-
10. Plants from Archaeological Sites East of the Rockies
- The University of Alabama Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
10 Plants from Archaeological Sites East of the Rockies Hugh C. Cutler and Leonard W. Blake Missouri Botanical Garden (A text version of a 1976 microfiche, published by the Missouri Archaeological Society, University of Missouri, Columbia, which was a corrected and updated version of the 1973 edition) Leonard Blake’s Comments, 1999 In 1973, a report on identification of plant remains that had been sent to Cutler and Blake at the Missouri Botanical Garden was hastily produced in an edition of 200 mimeographed copies. The purpose was to let those who had sent us material know what had been done with it. It proved to be so popular that we ran out of copies to distribute. In 1976, we were provided with the opportunity to correct mistakes and bring the report up to date by means of a microfiche edition, which was produced through the Department of Anthropology at the University of MissouriColumbia . A change in administration brought about a cancellation of this program soon after it started, so distribution was very limited. We are now putting out the contents of this 1976 edition in printed form. Information in this chapter was assembled over a period of years when important archaeological excavations were being carried out on the Plains, and in the rest of the eastern United States, yet few others were attempting to collect, identify, record, analyze, and publish information on corn and other plant remains. It seems reasonable to expect that this chapter has a value for these reasons, even though the samples received were usually unsystematically collected “grab” samples, and identifications and measurements were usually made without use of a microscope. Analyses (even if sometimes primitive by today’s standards) would, otherwise, not have been made. In hindsight, it would have been good if there had been more measurements on corn, if magnification had been used more, if more attention had been paid to wild plants, and if Cutler and I had worked on this “full time.” Cutler was acting director of the Missouri Botanical Garden at that time, and I came to the garden only two days a week. Our files on material covered in this report are included in those stored at the Illinois State Museum, Springfield, under the name of “Cutler Blake.” Most include additional information, and most of those on corn have coordinated graphs like those used in Chapter 4 of this volume. “Plants from Archaeological Sites East of the Rockies” was not continued beyond 1976, mainly because of Cutler’s retirement in 1977, and because at that time archaeologists were beginning to systematically retrieve and study plants, usually using some form of flotation or water screening. NOTE: Comments about Middle Woodland maize are now outdated, and showntohavebeenbasedonfalseassumptionsbyrecentacceleratorradiocarbon dates. Cultures and dates shown in this report are those received with the material analyzed.Since1984,acceleratorradiocarbondatesonmaizehavebeenpublished from three sites, which have shown that the maize from these is not so old as other material from the same feature. One site is Jasper Newman, in Moultrie County, Illinois, where a carbon 14 date of a.d. 90± was obtained on charcoal, but where maize from the same pit was dated at only 450 ± 500 years b.p. (Conard et al. 1984). The other two sites are the McGraw site in Ross County, Ohio, and the Daines II Mound in Athens County, Ohio. McGraw had bone dated at a.d. 230 ± 80 years, and Daines II at 280 ± 140 b.c., but maize from each of these sites had an accelerator carbon 14 date of less than 400 years b.p. The plants people use are a key to the past and to the activities and environment at the time the plants were collected. The assemblage of plants, wild and cultivated, used in any community is unique and can be used to trace the history of the people. How much we discover of the relationships of human groupswiththeirenvironments,andtheirneighbors,andtheparallelevolution of plants and culture depends upon the number and depth of collections and studiesavailablefromaregion,fromrelatedareas,andfromothertimeperiods, and upon how well we understand each plant. Methods for the recovery and study of plant and animal remains are still relatively crude. The century-old techniques of water screening and flotation as tools for recovery of plant and animal remains are now frequently used but morepeopleshouldbetrainedtosaveplantmaterialsandtostudyandinterpret the results in terms of plants, environment, and people. There must be more effective communication and interaction between biologists and students of humankind. We pay most attention...