37 Mountain meadows FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES39 Prairie (Esser 1995). Production Time: Flowers bloom before leaves emerge in early spring (Selland 2003). Fruits ripen later in the summer, and seeds disperse in the fall. Frequent Associations: Often grows alongside serviceberry, sage brushes, rabbitbrush, greasewood, grasses, among others (Esser 1995). Archaeological Artifacts: Evidences of this plant were not found in any Fremont Utah Valley sites. This plant was included, however, because of its use by Native Historic groups and because it is found in Utah Valley. Ethnographic Use: 197 The Western Shoshone, Utah Southern Paiute, Northern Ute, Ute, and Goshute ate the berries (Chamberlin 1909:36; Chamberlin 1964:381; Fowler 1986:73). Collected: Berries and leaves were gathered Sego Lily Gardens, Sandy City. This sample was sonicated. Microfossil Production: Found to produce umbrella shaped, peltate trichomes “up to 0.5 mm in diameter, with a radiation pattern of linear cells” (Warner 1989:235). Piperno (2006) does not note anything on phytolith production of plants in the Elaeagnaceae family. The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Shepherdia Berries argentea Berries Leaves Leaves Leaves Phytolith Entire epidermal with psilate texture, E4 Umbrela peltate trichome, V4a Polygonal epidermal with psilate texture, E2 Tracheid, V1 Umbrella peltate trichome, V4a PI R C U U U Figures 4.5.F 4.6.P 4.4.L 4.7.T 4.6.P SHEPHERDIA CANADENSIS Family: Elaeagnaceae Genus: Shepherdia Species: canadensis Common Name: soapberry, Canada buffalo berry (Welsh et al. 2008:355). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems FRES10 White - red - jack pine FRES11 Spruce - fir FRES15 Oak – hickory FRES17 Elm - ash – cottonwood FRES19 Aspen – birch FRES20 Douglas-fir FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES23 Fir - spruce FRES25 Larch FRES26 Lodgepole pine FRES28 Western hardwoods FRES29 Sagebrush FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon - juniper FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES44 Alpine (Walkup 1991). Production Time: Yellow or brown flowers bloom in April to June; red, bitter berries ripen from July to August (Walkup 1991). Archaeological Artifacts: Evidences of this plant were not found in any Fremont Utah Valley sites. This plant was included, however, because of its use by Native Historic groups and because it is found in Utah Valley. Ethnographic Use: The berries were eaten for food by the Eastern Shoshone (Fowler 1986:73). Collected: Berries and leaves were gathered from Thanksgiving Point, Lehi. This plant was partially sonicated and required up to three digestions. Microfossil Production: 198 Found to produce umbrella shaped, peltate trichomes “up to 0.5 mm in diameter, with a radiation pattern of linear cells” (Warner 1989:235). Piperno (2006) does not note anything on phytolith production of plants in the Elaeagnaceae family. The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Shepherdia Berries canadensis Leaves Leaves Phytolith Blocky with facetate texture, S2b Irregular sub-spheroid form with granulate texture, S1c Tracheid, V1 PI U U U Figures 4.9.Y 4.9.O none SOLANUM JAMESII Family: Solanaceae Genus: Solanum Species: jamesii Common Name: James’ potato (Welsh et al. 2008:732). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: Prefers slightly acidic soil, dislikes wet or heavy clay soils (Hanson 2007:70-71). Can be found in pinyon-juniper and mountain-brush communities (Welsh et al 2008:732). Production Time: Plant in spring after the last frost, and then harvest in autumn after frost has killed the foliage. Tubers are small and grow at the ends of the root tips. Advised not to eat raw (Hanson 2007:70-71). Archaeological Artifacts: Solanum jamesii-type starch was found in the tooth tartar of an individual from the Provo Mounds (Yost 2009:6). Ethnographic Use: While there is no documentation for the use of Solanum jamesii, there is documentation for the consumption and cultivation of Solanum tuberosum by the Goshute (Chamberlin 1964:382). Collected: Tubers and leaves were gathered by Dr. Allison from his backyard. This sample was sonicated. Microfossil Production: I found no scholarly articles on the production of phytoliths in this species. Phytoliths have been found in S. elaegnifolium, S. dulcamara, and S. sarrachoides (McNamee 2013:42; Morris 2008:170). Blocky tabular scrobiculate, blocky crystalline, elongate fusiform thin psilate and tabular scrobiculate, and globular thick silica outlines, and tracheids in the leaves for S. elaegnifolium (McNamee 2013:28-30, 42). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Solanum Leaves jamesii Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Phytolith Styloid, single, O2 Styloid cluster, O2a Dumbbell bundle, O1d Crystal sand, O3 Druse, O4 PI C C C U R 199 Figures 4.1.P 4.1.V 4.1.K 4.2.F 4.2.J Species Plant Tissue Tubers Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Phytolith Tracheid, V1 Irregular sub-spheroid form, ruminate to facetate texture, S1b Spheroid with granulate texture, S3a Tracheid, V1 Indeterminate vsculare issue, V2 PI R U U U U Figures 4.7.U none 4.9.aa 4.7.U 4.8.G SOLIDAGO CANADENSIS Family: Asteraceae, Compositae Genus: Solidago Species: canadensis Common Name: common goldenrod (Welsh et al. 2008:264). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: Grows in most ecosystems, cover types, and alongside most plants (Coladonato 1993). Production Time: Pale golden-yellow flowers bloom from July to October (Anderson and Holmgren 1996). Seeds are dispersed during fall and winter. Archaeological Artifacts: Asteraceae pollen has been found in fill from Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984), in fill and on groundstone from Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011), and on groundstone from Woodard Mound (Richens 1983:116). Ethnographic Use: The Goshute would collect and eat the seeds (Chamberlin 1964:382). Collected: Florets were gathered from Red Butte Gardens, Salt Lake City. This sample was sonicated. Microfossil Production: I found no scholarly articles on the production of phytoliths in this species. Jigsaw-puzzle pieces, branched tracheary elements, and silicified hairs have been noted in Solidago rigida (Bozarth 1992). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Solidago Inflorescence canadensis Inflorescence Inflorescence Inflorescence Phytolith Lancelote hair with psilate texture, segmented, H1c Irregular sub-spheroid form with granulate texture, S1c Tracheid. V1 Indeterminate vascular tissue, V2 SPHAERALCEA MUNROANA Family: Malvaceae Genus: Sphaeralcea Species: munroana Common Name: Munro’s globemallow (Welsh et al. 2008:509-510). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: 200 PI U U U U Figures 4.3.F 4.9.P 4.7.V none Often found alongside sagebrush in desert plains to low mountain slopes (Pavek et al. 2011). Production Time: Tangerine to brick-red colored flowers bloom from May to September (Anderson and Holmgren 1996). Archaeological Artifacts: Sphaeralcea seeds were found in the fill of Wolf Village (Dahle 2011). Ethnographic Use: It is unclear how often the Shoshone distinguished between the different species of Sphaeralcea. A drink of boiled roots or whole plant was taken for a long period of time for venereal diseases and gonorrhea; this treatment also acted as a physic and emetic. A tea of boiled roots was taken as a contraceptive, and a weak solution of this could be used for upset stomach. A solution from boiled leaves was used as an eyewash or taken internally as a hot tea for colds. The crushed raw root was applied to swellings. The entire boiled plant was used as a dressing for cuts on horses. The plant once wilted in hot water was bandaged to rheumatic sores or swellings (Train et al. 1941:93-94). The Goshute pounded the plant in water into a gummy paste, which they then applied over rough inner surfaces of earthen dishes. They also sometimes used this paste on wicker vessels after they had been pitched with pine gum (Chamberlin 1964:374) Collected: Leaves were collected from Red Butte Gardens, Salt Lake City. This sample was sonicated. Microfossil Production: I found no scholarly articles on the production of phytoliths in this species. Phytoliths not present in Sphaeralcea ambigua (McNamee 2013:39). Minimal amounts of phytoliths were found in S. grossulariifolia (Morris 2013:168). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Sphaeralcea Leaves munroano Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Phytolith Polygonal epidermal with granulate texture, E2a Entire epidermal with striate texture, E4a Tracheid, V1 Stomata, V3 Parenchyma, Y1 SPOROBOLUS AIROIDES Family: Poaceae, Graminae Genus: Sporobolus Species: airoides Common Name: alkali sacaton (Welsh et al. 2008:897). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES32 Texas savanna FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES39 Prairie FRES40 Desert grasslands (Johnson 2000c). 201 PI U U U U U Figures 4.4.M 4.5.K none 4.6.D 4.6.O Production Time: Blooms in the summer, seeds produced thereafter and into October (Johnson 2000c). Frequent Associations: Can hybridize with other Sporobolus species. Often grows alongside other grasses, shrubs, sages, and Juniper (Johnson 2000c). Archaeological Artifacts: Sporobolus seeds were found in the fill of Wolf Village (Dahle 2011). Ethnographic Use: The seeds were parched, ground, eaten dry or made into a mush (Yanovsky 1936:9) Collected: Florets with seeds were gathered from Red Butte Gardens, Salt Lake City. This sample was not sonicated. Microfossil Production: Forms in airoides includes saddles, long indented cells, and pyramidal rondels, as well as other shapes such as bilobates (Morris 2008:143). In the blade and stem of S. contractis were found long cells, trichomes, saddles, bilobates, and crescent plates. In the blade and stem of S. cryptandrus were rondels, saddles, long cells, and trichomes and buliforms. In the blade and stem of S. interruptus, long cells, trichomes, hair cells, saddles, bilobes, and plates, among others, were found (McNamee 2013:98). Saddles, bilobates, and very few rondels were in S. cryptandrus (Morris 2013:143-144). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Cell Type Sporobolus Long airoides Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Short Short Short Phytolith PI Figures Sinuate epidermal with psilate texture, E1 Crenate epidermal, E6 Blocky epidermal, with lateral striations, E7 Elongate with pilate margins, L1 Elongate with entire margins, L2 Elongate with entire margins, granulate texture, L2a Elongate with entire margines, psilate texture; needle-like, L2b Elongate, aculeate margins, L5 Elongate, aculeate margins, granulate texture, L5c Tracheid, V1 Chloridoid saddle, G2a Gerneal ovoid rondel, G7a General, polylobe/bilobe rondel, G7b C C C A A A A A A U C C C STIPA HYMENOIDES Family: Poaceae, Graminae Genus: Stipa Species: hymenoides Common Name: Indian ricegrass (Welsh et al. 2008:901). Alternate Name: Oryzopsis hymenoides, Achnatherum hymenoides Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES29 Sagebrush 202 4.4.E 4.5.O 4.6.B 4.10.D 4.10.K 4.10.O 4.10.Q 4.11.J 4.11.R none 4.12.W 4.12.ff 4.12ii FRES30 Desert shrub FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES39 Prairie FRES40 Desert grasslands (Tirmenstein 1999a). Production Time: Flowers in spring with seeds ripening in the summer (Tirmenstein 1999a). Frequent Associations: Can hybridize with other needle grasses (Tirmenstein 1999a). Archaeological Artifacts: Stipa hymenoides seeds were found in the fill of Wolf Village (Dahle 2011). Ethnographic Use: Goshute, Western Shoshone, and Utah Southern Paiute ate the seeds (Fowler 1986:76; Rainey and Adams 2004). Collected: Florets with seeds were gathered from Sego Lily Gardens, Sandy City. This sample was not sonicated. Microfossil Production: According to Kerns (2001:286), Stipa species are in the Stipea tribe and produce Stipea pyramids. They should also produce simple bilobates. Abundant phytoliths have been found in Achnatherum hymenoides and A. nevadensis (Morris 2013:167). In the blade of A. hymenoides, smooth and granulate long cells, trichomes, hair cells, wide saddles, short shaft flat bilobes, short shaft with one flat and one round bilobes, stipa bilobes, stipa crenulated lobates, and crescent, round, and square plates were found (McNamee 2013:99). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Cell type Stipa Long hymenoides Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Short Phytolith PI Figure Entire epidermal with psilate texture, E4 Blocky epidermal with lateral striations, E7 Elongate with pilate margins, L1 Elongate with entire margins, L2 Elongate with entire margins, granulate texture, L2a Elongate with entire margines and psilate texture, needlelike L2b Elongate, crenate margins, L4 Elongate, aculeate margins, L5 Elongate, aculeate margins, granulate texture, L5c Elongate with sinuate margins, L6 Tracheid, V1 Round/oblong rondels, G1a Trapeziform, G1e Stipa bilobate, G3a Lancelote style hair trichomes, G6a Hair base trichome, G6b Bulliform, G6c Lancelote hair with granulate texture, unsegmented, H1d Acicular hair, needle/rod like, H2d U U C C C U 4.5.G 4.6.A 4.10.E 4.10.L 4.10.P 4.10.R C C C C U A A A C C C C C 4.11.D 4.11.K 4.11.S 4.11.T none 4.12.D 4.12.U 4.12.X 4.12.dd none 4.12.ee none none 203 TYPHA LATIFOLIA Family: Typhaceae Genus: Typha Species: latifolia Common Name: broad-leaved cattail (Welsh et al. 2008:943). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: Occurs in disturbed moist or wet habitats, with cattail marshes being found around Utah Lake and the Great Salt Lake, and in FRES41 Wet grasslands (Gucker 2008). Production Time: Flowers in the summer, with seed production following thereafter (Gucker 2008). Frequent Associations: Can hybridize with other cattail species (Gucker 2008). Archaeological Artifacts: Typha latifolia pollen has been found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011), Woodard Mound (Richens 1983:116), and Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), and in the fill of Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984). Ethnographic Use: The Western Shoshone and Utah Southern Paiute use the root, pollen, flowers, and stalks (Fowler 1986:79). The Paiute would burn the cattail fluff to obtain seeds to eat. They would encapsulate pollen in plant leaves and roast it, making the pollen hard and sweet (Ebeling 1986:115). The Goshute ate the seeds, often roasted, after burning off the bristles of spikes (Chamberlin 1964:341, 383). The Ute also ate the seeds and shoots (Janetski 1991:38). Collected: Stalk, leaf, and a pollen head were collected from Red Butte Gardens. This sample was sonicated, and samples required two digestions. Microfossil Production: No silica phytoliths were observed in this plant, but calcium oxalate crystals of raphide bundles and randomly aligned raphides have been observed (Monje and Baran 2002). I observed no silica forms, but I did observe CaOx crystals. The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Typha latifolia Entire stalk Pollen head Pollen head Pollen head Pollen head Pollen head Pollen head Phytolith Single raphide, O1 Raphide bundle of same orientation, O1a Styloid, single, O2 Styloid cluster, O2a Crystal sand, O3 Prismatic, hexagon, single, O5b VIGUIERA MULTIFLORA Family: Asteraceae, Compositae Genus: Viguiera 204 PI NP U U U U U U Figures 4.1.B 4.1.D 4.1.Q 4.1.W 4.2.G none Species: multiflora Common Name: showy goldeneye (Welsh et al. 2008:278). Alternate Name: Heliomeris multiflora Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: Often grows in “sagebrush, juniper, cottonwood, aspen, and spruce fir communities” (Tilley 2012). Production Time: Golden-yellow flowers bloom in August (Anderson and Holmgren 1996). Archaeological Artifacts: Asteraceae pollen has been found in fill from Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984), in fill and on groundstone from Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011), and on groundstone from Woodard Mound (Richens 1983:116). Ethnographic Use: The Goshute and Utah Southern Paiute ate the seeds (Chamberlin 1964:341, 371; Fowler 1986:71). Collected: Failed to record where flowers were collected. This sample was sonicated. Microfossil Production: Abundant phytoliths in the leaves, none present in the inflorescence or stem (McNamee 2013:33). In particular, polygonal epidermal, polygonal striated epidermal, blocky, tracheid, single celled hairs with round bases, segmented hairs, and hair bases are found (McNamee 2013:24-26). The following table notes my findings, with PI referring to the production index (see chapter 4). Species Plant Tissue Viguiera Inflorescence multiflora Inflorescence Inflorescence Phytolith Entire epidermal with psilate texture, E4 Lancelote hair with psilate texture, segmented, H1c Tracheid, V1 PI U U U Figures 4.5.H 4.3.G 4.7.W ZEA MAYS Family: Poaceae, Graminae Genus: Zea Species: mays Common Name: maize, corn (Welsh et al. 2008:906). Forest-Range Environmental Study Ecosystems: This is a cultivated species. Corn species tend to prefer full sun and well-drained soils. Production Time: A good time to plant corn is when soil temperatures are above 60oF. Corn matures between 60 to 90 days from planting. Archaeological Artifacts: Kernels were found in the fills of Smoking Pipe (Billat 1985:91; Forsyth 1984:17), Hinckley Mounds (Peterson 2016), Wolf Village (Dahle 2011), Woodard Mound (Richens 1983:111), Kay’s Cabin (Puseman and Cummings 2001), and American Fork Cave (Hansen 1941:11). Cobs were found in West Canyon (Wheeler 1968:66), Smoking Pipe, and Wolf Village. Pollen was found on groundstone from Wolf Village (Cummings 2011) and Woodard Mound, and in the fill of Smoking Pipe (Scott 1984). 205 Ethnographic Use: The Goshute, Southern Paiute, and Plateau Shoshoneans consumed this plant (Lowie 1924:200; Rainey and Adams 2004). The Ute and Shoshone planted, harvested, and stored this plant. They roasted the kernels in husks, boiled on the cob, ground then into a flour. A meal was made from green maize or from flour, which was also used to make breads, mush, and dumplings (Stewart 1924:255-256). Collected: No samples were collected for this study given the prolific publication and analysis that currently exists on Zea mays. Microfossil Production: Phytoliths are produced in the cupules and glumes, in the cobs, but not in the kernels. There are four kinds: wavy-top rondel, ruffle-top rondel, half-decorated rondel, and irregular with short protrusions (IRP). The three rondel types are indicative of all Zea species (Pearsall et al. 2003:619, 621), although the half-decorated form is only observed in half of Zea species. The wavy-top has a flat base that is longer than the body is tall. It is circular to oval in shape, and the top is a single complete wave equal to or less than the base. The edges are not ruffled, and one or both sides are concave. There are no horns or spikes, but it is almost keel-like. No bilobates, saddles, or rectangles have been observed as wavy-top maize types (Pearsall et al. 2003:613). The ruffle-top has a flat, oval to circular shaped base that is longer than the body is tall. The edges at the top are ruffled (cf undulating), and these ruffles are not sharp or angular. The top of this rondel is flat and larger than the base. When viewed from above, the ruffles can be seen expanding out and over the edges (Pearsall et al. 2003:613). The half-decorated form has a circular to oval to square shaped base, and the upper part (cf top) is round to square (cf puffed out). The top is decorated with no more than four projections that are neither horns nor spikes. These decorated rondels in the cobs are similar to short cells with aculeate processes. (Pearsall et al. 2003:613). IRPs (irregular with short protrusions) can be observed as wide rectangles with long parallel sides. They can be two-dimensional or three-dimensional in shape with undulate but no crenate sides. The projections can be regularly or irregularly patterned, and sparse or plentiful in number. The projections are often round with a bead-like head. They are not aculeate in texture. Other IRP forms include non-rectangle shape, robust globular body shape, gracile spherical body, tubular body, and oblong half decorated body (Pearsall et al. 2003:616-618). IRPs are only indicative of a few species (Pearsall et al. 2003:619) and the IRP forms usually all occur together (Pearsall et al. 2003:620) 206 Data Analysis Sheet Appendix E Site: _________________________ Artifact #: ______________________ Analyst:______________________ Slide #:_________________ Date: _______________ Page ___ of ___ L. Elongates G. Grass Short Cell Forms G1. Pooideae types G1a. round/oblong: G1b. Square/rectangular: G1c. Keeled: G1d. Pyramidal: G1d1. aculeated: G1e. trapeziform, sinuate: G1f. Reniform: Subtotal: G2. Chloridoid type G2a. Saddle: Subtotal: G3. Stipa types G3a. Bilobate: G3b. Buliform: Subtotal: G4. Panicoideae types G4a. Cross: G4b. Bilobate: Subtotal: G5. Zea mays types G5a. Wavy top: G5b. Ruffle top: G5c. IRP, rectangular: Subtotal: G6. Trichomes G6a. lancelote style hairs: G6b. hair bases: G6c. bulliform cf: Subtotal: G7. Rondel, general G7a. circular/ovoid: G7b. polylobes/bilobes: Subtotal: Other forms observed: L1. Elongate with pilate margins. Grass-type.: L1a. Achillea type: L1b. pilate to clavate margins. Grass type. L2. Elongate with entire margins. Grass-type.: L2a. granulate texture. Grass-type. L2b. psilate texture, needle like. Grass type. Subtotal: L3. Elongate, dendritic margins. Grass-type L4. Elongate, crenate margins. Grass-type L5. Elongate, aculeate margins. Grass-type L5a. curled. Grass-type L5b. non-grass type. L5c. granulate texture. Grass-type. Subtotal (grass): L6. Elongate, sinuate margins. Grass-type L7. Elongates, echinate margins. Grass-type L7a. granulate texture. Grass-type Subtotal: Other forms observed: Total (grass): Total (non-grass): E. Epidermal, Articulate E1. Sinuate epidermal, psilate texture E1a. striate texture E1b. heavy or light striations E2. Polygonal epidermal, psilate texture E2a. granulate texture E3. Ligulate epidermal, psilate texture E3a. striate texture E3b. ligulate to collumnate E4. Entire epidermal, psilate texture. E4a. striate texture E5. Favose epidermal E6. Crenate epidermal E7. Blocky epidermal, lateral striations. Grass-type E8. Amoeboed epidermal, Prunus type. Other forms observed: Total (grass): Total (non-grass): Total: P. Papillae P1. Papillae with ligulate margins: P1a. tuberculated: P1b. pitted edges. Grass-type. Other forms observed: Total (grass): Total (non-grass): 207 Site: _________________________ Artifact #: ______________________ Analyst:______________________ Slide #:_________________ H. Hairs S. Spheroid, Polygonal H1. Lancelote hair H1a.striate texture, unsegmen. H1b. psilate texture, unsegmen. H1c. psilate texture, segmented H1d.granulate texture, unseg. H2. Acicular hair H2a. striate texture, unsegmen. H2b. psilate texture, unseg. H2c. ovoid base with tuberculate processes. Elymus type H2d. needle like. Other forms observed: Total (grass): Date: _______________ Page ___ of ___ S1. Irregular sub-spheroid forms S1a. ruminate texture S1b. ruminate to facetate S1c. granulate texture S2. Blocky, psilate texture S2a. psilate to granulate S2b. facetate texture S3. Spheroids S3a. granulate texture S3b. ruminate texture S4. “crescents”, or half nuclei S5. Ellipsoids with tuberculate processes. Elymus type. Other forms observed: Total (non-grass): C. Sclerids Total: C1. Astrosclerid Other forms observed: Total: V. Vascular Tissue V1. Tracheids V2. Vascular tissue, unknown V3. Stomata V4. Trichome V4a. Umbrella peltate V4b. Trichome base (cf non-grass) Other forms observed: O. Calcium Oxalates O1. Raphide, single: needle shaped w/ one end pointed O1a. bundle, same orientation O1b. bundle, differ. Orientation O1c. small raphide-types connected together and of differ orientations O1d. “dunmbbell” bundle O2. Styloid, single O2a. cluster O3. Crystal sand O4. Druse: several facets radiating from a central core O4a. druse-like O5. Prismatic, rectangular, single O5a. rectangular cluster O5b. hexagon O5c. hexagon cluster O6. Rhombohedrals, Prunus-type. Other forms observed: Total: Y. Parenchyma Y1. Parenchyma Total: Other forms observed: Total:__________ Total: 208 Appendix F Phytolith and starch granule analysis of groundstone from the Wolf Village site (42UT273), Utah Valley, Utah by Chad L. Yost Ph.D. Candidate Department of Geosciences University of Arizona Paleoscapes Archaeobotanical Services Team (PAST), LLC Technical report 16022 prepared for Madison Pearce Graduate Studies Department of Anthropology Brigham Young University April 2017 209 INTRODUCTION Six groundstone artifacts from the Wolf Village site (42UT273) were analyzed for phytolith and starch microremains to determine plant resources processed using these tools. Site 42UT273 is a Fremont culture village site situated on a series of ridges north of the mouth of Goshen Canyon on the west side of Currant Creek. The site was primarily occupied in the AD 1000s; however, some structures may have been occupied as early as the AD 600s. Previous investigations have identified the use of both wild gathered and cultivated plant resources (Dahle 2011; Puseman and Yost 2017). MICROFOSSIL REVIEW Although phytolith and starch extraction protocols are optimized for the recovery of starch and biogenic silica from plant cells, other useful microremains and particles are often present in the extracts. Phytoliths, starch granules and some of these other microremains recovered from the groundstone samples are reviewed here. Phytoliths Phytoliths are biogenic silica (SiO2-nH2O) in-fillings and casts of plant cells (Blinnikov 2013). They are produced by many plants, including grasses, sedges, and many economically important plants (Piperno 2006). Phytoliths range in size between 5 and 200 μm, and a single grass plant can produce 105 to 106 phytoliths (Yost and Blinnikov 2011). When plant matter decays, phytoliths are released and incorporated into soils and sediments. One gram of dry soil typically yields 104 to 106 grass phytoliths, and one cm3 of lake sediment typically yields 104 to 105 grass phytoliths (Yost, et al. 2013). Because of their decay-in-place taphonomy, phytoliths tend to represent a very localized vegetation record, whereas pollen records are influenced by both local and regional vegetation. However, depending on the geomorphology of the study area, a proportion of the phytolith record may have been deposited some distance from its initial place of formation due to wind or water transport. Phytoliths also differ from pollen in that they can be produced in many different plant tissues such as roots, stems, leaves, and seeds. Starch granules Starch is a plant energy storage substance composed of crystalline and non-crystalline regions made up of amylose and amylopectin. Some of this starch forms globular, spherical, or polyhedral bodies referred to as either grains or granules. Starch granules are found in many plant parts, but are often concentrated in seeds, fruits, roots, and tubers. Starch granules range in size between 1 and 100 microns, and can persist in soil, artifact surfaces, cooking residue and dental calculus for tens of thousands of years. A single plant species often produces a variety of starch granule shapes, sizes and 210 forms. Some of these morphotypes overlap with those produced by other plants; however, there are often morphotypes that are diagnostic of specific plants at various taxonomic levels. When viewed using polarized light microscopy, starch granules appear bright white against a black background, a phenomenon called birefringence. Chemical extraction, cooking, drying and environmental degradation can result in reduced or even the complete loss of birefringence (Gott, et al. 2006). Chrysophytes Chrysophyte stomatocysts are biogenic silica structures produced by chrysophycean algae (classes Chrysophyceae and Synurophyceae) during the resting stage of their life cycle (Wilkinson, et al. 2001). Like diatoms, these organisms are often preserved in soils and sediments and can be used to reconstruct past environmental conditions. Chrysophytes are primarily unicellular or colonial organisms that are abundant in freshwater habitats throughout the world. Chrysophytes are related to diatoms, but are distinct organisms. Chrysophyte stomatocysts are most common in fluctuating freshwater habitats of low to moderate pH and that experience some winter freezing. Many stomatocyst types are found in specific habitats, such as montane lakes, wet meadows, ephemeral ponds, perched bogs, and the moist surfaces of rock and plant substrates. Chrysophyte stomatocysts can also be found in sites that are only wet during certain seasons, such as snowmelt ponds and low swales (Adam and Mahood 1981). In coolcold temperate lakes, chrysophytes are most common in the spring, when acidic snowmelt dominates the water chemistry. Chrysophytes are intolerant of eutrophic lake conditions (Cohen 2003). Diatoms Diatoms are single-celled algae with a biogenic silica cell wall. They grow in a wide range of habitats, including the surfaces of wet plants and rocks, damp soils, marshes, wetlands, mudflats, and all types of standing and flowing aquatic habitats (Spaulding, et al. 2010). Their silica cells, or frustules, often are preserved in sedimentary deposits. Because individual taxa have specific requirements and preferences with respect to water chemistry, hydrologic conditions, and substrate characteristics, the presence of diatoms in soils and sediments can provide information about the nature of the local environment or the sources of water used for cooking and food processing. Sponge spicules Freshwater sponges (Porifera: Spongillidae) are primitive members of the animal kingdom. They use biogenic silica to form skeletons comprised of spicules and other structures such as spherasters for support and for reproduction. Freshwater sponges inhabit a wide variety of wet habitats that include ponds, lakes, streams, and rivers; however, they need a hard stratum for growth like submerged logs, aquatic plant stems and rocks. They typically thrive in water that is slightly alkaline (above pH 7), and 211 their abundance is negatively correlated with increasing turbidity, sediment load and salinity (Cohen 2003; Harrison 1988). Fungal spores The Ascomycota are the largest division of the Fungi kingdom and contain organisms such as mold, smut, rust, yeast and mushrooms. These organisms produce microscopic sexual structures called ascospores (fungal spores), which can often be used to identify the fungus from which they arose. Fungal spores can persist for long periods of time in the environment and can be recovered using many pollen, starch and phytolith extraction methods. In paleoecological and archaeological investigations, fungal spores can be used to identify the presence of crop damaging molds like ergot (Claviceps sp.), wheat smut (Ustilago sp.), and corn smut (Ustilago maydis), or the presence of dung fungus like Sporormiella, which further indicates the presence of browsing and grazing animals (Davis and Shafer 2006; van Geel, et al. 2003). METHODS Starch granules and phytoliths were extracted from the use surfaces of the groundstone tools in tandem, then separated and concentrated based on their unique physical properties. Starch granule extraction A pre-treatment wash of the groundstone tools using a wet brush, reverse osmosis deionized water (RODI), and 10% hydrochloric acid (HCl) was first conducted to remove post-use soil and sediment. The HCl solution was slowly dripped onto the tool surface to remove any carbonate rind that may have developed post-use, and water was used to flush silts, clays, and carbonates liberated from the tool. This aggressive pre-treatment step, which is based on the assumption that microfossils directly related to tool use will be bonded and preserved within microscopic crevasses, pits and pores on the groundstone use surfaces, is intended to remove any environmental signal that could confuse, dilute, or otherwise obscure the food processing record. After pre-treatment, each tool was placed within a plastic container with enough RODI water to make contact with its use surface, and then floated within an ultrasonic water bath. Each use surface was exposed to 5 minutes of sonication, which often required repositioning of the tool. The washes from each artifact were collected in 50 mL centrifuge tubes and subjected to short-duration spins of 30 seconds at 3000 rpm to remove clay-sized particles that remained in suspension. This step was repeated until the supernatant was clear. Finally, the samples were dried at room temperature under vacuum. Lithium metatungstate (LMT) heavy liquid was set to a density of 1.8 g/ml and added to each of the dried samples, which were then mixed using a vortex mixer and centrifuged at 1500 rpm for 10 minutes. Starch granules and microcharcoal particles, which were suspended at the surface of the heavy 212 liquid, were decanted into new centrifuge tubes, rinsed with RODI, and transferred to storage vials with 99% ethyl alcohol. Phytolith extraction The heavy fraction from the heavy liquid step above containing most of the phytolith fraction and other minerals was rinsed with RODI to remove the LMT and then mixed with 70% nitric acid and heated at 80° C for four hours to remove any remaining organic matter. The samples were rinsed to neutral pH using RODI and then dried at room temperature under vacuum. The dried samples were mixed with LMT set to a density of 2.3 g/ml and centrifuged at 1500 rpm for 10 minutes. Phytoliths, which were suspended at the surface of the heavy liquid, were decanted into new centrifuge tubes and rinsed with RODI. The phytolith extracts were transferred to 1.5 ml storage vials using 99% ethyl alcohol and dried under vacuum for weight calculations (Table 1). Microscopy and microfossil counts For the starch samples, all extracted residue was mounted onto microscope slides using Permount in approximately 1 mg aliquots, resulting in 1 to 4 starch slides per sample (Table 1). The slides were scanned for starch at 200X using normal and cross-polarized light (Table 2). Microscopic charcoal particles (microcharcoal) were present in extremely high concentrations and were not counted. Any fungal spores observed were counted. A starch granule percent relative abundance diagram based on the total starch count for each sample was produced (Figure 1). For the phytolith samples, all extracted residue was mounted onto microscope slides using Permount in approximately 1 mg aliquots, resulting in 1 to 8 phytolith slides per sample (Table 1). Phytolith counts, and counts for other microremains, were completed for one entire microscope slide per sample, and additional slides, if applicable, were scanned for rare and economically significant phytoliths (Table 3). A phytolith percent relative abundance diagram based on the total phytolith count for each sample was produced (Figure 2). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Microfossil recovery Phytoliths Phytoliths were well preserved and counts of just over 300 per sample were easily achieved. Phytoliths derived from cool climate C3 grasses dominated the assemblages. Phytoliths derived from warm season C4 grasses were present but at low levels of relative abundance. Most of these C3 and C4 grass phytoliths are likely derived from the environments that these tools were used in and ultimately abandoned. 213 Although aggressive pretreatment during the extraction step is intended to remove as much of the environmental signal as possible, not all of these phytoliths can be removed without loosing a portion of the tool use signal. Wavy-top rondel phytoliths unequivocally diagnostic of maize (Zea mays) glumes were recovered from all of the tools, indicating that maize kernels were ground (Figure 3a,b). To be considered a maize (Zea mays) wavy-top rondel, all of the requirements as outlined by Pearsall et al. (2003) must be met. The main characteristics are that maize wavy-top rondels have a circular to oval base in outline (top view) that is flat, not concave in side view; the base must be longer than the body is high or tall; the top (the side opposite the rondel base) is a single, complete wave that is equal to or less than the length of the rondel base; and the peak or sides of this wave are not horns or spikes. Wavy-top rondels with the “cf” prefix in Table 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3d,e typically lack a strong expression of one of these characteristics, yet they are likely to be derived from maize. However, modern reference material from western wheatgrass has yielded wavy top rondels that look very similar to Zea mays, so phytolith workers in the Great Basin need to be extra carful when identifying maize using wavy-top rondels. Other diagnostic maize phytoliths observed include IRP-types (rectangular phytoliths with irregular short protrusions; Figure 3i) and ruffle-top rondels (Figure 3g). IRP phytoliths are the product of epidermal silicification in the fruitcase, cupule, glume, and other inflorescence tissues of maize, teosinte, and some non-Zea (wild) grasses found in the tropics and subtropics (Piperno and Pearsall 1993). Ruffletop rondels have been observed from both North American (Bozarth 1993) and South American (Pearsall, et al. 2003) varieties of maize. The main characteristics are that maize ruffle-top rondels have a circular to oval base in outline (top view); the width of the body must be longer than the body is high or tall; the edges of the top (the side opposite the rondel base) are ruffled or undulating, and the top does not have any acute or sharply angled edges. Ruffle-top rondels can be produced in large numbers in the glume material for some varieties of maize, and can be completely absent in other varieties. Lastly, pyramidal rondels with a double-wall in top view (Figure 3f,h; Figure 4a) that are not diagnostic of maize but that are highly likely to be derived from maize were recovered from all of the groundstone tools. Dendritic phytoliths (dendriforms) diagnostic of grass (Poaceae) inflorescence material were recovered from all of the tools, indicating that seeds from local grasses were also ground with these tools. Dendriforms originate in the bract material (lemmas, paleas and glumes) that surrounds the seed (caryopsis) of many wild and domesticated grasses. Dendriforms can sometimes be found on the surfaces of grinding tools because the dendriform-bearing plant material that encapsulates the grass seed is never entirely removed from all of the grains during parching, winnowing, and other pre-grinding steps. Dendriforms were either recovered as disarticulated dendritic morphotypes (Figure 4d) or articulated in sheets of silicified epidermis (Figure 4b,c). Stipa-type bilobates diagnostic of tribe Stipeae grasses were recovered from 5 of the 6 groundstone tools. Indian rice grass (Achnatherum hymenoides [syn. Oryzopsis hymenoides]) is a Stipeae 214 grass that produces this type of phytolith in its leaf and inflorescence structures, and most likely the grass represented by this morphotype. Rondel phytoliths derived from common reed (Phragmites australis) were recovered from most, and reed canarygrass (Phalaris sp.) phytoliths were recovered from all groundstone tools. However, it is unclear if these phytoliths are derived from the environment or are part of the subsistence signal, as they are produced in leaves and sheaths, and not unique to inflorescence structures. Phytoliths diagnostic of various sedge (Cyperaceae) plant parts were observed on all of the tools, sometimes at high levels of relative abundance. This is interesting since lightly silicified sedge phytoliths are typically underrepresented in paleoenvironmental phytolith assemblages due to poor preservation. Although these phytoliths could be derived from the surrounding environment, the recovery of sedge phytoliths diagnostic of seeds (Figure 5g) and starchy rhizomes (Figure 5h,i) suggests intentional use by the site’s occupants. The most common sedge phytolith type recovered was a morphotype termed “thin with ridges”, which is derived from sheath and leaf epidermis (Figure 5j,k). The lowermost portion of sedge sheath structures attach very close to the starchy root crown and would have easily been ground together with the rhizomes, which have a very fibrous texture. Starch granules and fugal spores Starch granule recovery was good to excellent, and ranged from a low of 8 to a high of 135 granules. Polyhedral granules with a centric hilum were the dominant starch morphotype recovered (Figure 6d). The roots of some sedges (Cyperaceae) and many C4 grasses produce a variety of polyhedral types, in particular some members of the subfamily Chloridoideae and many members of the subfamily Panicoideae including Setaria, Andropogon, Panicum, and maize (Zea mays) produce these polyhedrals (Messner 2011). Polyhedral types are not as common in cool season C3 grasses, and when they do occur, as with Phalaris, they tend to be very small. However, Indian rice grass (Achnatherum hymenoides) produces polyhedral types that are typically larger than those produced by most Cyperaceae, C3 and C4 grasses, but smaller than those produced by some varieties of maize. Based on the phytolith record, maize, Indian rice grass, and sedges may all be the source of these starches. Polyhedral faceted starches diagnostic of maize (Zea mays) were also very numerous and recovered from all of the tools (Figure 6ac). Starch granules derived from cool season C3 Triticeae grasses were recovered from all of the groundstone tools (Figure 6f-h). The Triticeae is a tribe of grasses within the Pooideae subfamily that includes many wild and domesticated cereal grains such as wheat, barley and rye. Wild Triticeae seeds commonly used in North America for subsistence include barley (Hordeum sp.) and rye (Elymus, Leymus). Because many starch grain morphologies overlap between Triticeae taxa, secure identifications can be difficult to obtain. This problem is exacerbated when grinding and cooking damage is present. It does not appear that Hordeum is represented in any of the Triticeae starches recovered, as Elymus and Leymus, and possibly Pascopyrum appear to be the best matches (Perry and Quigg 2011). 215 Starches diagnostic of roots were recovered from 5 of the 6 tools analyzed, and indicate the use of Apiaceae (celery) family (Figure 6j), Typha (cattail), Liliaceae (lily) family roots and tubers (Figure 6i,k). It is noteworthy that elongated Liliaceae starches derived from either Calochortus or Fritillaria were recovered from 5 of the 6 tools. Although Calochortus is the most likely source for the elongated root starch (Herzog 2014; Scholze 2011), Fritillaria is also a possibility, as it shares a similar starch morphology (Shujun, et al. 2007). There is a need for a comprehensive comparative study of Calochortus and Fritillaria root starch for western US taxa. Also, eccentric shaped Triteleia-type starches were recovered from one groundstone tool. Triteleia is closely related to Brodiaea and Dichelostemma, other Liliaceae taxa that produce edible tubers (corms). In addition to Triteleia, Dichelostemma also occurs in Utah, so additional comparative work is needed to securely identify these Triteleia-type root starches. Interestingly, Ustilago maydis (corn smut) fungal spores were recovered from two of the tools (Figure 6o). Ustilago spp. typically infect the inflorescences of many wild and domesticated grasses (Fischer 1937), including maize, and their spores can be found on processing tools and incorporated into prepared and stored foods. Diatoms, sponges, and Chrysophytes The silica remains of various aquatic organisms were also recovered from the groundstone surfaces. Diatoms (siliceous algae) and sponge spicules (freshwater sponges) are indicative of wet environmental conditions and the presence of ponds, lakes and streams, but also can be derived from water used for processing foods prior to milling. Chrysophytes are another type of siliceous algae, and their presence indicates oligotrophic water conditions or water sourced from spring snowmelt. Groundstone tools FS 219 Groundstone FS 219 is characterized by the lowest starch granule recovery and the highest relative abundance of sedge phytoliths observed from all of the tools. Sedge phytoliths recovered include root and achene (seed) types, indicating that sedges were processed with this tool. Grass inflorescence dendriforms were also numerous, indicating grass seeds were processed. Many phytoliths either diagnostic of maize or highly indicative of maize were observed. One phytolith diagnostic of Commelina cf. angustifolia was observed (Figure 5e). Commelina is a weedy plant of disturbed areas and agricultural fields. It is possible that the presence of Commelina in archaeological samples may be an indication of agricultural activities. Eichhorn (2010), in their study of Commelina plants and phytoliths in West Africa, have linked the occurrence of difference species of Commelina with specific types of anthropogenic disturbance, such as cultivated fields, heavily fertilized fields, periodically inundated fields, village vegetation, ruderal plant communities, and fallow fields. 216 This groundstone had the lowest total starch granule recovery (8), and a low concentration (0.08 per cm ) but yielded a diverse assemblage of granules derived from maize kernels, various grass seeds, and starchy roots and tubers from Typha (cattail), and a member of the lily family (Calochortus/Fritillaria)(Figure 6k). Two large lenticular starch grains with visible lamellae were recovered. These characteristics are consistent are consistent with western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii); however, it is possible that these grains are Elymus types that were enlarged and lamellae made visible due to grinding, as this type of grinding damage has been observed (Crowther 2012; Henry, et al. 2009). 2 FS 2357 Groundstone FS 2357 is characterized by a relatively high recovery of grass dendriforms (Figure 4d) and dendritic epidermis sheet elements, indicating that grass seeds were processed with this tool. Some of the dendritic sheet elements exhibited curvilinear (Figure 4b) or straight line breaks (Figure 4c) across the short axis of the long cells that are not typical of natural breakage of the silica sheet, but rather suggest breakage from cutting or rolling pressure from the grinding process. Further, many of these sheet elements are slightly darkened from exposure to fire, suggesting parching of the seeds before grinding. A relatively high occurrence of rondel phytoliths derived from canarygrass (Phalaris sp.)(Figure 5c) and common reed (Phragmites australis)(Figure 5d) is noteworthy, as is the presence of a sedge root phytolith. This groundstone tool also yielded a variety of maize-type phytoliths that included ruffle-top and wavy-top rondels, and an IRP-type. Also, two epidermis sheet elements with maize-type pyramidal rondels were recovered (Figure 4a). Thus, maize kernels were also ground with this tool. Perhaps the most interesting phytolith find was the recovery of a hemispherical scalloped phytolith (Figure 5l) produced in the exocarp of squash (Cucurbita sp.), suggesting that dried squash may have been processed with this tool. A total of 93 starch granules were recovered from this groundstone, yielding the second highest concentration at 0.53 per cm2 of use area washed. The starch assemblage was dominated by polyhedral morphotypes (Figure 6d) that could be derived from a variety of plants, including maize, Indian rice grass and other grasses, and sedge roots. Polyhedral starches diagnostic of maize were also numerous (Figure 6a,b), including two compound clusters of maize starch (Figure 6c). Other starch granules recovered included those from Elymus (Figure 6h) and Leymus (Figure 6f,g) grass seeds, Typha roots, Liliaceae roots (Calochortus/Fritillaria), and root starches derived from members of the Apiaceae family (Figure 6j). FS 11975 Groundstone FS 11975 is characterized by the lowest number of maize-type phytoliths recovered from the entire set of groundstone analyzed. Of these nine maize types, none were the polyhedral type 217 unequivocally diagnostic of maize, but they are likely to be derived from maize. Two sedge achene (seed) phytoliths and a sedge root phytolith were recovered, indicating that sedges were processed with this tool. One Phalaris and one Phragmites phytolith were also recovered, but it is unclear if these are part of the background environmental record or part of the tool use record, as they are produced in leaves and sheaths, and not unique to inflorescence structures. Starch granule recovery was relatively low and consisted of the typical mix of polyhedral granules that could be derived from a variety of plants and the polyhedral types that are diagnostic of maize. A few starches diagnostic of Elymus were observed, as were spherical granules typical of grass seeds in general. One Liliaceae (Calochortus/Fritillaria) root starch was observed. Perhaps most interesting was the recovery of two starch grains exhibiting cooking damage, likely from parching prior to grinding. One of these damaged grains can be seen in Figure 6n. FS 15814 Groundstone FS 15814 yielded numerous phytoliths diagnostic of maize, as well as the polyhedral and pyramidal morphotypes most likely derived from maize. The most interesting aspect of the phytolith record was the recovery of 4 clusters of pyramidal rondels that appear to be fused or altered in a way that is similar to damage from exposure to high heat (See Figure 3h for one example). However, it’s possible that exposure to alkaline conditions such as those achieved during nixtamalization may also cause this type of damage. Also of note was the recovery of a maize wavy-top rondel that was darkened from exposure to fire (Figure 3c), and a maize ruffle-top rondel. Starch granule recovery was relatively high at 38, yielding a starch concentration of 0.34 granules per cm2 of use area washed. Numerous starches diagnostic of maize kernels and other grass seeds were observed. A celery family (Apiaceae) root starch and a Liliaceae (Calochortus/Fritillaria) root starch were recovered. Also of note, a starch granule with damage consistent with cooking was observed (Figure 6l,m), suggesting some type of processing such as parching prior to grinding. FS 16494 Groundstone FS 16494 yielded the highest number of maize-type phytoliths of the six groundstone tools analyzed, including an IRP-type and a ruffle-top rondel. Of the 11 wavy-top maize rondels and the 10 cf. wavy-top maize rondels recovered, four of each were darkened from exposure to fire, suggesting processing prior to grinding. Numerous dendritic phytoliths from grass inflorescence structures were also observed, indicating that grass seeds were ground with this tool. Despite having a washed use surface approximately 4 times the size of all the other tools, only 12 starch granules were recovered. No root starches were observed, but starches diagnostic of maize kernels and grass seeds were observed. Interestingly, two corn smut (Ustilago maydis) spores were recovered (Figure 6). Though highly speculative, the high number of burned maize phytoliths and 218 presence of corn smut suggests that infected kernels may have been parched prior to grinding to remove fungal toxins (Guzmán-de-Peña 2010). The most interesting aspect of microfossil record from this tool was the presence of small plant fibers (Figure 6p) that dominated the starch extraction. The fibers were so numerous they were not counted. Also, chrysophyte cysts, golden algae found in oligotrophic waters, were present at a very high level of relative abundance. It’s possible that fibrous edible roots from an aquatic plant that does not produce phytoliths or starch granules, was most recently processed with this tool. FS 16642 The phytolith record from this groundstone yielded evidence for maize and grass seed processing, as well as strong evidence for sedge achene and root processing. One corn smut (Ustilago maydis) spore was recovered. The most striking aspect of this tool was the very high number of starch granules recovered, which yielded the highest starch concentration of all the groundstone at 1.06 granules per cm2 of washed use surface. Polyhedral starches diagnostic of maize dominated the starch record. Starches diagnostic of Elymus were also very numerous. Root starches were well represented by those diagnostic of Apiaceae and Liliaceae (Calochortus/Fritillaria) tubers. In addition, two starch granules possibly derived from Triteleia were recovered (Figure 6i). Triteleia is closely related to Brodiaea and Dichelostemma, other Liliaceae taxa that produce edible tubers (corms). In addition to Triteleia, Dichelostemma also occurs in Utah, so additional comparative work is needed to securely identify these Triteleia-type root starches. CONCLUSIONS The combined use of phytolith and starch analysis to identify some of the plants that were processed with these groundstone tools was successful in providing complimentary and confirming evidence for a multitude of plant and specific plant-part processing. Evidence for maize (Zea mays) and grass seed processing (Elymus, Leymus, and others) was ubiquitous. Fungal spores from corn smut (Ustilago maydis) were recovered from two of the tools. Phytoliths from Phalaris, Phragmites and a tribe Stipeae grass, most likely Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides) were also ubiquitous, but present at low levels of relative abundance. A squash (Cucurbita sp.) phytolith was recovered from FS 2357, suggesting that dried squash was ground. Phytoliths from sedge (Cyperaceae) achenes were recovered from some of the tools. Because they are highly perishable, edible roots, tubers, corms and rhizomes are rarely recovered during macrofloral investigations and are likely underrepresented in the archaeobotanical record. However, this study demonstrated that phytolith and starch analysis can be used to detect the 219 presence of these perishable tissues. Phytoliths indicate that at least 5 of the 6 groundstone tools were used to process sedge roots, possibly from a species of Scirpus or Schoenoplectus. Root starches observed included cattail (Typha sp.), celery family (Apiaceae), lily family (Calochortus and/or Fritillaria), and a Brodiaea type starch, possibly derived from a species of Triteleia. When both the starch and phytolith results are combined, diagnostic evidence for starchy root use was observed in all 6 groundstone samples analyzed. And lastly, the presence of burned maize and grass phytoliths, and starch damaged from wet and/or dry heat suggest that some foods were processed before they were ground. Nixtamalization and parching of seeds to remove chaff and fungal toxins are possible pre-grinding processes observed here. REFERENCES Adam, David P. and Albert D. Mahood 1981 Chrysophyte cysts and potential environmental indicators. Geological Society of America Bulletin, Part I 92:839-844. Blinnikov, M. S. 2013 Phytoliths. In Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science, edited by S. A. Elias and C. J. Mock, pp. 582-592. 2 ed. Elsevier. Bozarth, Steven R. 1993 Maize (Zea mays) cob phytoliths from a Central Kansas Great Bend aspect archaeological site. Plains Anthropologist 38(146):279-286. Cohen, Andrew S. 2003 Paleolimnology: The History and Evolution of Lake Systems. Oxford. Crowther, Alison 2012 The differential survival of native starch during cooking and implications for archaeological analyses: a review. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 4(3):221-235. Dahle, Wendy 2011 Macrobotanical evidence of diet and plant use at Wolf Village (42UT273), Utah Valley, Utah, MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo. Davis, Owen K. and David S. Shafer 2006 Sporormiella fungal spores, a palynological means of detecting herbivore density. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 237(1):40-50. 220 Eichhorn, Barbara, Katharina Neumann and Aline Garnier 2010 Seed phytoliths in West African Commelinaceae and their potential for palaeoecological studies. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 298(34):300-310. Fischer, George W. 1937 Observations on the comparative morphology and taxonomic relationships of certain grass smuts in western North America. Mycologia 29(4):408-425. Gott, Beth, Huw Barton, Delwen Samuel and Robin Torrence 2006 Biology of Starch. In Ancient Starch Research, edited by R. Torrence and H. Barton, pp. 35-45. Left Coast Press, California. Guzmán-de-Peña, Doralinda 2010 The destruction of aflatoxins in corn by “nixtamalización”. In Mycotoxins in Food, Feed and Bioweapons, edited by M. Rai and A. Varma, pp. 39-49. Springer‐ Verlag, Berlin. Harrison, Frederick W. 1988 Utilization of freshwater sponges in paleolimnological studies. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 62:387-397. 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. Herzog, Nicole M. 2014 Starch grain analysis in California and the Great Basin. California Archaeology 6(2):171-189. Messner, Timothy C. 2011 Acorns and Bitter roots: starch grain research in the prehistoric Eastern woodlands. University of Alabama Press. Pearsall, Deborah M., Karol Chandler-Ezell and Alex Chandler-Ezell 2003 Identifying maize in neotropical sediments and soils using cob phytoliths. Journal of Archaeological Science 30(5):611-627. Perry, Linda and J. Michael Quigg 2011 Starch Remains and Stone Boiling in the Texas Panhandle Part II: Identifying Wildrye (Elymus spp.). Plains Anthropologist 56(218):109-119. Piperno, Dolores R. 221 2006 Phytoliths: A comprehensive guide for archaeologists and paleoecologists. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD. Piperno, Dolores R. and Deborah M. Pearsall 1993 Phytoliths in the reproductive structures of maize and teosinte: Implications for the study of maize evolution. Journal of Archaeological Science 20:337-362. Puseman, Kathryn and Chad L. Yost 2017 Macrofloral and phytolith analysis at Wolf Village, site 42UT273, Utah. PAST Technical report 16026. MS on file with Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Scholze, Gary J. 2011 The application of starch grain analysis to late prehistoric subsistence in Northern California, Unpublished MS Thesis, California State University, Sacramento. Shujun, Wang, Yu Jinglin, Gao Wenyuan, Pang Jiping, Yu Jiugao and Xiao Peigen 2007 Characterization of starch isolated from Fritillaria traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Journal of Food Engineering 80(2):727-734. Spaulding, S.A., D.J. Lubinski and M. Potapova 2010 Diatoms of the United States, http://westerndiatoms.colorado.edu. van Geel, Bas, Janneke Buurman, Otto Brinkkemper, Jaap Schelvis, André Aptroot, Guido van Reenen and Tom Hakbijl 2003 Environmental reconstruction of a Roman Period settlement site in Uitgeest (The Netherlands), with special reference to coprophilous fungi. Journal of Archaeological Science 30(7):873-883. Wilkinson, A.N., Barbara A. Zeeb and John P. Smol 2001 Atlas of Chrysophycean Cysts: Vol II. Springer Netherlands. Yost, Chad L. and Mikhail S. Blinnikov 2011 Locally diagnostic phytoliths of wild rice (Zizania palustris L.) from Minnesota, USA: comparison to other wetland grasses and usefulness for archaeobotany and paleoecological reconstructions. Journal of Archaeological Science 38(8):1977-1991. Yost, Chad L., Mikhail S. Blinnikov and Matthew L. Julius 2013 Detecting ancient wild rice (Zizania spp. L.) using phytoliths: a taphonomic study of modern wild rice in Minnesota (USA) lake sediments. Journal of Paleolimnology 49(2):221-236. 222 Table 1. Ground stone washes, extract weights, and microscope slide prep Starch Extraction (1.8 g/ml heavy liquid flotation) Sample (FS) Approx. area Extract No. washed (cm2) weight (mg) 219 96 0.3 2357 160 4.0 11975 102 0.7 15814 112 4.1 16494 400 2.2 16642 126 2.0 Microscope slides made 2 4 1 2 3 2 Phytolith Extraction (Nitric acid and 2.3 g/ml heavy liquid flotation) Sample (FS) Approx. area Extract Microscope No. washed (cm2) Weight (mg) slides made 219 96 0.8 2 2357 (L)* 160 4.3 8 Slides Analyzed All slides scanned Slides Analyzed #1 counted and scanned #1 counted and scanned, #2 and #3 scanned 2357 (H)* 10.2 0 11975 102 0.7 2 #1 counted and scanned 15814 (L)* 112 0.3 1 #1 counted and scanned 15814 (H)* 4.6 0 16494 400 1.7 2 #1 counted and scanned 16642 126 0.5 2 #1 counted and scanned *Groundstone matrix released platy particles that did not sink using LMT, so a second flotation using Potassium/Cadmium Iodide at 2.3 g/ml density was conducted. The heavy fraction (H) from this separation was saved separately from the light (L) fraction. 223 Table 2. Starch granule counts Starch granule types 219 Polyhedral: Achnatherum, maize, other grasses, sedge roots 1 Compound Polyhedral: Grasses, maize, sedge roots Polyhedral: faceted, acute angles: Maize (Zea mays) 1 Lenticular: Elymus type 1 Lenticular: Leymus type Lenticular: Pascopyrum smithii type 2 Spherical w/centric hilum: Poaceae 1 Bell shape w/ecc. hilum: Apiaceae Small spherical/polyhedral: Typha 1 Eccentric - Calochortus/Fritillaria type 1 Eccentric-Triteleia type Gelatinized (swollen) starch Ustilago sp. fungal spore Total starch granules counted 8 Wash area starch concentration (# per cm2) 0.08 224 2357 42 2 29 9 6 2 1 2 93 0.58 Groundstone sample 11975 15814 16494 6 13 7 16642 42 2 2 13 3 2 2 58 18 3 3 6 1 1 7 1 1 1 2 1 16 0.16 38 0.34 2 12 0.03 2 2 1 1 134 1.06 Table 3. Phytolith, diatom, sponge spicule and chrysophyte counts Phytolith type Trapeziform sinuate: Pooideae Rondel-keeled: Pooideae Rondel-angular keel: Phalaris Rondel-plateau saddle: Phragmites Bilobate-Stipa type: Tribe Stipeae TOTAL C3 SHORT CELLS Cross: Panicoideae Bilobate: Panicoideae TOTAL Panicoideae Saddle: Chloridoideae TOTAL C4 SHORT CELLS Rondel-Pyramidal: C3 & C4 Grasses Grass epidermis Bulliform Trichome Elongate-psilate Elongate-echinate Trichome base TOTAL GRASS/SEDGE TYPES Dendriform Dendriform [SCAN] Dendritic epidermis frag.[SCAN] TOTAL GRASS INFLOR. TYPES OBSERVED Thin w/ridges: Sedge stem Irreg. w/proj: Sedge root Irreg. w/proj: Sedge root [SCAN] Sedge cone cell: Cyperus-type TOTAL SEDGE TYPES OBSERVED Domed cylinder: Commelina sp. Pyrimidal-cf. Tradescantia sp. Hemispherical scalloped: Cucurbita sp. Globular-psilate Globular granulate: trees/shrubs Rondel-Pyramidal: cf. Maize Rondel-Pyramidal: cf. Maize [SCAN] Rondel-Wavy top: cf. Maize Rondel-Wavy-top: cf. Maize [SCAN] Epidermis w/rondels: cf. Maize [SCAN] Rondel-Wavy top: Maize 219 91 8 1 4 8 112 9 17 26 6 32 25 1 4 13 9 13 1 41 0 5 3 8 88 1 0 1 90 1 0 0 0 0 3 7 1 8 0 1 2357 140 16 3 4 4 167 2 2 4 2 6 39 4 3 24 41 20 0 92 1 3 5 9 7 1 0 0 8 0 0 1 1 0 2 12 1 3 2 1 Table 3. (Continued) 225 Groundstone sample 11975 15814 16494 92 145 84 40 23 39 1 1 1 1 0 0 5 14 8 139 183 132 1 2 10 11 2 14 12 4 24 17 3 4 29 7 28 37 47 42 0 0 0 4 0 3 32 8 27 38 29 43 25 11 14 2 1 1 101 49 88 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 4 30 4 12 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 33 4 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 5 5 1 5 0 11 4 4 1 5 0 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 3 16642 100 33 1 1 0 135 9 17 26 9 35 41 0 0 19 32 24 0 75 0 1 1 2 42 0 2 1 44 0 0 0 0 2 1 6 1 3 0 3 Phytolith type Rondel-Wavy top: Maize [SCAN] Rondel cluster: Maize Rondel: Ruffle-top [SCAN] IRP-type: Maize glume [SCAN] TOTAL MAIZE TYPES OBSERVED PHYTOLITHS COUNTED (for percentages) 219 4 0 0 0 24 306 2357 0 0 1 1 23 318 Other microremains observed Sponge spicule Sponge spheraster Sponge gemmosclere Diatom-Aulacoseira sp. Diatom-pennate Diatom-centric Chrysophyte cysts 3 1 2 5 2 0 1 3 0 1 1 17 1 2 226 Groundstone sample 11975 15814 16494 0 3 8 0 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 9 22 33 354 302 323 6 14 0 6 1 2 2 0 1 0 2 20 0 13 3 5 0 0 14 1 137 16642 5 0 0 1 20 335 2 6 0 0 9 2 13 Figure 1. Starch granule relative abundnace based on total starch count 227 228 Figure 2. Phytolith and aquatic organism relative abundance based on the total phytolith counts. Taxa counts observed during microscope slide scans are listed as numbers in the Figure 3. Selected maize (Zea mays) and maize-type phytoliths. The white 10-μm scale bar in image I applies to all images. A-B) Wavy-top rondel phytoliths diagnostic of maize glumes. C) Burned wavy-top maize rondel in side (left) and top (right) views; note double walls in top view. D-E) Wavy-top rondels likely derived from maize (cf. maize). F) Pyramidal, double walled rondel phytolith typical of maize but not unequivocally diagnostic of maize. G) Ruffle-top rondel diagnostic of maize in top (left) and oblique (right) views. H) Sequence of maize-type pyramidal rondels. I) Sheet of IRP-type phytoliths diagnostic of maize. 229 Figure 4. Selected epidermis sheet elements and dendritic long cell phytoliths recovered from groundstone FS 2357. The white scale bar equals 10-μm. A) Sheet element with wavy-margin long cells and double-walled rondels typical of maize (Zea mays). B) Dendritic epidermis sheet element with a curvilinear break across the short axis of the long cells, which are slightly darkened from exposure to fire. C) Dendritic epidermis sheet element with a linear break across the short axis of the long cells, which are darkened from exposure to fire. D) Disarticulated and broken dendritic long cell. 230 Figure 5. Selected phytolith and diatom micrographs. The white 10-μm scale bar in image O applies to all images. A) Trapeziform sinuate derived from grass subfamily Pooideae leaves. B) Keeled rondel derived from grass subfamily Pooideae leaves and inflorescence structures. C) Plateau saddle in top (left) and side (right) views, derived from Phragmites australis leaves. D) Angular keeled rondel derived from Phalaris sp. leaves. E) Domed cylinder (bottom view) derived from Commelina cf. angustifolia seed coats F) Pyramidal phytolith in top (upper) and side (bottom) views, derived from Tradescantia sp. seed coats. G) Achene (Seed) cone cell derived from a sedge (Cyperaceae) species. H-I) Asteriform phytoliths derived from sedge roots/rhizomes (cf. Scirpus, Schoenoplectus, or Cyperus). J-K) Thin with ridges phytoliths derived from sedge (Cyperaceae) leaf and sheath epidermis. L) Hemispherical scalloped phytolith in top (left) and side (right) views, derived from squash (Cucurbita sp.) exocarp. M) Aulacoseira sp. diatom. N) Pennate diatom fragment (lower left) and freshwater sponge gemmosclere roulette (upper right). O) Epithemia sp. diatom. 231 Figure 6. Selected starch granules, fungal spores, and plant fiber micrographs. The white 10-μm scale bar in image P applies to all images. Darkfield images are viewed using cross-polarized light. A-B) Polyhedral faceted and angular starch granules diagnostic of maize (Zea mays). C) Cluster of maize 232 polyhedral starch granules. D) Polyhedral starch morphotype that can be derived from a wide variety of plants including grass seeds (Poaceae), maize (Zea mays) kernels, and sedge (Cyperaceae) roots. E) Spherical starch granule diagnostic of grass seed (Poaceae). F-G) Leymus-type lenticular grass seed starch; these granules could be damaged Elymus-type starches. H) Lenticular starch diagnostic of Elymus sp. seed. I) Elongated polyhedral with eccentric hilum root starch most likely derived from the Liliaceae genera Triteleia or Brodiaea. J) Bell-shaped starch granule typical of Apiaceae (Celery) family root starch, and possibly derived from biscuitroot (Lomatium sp.). K) Large, elongated Liliaceae root starch with eccentric hilum most likely derived from Calochortus or Fritillaria. L) Damaged starch granule from cooking (wet/dry heat) prior to grinding. M) Same starch granule as in L but viewed from the side. N) Damaged (gelatinized starch granule). O) Corn smut (Ustilago maydis) fungal spore. P) Unknown plant fibers from FS 16494. 233

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Laying the Foundation for a Fremont Phytolith Typology Using Select Plant Species Native to Utah County

Laying the Foundation for a Fremont Phytolith Typology Using Select Plant Species Native to Utah County

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS