See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271812819

Evidence for Berry and Maize Processing on the

Canadian Plains from Starch Grain Analysis

Article in American Antiquity July 2006

Impact Factor: 1.51 DOI: 10.2307/40035361

CITATIONS READS

37 54

2 authors, including:

Sonia Zarrillo
The University of Calgary
10 PUBLICATIONS 278 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Sonia Zarrillo

Retrieved on: 15 May 2016
Society for American Archaeology

Evidence for Berry and Maize Processing on the Canadian Plains from Starch Grain Analysis
Author(s): Sonia Zarrillo and Brian Kooyman
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 71, No. 3 (Jul., 2006), pp. 473-499
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40035361 .
Accessed: 04/02/2015 19:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 EVIDENCE FOR BERRY AND MAIZE PROCESSING
ON THE CANADIAN PLAINS FROM STARCH GRAIN ANALYSIS

Sonia Zarrilloand Brian Kooyman

The ethnographicand ethnohistoricrecordsfrom the Northernand CanadianPlains indicate that a variety of plants were
utilizedbypast peoples. Theseaccountsprovide two importantinsights intoplant use in this regionwherevery little archae-
ological evidence existsfor plant utilization. First, plant processing tools are most likely to be unmodifiedlithic tools that
may escape our recognition.Second, a variety of plants, which can be identifiedvia starch grain analysis, were processed
with these tools. Thisproject analyzed the residuesfrom two unmodifiedlithic grinding tools, identifiedas possible plant
processing tools, for starch grains. Our results indicate that not only were a nuinberof wild plant species, such as choke
cherry(Prunusvirginianaj,saskatoonberry(Amelanchieralnifoliaj and likelyprairie turnipfPsoraleaesculenta),processed
with these implements,but so too was maize (Zea mays). These results not only provide importantinsight with respect to
identifyinga tool class, plant use, and trade within our study area, but also provide an exceptional window into the use of
wild plant species, an aspect of human history that is poorly understoodin many regions of the world in addition to the
NorthernPlains.

Los registrosetnogrdficosy etnohistoricosde las Planicies del norte, en Canaday los Estados Unidos, indicanque una gran
variedadde plantasfueron utilizadasen el pasado por los antiguospobladores. Estos registrosproveen dosfuentes impor-
tantesde informacionsobre la utilizacionde plantas en dicha region,en donde la evidenciaarqueoldgicadisponiblesobre la
antigua utilizacionde plantas es aun limitada.En primer lugar, las herramientaspara procesamientode plantas aparentan
ser herramientasliticas sin modificacionculturalque pueden escapar a nuestroreconocimiento.En segundo lugar,una var-
iedad de plantasfueron procesadaspor impactomecdnico, ofriccidn y presidn fmoliendajcon estas herramientas.En este
proyectose analizaronlos residuosde almidonlocalizadosen dos supuestasherramientasde molienda- sin modificacioncul-
tural- con el objetivode determinarsi los posibles restos de almidonindicabanque las herramientashabian sido utilizadas
para el procesamientode plantas. Nuestrosresultadosindicanque no unicamenteestos implementosse usaronpara procesar
un importantenumerode especies de plantas silvestres, tales como el "chokecherry" (Primusvirginiana),el "saskatoon"
(Amelanchieralnifoliajy el "prairieturnip"(Psoraleaesculenta),sino tambienplantas como el maiz (Zea.mays). La identi-
ficacidn de las especies de plantas silvestresno es sorprendentesi se considerala informacionque se localiza en los registros
etnogrdficosy etnohistoricosde la region, los cuales documentanque las herramientasliticas sin modificacionesculturales
fueron usadaspara procesar moras y tuberculosde tales especies. La presencia de maiz tampocoes sorprendentey su hal-
lazgo se ha interpretadocomo el resultadodel intercambioo comercio en la region,ya que esta planta no se cultivd en la
epoca previa al contacto europeo.El registroarqueoldgicomuestraque el comerciointerregionalde tipos liticos exoticos se
remontaa miles de anos e indicapatrones de interaccidnculturalde larga duracidn.En elperiodo del contacto Europeose
ha documentadoampliamenteque el maizfueproducto de intercambiopor carne de bisonte entre las aldeas de horticultores
de la regionmeridionalde Missouriy las tribusndmadasde las Planicies, unpatron de intercambioque aparentementepudo
haber existidoantes del contactoEuropeo.El andlisis de residuosde granos de almidonfue instrumentalya que identifiedla
funcidn de estas herramientasliticas sin modificacioncultural.Estos resultadosno solo proveen importanteinformacioncon
respectoa la identificacidnde diferentesclases de herramientas.El uso de diferentesplantas y el patron de intercambioen
nuestraarea de estudio,sino que ademdspueden considerarseun recursoexcepcionalpara inspeccionarel uso de plantas sil-
vestres,un aspecto de la historia humanaque esta deficientementeestudiadaen muchasregionesdel mundo,no unicamente
en las Planicies del Norte.

collection and processingof plantsfor the image of the bison is consideredsynonymous

food, medicine,items of materialculture, withthePlainsculturalregion.Plantswerealsocrit-
and spiritualpurposesis often overshad- ical in the lives of the past CanadianPlainspeo-
owed in CanadianPlainsliteratureby referenceto ples, yet littleresearchhas been conductedhereto
thebisonas thechief sourceof subsistence.Indeed, recoverdirectevidenceof plantuse fromitems of
Sonia Zarrillo and Brian Kooyman Departmentof Archaeology,Universityof Calgary,Calgary,AB CanadaT2N 1N4
(szarrillo@gmail.comand bkooyman@ucalgary.ca)
AmericanAntiquity,71(3), 2006, pp. 473-499
Copyright2006 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology

473

This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
474 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 71 , No. 3, 2006

Figure 1. Locations of sites mentioned in the text (1) EgPn-612, (2) Tuscany, (3) Boss Hill, (4) Cluny, (5) Morkin, (6)
Oldman Dam sites, (7) Gowan, (8) Lockport East, (9) Hagen, (10) Barton Gulch, (11) Leigh Cave.

materialcultureused in the processing of plant
matter,suchas grindingslabsandgrindingpebbles.
This is due in partto the fact thatformalgrinding
stonesarealmostunknownon the CanadianPlains
(Dyck 1983:129;DyckandMorlan2001:118, 130;
Forbis 1992:31; Frison 1991:114; Johnson and
Johnson1998:218,222, 224;WormingtonandFor-
bis 1965:192;Wright1999:797,799, 806), with a
conspicuousexceptionin the case of the Lockport
East site, EaLf-1 (Figure 1), in Manitoba(Bryan
1991:153-154;Flynnand Syms 1996:7-8; Walde
et al. 1995:40).This is particularlytruein ourspe-
cific study area,Alberta,where true well-shaped
metatesand manos are absentexcept for a single
example from a privatecollection (Wormington
and Forbis 1965:129).Even less formalgrinding
stones are rare,apparentlyknown only from the
Cluny (EePf-1) and Morkin (DlPk-2) sites in
Alberta(Forbis1977:60-63,74;Vickers1986:106;
1994:25). The present study was undertakento
examine the potential for identifying plant pro-
cessing implementson the AlbertaPlains.
Duringthe ethnohistoricperiodon the North-
ernPlainsgrindingstoneswere employedin a rel-
ativelyrestrictedrangeof activities.For the most
parttheywereusedforpoundingratherthan"grind-
ing"in thesensewe usuallyemploytheterm.Many
accountsfromthisperiodmentiontheuse of stones
to pounddriedmeat in preparationof pemmican
(e.g., Denig 1961:12;Wissler 1986:22-23). Simi-
larly,therearea numberof recordsof using stones
to pound berries or dried berries (e.g., Lowie
1922:214), these pounded berries then dried as
cakes (e.g., Wissler 1986:21) or incorporatedin
pemmican(e.g., Denig 1961:12;Wissler1986:21).
Dried, poundedroots were sometimes added to
soupsor stews,in partas thickeningagentsbutalso
clearlyfortheirfood value(e.g., Wissler1986:22).

This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Zarillo and Kooyman] EVIDENCE FOR BERRY AND MAIZEPROCESSING 475

Figure 2. T'suu Tina woman, Mrs. Old Man Spotted, pounding choke cherries with unmodified lithic tools (Glenbow
Archives NA-667-486).

Finally,a numberof medicinalplants,again par- bow photograph(Figure 2) dating to the 1930s

ticularly dried roots, were powdered by stone
implementswith the powder administeredas an
infusion(e.g., Peacock 1993:126).
Poundingstones can have fewer requirements
in termsof overallformcomparedwithstonesused
to grindgrainsor maize to produceflour.Wissler
(1986:22-23) describes dried meat as being
poundedforpemmicanusinga "flatrock"as a base
and poundingwith a grooved maul (sometimes
recycled from older settlements) encased in
shrunkenrawhideor a "pestle."He notes "wild
cherries"as being pounded(fruitand pits) "on a
stone" with the same grooved maul (1986:21).
Morerecently,one of Peacock's(1993:58) Black-
foot informantsalso noted choke cherries were
pounded, pits and fruit together, using totally
unmodifiedimplements:"a flat rock and then a
smallerrock."A Glenbow Archives photograph
(NA-667-71)showsjust such a use of unmodified
lithic pieces to pounddriedmeat, in this instance
by a T'suu Tina woman in the 1920s. Dempsey
(2001:630)showsa similarview wherechokecher-
ries are being addedto the meat.1AnotherGlen-
shows a different T'suu Tina woman pounding
choke cherries with unmodified stones. Lowie
(1922:214) notes thatfor pounding"cherries"the
Crowused an unmodifiedflat slab for the base, or
sometimesa mortar,anda pestle-shapedhammer-
stone. Well-formedconical pestles, used with a
largeflatstonebasewitha small,deep,close-fitting
mortar-likedepressionworkedin the centreof the
basal slab, are known from the Plateau area of
BritishColumbia(Figure3). Conversely,to pound
driedmeatforpemmicantheKutenai(Turney-High
1974:38)used a flatrockcoveredwith a soft piece
of tannedhide and a stone maulin a mannersim-
ilarto theBlackfootas describedby Wissler.Over-
all, then, the indications for the Northern and
CanadianPlains are that grinding or pounding
implementsarelikelyto be unmodifiedstones,par-
ticularlyin southernAlberta.This conformsto the
patternseenarchaeologically. Itis verypossiblethat
thereasontherearefew of thesegrindingorpound-
ing implementsin CanadianPlainssites is thatwe
havefailedto recognizethem.Theyareessentially
unmodified. If culturally modified implements

This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
476 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 71 , No. 3, 2006

Figure 3. Interior British Columbia lithic mortar and pestle style cherry pounding implements (Glenbow Archive NA-
2244-27).

mationon only a few of theplantspeciesused,and

were used in the past,the most probablemodified
implementwouldhavebeen a groovedstonemaul on evenfewerthatwereprocessedwithlithictools.
Oursurveyis focusedon Blackfootplantuse as the
for the hand stone. These are, in fact, well docu-
mented in Canadian Plains' sites (e.g., Dyck regionally most relevant source (e.g., Peacock
1983:97;Wormingtonand Forbis 1965:108) and 1993). Regardless,this informationcan only pro-
therearea few conicalpestlesknownfromprivate vide a generalbasisforassessmentandotherplants
will be assessed in futurework. Binomial names
surfacecollections (e.g., Wormingtonand Forbis
of plantspecies follow Moss (1994) andare spec-
1965:108, 129).To advancestudiesin this areawe
ifiedwiththecommonnamesin thetextwhenthey
requireanindependentmethodof identifyinglithic
firstappear,with commonnamesused thereafter.
plantprocessingtools thatareunmodifiedor that,
like grooved mauls, might be assumed to have Themostcommonplantprocessingusinglithic
served other functions. Microbotanicalresiduetools in thisareawas forpoundingberriesandsim-
ilar fruitsto add to pemmicanor to dry as cakes.
analysishas excellentpotentialto fill this role. In
Thesefruitsarecommonlyreferredto as "cherries"
thispaperwe examinethe potentialof starchgrain
(Lowie 1922:214),whichprobablyincludedchoke
analysisas anindependentmethodto identifylithic
plantprocessingtools. cherries(Prunusvirginiana)(Denig 1961:11-12;
Hoebel 1960:60, Mandelbaum1979:75; Wissler
Ethnohistoric Plant Use 1986:20-22) andsaskatoons{Amelanchieralnifo-
on the Alberta Plains lia) (Dempsey 2001:607, Peacock 1993:130) or
serviceberries{Amelanchierspp.)butperhapsalso
Regionalethnographies and ethnobotanical
stud- pin cherries{Prunuspensylvanica).There are a
ies were examined to provide a frameworkfor numberof examples where the poundingimple-
understanding which plants might have been ments are not specificallystatedto be lithic (e.g.,
processedusinggrindingorpoundinglithicimple- Dempsey 2001:607;DeMallie 2001:804, both for
ments.Most ethnographicsketchesprovideinfor- choke cherries) and others where the pounding

This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Zarillo and Kooyman] EVIDENCE FOR BERRY AND MAIZEPROCESSING
implementmaterialis not specifiedand the fruits
are simply termed "berries"without any further
identification(e.g., FowlerandFlannery2001:680;
Voget 2001:696). Kidd (1986:114) statesthatthe
Blackfoot also treatedrose hips (Rosa spp.) by
crushingthem,mixing themwith fat androasting
them,althoughhe does not stateif lithictools were
used in the crushing.Peacockalso cites one of her
informantsas indicatingthatrosehipswerecrushed
andmadeintocakeslikechokecherries(1993:225).
These plants all belong to the rose family
(Rosaceae).
In additionto the aboveberries,Peacocknotes
thatbearberries (Arctostaphylosuva-ursi)mayhave
been crushedwith a grindingstone and addedto
pemmicanby the Blackfoot(1993:137). She also
notes that other groups mashed black mountain
huckleberry (tall bilberry; Vaccinium mem-
branaceum)to form cakes for storage, and the
Blackfootmay have as well since they also col-
lectedit (1993:241).Mandelbaum(1979:75)seems
to indicatethata largenumberof berriesweredried
and then crushedfor storageby the Plains Cree.
The wording is unclear, but this might include
saskatoons,raspberries(Rubusspp.), strawberries
(Fragaria spp.), black currents(Ribes hudsoni-
anum), red osier dogwood berries (Cornus
stolonifera),gooseberries(Ribesspp.),pincherries,
high bush (Viburnumopulus)and low bush (Vac-
cinium vitis-idaea) cranberries, mooseberries
{Viburnumedule), blueberries(Vacciniumspp.),
snowberries (Symphoricarpos albus), and
mountain-ash berries (Sorbus americana).
Siegfriednoted, for WoodlandCree people, that
blueberries,saskatoons, bearberries,and choke
cherriesmightbe mashedor poundedin process-
ing (theimplementsused arenot specified),in the
case of the bearberriesand choke cherriesthese
being mixed with fish eggs (1995:113, 230, 233,
287). She also noted that Canadabuffaloberries
(Shepherdiacanadensis)mightbe crushedbefore
being whippedinto "Indianice-cream,"although
again the means for accomplishingthis was not
specified(1995:302-303).
Grindingof plantrootsforfood is less well doc-
umentedin the literature.Wissler(1986:22) notes
thatprairieturnip(Indianbreadroot,Psoraleaescu-
lenta) was driedand then groundfinely and used
as a soup thickening by the Blackfoot. Hoebel
(1960:59-60) documentsexactlythis processand
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
477
use among the Cheyenne and Denig (1961:11)
notes grindingof this root for food. Mandelbaum
(1979:74) notes thatthe Plains Cree placed dried
prairieturniproots in rawhideand poundedthem
with a stone maul. Peacock notes thatthe Black-
foot groundbalsamroot(Balsamorhizasagittata)
roots and sometimescamas (Camassiaquamash)
bulbsin preparationas food (1993:144, 148-149).
Voget remarksthat one of the items the Crow
obtainedin tradefrom more westernpeoples was
"root flour"(2001:696) and Turney-Highnotes
specificallythatthe Kutenai,unlike some of their
neighbors,did not grindbitter-root(Lewisiaspp.)
intoflourto consumeit ( 1974:33). Cattailrhizomes
(Typhalatifolia) were dried and groundto make
flourby someCreegroups(Marieset al. 2000:297).
Manymedicinalplants,particularlyroots,were
groundin preparation foruse.Thespecificsof such
preparation rarelynotedoutsidededicatedeth-
are
nobotanicalstudies(e.g., Marieset al. 2000; Pea-
cock 1993; Siegfried1995), and even in these the
details are often omittedsince this knowledgeis
notusuallyconsideredappropriate forgeneralaudi-
ences. Forthe presentstudywe havereliedon two
recent ethnobotanical studies (Peacock 1993;
Siegfried1995) undertakenin Alberta,one specif-
ically on the Blackfootandso most appropriateas
a model in the presentinstance.Both have drawn
on otherliteraturewhere it is appropriateand so
provide more inclusive coverage. Preparationof
these plants was probablya much less common
eventthanwas the case for berriesandrootsused
as food; hence the likelihoodof findingevidence
of theiruse is small.Basedon Peacock'sBlackfoot
informants(1993:73), medicinalplant pounding
orgrindingwas normallyundertakenusinga cylin-
dricalor elongaterivercobble as the hand stone.
Peacocknotes the Blackfootas preparingthe fol-
lowingmedicinalplantrootsby grindingorpound-
ing in some manner:baneberry(Actaea rubra),
angelica(Angelicadawsonii),and/orsweet cicely
(Osmorhizaoccidentalis)(thereis some confusion
in the literature)(1993:126, 134, 200); greenmilk-
weed (Asclepiasviridflora)(1993:141);horsetails
(Equisetumspp.) (1993:162);old man'swhiskers
(Geumtriflorum)(1993:167); wild licorice (Gly-
cyrrhizalepidota)(1993:168);alumroot(Heuchera
spp.),specificallywitha grindingstoneanda piece
of canvas(1993:173);skeletonweed (Lygodesmea
juncea) roots and stems (1993:191); double
478 AMERICANANTIQUITY
bladder-pod(Physariadidymocarpa)(1993:206);
valeriana,again with a stone and piece of canvas
orhide{Valerianaspp.)(1993:243);andeitherbear
grass (Xerophyllumtenax) or Spanish bayonet
{Yucca glauca) (1993:246-248). Siegfried
(1995:226)statessweet flag {Acorusamericanus)
was "shredded" whenusedformedicinalpurposes.
Siegfried also statedthatthe barkof redosierdog-
wood was sometimespulverizedand mixed with
tobaccoto smoke (1995:246).
Consideringthe varioussourcesof information
andthefrequencywithwhichparticularspeciesare
represented,particularlywith regards to those
plants also specifically used traditionallyby the
Blackfoot,the two most likely plantsto be repre-
sented in archaeologicalcontexts in Alberta are
chokecherriesandprairieturnips.Saskatoons,rose
hips,andbearberries arethenextmostlikely.Again,
however,these are only the most likely and cer-
tainlyotherspeciescannotbe eliminatedfromcon-
sideration.
Assessing the Potential
for the Presence of Maize
Throughoutthe Americasthe most common and
widespreaduse of grindingstoneswasundoubtedly
for preparationof maize by grindingor milling
(Gremillion2004:221) to producemeal, grits, or
flour.Maize horticulturewas not practicedin the
westernportionof the CanadianPlains, although
thereis archaeologicalevidence, some of it very
limited,for it in Manitoba(Buchner1988; Carter
1990:38-39; Gregg 1994:91; Nicholson 1990;
Waldeet al. 1995:40).Thereare some recordsof
horticulture;perhapsthe resultof influencefrom
Europeansor First Nations groupsfrom Ontario
(Carter1990:39-41;MoodieandKaye 1969),dur-
ing the 1800sbutthe only Europeanrecordindica-
tive of pre-Europeanhorticultureon the more
western CanadianPlains is Matthew Cocking's
1772mentionof a fieldof plantedtobaccoin west-
ern Saskatchewan(Carter1990:39).A numberof
studieshave documenteda well-developedPlains
tradingnetworkbefore and duringthe European
contactperiod(Blakeslee1978;Ewers1954, 1955,
1968; Hanson 1987; Jablow 1950; Milloy 1988;
Wood 1980;WoodandThiessen 1985). Nonlocal
lithicandshellpieces in Plainsarchaeologicalcon-
texts from Paleoindiantimes onwardattestto the
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 71 , No. 3, 2006
existence of Plains trade from very early times.
Thistradeextendedto theeastcoastof NorthAmer-
ica andwest intotheRockyMountains(Boszhardt
1998;Gregg1994:76;StoltmanandHughes2004;
Winham and Calabrese 1998:296-297). These
lines of evidence suggest it is possible that the
grindingstonesconsideredin this papermay have
beenusedto processtradedmaize.Itis useful,then,
to examinewhatthe probabilityis of maize being
tradedthis far west andnorth.
A well-establishedtradingframeworkexisted
on the Plains and furtherwest priorto European
contact.The tradingnetworkhad a numberof pri-
mary and secondarycenters stretchingfrom the
westcoastto theeasternmarginof thePlains(Wood
1980:101). One of the majorcenters was in the
MiddleMissouri,in the Hidatsaand Mandanvil-
lages, and it is the one relevantin the presentdis-
cussion. The trade system persisted until about
1850 whenit was disruptedby the furtrade(Wood
1980:100).It is well documentedby theLewis and
Clarkexpedition(1804-1806) and the role of the
HidatsaandMandanvillagesis documentedby La
Verendryeas earlyas 1733whenhe mentionedthe
Cree andAssiniboineleavingfor the Mandanvil-
lagesto tradeformaize(Milloy1988:43).TheMid-
dle Missouritradewas between the horticultural
tribesof the MiddleMissouri- Hidatsa,Mandan,
Arikara- and the nomadic tribes, with these
nomadicpeoplecomingto the semi-sedentaryvil-
lages on the Missourito trade.
A varietyof goods wereexchangedin theMan-
dan and Hidatsavillages in both individualand
larger group ceremonial exchanges (Milloy
1988:48-51;Wood1980:100).Themostimportant
exchangeswereof fooditems(Blakesee1978:140).
For the nomadicbison huntinggroupsmaize was
particularlyimportant,probablyboth before and
afterthe arrivalof Europeans:"Cornwas an ideal,
portablefood supply for winter huntingexpedi-
tions andfor the long-distancetravelthatCreeand
Assiniboin middlemenwere involved in. It, like
pemmican,was an importanttool in the prosecu-
tionof thenativefurtrade"(Milloy 1988:43).Trade
becamesufficientlyimportantto boththe horticul-
turaland nomadicgroupsthateach intensifiedits
productionand became more specialized in the
food items produced.The nomadicgroupsinten-
sified bison productionefforts(mainlymeat) and
the horticulturalgroups intensifiedhorticultural
Zarillo and Kooyman] EVIDENCE FOR BERRY AND MAIZEPROCESSING
productionandincreasinglyspentless timein hunt-
ing (Hanson 1987:39). The tradingsystem also
likely functionedto overcometimes of scarcityin
one of the two mainPlainssubsistenceresources,
bisonandhorticulture,by encouragingproduction
of a surplusof one set of resourcesbeyond local
needs that could be "shared"should the other
resourcesufferlow productivityin a particularyear
(Blakesee 1978:140-141; Hanson 1987:19-20,
39-40; Wood 1980:103).
Althoughmanynomadicgroupstradeddirectly
with the HidatsaandMandanvillages, the Black-
foot werenot amongthemin the Europeancontact
period(Milloy 1988:43,48-49; Wood 1980:100).
Anytradegoodsthatwouldhavereachedthewest-
ernportionof the NorthernPlainsprobablydid so
via the Cree,Assiniboine,or Crow.These groups
tradeddirectlyin the villages andwere amongthe
main nomadic group traders(Hanson 1987:38).
Fromat least 1754 boththe Cree andAssiniboine
utilizedwhatwaslikelyBlackfootterritory between
Edmonton and Red Deer based on Henday's
account(Russell1991:142-146, 179-181) andthe
Assiniboine and Cree also occupied portionsof
southernSaskatchewan(1991:136-138, 184).The
Blackfoot tradedwith the Assiniboine and Cree
about 1730, perhapsearlier(Milloy 1988:24-25;
Smyth1992:344).Milloy(1988:24-25)claimsthat
the Blackfootwere allies of the Cree andAssini-
boine at this time, which would have facilitated
trade, but Smyth (1992:344-347) refutes this
notion.Regardless,by theearly1800sanyalliance
hadfalteredandtheBlackfoothadbecomeenemies
of the CreeandAssiniboine(Milloy 1988:31-36).
Walde (2003; Walde and Meyer 2003:144-148;
Waldeet al. 1995:9-50) has assembledevidence
suggestiveof anearlypresenceof Assiniboinepeo-
ple west intoAlbertaandthe modernStoneypeo-
ple of Alberta are very closely related to the
Assiniboine(e.g. the Stoneylanguageis anAssini-
boinedialect).Movementof MiddleMissouripeo-
ple northwest toward southern Alberta and
Saskatchewanis seen archaeologicallyin the for-
tified sites at Hagen (24DW2) in northeastMon-
tana(Mulloy 1976) andClunyin southernAlberta
(Forbis 1977). Forbis (1977:11) cited a tradition
recountedby One Gun indicatingthat the Cluny
site was one of severalshortoccupationsites of a
groupof people who were relatedto the Crowbut
that were not Crow. It was his opinion that the
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
479
inhabitantswere likely Hidatsa,Crow,or a related
people (1977:73). Kooyman(1996:18) favoreda
MountainCrow or Hidatsaaffiliationfor Cluny
based on a varietyof lines of evidence (the Crow
areclosely relatedto the Hidatsabasedon linguis-
tics and oral tradition [Ahler and Swenson
1993:122-123;Bowers 1965:10-25]).
Although these lines of evidence are meager
and the degreeto which they can be extrapolated
into earlierperiodsis not clear,thereis reasonable
evidencethatduringthe periodof Europeancon-
tactandperhapssomewhatbeforethatbothAssini-
boine andCrowpeoplemayhavebeenin southern
Albertaandmighthavebroughttradedmaizethere.
Maize may havebeen tradedinto the areaas well,
withoutthe directincursionof Crow,Assiniboine,
orCreepeople.Widespreadandmoreancienttrade
specificallywith the MiddleMissouriareais seen
in the presenceof Knife River Flint from North
Dakota west into Saskatchewan, Alberta, and
Wyomingas early as Cody Complextimes (e.g.,
Dyck 1983:115;Frison1991:66;Gruhn1969:142;
Tolman2003:107;Walde2003:54-57; andWright
1995:299, 1999:789,824).
Maize was probablytradedas dried kernels,
since that is how it was generally stored on the
Missouri(Wilson 1977:90-92). That said, maize
as hominy,meal, or meal cakes was preparedfor
use in long-distance voyaging, as for example
amongtheIroquoisandOsage(Blake2001:55-56).
In historicrecordstradedmaize is referredto as
"grain"oras a numberof "bushels,"butnotas flour
or meal, andto at least a limitedextentas kernels
driedon thecob (Hanson1987:26;Milloy 1988:48,
53; Wilson 1977:58; Wood and Thiessen
1985:153).Tradingmaize as driedkernelsis logi-
cal since obviouslyit is lighterandless bulkythan
cob maizeandmilledmaizeis moredifficultto pro-
tect fromspoilageandloss, bothsignificantissues
for nomadicpeople.
Archaeological Data for Plant Use
There is relativelylittle archaeologicalevidence
fromtheCanadianPlainsforplantuse.Earlymate-
rial is controversial but includes goosefoot
(Chenopodium)seedsattheGowansite (FaNq-25)
in centralSaskatchewanand choke cherryseeds
from Boss Hill (FdPe-4)in centralAlberta.Boss
Hill alsohadtwopiecesof sandstonethatmayhave
480 AMERICANANTIQUITY
beengrindingstones(DyckandMorlan2001:118).
A preliminaryreporton flotationof 31 sediment
samplesfrom eight archaeologicalsites from the
Oldman Dam (DjPm-116, DjPm-36, DjPm-80,
DjPm-100,DjPm-115,DjPm-122,DjPl-11,DjPl-
13) projectin southwestAlbertarecoveredmainly
goosefoot (Chenopodium spp.) seeds as well
(Vance 1992). Goosefoot was also the most fre-
quentseedrecoveredin floatationsamplesfromthe
LockportEastsite (EaLf-1) in Manitoba,buta vari-
ety of other local wild plants, such as hazelnut
(Corylusamericana),wild cherry(Prunusspp.),
raspberry,strawberry, andwild rose werealso pre-
sent.The only cultigenrecoveredat LockportEast
was Zea mays in the form of charredkernelsand
cupules,identifiedas NorthernFlintmaize.Maize
wasrecoveredfromtwohearths,a basin-shapedpit,
two bell-shapedpits,andanorganiclayerandnon-
featuresamplesdatingto betweenA.D. 1200 and
1500 (Deck and Shay 1992:38).
At the Tuscany site (EgPn-377) in Calgary
Siegfried found significant numbers of juniper
seeds (Juniperusspp.),bearberryseeds, goosefoot
seeds,roseseeds,andspruce(Picea spp.)seedsand
cone scales (2003:148-163). Uncommon seed
speciesincludedbuckbrush(Symphoricarpos occi-
dentalis),Canadabuffaloberry,and westernwild
bergamot(Monardafistulosa) (2003:165-168).
Siegfriedalsotentativelyidentifiedshrubbycinque-
foil (Potentillafruiticosa),
northernbedstraw(Gal-
ium boreale),Indianpaintbrush(Castillejaspp.),
and baneberry(2003:169-171). These seeds are
all derived from the general site sediments and
hence it is not certainwhetherthey representcul-
turaluse or the site vegetationbefore or afterthe
site was occupied.
TheBartonGulchsite (24MA171)in southwest
Montanais theearliestNorthwestPlainssite (9410
60 B.P. [Frison 1991:27]) with good paleob-
otanical evidence. Results mainly from roasting
pits were dominated by slimleaf goosefoot
(Chenopodium leptophyllum)andpricklypearcac-
tus (Opuntia polyacantha) seeds (Armstrong
1993:13). Sedges (Carex spp.), scarlet mallow
(Sphaeralceacoccinea), and a numberof grass
species (Gramineae)were also present.Interest-
ingly,rarebutalso representedwereredosierdog-
wood, sunflower(Helianthusspp.), limber pine
(Pinusflexis), choke cherry,wild rose, raspberry,
andblueberry.
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 71 , No. 3, 2006
Smith (1988:145) examineda numberof sites
in southwestWyomingand found that goosefoot
seeds (Chenopodiumand Monolepsisspp.) were
clearlymost abundant.Also commonwere choke
cherry,saltbush(Atriplexspp.), and species from
the mustard family (Cruciferae), but grasses,
sedges,anda varietyof otherplantsincludingsun-
flower and rose were also present. Frison
(2001:138, 1991:338-339)listsprobablefoodplant
remains from Leigh Cave (48WA304) in the
foothillsof the BighornMountainsin Wyomingas
including wild onion (Allium spp.), silver buf-
faloberry(Shepherdiaargentea),pricklypearcac-
tus,chokecherry,juniper,limberpine,yucca,wild
rose, andgrass.
Not all of thesearchaeologicalplantremainsare
of species likely to be processedwith grindingor
poundingstones,butmanymightbe basedon evi-
dence from easternNorthAmericaand from the
ethnobotanicalliteraturealreadycited:goosefoot,
chokecherry,buffaloberry, rose,juniper,sunflower,
limber pine, bearberry,and perhapsbuckbrush,
baneberry,andgrasses.
Basedon theethnobotanical,ethnohistoric,and
archaeologicalevidence discussedabove the fol-
lowingplantspecieswerechosento investigatevia
starchgrainresearch:choke cherry,prairieturnip,
saskatoon,rose hip, bearberry,and maize. Addi-
tional species were also investigatedbecause of
theirclose relationshipto these species in orderto
determineif starchgrainform was distinctiveof
thetargetspecies,andto morebroadlydefinestarch
grainformin this areaof NorthAmericawhereno
priorworkhas been undertaken.
Nature of the Study Sample
Duringa heritageresourceimpactassessmentcon-
ductedat the locationof a futureresidentialdevel-
opment,two cairnswerediscovered,one of which
resultedin the recoveryof two possible grinding
tools- a siltstonegrindingpebble and a siltstone
grindingslab(Figure4). Theseidentificationswere
based on macroscopicallyvisible striationsand
thusthese artifactsprovidedan excellentopportu-
nity to test whetherresidueanalysiscould help to
determineif thesetoolshada plantprocessingfunc-
tion,informationthatwouldotherwisenotbe forth-
coming by conventionalanalysisalone.
The site (EgPn-612)is located withinthe city
Zarillo and Kooyman] EVIDENCE FOR BERRY AND MAIZEPROCESSING 481

Figure 4. Unmodified grinding slab and grinding pebble from EgPn-612.

of Calgary,Albertaon a terracewith a southeast and all indicationsare thatthey areboth contem-

exposureoverlookingnaturaldrainagechannelsof
the Elbow River,which is locatedthreekm to the
south(RamsayandRamsay2001:3).Theparcelof
land where the site is situated has never been
plowed and the currentvegetationincludesmany
plantswithedibleandusefulberriessuchas choke
cherry,saskatoon,redraspberry, gooseberry,black
currant,and wild rose. Native fescue is found on
the slopesof theterracewhile thetop of the terrace
is predominantlyundisturbedaspen and shrubs
(RamsayandRamsay2001:3).Althoughno diag-
nosticprojectilepointswererecoveredas a means
to datethetools,theyarethoughtto dateto thepre-
Europeancontactperiodas no Europeanartifacts
such as tradebeads were found. The absence of
Europeantradegoods is not certainevidence of a
pre-European ageforthesite,particularlyinAlberta
whereEuropeangoods areuncommonin sites that
predate the establishment of fur trade posts in
Alberta(Pyszczysk 1997).
However,evidencefor a pre-Europeanage for
the site does exist. The tools were recoveredfrom
undisturbedcontextsin the same excavationunit
poraneous and associated. No buried soil was
encounteredbeneaththe cairnrocks (Ramsayand
Ramsay 2001:14), thereforesuggesting the cul-
turalmaterialmay have been placed in a pit fea-
tureand subsequentlycoveredby the cairnrocks.
A 5-10 cm soil A horizon(Ramsayand Ramsay
2001:15) developedandsubsequentlycoveredthe
basalportionof bothcairns,indicatinga periodof
perhapsa few hundredyearshadelapsedsince the
cairns were abandoned.The grindingtools were
recovered from below the A horizon and cairn
rocks.Further,lichencoveredtheexposedsurfaces
of the rocksof bothpartiallyburiedcairnsindicat-
ing thatthe rockshadbeen lying in thosepositions
for some time (Ramsayand Ramsay2001:11). A
flakestonetool thatshowedno evidenceof usewear
was recoveredfrom the same depthas the grind-
ing tools underan adjacentcairn,also supporting
a pre-European contactdate.Inadditionto themar-
ginally retouched flaked stone tool mentioned
above,the only otherartifactsrecoveredfromthe
cairnsconsistedof quartzitecoresanddebitage.Six
cores and 30 pieces of debitagewere recoveredin

This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
482 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 71 , No. 3, 2006

Figure 5. Close-up of usewear striations on EgPn-612 grinding slab.

This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Zarillo and Kooyman] EVIDENCE FOR BERRY AND MAIZEPROCESSING 483

Figure 6. EgPn-612 grinding pebble showing pitting on flat end of pebble.

totalfrombothcairns.While some lithicreduction stonesor otherfruitscontainingwoody seeds. Ini-

occurredat the site it was clearly not the prime
activity.
Usewearanalysiswas originallyperformedon
thesetoolsby theconsultantarchaeologistsrespon-
sible for the heritageresourceimpactassessment
(Ramsayand Ramsay2001) and by Zarrillosub-
sequent to conductingthe residue analysis. The
resultsof the usewearanalyseson the tools were
indicativeof plant processing.Both the grinding
pebbleandgrindingslabshowlinearstriationspar-
allel to the long axis of the tools (Figure5), con-
sistentwith long grindingand rubbingactions as
would be expected with the grinding of seeds,
berries,andevenmaize.Inparticular, pitting/peck-
ing observedon the flat end of the grindingpeb-
ble, as shownin Figure6, may be consistentwith
crackingopenandcrushing/pounding chokecherry
tially two plantspecies were tentativelyidentified
from the numerousstarchgrains in the residues
extractedfromthese tools- chokecherry(Prunus
virginiana)andsaskatoonberry{Amelanchier alni-
folia). Furtheranalysiswas then conductedin an
attemptto confirmthese findingsand to identify
moreof the starchgrainsrecoveredin the residues
by expandingthe starchgraincomparativecollec-
tion to includemore species.
Starch Grain Analysis
Starchgrainanalysishas been used by numerous
researchersto study diet, plant processing,plant
domestication and cultivation, tool use, and in
ceramicresidue analysis (e.g., Babot and Apella
2003; Bartonet al. 1998;FullagerandField 1997;

This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
484 AMERICANANTIQUITY
Fullageret al. 1998; Horrockset al. 2004; Iriarte
et al. 2004; Loy et al. 1992; Parr2002; Pearsall
2003; Pearsallet al. 2004; Perry2001, 2002, 2004;
Piperno and Hoist 1998; Piperno et al. 2000;
Piperno et al. 2004; Simons 2001; Ugent et al.
1984; Zarrillo2004a). It has also been employed
in environmentalreconstruction,landuse studies,
andin the identificationof site activityareas(e.g.,
Balme andBeck 2002; Lentferet al. 2002; Therm
et al. 1999). Storagestarchgrains,formedin amy-
loplasts,are the chief long-termstoragepolysac-
charideof higherplantsandarefoundin specialized
plant storage areas such as undergroundstems,
roots,fruits,andthe endospermandcotyledonsof
seeds (Banks and Greenwood 1975:1; Haslam
2004:1716; James et al. 1985:162). In contrast,
transitorystarchis located in the chloroplastsof
leaves andgreenstems andacts as a readilyavail-
able energy source for plants (Banks and Green-
wood 1975:1; Haslam 2004:1716; James et al.
1985:162). Distinctivefeaturesof storage starch
grainsare geneticallycontrolledand, when care-
fully observed,can be used to identifyplanttaxa
(Banks and Greenwood 1975:242; Cortella and
Pochettino 1994:172; Guilbot and Mercier
1985:240;Loy 1994:87-91;MacMaster1964:233;
Reichert1913:165;TesterandKarkalas2001:513).
Starchgrainsarecomposedof two differenttypes
of polysaccharides,amyloseandamylopectin.It is
the orientation of these two organic polymers
within the granule that impartssemi-crystalline
(birefringent)propertiesto starchgrains,produc-
ing a visible anddistinctiveextinctioncross when
starchgrains are viewed microscopicallyunder
cross-polarized light (Banks and Greenwood
1975:247;Calvert1997:338;CortelloandPochet-
tino 1994:177;GuilbotandMercier1985:241;Loy
1994:89; Moss 1976:5; Radley 1976:118). The
presenceof the extinctioncross thatrotatesallows
for the positiveidentificationof starchin residues
obtainedfrom archaeologicalcontexts (Cortello
and Pochettino1994:177;Loy 1994:89-90). It is
thoughtthatstarchgrainsthathavebecome incor-
poratedinto cracksand crevices on tool surfaces
during processing activities are protected from
degradationandcanthusendureforextremelylong
time periods (Loy 1994:110-111; Pearsallet al.
2004:437; Perry 2001:186; Piperno and Hoist
1998:768,772). The usewearstriationson the tool
surfacesas well as the lithic type itself provideda
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 71 , No. 3, 2006
landscapesuitablefor trappingstarchgrains.
StarchGrainRecoveryand Analysis Methods
The tools testedhad been washedpriorto testing
as partof the basic cataloguingprocedure.While
ideallyunwashedartifactsarepreferredforresidue
analysis,washingdoes notprecludethe successful
recoveryof starchgrainsfrom stone tool residues
(Loy 1994:96; Piperno and Hoist 1998:772). It
shouldalso be notedthatpowderedgloves (which
containcornstarch)werenotused at anytimedur-
ing thehandlingof the tools. Residueswererecov-
ered from the surfacesof the grindingstone tools
by a multiple-stepmethodthatinvolvedsoakingthe
utilized tool surfacesto loosen residues,using a
centrifugeto concentratethe residues, and then
transferringthe residuesto microscopeslides with
Pasteurpipetteswhere they were allowed to dry
priorto mountingundercoverslips.2Residueswere
mountedin a 50:50 solutionof glycerine-waterto
enablerotationof the starchgrainsduringmicro-
scopic analysis, as recommended by other
researchers (MacMasters 1964:234; Perry
2001:105).
Residuesobtainedby surfaceextractionfroma
tool, as well as residueextractionfrom adhering
sediment,are usually employedto assess if non-
use contaminationmay be an issue. Since these
tools had alreadybeen washed, this was not an
optionin thepresentanalysis.Instead,theflaketool,
foundat the samedepthandsubjectedto the same
sedimentandgroundcoverconditionsas thegrind-
ing stonetools, was processedin the samemanner.
Analysisof theresiduesfromtheflaketool resulted
in the recoveryof no starchgrains.This indicates
that the abundantstarchgrains recoveredin the
grindingtools' residueswere probablya resultof
specifictooluse andwerenota resultof starchgrain
presencein the sediments,even from the time of
initialdeposition.Sedimentsamplesobtainedfrom
the same depthsas the tools were also processed
andthese samplesdid not containstarchgrains.
Recently,Haslam(2004) has provideda thor-
oughreviewof starchgraindecompositionin soils.
Haslam (2004:1717), and previously Perry
(2001:98, 186),rightlysuggestthatthe absenceof
starchgrainsin the surroundingmatrixof starch
grain-bearing artifactsshouldnotbe consideredan
assurancethata transferof starchgrainsfromsed-
imentsdid not occurwithina shortperiodof time
Zarillo and Kooyman] EVIDENCE FOR BERRY AND MAIZEPROCESSING
afterdeposition.Starchgrainsfrom the sediment
could be presenton the surfacesof an artifactdue
to thedifferentialpreservationconditionsprovided
by the artifactsurface.As the tools tested in this
studycontainstarchgrainsof wildplantspeciesthat
areabundantin the local area,two sedimentsam-
ples were analyzed from directly below thick
patchesof saskatoonand choke cherryplants in
orderto assess thepotentialfor starchgrainsbeing
presentnaturallyin the sediments.If starchgrains
did survivein the sedimentsbeneaththesemodern
plants,the starchgrainsadheringto thetools might
representnaturalcontamination fromthesediment.
Inaddition,a naturallyfracturedstonewasobtained
fromthe soil beneaththe thicketof saskatoonand
choke cherrybushesto test whetherstarchgrains
fromtheseberriescouldadhereto andpreserveon
a lithic fragmentas a resultof sedimenttransfer.
Thesedimentsampleswereobtained3-5 cm below
the surfaceafterremovalof the leaf litter,directly
below a saskatoonbush and a choke cherrybush.
The sedimentsamples were processedfor starch
grain extraction3by modifying the methods of
Therin(Lentferet al. 2002:Table2) andPearsallet
al. (2004:428),a techniquethathadbeenused suc-
cessfullyto extractstarchgrainsfromotherarchae-
ological sediments(Zarrillo2004b). Despite the
visible presence of saskatoonberriesand choke
cherriesin variousstages of decompositionin the
sample sediments,only one starchgrain,consis-
tentwiththeGramineaefamily,was observed.This
indicatesthatstarchgrainsof thesespeciesrapidly
decompose in the sediments of this region or
decomposewithin the berriesbefore they can be
releasedinto the soil. The naturallithic fragment
was processedin the samemanneras the archaeo-
logical tools and also tested negative for starch
grains.This is a limited test of the likelihoodof
starchgraintransferencefrom sedimentsto lithic
tools andfurtherworkneeds to be done to under-
stand the mechanisms involved in starch grain
preservationin archaeologicalcontexts.However,
theindicationis that,atleastwithsaskatoonberries
and choke cherries,starchgrainsdo not preserve
in naturalsoils in this regionlong enoughto cont-
aminateandpreserveon lithictools, andtheymay
not preserveat all in such sediments.
Controlslideswerealso preparedfollowingthe
sameproceduresto test for lab contaminationas a
potential source for the starch grains recovered
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
485
from the tools. These slides containedno starch
grains,indicatinglabproceduresandreagentswere
not a sourceof starchgraincontamination.There-
fore, all lines of evidence, includingthe usewear
analysis, strongly suggest that the starchgrains
recoveredfrom the surfacesof the grindingtools
representresiduefromtool use, andnot fromsed-
imenttransferor lab contamination.
Althoughtransitorystarchgrainshavenotbeen
employed in archaeological residue analysis,
Haslam(2004:1754)has recommendedthatthese
starchgrains should receive more attentionwith
respectto differentiating betweentransitorystarch
grainsand small storagestarchgrainsin archaeo-
logical studies.With respectto this study distin-
guishing between transitory starch grains and
storagestarchgrainsis pertinentdue to the small
size of the Rosaceaefamily storagestarchgrains
(see descriptionsbelow). The structureand shape
of transitorystarchgrainshas notbeenextensively
studied,but the literaturethus far indicates that
transitorystarchgrainsshould "generallybe dis-
coid in shape,haveirregularmargins,andtypically
be less than4-5 urnin diameter,with some grains
up to 7 jam"(Haslam2004:1723).As the descrip-
tions and photographsof the Rosaceae storage
starchgrainsand the archaeologicalstarchgrains
recoveredfromthetoolsindicate,thesestarchesare
sphericalin shapewhen viewed from all orienta-
tionswithgenerallyregularmargins.Althoughtran-
sitory starch grains from these species or other
regional species have not been examined and
describedas yet, with the exceptionof sunflower
{Helianthus annuus) (whose transitory starch
grainsare generallydiscoid and rangefrom .2 to
5.5 |nmin diameter,with 70-80 percentbetween
1.5 and2.5 urn[RadwanandStocking1957:682]),
it seems safe to assumeat this time thatthe small-
sized starchgrainsrecoveredfromthe residuesof
the tools in this studyarestoragestarchgrainsand
not transitorystarchgrains.
Slides were viewed with a transmittedlight
microscopeequippedwith polarizingfilters.The
slides were scanned in their entirety under
400-630X magnification.As stated previously,
saskatoonandchokecherrystarchgrainswereten-
tativelyidentifiedinitiallyin the residuesbasedon
a limitednumberof comparativestarchgrainsam-
ples fromplantsknownby ethnographicaccounts
to have been utilized by Plains peoples. Subse-
486 AMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 71 , No. 3, 2006

Table 1. ModernPlant Species Testedfor StarchGrains.

Family Genus Species Common Name

Caprifoliaceae Viburnum opulus high-bushcranberry
Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium berlandieri goosefoot
Compositae Balsamorhiza sagittata balsamroot(arrow-leaved)
Cornaceae Cornus stolinifera red osier dogwood
Cupressaceae Juniperus horizontalis creepingjuniper
Elaeagnaceae Elaeagnus commutata silverberry,wolf willow
Elaeagnaceae Shepherdia canadensis Canadianbuffalo-berry
Ericaceae Arctostaphylos uva-ursi common bearberry,kinnikinnick
Ericaceae Vaccinium myrtilloides blueberry
Gramineae Agropyron trachycaulum slenderwheat grass
Gramineae Bouteloua gracilis blue gramagrass
Gramineae Elymus canadensis Canadawild rye
Gramineae Stipa comata needle-and-thread,speargrass
Gramineae Stipa viridula green needle grass
Gramineae Zea mays NorthernFlint maize
Gramineae Zea mays MandanSweet maize
Gramineae Zea mays MandanRed Flour maize
Gramineae Zea mays NorthAmericanDent maize
Grossulariaceae Ribes hudsonianum wild black currant
Grossulariaceae Ribes oxycanthoides wild gooseberry
Leguminosae Psoralea esculenta Indianbreadroot,prairieturnip
Liliaceae Camassia quamash blue camas
Liliaceae Disporum trachycarpum fairybells
Rosaceae Amelanchier alnifolia saskatoon
Rosaceae Prunus pensylvanica pin cherry
Rosaceae Prunus virginiana choke cherry
Rosaceae Rosa acicularis prickly rose
Rosaceae Rubus idaeus wild red raspberry
Rosaceae Sorbus scopulina westernmountain-ash
Typhaceae Typha latifolia common cattail
Umbelliferae Heracleum lanatum cow parsnip
Note: Taxonomicclassificationfollows Moss (1994).

quentlythe numberof nativeplant species tested maize.Fivegrasses(Gramineae)as well as Camas-

for starchgrainswas expandedto include 14 fam-
ilies, 24 genera, and 28 species, with particular
focus on species of the Rosaceae(rose) family in
anattemptto confirmtheidentificationof thesaska-
toon berryand choke cherrystarchgrains.Where
possible, severalberry and tuber samples of the
same species were collected from differentloca-
tions,includingthe site locale, to accountfor envi-
ronmentaland intra-speciesvariationsthatmight
be evident in starchgrain morphologyand size
(Loy 1994:95;PipernoandHolst1998:766;Radley
1976:3). Berries and roots from several species
were also collectedin differentstagesof maturity.
Fourvarietiesof Zeamays(maize)knownfromthe
NortheasternPlainsandNorthAmericawere pre-
paredfor starchgraincomparison.Theseincluded
NorthAmericanDent maize as well as Mandan
Sweet, Mandan Red Flour, and NorthernFlint
sia quamash(bluecamas),Juniperushorizontalis
(creepingjuniper),Balsamorhizasagittata (bal-
samroot),and Psoralea esculenta(prairieturnip)
were testedfor starchgrainsfromplantsin Kooy-
man'sherbariumcollection.Table1 lists the plant
species includedin this study.
Comparativestarchgrainslides were prepared
in the followingmanner.Roots, seeds, andberries
werewashedandallowedto dryto removeanycon-
taminantspriorto processing.Withrootsandtubers
a portionof the cortex was groundwith a clean
metalprobein a solutionof 50:50 glycerine-water,
andthemetalprobewas usedto transferthe starch-
bearing solution onto a microscope slide. More
50:50 glycerine-waterwas addedif necessaryand
a cover slip mountedandthe edges sealed.Where
possible with seeds, the endospermor cotyledons
wereremovedandpreparedin the samemanneras

This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Zarillo and Kooyman] EVIDENCE FOR BERRY AND MAIZEPROCESSING 487

Figure 7. Rose family comparative starch grains: (a) Prunus virginiana; (b) Amelanchieralnifolia; (c) Sorbus scopulina;
(d) Prunuspensylvanica; (e) Rosa acicukuis; (f) Rubus idaeus. Cross-polarizedimages for each species on right Original
magnifications630X, scale bars approximately: (a) 8.5um; (b), (c), (f) 7 urn; (d), (e) 6.5 urn.

the roots. In some cases the seeds were so small
that entire seeds with the seed coats intact were
ground.Slides were preparedin the same manner.
As stated,wheresamplesallowed,severalslides
were preparedfor each species to assess variation
in starchgrainmorphologyandsize. Despitethese
precautionsno discernabledifferencewas noted
between the samplesotherthan size variation.A
taxonomickey of starchgrainmorphologicaltraits
was developedfor Rosaceaethatfocusedon starch
grainswith the most distinguishingtraits.Within
the six species of Rosaceae analyzed the starch
grainswerefoundto be verysimilaroverall.How-
ever, species-specific starchgrain morphologies
were definedby comparingmultiplecharacteris-
tics suchas size range;starchgrainshapeandsur-
face features;presence or absence of lamellae;
shape,size, visibilityandlocationof thehilum;fis-
sures;facets; and patternof the extinctioncross
undercross-polarization.
Comparative Starch Grain Morphologies
and Confirmation of Starch Grain Species
Identifications
The Rosaceae family comparative starches
includedthe following species:Prunusvirginiana
(choke cherry),Amelanchieralnifolia (saskatoon
berry),Sorbusscopulina(westernmountain-ash),
Prunuspensylvanica(pincherry),Rosa acicularis
(pricklyrose), and Rubusidaeus (wild red rasp-
berry).Mountain-ashis extremelyrarein the study
areaand is unlikelyto be representedin archaeo-
logical sites. The starchgrainsobtainedfrom the
fruits of all species in the Rosaceae family were
simple spherical grains (with the exception of
pricklyrose thatalso has compoundgrains)with a
centrallylocatedhilum,regardlessof the viewing
orientation,and no observablelamellaeor facets.
Figure7 shows the diagnosticstarchgrainsrepre-
sentativeof each of these species. Characteristics

This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
488 AMERICANANTIQUITY
of diagnosticstarchgrainsfor each species are as
follows:
Prunus virginiana:size range is 2.8-8.4 um
(mean44.47 fjm)andstarchgrainsareabundant.A
centralhilum,occasionallyvisible as smallreddot
andoccasionallyvisible with cross-polarization is
present. The red colorationobserved at the hilum
of this species, andwherepresentin the following
species,remainspresentandobservabledespitethe
use of a color-balancefilterand is not thoughtto
be an artifactof the microscopelight source.The
cross-polarization figurehas a strongcross with a
shortbar across the hilum. Several fissures (2+,
andcommonly4+) radiatefromthe hilum.Grains
possess a generallyroughsurfacetexture.
Amelanchieralnifolia:size rangeis 2.8-8.4 urn
(mean3.5 um) and starchgrainsare abundant.A
centralhilum,usuallyopen and visible as a small
reddot andusuallyvisible with cross-polarization
is present.Thecross-polarization figurepresentsas
a strongcrossin an "X"pattern.Fissuresarerarely
present.The surfacetextureof the grainsis gener-
ally smooth.
Prunuspensylvanica:size rangeis 2.8-8.4 um
(mean2.74 um) andstarchgrainsareabundant.A
centralhilum,usuallyopenandvisible as a reddot
andoftenvisiblewithcross-polarization is present.
The cross-polarization figurehas a strongcross in
an "X"pattern.Therearefissures(usually2) radi-
atingfromhilum.The surfacetextureis generally
rough.
Sorbus scopulina: size range is 2.8-7.0 um
(mean 3.21 um) and starchgrains are abundant.
While the shapesof the grainsare spherical,they
often have irregularmarginsand appearas some-
whatpolygonal.A centralhilum,usuallyopenand
visibleas a largerreddotin comparisonto theover-
all grain size, is presentand usually visible with
cross-polarization.The cross-polarizationfigure
has a strongcrossin an "X"pattern.Thereareusu-
ally severalfissures(2+) radiatingfromthe hilum.
A generallyroughsurfacetextureis present.
Rubusidaeus:size rangeis 1.4-4.2 um (mean
2.56 um)andtherearefew starchgrains.A central
hilumoften visible as a reddot andusuallyvisible
with cross-polarization is present. The cross-
polarizationfigurehasa strongcrossin an"X"pat-
tern.No fissuresarepresent.The grainsgenerally
have a smoothsurfacetexture.
Rosa acicularis:size is 2.0 um, very rarelyup
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 71 , No. 3, 2006
to 5.6 um(mean2.72 um),andtherearefew starch
grains. Some compoundgrains are presentcon-
sisting of two parts.A centralhilum exists based
on the intersectionof the arms of the extinction
cross, but the hilum is not visible. The cross-
polarizationfigurehas a strongcrossin an"X"pat-
tern. No fissures were observed. A generally
smoothsurfacetextureis present.
As stated previously, starch grains of these
speciescanbe distinguishedby observingandcom-
paringmultiplecharacteristics.For instance,if a
starchgrainis 8 umin size, has a roughsurfacetex-
ture,centralhilumnot visible with cross polariza-
tion, extinctioncross in an "X"pattern,and two
fissures radiatingfrom the hilum, then western
mountain-ash,pricklyrose, and raspberrycan be
eliminatedon the basis of size alone. Saskatoon
berrycan most likely be eliminatedon the basisof
the combinationof fissuresandroughsurfacetex-
ture, leaving the possibility that the starchgrain
would be eitherpin cherryor choke cherry.The
largersize of the starchgrainwould make choke
cherrya more likely possibility,and if the extinc-
tioncrosshada barbetweenthe armsthenit would
makethis identificationvery probable.
Twospeciesof theGrossulariceae (currant)fam-
ily, Ribes oxycanthoides(wild gooseberry) and
Ribeshudsonianum(wildblackcurrant),hadstarch
grainsin theirberryseeds similarto those of the
Rosaceae family starches. However, the starch
grainsproduced,with a maximumsize of 3 um,
were too small to be a sourceof the starchgrains
observed in the residues from the ground stone
tools and these species producevery few starch
grains.None of the otherplantspeciesfromthe 12
otherfamiliesof plantsin the comparativecollec-
tion possessed starchgrains similarto Rosaceae
family starchgrains.
Figure 8 shows a starchgrainrecoveredfrom
the grindingpebbleresiduesthatis representative
of the choke cherrystarchgrainsrecoveredfrom
the residues of both tools. The cross-polarized
image shows the characteristicchoke cherrypat-
ternof the extinctioncross wherebya shortbaris
presentacross the hilum joining the arms of the
extinctioncross.The size of thisstarchgrainalone,
at 8 um,is beyondthemaximumsize rangeof west-
ernmountain-ash, pricklyrose,andraspberry, mak-
ing it unlikelythatthis starchgrainis one of those
species. In addition,the roughsurfacetextureand
Zarillo and Kooyman] EVIDENCE FOR BERRY AND MAIZEPROCESSING 489

Figure 8. Starch grains recovered from EgPn-612 grinding tool residues identified as: (a) choke cherry (Prunus virgini-
ana); (b) saskatoon (Amelanchieralnifolia). Cross-polarizedimages to right Original magnifications:(a) 400X, scale bar
approximately 10 um; (b) 500X, scale bar approximately 8 um.

fissures radiatingfrom the hilum also make it were recoveredfromthe grindingslab.

unlikely that this starchgrain is from saskatoon
berry.The largeroverallsize, patternof the extinc-
tioncrossandlackof visiblehilum,with andwith-
out cross-polarization,makeit less likely thatthis
starchgrainis frompin cherryandmorelikely that
it is chokecherry.Indeed,thisstarchgrainpossesses
all of the distinguishingcharacteristicsidentified
for choke cherrystarchgrainsas describedabove
andas shownin Figure7.
Figure 8 also shows a starchgrain recovered
fromthe grindingpebbleresiduethatis identified
as most probablysaskatoonberrydue to the fol-
lowingcharacteristics. The size of the starchgrain
(8 um) eliminateswesternmountain-ash,prickly
roseandraspberryas possibilities.Thesmoothsur-
face texture,open and visible hila with and with-
out cross-polarization,and lack of fissures also
eliminatesthe possibilityof pin cherryand choke
cherry.The starchgrain shows all of the distin-
guishing characteristicsidentified for saskatoon
berrystarchgrains,and comparablestarchgrains
Theidentificationof chokecherryandsaskatoon
starchgrainsin the residuesfrom the two ground
stonetools is moresecurethanwiththeinitialiden-
tification in that several other Rosaceae family
starchgrainshavebeen eliminatedas possibilities.
These species were chosen as they are known to
growin thisregionof Albertaandarealso reported
to havebeen widely utilizedby pastPlainspeople.
As it has been shown thatthe starchgrainsfound
in the residueson these tools are most probablya
productof use andnot due to sedimentor lab con-
tamination,andthatgrindingstoneswereverycom-
monlyusedto processchokecherriesandsaskatoon
berries, these identificationsseem quite secure.
However,until the starchgrain comparativecol-
lectionis furtherexpandedto includestarchesfrom
all AlbertaRosaceae species, these species-level
identificationscannotbe viewed as absolutelycer-
tain.
As discussedpreviously,bearberryand maize
havethepotentialto be representedas theyaredoc-

This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
490 AMERICANANTIQUITY
umented to have been processed with grinding or
pounding stones. Common bearberry (Arc-
tostaphylos uva-ursi) fruits collected and processed
for comparative starchgrain examination contained
seeds that produce very few starch grains. In addi-
tion, the starch grains were extremely small in size
and difficult to isolate; further work is required
with this species.
Maize starch grains have been extensively stud-
ied in other regions, in particular the Neotropics,
due to the importance of this domesticate in the
Americas prior to the arrival of Europeans (e.g.,
Pearsall 2003; Pearsall et al. 2004; Perry 2001,
2004; Piperno and Hoist 1998; Piperno et al. 2000).
Zea mays, a giant domesticate of the Gramineae
family, is monoeicious, naturally cross-pollinates
and hybridizes freely (Hancock 2004:176-177;
Langer and Hill 1991 :1 19-122; Purseglove 1972).
At the time of European arrivalin the New World,
hundreds of varieties of maize were being grown
as a crop from Argentina to Canada (Hancock
2004: 180). Maize varieties can be grouped into cat-
egories according to grain (kernel) structure, usu-
ally dependent upon one of a few genes, and
include: popcorn (everta), possessing an extremely
hard endosperm and a small amount of soft starch
in the center that explodes upon heating; flint
(indurata), in which the grains mainly consist of a
hard endosperm with some soft starch in the cen-
ter;flour (amylacea), in which the endosperm is soft
and floury; dent (indentata), where the sides and
bottom of the grain possess hard starch, while soft
starch is above the hard starch and extends to the
top of the grain that, upon drying, shrinks to pro-
duce the "dent";and sweet (saccharata), where the
endosperm contains a glossy, sugary (sweet)
endosperm and the grains are translucent when
immature (Hancock 2004:180; Langer and Hill
1991:122-123; Reichert 1913:343-344). Of the
varieties of maize grown in the Americas, flint,
flour, and sweet maize varieties were grown by the
Plains Village horticulturalists; dent corn was not
grown (Lowie 1954:22) but was included in this
study to assess its starch grain morphology with
respect to published descriptions and in compari-
son to the other varieties tested.
Northern Flint maize, also known as Maize de
Ocho and Eastern Eight Row, was the dominant
variety of maize grown east of the Rockies, includ-
ing the Middle Missouri (Blake 2001 :54; Cutlerand
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 71 , No. 3, 2006
Blake 2001 :1 1). Maize is present in sites of the Ini-
tial Variant of the Middle Missouri Tradition
(IMMV) that date to A.D. 1000-1300 (Schneider
2002:45). EasternEight Row, which is early matur-
ing and resistant to cold, drought, rot and insects,
is often flint, but may also be flour or sweet, with
flint being the most resistant to rot and insects mak-
ing it the most suitable for transport. As a result,
flint maize was used extensively during the Fur
Trade era (Blake 2001:54-56). While the genetic
mechanisms for hybridization were not known,
Native Americans were well aware of the need to
maintain pure strains of the maize varieties (flint,
flour, or sweet) by separating fields of the different
types during planting, as described by Maxi'diwiac
(Buffalo Bird Woman) of the Hidatsa (Wilson
1977:59-60).
In addition to the archaeological literaturewhere
maize variety starch grains have been studied and
described (Pearsall 2003; Pearsall et al. 2004; Perry
2001 ; Piperno and Hoist 1998; Piperno et al. 2000),
several other sources were consulted to establish
whether our own comparative sample starch grains
were consistent with the published descriptions and
photomicrographs(Moss 1976; Reichert 1913; Sei-
demann 1966). Although Mandan sweet maize was
prepared for comparison, sweet maize was not a
trade commodity and was not an important crop to
Native North Americans (Cutler and Blake 2001;
Will and Hyde 1968; Wilson 1977). Similarly, dent
maize was not grown in the Middle Missouri where
trade into the Canadian Plains would have origi-
nated. However, both of these varieties were
included in our comparative specimens. In general,
although maize variety starch grains are quite sim-
ilar, flint and flour maize can be distinguished with
some certainty if diagnostic forms are observed,
especially when based on a population of starch
grains (Pearsall et al. 2004; Perry2001 ; Piperno and
Hoist 1998; Piperno et al. 2000). Our comparative
starch grains for Northern Flint and Mandan Red
Flour maize were consistent with the following
published descriptions.
The diagnostic features of flint maize starch
grains include: simple (single) grain in a blocky
polygon shape (due to pressure facets) with slightly
smoothed edges; hemispherical and "vase" shapes
are also possible; a distinct double border; a cen-
tral or slightly eccentric hilum, often open and with
a single fissure or fissures (commonly three in the
Zarlllo and Kooyman] EVIDENCE FOR BERRY AND MAIZEPROCESSING 491

Figure 9. Zea mays starch grains recovered from EgPn-612 grinding tool residues: (a) grinding pebble Flint maize; (b)
grinding slab Flint maize; (c) maize starch grain showing damage consistent with mining, cross-polarized to right
Original magnifications400X, scale bars approximately 20 urn.

shapeof a "Y");no lamellae;a rough,crateredor distinctivefeaturesof flintmaizeincludingblocky

groovedsurface;when the polarizeris rotated,the
armsof the extinctioncross seem to bend andfol-
low the edges of the polygon in threedimensions;
size range4-24 |jm (Moss 1976:13; Pearsallet al.
2004:430-432;Perry2001:136;PipernoandHoist
1998:775; Piperno et al. 2000:897; Reichert
1913:346-348).
Flourmaize starchgrainsaredescribedas sim-
ple (single) grain with a smooth surface and
roundedshape;a distinctdoubleborder;no lamel-
lae;a centralorslightlyeccentrichilumthatappears
"fuzzy" and "fades from white to grey" (Perry
2001:136) as the fine focus on the microscopeis
adjusted;size rangeis A- 24 urn(Moss 1976:13;
Pearsall et al. 2004:430-432; Perry 2001:136;
Piperno and Hoist 1998:775; Piperno et al.
2000:897).
Figure9 showsstarchgrainsrecoveredfromthe
surfaceof thegrindingpebbleandgrindingslabthat
are consistentin size, shape,and othercharacter-
istics with flintmaize.Both starchgrainsshow the
polygonal shapewith roundededges, centralhila
with the characteristic"Y" fissures, and double
borders.Theflintmaizestarchgrainsshownin Fig-
ure 9 from the grindingpebble and grindingslab,
withmaximumwidthsof 20 urnand 18 urnrespec-
tively,aretypicalof theassemblageof maizestarch
grainsobservedin the residues.Starchgrainscon-
sistentwith maize were abundanton the tools and
represented34 percentof all starchgrains(n = 106)
in the grindingslab residuesand 61 percentof all
starch grains (n = 51) in the grinding pebble
residuespreparedforeachtool.Vase-shapedmaize
starchgrainswere also observedin boththe grind-
ing slabandgrindingpebbleresidues.Starchgrains
completelydiagnosticof flint maize represent56
percentof the 36 maize starchgrainsin the grind-
ing slab residuesand 68 percentof the 31 maize
starchgrainsin the grindingpebbleresidues.Only
a couple of starchgrainsin the residuesfromeach
of the tools were diagnosticof flourmaize, andas
flintmaize kernelscontainsome soft starchthis is

This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
492 AMERICANANTIQUITY
to be expected.Thesedataindicatethatflintmaize
wasthevarietyof maizegroundwiththetools used
in this study.Withrespectto othernativegrasses
in the region that might be confused for maize
starchgrains,the most common C4 plant is blue
gramagrass(Boutelouagracilis).Thestarchgrains
of the comparativespecimen of blue grama are
polygonalin shapebut with sharpedges. In addi-
tion, the maximumsize is 8 urn,which is far too
small to accountfor the starchgrainsin the tool
residuesidentifiedas maize. The starchgrainsof
the other four comparativegrass species were
unlikemaizein thattheyaresphericalin shapeand
moresimilarin appearance to wheat(Triticumspp.)
starchgrains. Numerous damagedmaize starch
grains,as shown in Figure9, were also observed
in theresiduesof bothtools.Thesedamagedstarch
grainsshow changescharacteristicof drymilling,
such as fissureson the edges of the starchgrains
thatarenot of naturalorigin,fracturedandincom-
pletegrains,andchangesto theshapeof theextinc-
tioncross(Babot2003:76).As notedearlier,thesite
hasneverbeenundermoderncultivationandmaize
was not knownto be grownin this regionin pre-
contacttimes.Itis thereforeunlikelythatthemaize
starchgrainspresenton the tools are the resultof
anythingotherthanmaize kernelsbeing brought
ortradedintotheregionandmilledwiththe grind-
ing stones.
Withrespectto theidentificationof otherstarch
grainsin theresiduesof thegrindingtools,thiswork
is continuingandit is hopedthatfurtheridentifica-
tions may be madein the future.However,several
commentsmightbe madeatthistimeregardingthe
varietyof starchgrainspresentintheresidues.Based
on overallstarchgrainmorphologyit appearsthat
a varietyof plantspecieswereprocessedwiththese
tools.Starchgrainsconsistentwiththecomparative
specimens of Psoralea esculenta (prairie
turnip/Indianbreadroot)are present in both the
grindingpebbleandgrindingslabresidues.As only
twosamplesof prairieturnipwereavailableas com-
parativespecimens,and, more importantly,other
nativeLeguminosaefamilyplantstarcheshavenot
been collected as yet, this identificationremains
tentative until the comparative collection is
expanded.Numerousstarchgrainswithmorpholo-
gies consistentwith the grassfamily (Gramineae),
in particularAgropyrontrachycaulum(slender
wheatgrass)basedon size, are also presentin the
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 71 , No. 3, 2006
residues,but considerablymore Gramineaeseeds
need to be obtainedand preparedfor starchcom-
parisonto confirmthis identificationas well. The
starchgrainsof atleastthreeotherunknownspecies
were consistentlyobservedin the residuesof both
the grindingslab andgrindingpebble.The variety
of starch grain morphologies present in these
residuesindicatesthatthe tools wereusedtogether
to processa numberof differentplantspecies,either
in one episodeor in successiveepisodes.
Discussion
The purposeof this study was to assess whether
starchgrainanalysiscouldfacilitatethe identifica-
tion of plantprocessingon unmodifiedlithictools
andin thisregardourresultsshowthatthisis indeed
the case. The ethnographicandethnohistoricliter-
aturereviewedhereindicatesthata wide varietyof
plant species were utilized on the Northernand
CanadianPlains, many of which were processed
by grindingandpounding,andthatfact is evident
in the varietyof starchgrainspresenton the tools
usedfor this analysis.Of theplantspeciestargeted
for starchgrainanalysischoke cherry,saskatoon,
and maize are most assuredlyrepresentedon the
toolsusedin thisstudybasedon comparisonto cur-
rent reference material. The identifications of
prairieturnipand slenderwheatgrassrequirefur-
therconfirmation,and at this time it appearsthat
bearberryis not likely to be identifiableby starch
grainanalysisdue to the small numbersof starch
grainsthatthis speciesproduces,althoughthistoo
requiresadditionalwork.Givenourextremelypoor
understandingof pre-Europeancontactplantuse
on the NorthernPlains,theseresultsareextremely
important.Whatis equallynoteworthyis thatthese
resultshave providedan exceptionalwindowinto
the use of wild plantspecies, an aspectof human
historythatis poorlyunderstoodin manyregions
of the worldin additionto the NorthernPlains.
Numerouslinesof evidencedemonstrate thatthe
starchgrainsrecoveredfrom the tool residuesare
a resultof tool use andnot from any formof con-
tamination.This conclusionis also supportedby
therecoveryof thesameassortmentof starchgrains
on bothtoolsandby thefactthatthetoolsalso show
usewearconsistentwithpoundingandgrinding.In
particular,it is unlikelythattransferenceof choke
cherryand saskatoonstarchgrainsoccurredfrom
Zarillo and Kooyman] EVIDENCE FOR BERRY AND MAIZEPROCESSING
the sedimentsto the tools, as ourtestsindicatethat
thestarchgrainsfromthesespeciesdidnotpreserve
in these soils. The reasonsfor this lack of preser-
vation,while not surprising,requirefurtherstudy
but undoubtedly involve the complex inter-
relationshipsbetweenthe enzymes presentin the
soil, the alkalinityof these soils, the soil moisture
content,andthe yearlyfreeze-thawcycle (Haslam
2004:1718-1722). The presenceof maize should
be consideredexotic to the regionin the sameway
that obsidian would be to the lithic analyst.As
maizecouldnot be partof the backgroundvegeta-
tion,eitheratthetimethetoolswereutilizedorlater,
and thereforecould not have naturallycontami-
natedthe tools, its presencelends furthersupport
to ourcontentionthatthestarchgrainsfromthetool
residuesarea directresultof tool use.
The evidence for tradeof maize into western
Canadais significantbutcomesas no surprisegiven
the extensiveindicationsof tradein the ethnohis-
toricliteratureand from lithic materialin archae-
ologicalsites.Thetradeof maizeis unlikelyto date
earlierthatA.D. 1000-1300 (Adair1996:110-111;
Hartet al. 2003), althoughmaizeis presentjusteast
of the Plainsby about2,000 yearsago (Bellwood
2005:155;Riley et al. 1994), andis morelikely to
dateto themorerecentendof thattimerange,once
horticulture wasbetterestablished.Clearlya larger
samplesize is requiredfromother,dated,contexts
to morefully appreciateourresults,butatthistime
it seems importantto stressthatboththe resultsof
thisstudyandtheethnohistoricrecordindicatethat
unmodifiedorminimallymodifiedlithictoolswere
used as plantprocessingimplementson the Cana-
dian Plains. Many grindingtools may have been
overlookeddueto thefactthattheyarenotthewell-
shaped manos and metates common to other
regions.In this regardwe shouldbe more alertto
identifyingtheseartifacts,especiallywhensignsof
usewearare present,and these should ideally be
tested by starchresidue analysis. Furtherstudies
such as these will not only extendour knowledge
of the use of wild plant species on the Canadian
Plainsbut can also facilitateour understandingof
issues suchas trade.Ideally,starchanalysisshould
be accompaniedby usewearanalysisand the use
of othermicrobotanicalandresidueanalysistech-
niquessuch as phytolithanalysisandDNA analy-
sis, to developa comprehensiveunderstandingof
tool use andhumanhistory.
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
493
InAlbertastonecairnsareusuallyfoundin asso-
ciationwithtipiringsorin isolationon hilltopsand
benches(Reeveset al. 2001:46),as is the case with
the cairnsat EgPn-612.Cairnswere used as trail
markers,as boundaryanddirectionalmarkers,for
primaryand secondaryburials,and for religious
purposessuch as vision questmarkersor as offer-
ing places to commemorate or mark a
special/sacredplace (Reeves et al. 2001:46). The
archaeologicalsurveyand test excavationsin the
immediateareanearthe cairnsdid not revealany
otherassociatedsites suchas kill sitesorcampsites
andthe excavationof the cairnsproducedonly the
grindingtools, some cores and debitage,and an
unusedflaketool (RamsayandRamsay2001). The
site may be connected with one or more of the
campandkill sitespresentwithina few kilometers
of the site, butnone areparticularlyclose to it. On
the otherhand,the immediatesite areahas a rich
diversityof plants and so it is quite possible that
thesitewas specificallylocated,andreturnedto sea-
sonally,to undertakespecializedplantprocessing
activities.Wissler(1986:21) notedthatduringthe
berry season Blackfoot camps were specifically
located to procurethese resources and Peacock
(1993:49) has drawnattentionto the fact thatthe
importanceof berriesis seen in monthnamesfor
JulyandAugustreferringto saskatoonsandchoke
cherries,respectively,ripening.The cairns were
likely used to markwhere the tools were buried,
the locationitself (thecairnswouldhavebeen vis-
ible froma distance),orlikelyboth.Whatis impor-
tant is that all lines of evidence seem to indicate
thatthe site's main use was particularlyfor plant
processing. This identificationis unique on the
AlbertaPlains,wherebisonkill sites areby farthe
most emphasized.
In the processof this investigationmany other
importantissues have been raised.While various
studieshave utilizedstarchgrainanalysisto iden-
tify plant species and lithic tool functionin other
areas, mainly tropical, this study indicates that
starchgrainscan survivein an identifiableformon
lithic tools from temperatelatitudeswhereyearly
freezingand thawingoccurs.The preservationof
the starchgrainson these tools is likely due to a
combinationof factorsthat requirefurtherstudy,
but two importantaspects in additionto the pro-
tection providedby the tool surfacesmay be the
low yearlyprecipitationin thisregionof the Plains
494 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
coupled with the fact that the tools were buried
undera cairn.In an experimentalstudy,Lu (2003)
showedthatsurvivalof starchgrainson lithicpieces
was greaterin buriedor shelteredlocationscom-
paredto open air sites exposedto wind andrain.
The differentiationof starch grains between
closelyrelatedwildplantspeciesis alsohighlighted
in thisstudyandis dependenton anextensivecom-
parativecollection thatwe are still in the process
of developing.In orderto accountfor the potential
higherrateof variationevidentin wild plantsof the
samespecies,it is importantto collect speciessam-
ples from different environmentsto determine
whetherintra-speciesvariationin starchgrainsis
present.Despitethisconcern,the Rosaceaefamily
species'starchgrainsshowedconsiderableconsis-
tency, thus enabling us to differentiatebetween
species when diagnosticstarchgrainforms were
observed.As thestarchgrainsof theRosaceaefam-
ily haveproventhusfarto have very similarchar-
acteristicsfutureresearchmay benefitfromusing
image analysisand multivariatetechniques(Tor-
renceet al. 2004) or discriminantfunctionformu-
laeto distinguishbetweenthesestarchgrains.Other
wild plant species in our comparativecollection
show similarpromisefor starchgraindiscrimina-
tion,andas thecomparativecollectionis expanded
we will hopefully be able to confirmthe prairie
turnipand slenderwheat grass identificationsas
well as identifythe unknownstarchgrainsin the
residues.As most starchgrainresearchand pub-
lished descriptionhave focusedon domesticplant
species, we hope thatthis studyencouragesmore
researchersto study and publish descriptionsof
starchgrainsof wild plantspeciesin otherregions,
not only as a checkfor closely relatedwild species
of domesticatesbutin theirown rightas partof the
studyof the subsistenceeconomyin regionswhere
wild plantspecies were widely utilized.
Conclusion
Ourresultsdemonstratetheuse of wildplantfoods,
includingsaskatoons,choke cherries,andperhaps
prairieturnips,as well as domestic maize on the
NorthernPlainsin an areawherepreviouslythere
was almost no archaeologicalevidence for plant
food use. The use of saskatoons,choke cherries,
and prairieturnipsis reasonablebased on ethno-
historicaccountsandthis insightprovidesimpor-
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 71 , No. 3, 2006
tantbalanceto ourunderstanding of FirstNations'
subsistence strategies. The evidence for use of
maize documents another important aspect of
Plains subsistenceand particularlysheds light on
early patternsof inter-regionaltrade.The maize
evidenceis particularlyimportantas it drawsatten-
tion to the criticalrole of supplementarycarbohy-
dratefoods in a regionseeminglydominatedby a
single facet of subsistence,namely bison. While
bison was undoubtedlyof greatvalue,the gather-
ing of plantsforfood,medicine,andspiritualneeds
was also vital in the lives of pastPlainspeoples.
Starchgrainresidueanalysiscan providecriti-
cal evidence for tool use and plant food subsis-
tence. Wild plant starchgrainsare as likely to be
diagnostic as are those of domestic species and
they hold considerablepotentialfor documenting
use of a greatvarietyof plantsfor food, medicinal,
andotherpurposes.Starchanalysiswas centralto
identifying a tool type- unmodified plant pro-
cessingstones- generallynotrecognizablein con-
ventional analysis. Starchgrain analysis can be
particularlyilluminatingin circumstanceswhere
paleoethnobotanicalanalysisemployingmacrob-
otanical remainsprovides little evidence due to
poor preservationconditions. Our findings are
basedon multiplelinesof evidencethat,whencom-
bined, help to supportour conclusionsas well as
advanceourunderstandingof the use of plantsby
pastpeoples.
Acknowledgments. We would like to thank Stantec
Consulting Ltd. (Calgary) and in particularthe consulting
archaeologists responsible for investigating EgPn-612,
CharlesandAllyson Ramsay,not only for allowing us to test
the residues from these tools but also for recognizing them
as grindingimplements.We are also gratefulto those people
who provided comparative plant specimens: Sandra
Peacock, Gerald Conaty, and Lillian, Doug and Brent
Hancock.Photographsof the artifactswere expertlytakenby
GeraldNewlandsand we would also like to acknowledgethe
Glenbow Archives of the Glenbow Museum, Calgary, for
providing high-resolutiondigital scans of the archivalpho-
tographs.Thanks are also extended to AlejandraAlonso for
providing a Spanish translationof the abstract.While we
take full responsibilityfor the views expressedin this paper,
we would also like to gratefully acknowledge the three
anonymousreviewersfor their constructivecomments.
References Cited
Adair,MaryJ.
1996 WoodlandComplexesin the CentralGreatPlains.In
Archaeology and Paleoecology on the Central Great
Zarillo and Kooyman] EVIDENCE FOR BERRY AND MAIZEPROCESSING
Plains, edited by J. L. Hofman,pp. 101-122. Arkansas
ArchaeologicalSurvey,Fayetteville.
Ahler,StanleyA., andAnthonyW. Swenson
1993 KNRIandUpperKnife-HeartRegionPotteryAnaly-
sis. In ThePhase I ArchaeologicalResearchProgramfor
theKnifeRiverIndianVillagesNationalHistoricSite,Part
III: Analysis of the Physical Remains, edited by T. D.
Thiessen,pp. 1-171. OccasionalStudiesin Anthropology
No. 27, MidwestArchaeologicalCenter,Lincoln.
Armstrong,StevenW.
1993 AlderComplexkitchens:experimentalreplicationof
Paleoindiancooking facilities.Archaeologyin Montana
34(2):1-66.
Babot,M. del Pilar
2003 StarchGrainDamage as an Indicatorof Food Pro-
cessing.InPhytolithandStarchResearchin theAustralian-
Pacific-AsianRegions:TheState of theArt, editedby D.
M. HartandL. A. Wallis,pp. 69-81. TerraAustralis;19.
PandanusBooks, ResearchSchool of Pacific and Asian
Studies,TheAustralianNationalUniversity,Canberra.
Babot,M. del Pilar,andMariaC. Appella
2003 Maize and Bone: Residues of Grindingin North-
westernArgentina.Archaeometry45:121-132.
Balme,Jane,andWendyE. Beck
2002 Starchand Charcoal:Useful Measuresof Activity
AreasinArchaeologicalRockshelters.JournalofArchae-
ological Science29:157-166.
Banks,W., andC. T. Greenwood
1975 Starch and its Components.EdinburghUniversity
Press,Edinburgh.
Barton,Huw,RobinTorrence,andRichardFullagar
1998 Clues to Stone Tool FunctionRe-examined:Com-
paringStarchGrainFrequencyon UsedandUnusedObsid-
ian Artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science
25:1231-1238.
Bellwood,Peter
2005 TheFirstFarmers:Originsof AgriculturalSocieties.
BlackwellPublishing,Maiden.
Blake,LeonardW.
200 1 CornfortheVoyageurs.InPlantsfromthePast,edited
by L. W. Blake andH. C. Cutler,pp. 54-58. The Univer-
sity of AlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa.
Blakesee,DonaldJ.
1978 Assessing the CentralPlains Traditionin Eastern
Nebraska:Contentand Outcome.In The CentralPlains
Tradition:InternalDevelopmentand ExternalRelation-
ships. Report 11, edited by D.J. Blakesee, pp.134-143.
Officeof the StateArchaeologist,The Universityof Iowa,
IowaCity.
Boszhardt,RobertF.
1998 AdditionalWesternLithics for Hopewell Bifaces in
theUpperMississippiRiverValley.PlainsAnthropologist
43:275-286.
Bowers,Alfred
1965 HidatsaSocialandCeremonialOrganization. Bureau
of AmericanEthnology,EthnologyBulletin 194, Smith-
sonianInstitution,Washington,D.C.
Bryan,Liz
1991 TheBuffaloPeople:PrehistoricArchaeologyon the
CanadianPlains.TheUniversityof AlbertaPress,Edmon-
ton.
Buchner,AnthonyP.
1988 The Geochronologyof the LockportSite. Manitoba
ArchaeologicalQuarterly12(2):27-31.
Calvert,Paul
1997 The Structureof Starch.Nature389:338-339.
Carter,Sarah
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
495
1990 Lost Harvests:Prairie IndianReserveFarmersand
GovernmentPolicy. McGill-Queen's University Press,
MontrealandKingston.
Cortella,A. R., andM. L. Pochettino
1994 StarchGrainAnalysis as a MicroscopicDiagnostic
Featurein the Identificationof PlantMaterial.Economic
Botany48:171-181.
Cutler,HughC, andLeonardW. Blake
2001 NorthAmericanIndianCorn.InPlantsfrom thePast,
editedby L. W.BlakeandH. C. Cutler,pp. 1-1 8. TheUni-
versityof AlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa.
Deck, DonaleeM., andC. ThomasShay
1992 PreliminaryReporton PlantRemainsfromtheLock-
port Site (EaLf-1). Manitoba Archaeological Journal
2(2):36-49.
DeMallie,RaymondJ.
200 1 Teton.In Plains, editedby RaymondJ. DeMallie,pp.
794-820. Handbookof NorthAmericanIndians,Vol.13,
WilliamC. Sturtevant,generaleditor,SmithsonianInsti-
tution,Washington,D.C.
Dempsey,HughA.
2001 Sarcee.In Plains, edited by RaymondJ. DeMallie,
pp. 629-637. Handbookof NorthAmericanIndians,Vol.
13, William C. Sturtevant,general editor, Smithsonian
Institution,Washington,D.C.
Denig, EdwinT.
1961 Five Indian Tribesof the Upper Missouri: Sioux,
Arikaras,Assiniboines,Crees,Crows.Universityof Okla-
homaPress,Norman.
Dyck, Ian
1983 The Prehistoryof SouthernSaskatchewan.In Track-
ing Ancient Hunters: Prehistoric Archaeology in
Saskatchewan, editedby H.T.EppandI. Dyck,pp.63-139.
SaskatchewanArchaeologicalSociety,Regina.
Dyck, Ian, andRichardE. Morlan
200 1 HuntingandGatheringTradition:CanadianPlains.In
Plains, edited by RaymondJ. DeMallie, pp. 115-130.
Handbookof NorthAmericanIndians,Vol. 13, William
C. Sturtevant,general editor, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington,D.C.
Ewers,JohnC.
1954 TheIndianTradeof theUpperMissouribeforeLewis
andClark:An Interpretation. MissouriHistoricalSociety
Bulletin10:429-426.
1955 The Horse in BlackfootIndian Culture.Bureauof
AmericanEthnology,Bulletin 159. SmithsonianInstitu-
tion,Washington,D.C.
1968 TheIndianTradeof theUpperMissouribeforeLewis
and Clark.In IndianLife on the UpperMissouri,edited
by J. C. Ewers,pp. 14-33. Universityof OkalahomaPress,
Norman.
Flynn,Catherine,andE. Leigh Syms
1996 Manitoba's First Farmers. Manitoba History
31(Spring):4-ll.
Forbis,RichardG.
1977 Cluny:AnAncientFortifiedVillageinAlberta.Occa-
sionalPaperNumber4, Departmentof Archaeology,Uni-
versityof Calgary,Calgary.
1992 The Mesomdian {Archaic)Period in the Northern
Plains.RevistaArcheologiaAmericana5:27-70.
Fowler,Loretta,andReginaFlannery
2001 Gros Ventre. In Plains, edited by Raymond J.
DeMallie, pp. 677-694. Handbookof North American
Indians,Vol. 13, William C. Sturtevant,general editor,
SmithsonianInstitution,Washington,D.C.
Fnson, GeorgeC.
199 1 PrehistoricHuntersof the High Plains. 2nd ed. Aca-
496 AMERICANANTIQUITY
demic Press, San Diego.
2001 Hunting and Gathering Tradition: Northwestern and
Central Plains. In Plains, edited by Raymond J. DeMallie,
pp. 131-145. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol.
13, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
Fullagar, Richard, and Judith Field
1997 Pleistocene Seed-Grinding Implements from the Aus-
tralian Arid Zone. Antiquity 71 :300-307.
Fullagar, Richard, T. Loy, and S. Cox
1998 Starch Grains, Sediments, Stone Tool Function: Evi-
dence from Bitikara, Papua New Guinea. In A Closer Look:
Australian Studies of Stone Tools, edited by R. Fullagar,
pp. 49-60. University of Sydney Archaeological Com-
puting Laboratory, Sydney.
Gregg, Michael L.
1994 Archaeological Complexes of the Northeastern Plains
and Prairie-Woodland Border, A.D. 500-1500. In Plains
Indians, A.D. 500-1500: The Archaeological Past of His-
toric Groups, edited by Karl H. Schlesier, pp. 71-95. The
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Gremilhon, Knsten J.
2004 Seed Processing and the Origins of Food Production
in eastern North America. American Antiquity 69:2 15-233.
Gruhn, Ruth
1969 Preliminary Report on the Muhlbach Site: A Besant
Bison Trap in Central Alberta. Paper No. 4. National Muse-
ums of Canada Bulletin 232:128-156.
Guilbot, Andre, and Christiane Mercier
1985 Starch. In The Polysaccharides, Vol. 3, edited by G.
O. Aspinall, pp. 210-282. Academic Press, London.
Hart, John P., Robert G. Thompson, and Hetty Jo Brumbach
2003 Phytolith Evidence for Early Maize (Zea Maize) in
the Northern Finger Lakes Region of New York. Ameri-
can Antiquity 68:619-640.
Hancock, James F.
2004 Plant Evolution and the Origin of Crop Species. 2nd
ed.CABI,Wallingford.
Hanson, Jeffery R.
1987 Hidatsa Culture Change, 1780-1845: A Cultural Eco-
logical Approach. Reprints in Anthropology Volume 34,
J&L Reprint, Lincoln.
Haslam, Michael
2004 The Decomposition of Starch Grains in Soils: Impli-
cations for Archaeological Residue Analyses. Journal of
Archaeological Science 31:1715-1734.
Hoebel, E. Adamson
1960 The Cheyennes: Indians of the Great Plains. Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Horrocks, Mark, Geoff Irwin, Martin Jones, and Doug Sutton
2004 Starch Grains and Xylem Cells of Sweet Potato (Ipo-
moea batatas) and Bracken (Pteridium esculentum) in
Archaeological Deposits from Northern New Zealand.
Journal of Archaeological Science 31:251-258.
Iriarte, Jose, Irene Hoist, Oscar Marozzi, Claudia Listopad,
Eduardo Alonso, Andres Rinderkneckt, and Juan Montana
2004 Evidence for Cultivar Adoption and Emerging Com-
plexity during the Mid-Holocene in the La Plata Basin.
Nature 432:614-617.
Jablow, Joseph
1950 The Cheyenne in Plains Indian Trade Relations,
1795-1840. American Ethnological Society Monograph
19. American Ethnological Society, New York.
James, Douglas W., Jack Preiss, and Alan D. Elbein
1985 Biosynthesis of Polysaccharides. In The Polysaccha-
rides, Vol. 3, edited by G. O. Aspinall, pp. 107-207. Aca-
demic Press, London.
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 71 , No. 3, 2006
Johnson, Ann Mary, and Alfred E. Johnson
1998 The Plains Woodland. In Archaeology on the Great
Plains, edited by W. R. Wood, pp. 201-234. University
Press of Kansas, Lawrence.
Kidd, Kenneth E.
1986 Blackfoot Ethnography. Manuscript Series 8, Archae-
ological Survey of Alberta, Edmonton.
Kooyman, Brian
1996 Cluny as Seen through Archaeology and Oral Tradi-
tion. Submitted to Siksika Nation and Parks Canada.
Report on file, Parks Canada, Calgary.
Langer, Remhart H. M., and G. D. Hill
1991 Agricultural Plants. 2nd ed. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Lentfer, Carol, Michael Therin, and Robin Torrence
2002 Starch Grains and Environmental Reconstruction: a
Modern Test Case from West New Britain, Papua New
Guinea. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:687-698.
Lowie, Robert H.
1922 The Material Culture of the Crow Indians. Anthropo-
logical Papers of the American Museum of Natural His-
tory 21(3):201-270.
1954 Indians of the Plains. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Loy, Thomas H.
1994 Methods in the Analysis of Starch Residues on Pre-
historic Stone Tools. In Tropical Archaeobotany: Appli-
cations and New Developments, edited by J. G. Hather,
pp. 86-114. Routledge, London.
Loy, Thomas H., M. Spnggs, and S. Wickler
1992 Direct Evidence for Human Use of Plants 28,000
Years Ago: Starch Residues on Stone Artifacts from the
Northern Solomon Islands. Antiquity 66:898-912.
Lu,T.
2003 The Survival of Starch Residue in a Subtropical Envi-
ronment. In Phytolith and Starch Research in the
Australian-Pacific-Asian Regions: The State of the Art,
edited by D. M. Hart and L. A. Wallis, pp. 1 19-126. Terra
Australis; 19. Pandanus Books, Research School of Pacific
and Asian Studies. The Australian National University,
Canberra.
MacMasters, M. M.
1964 Microscopic Techniques for Determining Starch
Granule Properties. In Methods in Carbohydrate Chem-
istry, edited by Roy L. Whistler, pp. 233-240. Vol. IV
Starch. Academic Press, New York.
Mandelbaum, David G.
1979 The Plains Cree: An Ethnographic, Historical, and
Comparative Study. Canadian Plains Studies 9, Canadian
Plains Research Centre, Regina.
Maries, Robin J., Christina Clavelle, Leslie Monteleone, Natalie
Tays, and Donna Burns
2000 Aboriginal Plant Use in Canada 's Northwest Boreal
Forest. UBC Press, Vancouver.
Milloy, John S.
1988 The Plains Cree: Trade, Diplomacy, and War,
1790-1870. The University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg.
Moodie, D. W, and Barry Kaye
1969 The Northern Limit of Indian Agriculture in North
America. Geographical Review 59:513-529.
Moss, Ezra Henry
1994 Flora of Alberta: A Manual of Flowering Plants,
Conifers, Ferns and Fern Allies Found Growing without
Cultivation in the Province of Alberta, Canada. 2nd ed.
revised by John G. Packer. University of Toronto Press,
Toronto.
Moss, G. E.
1976 The Microscopy of Starch. In Examination andAnaly-
Zarillo and Kooyman] EVIDENCE FOR BERRY AND MAIZEPROCESSING
sis of Starchand StarchProducts,editedby J. A. Radley,
pp. 1-32. AppliedScience, Essex.
Mulloy,William
1976 TheHagen Site:A PrehistoricVillageon the Lower
Yellowstone.Reprintsin AnthropologyVolume4. J & L
Reprint,Lincoln.
Nicholson,Bev A.
1990 CeramicAffiliationsandthe Case for IncipientHor-
ticulturein SouthwesternManitoba.CanadianJournalof
Archaeology14:33-59.
Parr,J. F.
2002 The Identificationof XanthorrhoeaResinsby Starch
Morphology:ProspectsforArchaeologicalandTaxonomic
Applications.EconomicBotany53:260-270.
Peacock,SandraLeslie
1993 PiikdniEthnobotany:TraditionalPlantKnowledgeof
the PiikdniPeoples of the NorthwesternPlains. Master's
thesis,Universityof Calgary,Calgary,NationalLibraryof
Canada,Ottawa.
Pearsall,DeborahM.
2003 IntegratingBiological Data: Phytoliths and Starch
Grains,Healthand Diet, at Real Alto, Ecuador.In Phy-
tolith and Starch Research in the Australian-Pacific
Regions:TheStateof theArt,editedby D. M. HartandL.
A. Wallis, pp. 187-200. TerraAustralis; 19. Pandanus
Books,ResearchSchool of PacificandAsian Studies,The
AustralianNationalUniversity,Canberra.
Pearsall,DeborahM., KarolChandler-Ezell,andJamesA. Zei-
dler
2004 MaizeinAncientEcuador:Resultsof ResidueAnaly-
sis of Stone Tools from the Real Alto Site. Journal of
ArchaeologicalScience 31:423-442.
Perry,Linda
2001 PrehispanicSubsistencein theMiddleOrinocoBasin:
StarchAnalysesYieldNew Evidence.UnpublishedPh.D.
dissertation,SouthernIllinois Universityat Carbondale,
Carbondale.
2002 StarchGranuleSize andthe Domesticationof Man-
ioc {Manihot esculenta) and Sweet Potato (Ipomoea
batatas).EconomicBotany56:335-349.
2004 StarchAnalysesRevealtheRelationshipbetweenTool
TypeandFunction:An Examplefromthe OrinocoValley
of Venezuela. Journal of Archaeological Science
31:1069-1081.
Piperno,DoloresR., andIreneHoist
1998 The Presenceof StarchGrainson PrehistoricStone
Tools from the HumidNeotropics:Indicationsof Early
TuberUse andAgriculturein Panama.JournalofArchae-
ological Science 25:765-776.
Piperno,Dolores R., AnothyJ. Ranere,IreneHoist, andPatri-
cia Hansell
2000 StarchGrainsReveal EarlyRoot CropHorticulture
in the PanamanianTropicalForest.Nature407:894-897.
Piperno,DoloresR., EhudWeiss,IreneHoist, andDam Nadel
2004 Processingof Wild CerealGrainsin the UpperPale-
olithic Revealed by Starch Grain Analysis. Nature
430:670-673.
Purseglove,J. W.
1972 TropicalCrops:Monocotyledons.Vol. 1. Longman
Group,London.
Radley,JackAugustus
1976 PhysicalMethodsof Characterising Starch.InExam-
inationandAnalysisof StarchandStarchProducts,edited
by J. A. Radley,pp. 91-131. AppliedScience, London.
Radwan,MohamedA., andC. R. Stocking
1957 TheIsolationandCharacterization of SunflowerLeaf
Starch.AmericanJournalof Botany44:682-686.
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
497
Ramsay,Charles,andAllyson Ramsay
2001 MontreuxPartnershipLands HRIAfor Portions of
NE 1/4 9-24-2-W5Mand HRM1for EgPn-612, Calgary,
AlbertaFinal Report.StantecConsultingLimited.Sub-
mittedto theMontreauxPartnership, HRIAPermit#2000-
121 and HRIA Permit# 2001-180. Report on file,
ArchaeologicalSurveyof Alberta,Edmonton.
Reeves, Brian, Claire Bourges, CarmenOlsen, and Amanda
Dow
200 1 Cityof CalgaryNativeArchaeologicalSiteInventory.
Vol. 1. Lifewaysof CanadaLimited.Submittedto the City
of Calgary,Alberta.Copy on file (CRM 122V2), Archae-
ological Surveyof Alberta,Edmonton.
Reichert,EdwardTyson
1913 TheDifferentiation andSpecificityof StarchesinRela-
tion to Genera,Species, etc. 2 vols. CarnegieInstituteof
Washington,Washington,D.C.
Riley,ThomasJ., GregortR. Walz,CharlesC. Bareis,Andrew
C. Fortier,and KathrynE. Parker
1994 AcceleratorMass Spectrometry(AMS) Dates Con-
firmEarlyZeamaysin theMississippiRiverValley.Amer-
icanAntiquity59:490-498.
Russell,Dale R.
1991 Eighteenth-centuryWesternCree and their Neigh-
bours.ArchaeologicalSurveyof CanadaMercurySeries
PaperNo. 143. CanadianMuseumof Civilization,Hull.
Schneider,Fred
2002 PrehistoricHorticulturein the NortheasternPlains.
Plains Anthropologist47:33-50.
Seidemann,Johannes
1966 Stdrke-Atlas:Grundlagender Stdrke-Mikroscopie
undBeschreibungderWichtigsten Stdrkearten.PaulParey,
Berlin.
Siegfried,EvelynVicky
1995 Ethnobotanyof the NorthernCree ofWabasca/Des-
marais. Master'sthesis, Universityof Calgary,Calgary.
NationalLibraryof Canada,Ottawa.
2003 Paleoethnobotany of theNorthernPlains:TheTuscany
ArchaeologicalSite (EgPn-377),Calgary.Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Universityof Calgary,Calgary.NationalLibraryof
Canada,Ottawa.
Simons,JeannetteA.
2001 Compliance,Science, andResearch:Archaeologyin
the Mariana Islands. Cultural Resource Management
24(l):25-26.
Smith,CraigS.
1988 Seeds, Weeds, and PrehistoricHuntersand Gather-
ers: The Plant Macrofossil Evidence From Southwest
Wyoming.Plains Anthropologist33:141-158.
Smyth,David
1992 Missed Opportunity: JohnMilloy's The PlainsCree.
Prairie Forum17:337-354.
Stoltman,JamesB., andRichardE. Hughes
2004 Obsidianin EarlyWoodlandContextsin the Upper
MississippiValley.AmericanAntiquity69:751-759.
Tester,RichardF, andJohnKarkalas
2001 TheEffectsof Environmental Conditionson theStruc-
turalFeaturesandPhysico-chemicalPropertiesof Starches.
Starch/Starke53:513-519.
Therm,Michael,RobinTorrence,andRichardFullagar
1999 Starchin Sediments: a New Approachto the Studyof
SubsistenceandLandUse in PapuaNew Guinea.In The
Prehistoryof Food: Appetitesfor Change, edited by C.
GosdenandJ. Hather,pp. 438-462. Routledge,London.
Tolman,ShayneM.
2003 DhPg-8: From Mammoths to Machinery: An
Overviewof 11,000Yearsalongthe St. MaryRiver.Mas-
498 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
ter's thesis, University of Calgary,Calgary.Libraryof
Canada,Ottawa.
Torrence,Robin,RichardWright,andRebeccaConway
2004 Identificationof StarchGranulesusingImageAnaly-
sis andMultivariateTechniques.Journalof Archaeologi-
cal Science 31:519-532.
Turney-High,HarryHolbert
1974 Ethnographyof the Kutenai.Kraus Reprint,Mill-
wood.
Ugent, Donald,SheliaPozorski,andThomasPozorski
1984 New EvidenceforAncientCultivationof Cannaedulis
in Peru.EconomicBotany38:417-432.
Vance,RobertE.
1992 PaleobotanicalAnalysesof ArchaeologicalFeatures
in the OldmanRiver Valley.Submittedto the Archaeo-
logical Surveyof Alberta.Reporton file, Archaeological
Surveyof Alberta,Edmonton.
Vickers,J. Roderick
1986 AlbertaPlains Prehistory:A Review.Archaeological
Survey of AlbertaOccasionalPaper27. Archaeological
Surveyof Alberta,Edmonton.
1994 Culturesof the northwesternplains:from the boreal
forest to Milk River.In Plains Indians,A.D. 500-1500:
The ArchaeologicalPast of Historic Groups,edited by
KarlH. Schlesier,pp. 3-33. The Universityof Oklahoma
Press,Norman.
Voget,FredW.
2001 Crow.In Plains, editedby RaymondJ. DeMallie,pp.
695-717. Handbookof NorthAmericanIndians,Vol. 13,
WilliamC. Sturtevant,generaleditor,SmithsonianInsti-
tution,Washington,D.C.
Walde,Dale Allen
2003 TheMortlachPhase.OccasionalPapersof theArchae-
ological Society of Alberta Number 2. Archaeological
Society of Alberta,Calgary.
Walde,Dale, andDavid Meyer
2003 Pre-contact Pottery in Alberta: An Overview. In
ArchaeologyinAlberta:A Viewfrom theNewMillennium,
editedby JackW.BrinkandJohnF.Dormaar,pp.132-152.
The ArchaeologicalSociety of Alberta,MedicineHat.
Walde,Dale, David Meyer,andWendyUnfreed
1995 TheLatePeriodon theCanadianandAdjacentPlains.
Revistade ArqueologiaAmericana9:7-66.
Will, GeorgeF., and GeorgeE. Hyde
1968 CornAmongtheIndiansof the UpperMissouri.Uni-
versityof NebraskaPress,Lincoln.
Wilson,GilbertLivingston
1977 Agricultureof the HidatsaIndians:An IndianInter-
pretation.Reprintsin AnthropologyVolume 5, J. & L.
Reprint,Lincoln.
Winham,PeterR., andF. A. Calabrese
1998 TheMiddleMissouriTradition.InArchaeologyon the
GreatPlains, edited by W. R. Wood,pp. 269-307. Uni-
versityof KansasPress,Lawrence.
Wissler,Clark
1986 MaterialCultureof theBlackfootIndians.InA Black-
foot SourceBook: Papersby ClarkWissler,editedby D.
H/Ehomas,pp. 1-175. Garland,New York.
Wood,W. Raymond
1980 PlainsTradein PrehistoricandProtohistoric Intertribal
Relations.InAnthropologyon the GreatPlains, editedby
W.R. Wood and M. Liberty,pp. 98-109. Universityof
NebraskaPress,Lincoln.
Wood,W. Raymond,andThomasD. Thiessen(editors)
1985 Early Fur Tradeon the NorthernPlains: Canadian
Traders among the Mandan and Hidatsa Indians,
1738-1818. Universityof OklahomaPress,Norman.
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 71 , No. 3, 2006
Wormington,H. Maria,andRichardG. Forbis
1965 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Alberta,
Canada.DenverMuseumof NaturalHistory,Denver.
Wright,JamesV.
1995 A Historyof the NativePeople of Canada,Volume1
(10,000-1,000 B.C.).MercurySeriesArchaeologicalSur-
vey of CanadaPaper152. CanadianMuseumof Civiliza-
tion, Hull.
1999 A Historyof the NativePeople of Canada,VolumeII
(1,000 B.C.- A.D. 500). MercurySeries Archaeological
Surveyof CanadaPaper152. CanadianMuseumof Civi-
lization,Hull.
Zarrillo,Sonia
2004a A PreliminaryAnalysisof CarbonizedResiduesfor
Starch Grains on Ceramics from the Loma Alta Site,
Ecuador.UnpublishedB.Sc. HonoursThesis,Department
of Archaeology,Universityof Calgary,Calgary.
2004b Methodfor ExtractingStarchGrainsfromSediments.
Manuscripton file, Departmentof Archaeology,Univer-
sity of Calgary,Calgary,Alberta.
Notes
1. Although Dempsey states the berriesbeing processed
are service berries(saskatoons),originaldocumentationwith
the photographsstatesthese are choke cherries.
2. Five percentammoniumhydroxide(NH4OH)was used
to remove residues from the surfacesof the stone tools. The
grindingpebble was placedin a polypropylene(PP) container
with only enough ammoniato form a small pool thatdid not
extend beyond the bordersof the tool edges and the tool was
soaked in this position for approximately 30 minutes.
Occasionally the container was agitated to aid in residue
removal.After 30 minutes,the side of the tool thathad been
soakedwas rinsedrepeatedlywith the ammoniasolutionwith
a disposable PP pipette. Particularattention was paid to
cracks and crevices where residues may have been trapped
and any areas that appearedto have unnaturalcoloration,a
possible indicationof use-associatedresidues.A PP pipette
was used to preventdamage to the surfacesof the tool that
may laterbe mistakenfor use wear.The opposite side of the
tool and the flat end of the tool were each then soaked as
above, in the same ammoniasolution.This solutionwas then
transferredinto a 15 mL PP centrifugetube and the container
was rinsed with deionized water into the centrifuge tube.
Ammonia was rinsed from the residues by filling the cen-
trifuge tube with deionized water, the tube was centrifuged
for five minutes at 1,000 rpm, and the supernatantwas dis-
carded.This process was repeatedthreetimes, each time dis-
cardingthe supernatantto within 1-2 cm of the residuepellet
at the bottom of the tube. After the final rinse the tube was
centrifugedagainfor five minutesat 1,000 rpmto concentrate
the residues at the bottom of the tube. A Pasteurpipettewas
used to transferan aliquotof residuefrom the bottom of the
centrifuge tube onto a glass microscope slide. Water was
allowed to partiallyevaporateand 50:50 glycerine:waterwas
added priorto mountinga glass cover slip and sealing with
nail polish. Residueswere extractedfromthe grindingslab in
a similarfashion, but the size of the tool prohibitedsoaking
the entire utilized tool surfaceat once. Thus, approximately
one thirdof each end of the utilized surfaceof the tool was
soaked and processedfollowing the same proceduresas that
Zarillo and Kooyman] EVIDENCE FOR BERRY AND MAIZEPROCESSING
for the grindingpebble. In orderto test the potentialfor five
percent ammoniato damage starch grains, corn starch was
soakedin five percentNH4OHfor 22 hoursandthenmounted
in the same manneras the tool residues and examined by
microscopy. No morphological or optical changes were
observedin the corn starchgrains as comparedto untreated
corn starchgrainsfrom the same source.These methods are
similarin manyrespectsto those of Perry(2001:110).
3. The procedurefor extractingstarchgrains from sedi-
ments is as follows.
Dispersionand Pretreatment:
i. Sieve dry sedimentthrougha .5 mm sieve. Weighout 3
g of sieved sedimentand place in 50 mL centrifugetube.
ii. Add 10 mL of .1 percentNaEDTAto each centrifuge
tube, cap, and place on an orbitalshakerfor 2 hrs on low.
iii. Fill tube to 50 mL with distilled water.Gently shake
to mix and centrifuge2 minutesat 3,000 rpm.
iv. Carefullydecant supernatantto 2 cm above sediment
pellet (discardsupernatant).
v. Repeatsteps iii to iv two moretimes. On the finalrinse,
pipetteoff most of the supernatantto not disturbthe sediment
pellet.
vi. Add 10 mL of six percenthydrogenperoxide,let react
for 10 min at room temperature.
vii. Fill tube to 50 mL with distilled water,cap, mix gen-
tly and centrifugeat 2,000 rpmfor 2 minutes.
viii. Decant supernatantto 2 cm of sedimentpellet.
ix. Repeatsteps vii andviii, threemoretimes, on the final
rinse pipetteoff most of the supernatant,as in step v.
x. Dry samplesin a dryingoven set no higherthan40C.
This content downloaded from 136.159.235.223 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:47:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
499
Sodium Polytungstate(SPT) Floatationfor StarchGrain
Recovery:
i. Add 5 mL of SPT preparedto a specific gravityof 1.6
to each tube, cap, mix, andcentrifugeat 2,000 rpmfor 5 min-
utes. Decant supernatantinto new centrifuge tube labelled
"starchextract."
ii. Repeatstep i two times, combiningthe supernatantinto
the "starchextract"tube.The remainingsedimentwith a spe-
cific gravity of greaterthan 1.6 can be processed for phy-
toliths.
iii. Fill each tube to 50 mL with distilled water,cap, mix
and centrifugeat 2,000 rpmfor 5 minutes.
iv. Pipetteoff approximately1/3 of the supernatant.
v. Repeat steps iii and iv twice. With the second rinse,
aspirateoff approximately2/3 of the supernatant.On the final
rinse, aspirateoff most of the supernatant.
vi. The remaining suspension is again centrifuged at
2,000 rpm for 2 minutes and an aliquotof the suspensionis
removedby pipettefrom the bottomof the extractandplaced
onto a microscopeslide and allowed to partiallydry.
vii. Resuspendthe residuein 50:50 glycerine:water,apply
a glass microscope cover slip, and seal the edges with nail
polish.
4. The mean size of the starchgrains was calculatedby
measuringa minimumof 100 starchgrainsfor each species.
ReceivedApril 1, 2005; Revised September21, 2005;
AcceptedSeptember21, 2005.