Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2085e2101
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas
Palynology and archaeological inference: bridging the gap
between pollen washes and past behavior
Phil R. Geib a,*, Susan J. Smith b
a
University of New Mexico, Anthropology Department, MSC01 1040, Albuquerque, NM, 87131, USA
b
Laboratory of Paleoecology, Box 6013, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA
Received 5 November 2006; received in revised form 22 January 2008; accepted 23 January 2008
Abstract
Credible interpretation of pollen recovered from archaeological sites hinges upon understanding how pollen becomes deposited by both the
environment and human behavior. The environmental role has been studied to some extent, but how the activities of people have formed the
pollen assemblages at archaeological sites is usually just assumed rather than considered explicitly. Moreover, the complexity involved in
the interaction between human behavior and pollen ecology is seldom considered. An archaeological case study of grinding tool pollen washes
highlights the ambiguities of standard practice because the results confound common assumptions about pollen washes. A series of experimental
seed and grinding tool washes designed to test the relationships between the processing of seeds and the deposition of pollen help explain why,
for most situations, artifact pollen washes do not provide direct or even faithful records of plant processing. These results highlight the need for
further experimental research with pollen so that we are warranted in making behavioral inferences from palynology. This conclusion is easily
extended to other microbotanical data classes that archaeologists regularly employ.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Palynology; Pollen washes; Grinding tools; Maize pollen; Experimental archaeology; Food processing; Middle range research
1. Introduction
Pollen analysis debuted in Southwestern archaeology in the
late 1930s (Sears, 1937), but remained a novelty until the
1950s (Anderson, 1955; Sears, 1952). After an initial period
of rather piecemeal application, the technique grew in popularity such that today it is standard practice. Since the 1970s,
most archaeological projects have included some component
of pollen analysis as a tool to infer dietary and other uses of
plants (see Hall, 1985). One means of examining prehistoric
plant use is by rinsing artifacts recovered from sealed archaeological contexts, especially grinding stones. Such artifact
washes generally recover pollen grains, some of which are
thought to have been embedded in the tools from plant
processing (Hill and Hevly, 1968; McLaughlin, 1977).
However, there is no critical test of this basic assumption. In
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 505 553 2422.
E-mail address: [email protected] (P.R. Geib).
0305-4403/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jas.2008.01.011
fact, one study relied on this assumption to define the function
of a set of archaeological artifacts and refute use models based
on metate size and texture (Halbirt, 1985).
During the course of a multi-year data recovery project on
Navajo Tribal land in northeastern Arizona and southeastern
Utah (Geib and Spurr, 2007), we generated 58 pollen washes
from 49 artifacts recovered from 13 of 33 excavated sites.
Early in this project, we became frustrated trying to interpret
past human practices from these samples. Since pollen is
produced during the flowering stage of plant reproduction,
why should it adhere and persist on seeds in any quantity?
Does the pollen recovered from artifact washes truly reflect
the plants processed in centuries past? An ad hoc account
for what pollen might mean in terms of human behavior is
possible, but what are the linking principles that allow such
an exercise to proceed more conclusively? This question
assumed more importance than forging ahead towards some
narrow contract goal. It required us to stand back and explore
means of resolving ambiguity. One approach is with the
2086
P.R. Geib, S.J. Smith / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2085e2101
archaeological pollen washes themselves while another, and
ultimately more fruitful approach, is with middle range (experimental) research in the sense originally advocated by Binford
(1977, 1978; see Arnold, 2003). We pursued both approaches
simultaneously in the context of the overall data recovery
project (Table 1). Our experimental findings produced some
surprises and insights, but more importantly they emphasize
that there is no substitute for the knowledge derived from
experimental data and that further research along the lines
reported here is sorely needed.
2. Palynological considerations
There is a constant atmospheric rain of pollen grains
composed of a mixture of species from the surrounding local
to regional vegetation (scale of meters to kilometers); the
Table 1
Research outline
Themes
Questions
Archaeological Case Study: The Navajo Mountain Road Project
Pollen signatures from
1. Is there any relationship between
different aspects of artifacts
the abundance of pollen recovered
from an artifact wash and the tool
surface area or texture (grain size,
pores, vesicules)?
2. Are there any differences in pollen
assemblages between the use
surface and non-use surface of
a grinding tool?
3. Are there differences in the pollen
spectra between the surface dust
adhering to a metate use surface and
deeper layers of pollen that might
be embedded in the rock interstices
of the use surface?
4. Can control samples help
isolate distinctive signatures
in pollen washes?
Experimental studies
Laboratory experiments
(a) Pollen washes of
harvested seeds
(b) Pollen washes of metates
after laboratory
grinding of seeds
(c) Pollen washes of maize
husks, silks, ears and
kernels
Field experiments
Pollen washes of metates
after field grinding
of seeds
1. Does pollen persist on harvested
seeds through preparation techniques
such as winnowing and parching?
2. If pollen persists through winnowing
and parching, would it become
embedded in metate surfaces during
grinding in enough abundance to
be recovered in a pollen wash and
correctly identified as the
processed resource?
3. Considering that corn ears are tightly
and completely encased in husks,
why should maize pollen be present
on kernels? Does husking remove
maize pollen?
1. If there is a significant input of
environmental pollen when grinding
is conducted outside, will it swamp
the signature from seed processing?
composition of this pollen rain changes with the seasons
according to which species are flowering and climatic
conditions. Pollination is part of the reproductive system in
flowering plants that results in the transfer of male gametes
contained within the microscopic structure of a pollen grain
to female ova contained within the carpel presented by a flower
(Fægri and van der Pijl, 1979). Pollination is mediated by two
main syndromes: entomophilous or insect pollination and
anemophilous or wind pollination (Fægri and Iversen, 1989).
Conifers, grasses, and several shrubs (e.g. sagebrush) are
wind-pollinated and produce abundant, aerodynamic pollen
that can travel up to hundreds of kilometers, whereas insectpollinated plants, which include many herbs, forbs, and cacti,
produce small amounts of heavy, ornamented pollen designed
to hitchhike short distances on insects or remain within the
parent flower. These two categories are not exclusive and
some plant species employ both methods (e.g. Salix, willow).
Wind-pollinated taxa are generally over-represented in pollen
samples and insect-pollinated types are typically underrepresented. A single pine tree may produce more than a billion
wind-transported pollen grains, whereas the herbaceous
Plantago (plantain) may produce fewer than 100 pollen grains
(Fægri and Iversen, 1989, p. 12). Abundance of an insectpollinated plant in archaeological contexts is potentially
indicative of cultural use, but can also result from other natural
vectors, such as insects (Bohrer, 1981, p. 136).
Pollen grains entrained in the sediments at archaeological
sites have been produced, transported, deposited, and degraded
differentially by a suite of natural biological, chemical, and
physical processes (Bryant and Hall, 1993; Dimbleby, 1985;
Fægri and Iversen, 1989; Hall, 1991) in addition to modification of pollen assemblages due to human activities. There are
no standard rules for interpreting archaeological pollen data
but there are guidelines (Bohrer, 1981). The quality of
palynological interpretations from archaeological sites reflects
the experience and knowledge of analysts including specific
knowledge of the vegetation and geomorphology around sites
and the human history. The best criteria for inferring ethnobotanical resources from archaeological samples are when
specific pollen taxa are overrepresented from what would be
expected for natural background pollen rain (Bohrer, 1981)
and when there are repetitive associations of pollen types or
suites of types by context. Expectations for natural background pollen are usually derived from modern pollen samples
of the local area around a site under investigation or from an
environment similar to that of the site. However, we acknowledge there are problems defining natural pollen spectra from
modern vegetation communities that have been modified by
varying degrees of anthropogenic impacts (see Nabhan et al.,
2004). Another key criterion is the occurrence of pollen
aggregates, which are clumps of the same pollen type (Bohrer,
1981; Gish, 1991, p. 238). These are thought to represent
flower anthers that have not released individual pollen grains
(Gish, 1991), but aggregates are also formed by physical processes, such as pine pollen accumulating along the shorelines
of puddles. Large and numerous aggregates in archaeological
contexts are interpreted to relate to human manipulation of
P.R. Geib, S.J. Smith / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2085e2101
plants and their presence carries seasonal implications (Gish,
1991).
2.1. Artifact washes
Artifact washes are a special subset of archaeological
pollen samples. The material washed from artifact surfaces
is a combination of sediment and other material from the surrounding context that has become embedded in the stone tools
in addition to what traces of plant processing remain on the
tool surface. Typically, too few pollen grains are recovered
from artifacts to define any significant statistical pollen population. The low recovery of pollen and the inherently different
formation processes exclude use of modern control samples to
help infer which taxa may have been processed on the tools.
We explore the issue of control samples in this analysis by
examining sediment encasing artifacts or closely associated
with the artifact.
Bohrer (1972, p. 26) demonstrated that pollen adheres to
seeds, fruits, and corn husks and she outlined several factors
that could influence the abundance of pollen on mature fruits
and seeds. The position of the ovary (superior or inferior),
whether there are sticky exudates, hairs, or bristles that might
trap pollen on fruits and seeds, the order in which flowers
mature on the plant (determinate or indeterminate), and the
persistence of old blooms on fruits (e.g. shriveled blossoms
stubbornly clinging to squash) all contribute to the amount
of pollen deposited and retained on seeds and fruits. Another
facet to the polleneplant dynamic is that harvested produce
will contain a variety of ‘‘other’’ pollen types that have
become glued or trapped on various parts (leaves, stems,
flowers, and seeds). Adams (1988, pp. 614e637) showed
that in some cases the pollen of other taxa predominate over
the harvested species. We expand on both the architecture of
plants and the contribution from other pollen types in the
laboratory trials reported here and show that both topics are
important to understanding the source of pollen recovered in
artifact pollen washes.
3. Methods
Five types of samples were processed and analyzed:
sediment control samples from archaeological contexts, pollen
washes of archaeological metates and manos, pollen washes of
metates after experimental grinding trials, pollen washes of
seeds and chaff, and pollen washes of corn kernels, ears,
husks, and tassels. Extraction and analysis methods are
detailed below for each type of sample.
3.1. Wild seed harvesting and pollen washes
From various localities scattered across the Colorado Plateau we harvested seeds of wild plants in a 50 m radius during
peak seasons: June for Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum
hymenoides), July for tansy mustard (Descurainia pinnata),
and September to October for the other species. We harvested
most plants by hand-stripping the seed heads. Indian ricegrass
2087
was both hand-stripped and field-burned (Wheat, 1967, p. 11)
by igniting piles of cut grass, which produced a shower of
small, dark seeds. In hindsight, burning also would have
effectively concentrated the seed of both palmer amaranth
(Amaranthus palmeri) and dropseed grass (Sporobolus spp.),
which are tightly encased (in the grass by lemma and palea
and in the palmer amaranth by stiff, spiny bracts).
Seeds were winnowed, parched, and winnowed again and
this was done outside during January when environmental
pollen was at its lowest seasonal flux. Winnowing effectively
cleaned most of the seeds but those with little weight
difference between seed and chaff, such as the dropseed grass,
did not easily separate and this resulted in grinding a seed and
chaff mix for these taxa. Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) seeds
were ground inside their shells, which is consistent with the
findings of coprolite studies (e.g., Van Ness and Hansen,
1996).
Pollen washes were completed on measured quantities of
seeds (weight and volume) after winnowing and again after
parching. Tracers (Lycopodium spores) were added to samples
to enable concentration calculations. Pollen was recovered
from the seeds by mixing samples with hot distilled water
and a 10% solution of potassium hydroxide, which acts as
a dispersant. The mixture was sieved through a 0.18 mm
mesh screen and the screened liquids were acetolyized,
a chemical treatment that digests organic material, such as
lignin, but not pollen.
3.2. Maize collection and pollen washes
In all, 26 maize samples were analyzed: 15 from different
portions of three ears (five each), 9 of shelled kernels, and
a husked ear and a shucked cob (one lacking kernels). The
15 samples from three maize ears consisted of husks (three
for each cob in sequence from exterior to interior), inner silks,
and the shucked ears. These ears were collected from Navajo
fields in Long House Valley of northeastern Arizona; they
represent three color varieties of flour maize (white, blue,
and yellow). We harvested the ears in mid-October, before
the first killing frost but after the kernels were hard. In the
laboratory, husks were carefully removed in sequence to create
three samples of outer, middle, and inner husks for each ear.
Exposed tips of any interior husks were trimmed and added
to outer husk samples. Care was taken to prevent the inadvertent addition of pollen to any interior samples by handling.
The interior silks and husked ears were saved as separate
samples for these same three ears.
The various maize samples were weighed and washed with
hot distilled water and 10% potassium hydroxide. The wash
liquids were collected and processed as the seed washes
described above. Pollen of any type was rare in all of the
different types of maize washes. Twenty-three of the 26
washes (88%) produced counts of 11 or less total pollen grains
and the material on the slides was extremely clean with no
matrix of other debris. Because of the clean samples and
low pollen density, we completed counts for several samples
at a low magnification of 100. Pollen counts were
2088
P.R. Geib, S.J. Smith / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2085e2101
transformed to concentrations as the number of grains per
weight of maize material washed (grains/g).
3.3. Sediment control samples
Control samples for the archaeological artifacts consisted
of surficial sediment adhering to artifacts, sediment from beneath the artifact, or floor sediment from contexts containing
the artifact. The sediments were processed using the heavy
liquid method employed by the Laboratory of Paleoecology,
Northern Arizona University, prior to 1997 (the extraction
procedure was significantly changed in 1997, based on experimental data (Smith, 1998) and additional refinements were
added in 2000). Sediment subsamples, typically 20 cm3 but
occasionally as small as 10 cm3, were spiked with Lycopodium
spores. Hydrochloric acid (10% solution) was added to the
sediments to dissolve caliche and carbonates, followed by
sieving through a 0.18 mm mesh stainless steel screen to
separate coarse sediment and other macro materials. Samples
were then mixed with a zinc bromide heavy liquid (specific
gravity 2.0) and the lighter particles, including pollen, were
floated from the heavy inorganic fraction. Acetolysis of the
light fraction was next, followed by a 10-min hot hydrofluoric
acid treatment (approximately 49% solution), which dissolves
silicate minerals.
3.4. Metate and mano washes, archaeological
and experimental
The metate grinding surfaces and use surfaces of manos
were scrubbed with hot distilled water and 10% hydrochloric
acid. For a select set of artifacts, separate washes were
collected from the use-surfaces and the non-use surfaces for
comparison. We also experimented with using dimethyl
sulfoxide (DMSO), which is a penetrant and solvent, to accelerate the action of the hydrochloric acid. The retained liquids
were spiked with a known concentration of tracer tablets
(Lycopodium spores), sieved through a 0.18 mm mesh screen,
and centrifuged. After recording the sediment volume, samples were processed with either a hydrofluoric acid treatment
followed by a heavy liquid gravity separation (zinc bromide
2.0 specific gravity) and acetolysis, or only the acetolysis
treatment. The difference in processing was determined by
how ‘‘dirty’’ the wash liquids were; samples with abundant
material (inorganic and organic) were treated with the longer
procedure.
The final extracted residues from all types of samplesdground
stone, seed washes, and sedimentdwere rinsed with alcohol,
mixed with glycerol, and stored in glass vials.
3.5. Pollen analysis methods
A droplet from each vial was placed onto microscope
slides, sealed with a cover slip, and examined using a Reichert
compound microscope. Two levels of microscopy were used:
400 magnification counts of consecutive microscope slide
transects until 200 or more grains, if possible, were tallied;
and 100 scans of the entire slide to document pollen aggregates and occurrences of rare large pollen types that may have
been missed in the high magnification counts. If preservation
is moderate, pollen greater than approximately 30 mm in size
is easily identified at 100 magnification, including maize,
squash, cacti, and some herb types. Pollen aggregates were
counted as one grain per occurrence with the number and
size of aggregate grains recorded separately.
The seed washes generally produced minimal pollen.
Pollen assemblages from seed washes were documented by
counting all pollen observed during a tally of a minimum of
100 pollen grains of the processed seed (target taxon), or all
the pollen encountered in a count of 50 tracer grains.
Pollen identifications were made to the lowest taxonomic
level possible based on published keys (Kapp et al., 2000;
Moore et al., 1991) and the Laboratory of Paleoecology pollen
reference collection curated at Northern Arizona University.
Sunflower family pollen (Hi-Spine Asteraceae) was differentiated from the ragweed type (Low-Spine Asteraceae) based on
spine height greater than 2 mm, as defined by Hevly et al.
(1965). Pinyon pine was separated from other pines by grain
length, based on keys developed by Jacobs (1985). Indian
ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides) pollen identified in the
modern seed pollen washes is discriminated from other grasses
by grain diameters between 30 and 50 mm. In natural and
archaeological pollen assemblages, this large grass type
subsumes several genera including reed grass (Phragmites),
ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), little barley grass
(Horedum), panic grass (Panicum), and the cereal grasses
(e.g. wheat (Triticum), oat (Avena), and others).
Three parameters were calculated from the pollen counts:
taxa richness, sample pollen concentration, and pollen
percentages. Taxa richness is the number of different pollen
types identified in a sample. Pollen concentration, which is
a measure of the density of pollen in a sample, is commonly
expressed as numbers of pollen grains per cubic centimeter
of sample sediment (abbreviated as grains/cm3). Concentrations are used to emphasize differences between samples,
whereas percentages smooth data by normalizing sample
populations to 100 ([taxon count/pollen sum] 100).
Generally, palynologists prefer to represent pollen counts as
percentages because the data are smoothed; the pollen count in
each sample is normalized to 100 (taxon count divided by the
pollen sum multiplied by 100). However, percentages mask
differences between samples, a bias called the Fagerlind effect
(Fagerlind, 1952), because relative frequencies do not reflect
differences in the absolute abundance or density of pollen
grains between samples. Another disadvantage is that percentages are not related to sample size. We were most interested in
the abundance or density of pollen, which can be estimated by
pollen concentration; however, it is difficult to derive a measure of pollen concentration from artifact washes because
there is no consistent sample size to relate the pollen counts to.
For the artifact washes, we calculated pollen concentration
two ways: (1) based on the volume of material (primarily
sediment) documented after the first centrifuge step during
processing, expressed as grains/cm3 (grains per cubic
P.R. Geib, S.J. Smith / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2085e2101
centimeter of centrifuged sediment); and (2) based on artifact
use-surface area, expressed as grains/cm2 (pollen grains per
cm2 of artifact surface). Pollen concentration for the sediment
samples was based on the standard 20 cm3 sample volume and
was calculated by taking the ratio of the pollen count to the
tracer count and multiplying by the initial tracer concentration.
Dividing this result by the sample volume yields the number of
pollen grains per cubic centimeter of sample sediment (grains/
cm3). Pollen concentration from the seed washes was
calculated from the weight of seeds washed and is expressed
as the number of pollen grains per gram of seeds (grains/g).
3.6. Plant names
Discussion of plants and pollen types entails botanical
names, which can be confusing, and the topic is further
complicated because pollen and plant names are not directly
equivalent; pollen types typically subsume several plant species and genera (Table 2). Also the botanical scientific nomenclature is perpetually under construction as species are
re-evaluated, and the pace of taxonomic change has increased
with the advent of DNA studies. We therefore discuss the
results using common names for plants and pollen types; we
provide both common and scientific names in tables where
appropriate. The reference for the current accepted scientific
plant names is The Plants Database (USDA, 2006).
4. Archaeological case study
For the research presented here we use a subset of pollen
washes from the Navajo Mountain Road archaeological
project consisting of 10 metates, 16 small (one-hand) manos,
and 14 large (two-hand) manos (Table 3; detailed results are
presented in Smith and Geib (2007)). All of these tools are
of sandstone exhibiting a range of grain sizes and vesicularity,
texture variability that clearly seems to play an important role
in pollen recovery as discussed below.
There are several artifact-related variables that might have
an important bearing upon how to interpret pollen wash
assemblages. When pollen and sediment accumulate on a surface, the size or area of the surface would seem to be a critical
variable controlling the amount of material. Texture too should
be important, in that a rough surface with much topography,
especially numerous pores or vesicles, should work to trap
and preserve more pollen. Vesicles are pockets and small holes
in the natural fabric of the rock (Fig. 1) that in effect increase
the surface area of a tool. Assuming that seed grinding leaves
a pollen signature that can be recovered and correctly
interpreted, then artifact washes should produce assemblages
distinct from other kinds of samples. We explored these issues
with the basic questions outlined in Table 1.
4.1. Pollen abundance and artifact attributes
We predicted that the larger the use surface of an artifact
the more material, including pollen, would be recovered in
a pollen wash. In Fig. 2, the volume of sediment recovered
2089
in pollen washes is plotted against the surface area of the artifacts; in Fig. 3, pollen concentration, calculated as grains/
cm3, is plotted against the artifact surface area. The three
artifact classes (one-hand manos, two-hand manos, and
metates) are depicted in the graphs with separate symbols
and are arrayed along the x-axis from smallest to largest. There
is no definitive trend in the amount of sediment recovered by
surface area (Fig. 2), and in fact, there is a cluster of six small
manos that yielded more sediment than most of the metates.
However, there is a weak trend for a greater abundance of
pollen from the larger artifacts (Fig. 3).
Perhaps some of the variance in the productivity of pollen
washes is the extent to which the artifacts were protected
from ambient pollen during use or final deposition. For
example, a metate left outside, especially with the use-surface
turned up and open to environmental pollen rain, would be
expected to capture and preserve more pollen than an artifact
stored in a protected context such as a structure interior. But
comparison of contexts between the artifacts analyzed in
Figs. 2 and 3 revealed this not to be the case. Tools recovered
either from protected contexts, such as inside a structure or pit,
or from an extramural context, such as an activity area,
produced both high and low pollen concentrations (grains/
cm3 or grains/cm2) without any predictable pattern related to
the context.
When considering the physical attributes of the grinding
tools, there is some dynamic correspondence between artifact
texture and pollen density. Analysis of the grinding tools documented their texture by two separate variables: grain size and
vesicularity. The former used the Wentworth scale to assign
tools to one of seven categories ranging from silt to conglomerate; many tools had a medium (0.25e0.5 mm) or coarse
(0.5e1.0 mm) grain size. Rock vesicles were coded as absent,
sparse or abundant with further specification of pore size
(small (<1 mm), medium, and large (>3 mm)). The key separation was between sparse and many vesicles. Fig. 4 shows
that the highest pollen concentration values were recovered
from artifacts with the highest ranks for vesicles, those with
many regardless of actual pore size (4þ). The coarsest-grained
manos and metates also tended to produce high pollen concentrations, even if the rocks lacked abundant vesicles. Thus, the
most important characteristic for trapping pollen on an artifact
surface is texture, especially vesicles. It is important to note
that all of the grinding tools considered here are of sandstone
but the range of textures fully capture all but the smoothest
grinding tools such as those made of a dense limestone.
4.2. Multiple pollen washes from the same artifact
Any direct link between prehistoric plant processing and artifact pollen washes should leave distinct pollen signatures on
use-surfaces that would contrast with non-use surfaces. Along
this same vein, it is possible that lab personnel performing
pollen washes are generally collecting the superficial surface
sediment from artifacts and may be missing potential cultural
signals embedded deeper within the rock pores and interstices,
or at least confusing a cultural signal with extraneous pollen
2090
P.R. Geib, S.J. Smith / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2085e2101
Table 2
Pollen types commonly identified from archaeological sites of the Colorado
Plateau
Pollen taxa
Common name
Pollination
mode
Apiaceae
Parsley family includes spring
parsley (Cymopterus), water
hemlock (Cicuta), osha
(Ligusticum), and others
Sunflower family includes
rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus),
snakeweed (Gutierrezia),
groundsel (Senecio), and others
Mustard family includes
peppergrass (Lepidium),
spectacle pod (Dimorphocarpa),
watercress (Rorippa), tansy
mustard (Descurainia), and
others
Cactus family includes nipple
cactus (Mammillaria), hedgehog
(Echinocereus), and others
Pink family includes chickweed
(Cerastium), sandwort
(Arenaria), moss campion
(Silene), and others
Buckbrush
Thistle
Beeweed
Squash
Spurge family includes spurge
(Euphorbia), noseburn (Tragia),
copperleaf (Acalypha), and others
Pea family includes locust
(Robinia), locoweed
(Astragalus), vetch (Vicia),
sweetvetch (Hedysarum), and
others
Chicory tribe includes prickly
lettuce (Lactuca), dandelion
(Taraxacum), and others
Lily family includes mariposa
lily (Calochortus), onion
(Allium), yucca (Yucca),
beargrass (Nolina), and others
Four o’clock family includes four
o’clock (Mirabilis), spiderling
(Boerhaavia), sand verbena
(Abronia), and others
Evening primrose family
includes evening primrose
(Oenothera), fireweed
(Epilobium), beeblossom
(Gaura), and others
Cholla
Prickly pear
Grass family includes grama
grass (Bouteloua), galleta
(Pleuraphis), fescue (Festuca),
dropseed (Sporobolus), and
others
Large grass includes reed
(Phragmites), Indian ricegrass
(Achnatherum), cereal grasses
(e.g. wheat [Triticum], oats
[Avena]), and others
Insect
Asteraceae
Brassicaceae
Cactaceae
Caryophyllaceae
Ceanothus
Cirsium
Cleome
Cucurbita
Euphorbiaceae
Fabaceae
Liguliflorae
Liliaceae
Nyctaginaceae
Onagraceae
Opuntia (Cylindro)
Opuntia (Platy)
Poaceae
Large Poaceae
Table 2 (continued )
Pollen taxa
Common name
Pollination
mode
Polemoniaceae
Phlox family includes phlox
(Phlox), linanthus (Leptosiphon),
gilia (Gilia and Ipomopsis), and
others
Purslane
Sumac and skunkbush/lemonade
berry (Rhus trilobata and R.
ovata)
Rose family includes bitterbrush
and cliffrose (Purshia spp.),
mountain mahogany
(Cercocarpus), blackbrush
(Coleogyne), chokecherry
(Prunus), and others
Greasewood
Penstemon family includes
mullein (Verbascum), penstemon
(Penstemon), Indian paintbrush
(Castilleja), and others
Buffaloberry
Nightshade family includes
tobacco (Nicotiana), wolfberry
(Lycium), groundcherry
(Physalis), and others
Globemallow
Meadow rue
Cheno-Am includes saltbush and
shadscale (Atriplex spp.),
goosefoot (Chenopodium),
pigweed (Amaranthus), winterfat
(Krascheninnikovia), and others
Fir
Ragweed/bursage type
Sagebrush
Birch
Mormon tea
Buckwheat
Walnut
Juniper
Spruce
Pine
Pinyon type
Cottonwood/aspen type
Oak
Willow
Tidestromia
Cattail
Maize
Insect
Portulaca
Rhus
Insect
Rosaceae
Insect
Sarcobatus
Scrophulariaceae
Insect
Insect
Insect
Insect
Insect
Insect
Insect
Shepherdia
Solanaceae
Sphaeralcea
Thalictrum
Cheno-Am
Insect
Insect
Insect
Insect
Insect
Abies
Ambrosia
Artemisia
Betula
Ephedra
Eriogonum
Juglans
Juniperus
Picea
Pinus
Pinus edulis type
Populus
Quercus
Salix
Tidestromia
Typha
Zea mays
Insect
Insect
Insect
Insect
Insect
Insect
Insect
Insect
Insect
Wind/
insect
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Winda
a
Though wind pollinated, the large and heavy grains of maize pollen seldom travel more than several meters from the plant (Jones and Newell, 1946).
Insect
Insect
Wind
Wind
entrained in sediment adhering to tool surfaces. To examine
these issues, multiple pollen washes from 5 manos and 1
metate generated 13 samples for comparison (Table 4). Two
paired sets of samples yielded significant counts: (1) a first
wash from the artifact use surface targeting surficial sediments
(the standard approach in pollen wash analysis) and a second,
deeper wash from the same use surface (n ¼ 5 artifacts); and
(2) use-surface and non-use surface washes from the same
artifact (n ¼ 2).
There is but one consistent pattern in the comparison of
multiple washes: pollen concentration decreases from the first
P.R. Geib, S.J. Smith / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2085e2101
2091
Table 3
Pollen washes from manos and metates recovered from prehistoric sites of various age excavated for the Navajo Mountain Road Archaeological Project
Site
Chronology
Artifact contexts
Artifact washes (includes multiple
washes from the same artifact)
Manos
AZ-J-14-21
Pueblo III
Intramural
AZ-J-14-31
AZ-J-14-35
AZ-J-14-36
AZ-J-14-38
AZ-J-14-16
AZ-J-14-41
AZ-J-3-14
Basketmaker II
Basketmaker II
Basketmaker II
Basketmaker II
Pueblo II
Early Archaic
Pueblo II
Intramural
Extramural
Intramural
Intramural
Intramural
Extramural
Intramural
AZ-J-3-8
AZ-J-2-3
Basketmaker II
Mid Pueblo III
AZ-J-2-6
Late Pueblo III
UT-B-63-30
UT-B-63-39
Total
Late Archaic
Late Pueblo III
13 sites
Extramural
Intramural and
extramural
Intramural and
extramural
Extramural
Extramural
surface wash to the second, deeper wash (Table 4). This result
suggests that there is a deeper embedded component of pollen
beneath the surficial sediments. However, there is no significant difference in the composition or relative frequency of
pollen types between the different surfaces. There is a weak
relationship for enhanced representation of grass pollen in 4
of the 5 artifacts from the deeper use-surface washes, and in
3 of the 5 artifacts, sagebrush percentages were higher in the
deeper wash, as compared to the first wash. This may in
some way relate to cultural activities around the sites where
the artifacts were used. It is also possible that there was
more grass and sagebrush in the prehistoric landscape,
4
Metates
3
Controls
1
8
1
2
1
1
5
4
Sterile samples
1
1
1
3
3
2
2
1
2
1
controls,
washes
controls
wash
washes
wash
2
3
1 control,
3 washes
1 wash
5
7
2
2
5
3
2 washes
1
6
30
1 wash
2 washes
6 controls,
15 washes
5
39
1
3
12
compared to post-occupation time, or there is some physical
characteristic about sagebrush and grass pollen that adheres
better to rock.
4.3. Control samples and pollen washes
Seventeen artifacts from seven sites are represented by sets
of one or more control samples and productive washes. We
used this population of paired samples to explore whether
there are unique assemblages from the washes that might
relate to plant processing. Control samples were collected
from the sediment in direct contact with the use-surface of
Fig. 1. Different sandstone textures for manos of the Navajo Mountain area: both are dense medium grain sandstone but (a) has abundant vesicles of various size,
including large pits whereas (b) has sparse vesicles of small size.
P.R. Geib, S.J. Smith / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2085e2101
One-Hand Mano
Two-Hand Mano
Metate
15
10
5
8.0e+4
6.0e+4
4.0e+4
2.0e+4
9
8
0.0
7
6
8
5
dant6
vesic
abun
les
0
0
200
400
600
Artifact Surface Area
800
cm2
Fig. 2. Recovered sediment volume versus artifact surface area for 39 artifacts.
the artifact, from beneath the artifact, or from floor contexts
containing the artifact, such as a structure or pit.
Two patterns stand out in the comparisons (Table 5). Maize
pollen is more common in the control samples; in the 15
sample pairs maize occurs in 7 control samples but just 2
washes. The second pattern is higher Cheno-Am percentages
in wash samples than in controls: 10 of the 15 wash samples
exceeded Cheno-Am frequencies in the controls. There was
also a slightly higher occurrence of pollen aggregates in the
control samples: 8 of the 15 washes recorded fewer pollen
aggregates than corresponding control samples.
The finding of maize pollen in control samples but few
washes is explained by the results from our experimental
studies (see below). Why Cheno-Am pollen is consistently
higher on artifact surfaces than sediments in contact with or
containing the artifact is unknown. Several plants comprise
the broad Cheno-Am category (see Table 2) and all were
used for a wide range of subsistence activities (Moerman,
1998). Deliberate use of Cheno-Am seeds throughout prehistory is well documented across the Southwest (e.g., Huckell
1.2e+5
Pollen Concentration gr/cc
1.0e+5
One-Hand Mano
Two-Hand Mano
Metate
1.0e+5
8.0e+4
6.0e+4
4.0e+4
2.0e+4
0
0
200
400
600
800
Artifact Surface Area cm2
Fig. 3. Pollen concentration (grains/cm3) by artifact surface area (cm2).
4
Vesic
4
2
ulari
spars
ty
e ves
0
icles
3
ze
Metate
Si
Two-Hand Mano
20
In
co crea
ar
se sing
n
in ess
One-Hand Mano
Pollen Concentration gr/cc
Volume of Recovered Sediment cc
25
Gr
a
2092
Fig. 4. Pollen concentration (grains/cm3) and rock texture.
and Toll, 2004; Hunter, 1999). In southeast Utah, Cheno-Am
seeds were recovered in 46e71% of 155 coprolites recovered
from Archaic layers in caves (Van Ness and Hansen, 1996).
Cheno-Am was clearly an important food resource since early
human occupation, and the enhanced representation from the
artifact washes may reflect processing. However, the ChenoAm group contains many weed species that readily colonize
disturbed ground, such as around sites, and especially in fields.
Cheno-Am pollen is so ubiquitous from every type of Southwest archaeological context that some variable fraction of
the pollen population, even on artifacts, must reflect ambient
pollen from weedy and native taxa.
5. Experimental studies
There is an obvious inferential gap between artifact pollen
assemblages (the consequent) and human behavior (the antecedent), a gap that cannot be bridged by recourse to the archaeological record alone. To help establish inferential linkages we
designed a series of experiments as an independent test of the
assumption that pollen spectra recovered from grinding tool
washes register the processed plants. Three basic research
questions structured our experiments (see Table 1): (1) Can
the pollen from a processed plant be traced through the various
stages of processing: from raw or parched seeds through
grinding on a metate? (2) Does ambient pollen swamp that of
the target taxon while processing seeds in a field setting? (3)
Does the domesticate architecture of maize ears lessen or
eliminate a pollen signature on the consumed portions?
Seeds from eight weeds and three grass species (Fig. 5;
Table 6), plus the nuts of pinyon pine, were harvested and
processed using a variety of traditional methods: winnowing,
parching, and grinding to flour on a metate. The first phase
of this study was conducted in a controlled laboratory setting
to quantify how much pollen adheres to seeds through the
various processing steps without the dilution effects of
atmospheric pollen rain. Pollen remaining in the winnowed
chaff was also quantified.
P.R. Geib, S.J. Smith / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2085e2101
2093
Table 4
Summary results from multiple pollen washes from the same artifact
Site no.
Pollen concentration (grains/cm3)
Artifact
specimen
Use-surface
1st wash
Use-surface
2nd wash
AZ-J-2-3
Mano 800.09
26200
9700
AZ-J-2-3
AZ-J-2-3
AZ-J-2-6
AZ-J-2-6
Mano
Mano
Mano
Mano
17200
24900
16800
31100
e
14600
11400
11500
AZ-J-3-14
Metate 689.01
30900
4100
620.03
620.04
832.01
950.02
Other (based on pollen percentages)
Non-usesurface
Grass and sagebrush highest in deep,
second wash of use surface
e
14200
10000
e
e
Sagebrush highest in deep, second wash of use surface
Grass highest in deep, second wash of use surface
Grass and sagebrush highest in deep,
second wash of use surface
Grass highest in deep, second wash of use surface
e
In a second phase of the study, the input of natural
atmospheric pollen rain to assemblages was tested; seven of
the seed taxa were ground outside on metates that had been
exposed for several days, before and after grinding. Seed
processing took place in two separate seasons (late summer
and late fall) and in two separate environmental settings (forest
and shrub grassland). We used these experimental findings to
critically examine how an analyst might go about interpreting
a series of pollen spectra obtained from prehistoric grinding
tools. Note that the experimental metates were all of the
same medium grain sandstone with sparse vesicles.
A third set of experiments concerned maize, the staple
grain of the North American Southwest after about 1000 BC.
Considering that corn ears are tightly and completely encased
in husks, there seemed little reason for maize pollen to be
present on kernels. Vorsila Bohrer (1972) found some maize
pollen on kernels in an earlier study, but we were interested
in exploring this result in greater detail. Specifically, to what
extent the husk inherently restricts the addition of maize
pollen to the kernels, such that there is no direct relationship
between the food portion of maize and the representation of
its pollen. We conducted a series of different washes to
document the level of maize pollen that could be recovered
from shucked kernels, husked ears, different layers of husks
(exterior, middle, and interior), and maize silks.
5.1. Pollen through stages of seed processing
In total, 83 pollen washes were completed from various
stages of seed processing including grinding trials (Table 7);
Table 5
Pollen percentage data from artifact washes compared to controls
Site
Artifact
Pollen wash vs. control (þ, higher %, , lower %)
Other
Pinyon
Juniper
Cheno-Am
Grass
Maize
Aggregates
AZ-J-14-21
AZ-J-3-8
Metate (669.05)
Mano (685.04)
þ
þ
0
Control
0
AZ-J-3-8
AZ-J-14-16
Mano (730.01)
Metate (624.04)
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
Same
þ
Prickly pear in wash sample
AZ-J-14-16
Mano (660.71)
þ
þ
Wash
Control and
wash
Control (same
sample for
both manos)
Beeweed and prickly pear in wash sample
AZ-J-14-16
AZ-J-2-3
Mano (660.72)
Mano (800.09)a
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
Wash
AZ-J-2-6
Mano (703.05)
0
þ
Control
AZ-J-2-6
AZ-J-3-14
UT-B-63-39
Mano (950.02)a
Metate (689.01)a
Mano (614.07)
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
Same
0
Control
0
0
UT-B-63-39
UT-B-63-39
UT-B-63-39
UT-B-63-39
Mano (1145.01)
Metate (1032.02)
Mano (1282.02)
Metate (682.02)
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
0
0
Control
0
0
0
0
Sunflower family high in the wash,
compared to the control
High beeweed (4%) in control; beeweed
(1%) and cattail in wash sample
High beeweed in control (21%) and wash
(32%); high lily family in control (3%);
prickly pear in control
Beeweed and cholla in control
Prickly pear in control
Prickly pear and beeweed in control;
cattail and parsley family in wash
(trace in control)
Beeweed in wash
Beeweed in control
Beeweed in control
þ, percentages from artifact wash exceeded control; , percentages from artifact wash less than the control; 0, no value from either the control or the wash sample.
a
Artifacts with multiple washes. The second, deep wash compared in this table.
P.R. Geib, S.J. Smith / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2085e2101
2094
Fig. 5. Several of the seeds used in our experiment along with the resulting flour from grinding on a metate.
Table 6
List of plant seeds or nuts commonly exploited by native people of the American Southwest that comprised this pollen wash study
Common name
Taxa
Pollen ecology
Seed characteristics
Ethnographic
Amaranth
Amaranthus albus
Wind-pollinated
Small
Amaranth
Careless
weed,
amaranth
Amaranthus gracilis
Amaranthus palmeri
Wind-pollinated
Wind-pollinated
Goosefoot
Chenopodium
leptophyllum
Wind-pollinated
Small
Light, small, cylindrical,
dry and tightly encased
by spiny bracts.
easy to winnow because
fluffy chaff blows away
Heavy and dry
Seeds winnowed and ground to flour; greens used for food
(Castetter and Opler, 1936, pp. 16, 48); Navajo ground
threshed seeds to flour (Vestal, 1952, p. 25) and used
leaves in ceremonial tobacco (Elmore, 1944, p. 45)
Same as above
Seeds ground to meal (Castetter, 1935, p. 23;
Elmore, 1944, p. 46); leaves cooked as greens
(Curtin, 1949, p. 47)
Beeweed
Cleome serrulata
Insect-pollinated
Tansy
mustard
Descurainia pinnata
Insect-pollinated
Sunflower
Helianthus annuus
Insect-pollinated
Heavy and oily; hulls
ground with seed
Purslane
Portulaca spp.
Insect-pollinated
Indian
ricegrass
Achnatherum hymenoides
(Oryzopsis hymenoides)
Wind-pollinated
Tiny and light but easy to
separate from chaff
Heavy and dry, tightly
encased in bracts that
were ground
along with seed
Dropseed
grass
Sporobolus airoides
Wind-pollinated
Dropseed
grass
Corn
Sporobolus giganteus
Wind-pollinated
Zea mays
Wind-pollinated
Light and even after
parching, hard to winnow
and separate chaff
Light but easier to separate
from chaff than S. airoides
Kernel
Pinyon pine
Pinus edulis
Wind-pollinated
Nut
Heavy and dry, easy
to winnow
Tiny, light, and oily. easy
to winnow
Navajo used seeds for food (Vestal, 1952, p. 25). seeds one
of the most important foods for Zuni (Castetter, 1935, p. 21);
Zuni mixed ground seeds with corn meal, formed into
balls and steamed (Stevenson, 1915, p. 66)
Food staple, pottery paint (Adams et al., 2002)
Navajo ground seeds to meal (Vestal, 1952, p. 28). Gila
River Pima made pi~nole from ground seeds
(Rea, 1997, pp. 223e224); widespread use of seeds and
greens (Moerman, 1998, pp. 197e198)
Seeds winnowed, parched, ground for food (Castetter and
Bell, 1951, p. 187); widespread use of seeds and oil
pressed from seeds for food and medicine
(Moerman, 1998, pp. 257e258)
Hopi used seeds for food (Elmore, 1944, p. 47); widespread
use of greens for food (Moerman, 1998, p. 434)
On the Colorado Plateau, seeds common from Archaic
archaeological sites (Huckell and Toll, 2004, pp. 45, 48, 49).
Hopi ground seeds with corn into fine meal
(Nequatewa, 1943, p. 20). Navajo ground seeds into cakes
(Elmore, 1944, p. 26)
On the Colorado Plateau, seeds common from Archaic
archaeological sites (Huckell and Toll, 2004, pp. 45, 48, 49)
Hopi threshed seeds and ground with corn into fine meal for
cooked mush (Nequatewa, 1943, p. 20)
Food staple, important ceremonial plant (Moerman, 1998,
pp. 610e612)
Food staple (Moerman, 1998, p. 406e408)
P.R. Geib, S.J. Smith / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2085e2101
2095
Table 7
Summary of 83 pollen washes by plant species and experimental treatment
Common name
Taxa name
Specimen no.
Raw or
winnowed
seed
Chaff
Parched
seed
Metates,
laboratory
grinding
Manos,
laboratory
grinding
Metates,
field
grinding
Amaranth
Amaranth
Careless weed,
amaranth
Goosefoot
Amaranthus albus
Amaranthus gracilis
Amaranthus palmeri
2A
e
3A, 3B
e
e
e
e
e
1A, 1B
Beeweed
Tansy mustard
Tansy mustard
Chenopodium
leptophyllum
Cleome serrulata
Descurainia pinnata
Descurainia pinnata
e
e
e
e
e
e
Sunflower
Sunflower
Helianthus annuus
Helianthus annuus
e
e
e
e
e
e
Purslane
Portulaca sp.
e
e
e
e
Grasses
Indian ricegrass
Indian ricegrass
Indian ricegrass
Achnatherum hymenoides
Achnatherum hymenoides
Achnatherum hymenoides
e
e
e
e
e
a
e
e
e
e
Indian ricegrass
Achnatherum hymenoides
e
e
e
e
e
Dropseed grass
Dropseed grass
Corn
Sporobolus airoides
Sporobolus giganteus
Zea mays
b
c
e
e
e
e
e
Pinyon nuts
Pinyon pine
Pinus edulis
d
e
e
e
e
e
28
18
12
9
9
7
4A, 4B
Highway 89,
Flagstaff
8B
Long House
Valley
5A field burned
9B not field burned
Blue Canyon, raw seed,
not field burned,
not winnowed
Blue Canyon, field
burned, not winnowed
6A, 6B
7A, 7B
9 specimens
Totals
a
b
c
d
Seed winnowed after parching.
Nine of kernels, 5 of ears.
Twelve of husks and silks.
Raw nuts in the shell.
76 of these washes were from processing stages and grinding
trials conducted in a controlled laboratory setting to exclude
ambient pollen. If the data are evaluated by pollen concentrations, one general trend across all seed washes was for the pollen from the processed taxon (target) to exceed the combined
values of other (non-target) pollen types (Table 8; note that
this excludes pinyon pine since the wash of raw nuts did not
yield any pollen). Even so, there are three partial exceptions:
(1) amaranth pollen was approximately equal to other pollen
types from raw (winnowed) seed, parched seed, and laboratory
grinding on a metate; (2) beeweed pollen was less than other
types from raw and parched seed; and (3) the concentration
of Indian ricegrass pollen was less than other types for parched
seeds. Even in these cases, a palynologist would recognize the
processed seed because there are several taxa combined in the
other category and the amaranth, beeweed, and ricegrass
values are higher than any individual type. That the target
taxon exceeded the combined values of other pollen types
might be expected in this case given the care taken to limit
ambient pollen. We did this purposefully to represent
a ‘‘best case’’ scenario where the signature of the target taxon
would be least ambiguous, something that is not always true
(see Adams, 1988).
Another finding of our experimental washes was the
variability in pollen concentration between species. Tansy
mustard, sunflower, and Cheno-Am produced more pollen
than amaranth and beeweed at each step of the process.
The decline in abundance from raw seed to metate wash
was also variable between taxa. For example, there was 68
times more amaranth pollen in the raw seed than in the
metate wash, and for tansy mustard there was 22 times
more mustard pollen in the raw seed compared to the metate.
Of the two species of dropseed grass collected, the raw seed
of Sporobolus airoides yielded 65 times more pollen than the
lab metate wash, but the raw seed from S. giganteus yielded
only nine times more pollen.
There were also differences in the distribution of pollen
aggregates between taxa. Target taxon pollen aggregates
were absent from some plants (beeweed and amaranth) at all
stages of processing, but common in other species (tansy
mustard and grasses); for two species (beeweed and sunflower)
a few aggregates occurred in the metate washes but not in
parched seed.
An important general trend of our experimental washes is
the documented decrease in pollen abundance through each
step of seed processing, with the largest decrease for all plants
2096
P.R. Geib, S.J. Smith / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2085e2101
Table 8
Pollen concentrations and percentages for seed and metate washes
Taxon
Specimen
Preparation
Goosefoot
(Chenopodium
leptophyllum)
Chle 1A
Chle 1B
Chle 1B
Chle 1B
Ampa 3A
Ampa 3B
Ampa 3B
Ampa 3B
Depi 4A
Depi 4B
Depi 4B
Depi Hwy89
Hean LHV
Hean 8B
Hean 8B
Hean LHV
Clse
Clse
Clse
Spai 6A
Spai 6B
Spai 6B
Spgi 7A
Spgi 7B
Spgi 7B
Spgi 7B
Achy Blue Canyon
Winnowed
Parched seed
Lab metate
Field metate
Winnowed
Parched
Lab metate
Field metate
Winnowed
Parched seed
Lab metate
Field metate
Winnowed
Parched seed
Lab metate
Field metate
Raw seed
Parched seed
Field metate
Winnowed
Parched seed
Lab metate
Winnowed
Parched seed
Lab metate
Field metate
Raw seed,
not winnowed
Parched seed
Field metate
Parched/
winnowed
Lab metate
Amaranth
(Amaranthus palmeri)
Tansy mustard
(Descurainia pinnata)
Sunflower
(Helianthus annuus)
Beeweed
(Cleome serrulata)
Dropseed grass
(Sporobolus airoides Spai)
(Sporobolus giganteus Spgi)
Indian ricegrass
(Achnatherum hymenoides)
not field burned
Achy Blue Canyon
Achy Blue Canyon
Achy 9B
Achy 9B
Concentration
grains/g (rounded
to nearest 10 grains)
Pollen percentages
Pollen aggregates
of target taxon
no. (largest size)
Target
Other
Target
Other
19330
4750
1090
1500
13560
2490
200
160
21210
9840
980
190
528950
6720
4880
620
140
60
30
286420
56380
4400
44900
36490
5020
70
8490
2790
620
160
560
17980
2090
270
680
4820
1640
410
150
7270
690
2990
340
320
230
550
4560
520
3490
4490
3210
430
1890
6810
87
89
87
63
43
54
42
19
81
86
71
57
98
91
62
65
30
20
5
98
99
56
91
92
92
4
55
13
12
13
37
57
46
58
81
19
14
29
43
1
9
38
36
70
80
95
2
1
44
9
8
8
96
45
e
e
3 (8)
1 (6)
e
e
e
e
2 (50)
2 (8)
2 (6)
2 (6)
Scan (36)
e
1 (3)
e
e
e
e
Scan (50)
3 (16)
2 (4)
Scan (12)
1 (7)
5 (10)
e
e
160
20
190
290
90
60
36
19
76
64
81
24
1 (6)
e
1 (3)
380
360
51
49
6 (7)
‘‘target’’ refers to the pollen taxon expected for the seed processed, ‘‘other’’ refers to non-target pollen taxa (pinyon is not reported here because a wash of raw nuts
yielded no pollen).
occurring between the washes of raw (winnowed) seed and
parched seed. Pollen percentages generally track the same
trends as pollen concentrations (Table 8), but the smoothing
effect mutes the magnitude of the variability between raw
and parched seed washes in individual species.
Where does the pollen go in its decline from raw to parched
seeds? The answer is that the pollen remains on the chaff, and
the amount is variable by species. Washes of winnowed chaff
from six seed taxa produced consistently higher pollen abundance than washes of the parched seed, or in the case of purslane, winnowed seed (Table 9). The difference in abundance is
exponential in goosefoot, amaranth (Amaranthus gracilis),
sunflower, and Indian ricegrass, and not quite as dramatic in
the beeweed and purslane. The findings from the chaff washes
have important implications for archaeological pollen sampling. Places where harvests were stockpiled, leaf-stripped,
and parcheddwhere the chaff accumulateddwould provide
one of the best contexts for archaeological pollen samples.
How archaeologists might go about recognizing such places
at open prehistoric sites is no easy matter and would probably
vary temporally, spatially, and culturally.
The chaff washing experiments explain some of the
variability in concentrations between taxa because seeds that
are difficult to separate from chaff would leave more pollen
on grinding tools than clean seeds. For example, the large
and heavy seeds of beeweed are easily separated from the
chaff, which consists of light-weight pods; even while simply
collecting this seed, much of the chaff can be eliminated. In
contrast to this is goosefoot, which has seeds tightly sheathed
in leaf-like cases that are not easily eliminated. There is also
great variety in seed packaging. Beeweed seeds develop within
an enveloping pea-like pod that greatly reduces the chances of
pollen adhering to the actual seed coats. Beeweed pollen does
not occur in any abundance on seeds or even the chaff,
registering well below other pollen types in concentration
and percentage (see Tables 8 and 9). This is not true however
for goosefoot, a wind-pollinated plant, where the target taxon
represents just under 90% of observed pollen.
P.R. Geib, S.J. Smith / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2085e2101
2097
Table 9
Comparison of pollen results from chaff and seed (parched or raw)
Taxon
Goosefoot (Chenopodium leptophyllum)
Amaranth (Amaranthus gracilis)
Sunflower (Helianthus annuus)
Beeweed (Cleome serrulata)
Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum
hymenoides)
Purslane (Portulaca sp.)
a
Preparation
Chaff
Parched seed
Chaff
Parched seed
Chaff
Parched seed
Chaff
Parched seed
Chaff
Parched seed
Chaff
Winnowed raw
seed
Concentration grains/ga
Pollen percentages
Target
Other
Target
Other
Pollen aggregates
of target taxon
no. (largest size)
54130
4750
147910
930
92270
1350
2780
60
12180
160
4390
<10
8040
620
5450
520
1800
240
4850
230
15810
290
6790
1220
87
89
96
64
98
85
36
20
43
40
39
<1
13
12
4
40
2
15
64
80
56
60
61
99
1 (10); scan 1 (50)
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
5 (24)
1 (6)
1 (4)
e
Rounded to nearest 10 grains.
Another factor influencing pollen recovery from pollen
washes is whether seeds are oily or dry, because oil serves
as an adherent. For example, tansy mustard and beeweed
have similar seed architecture, both develop within a pod,
but tansy seed has 150 times more target pollen on it than
beeweed: 21,210 grains/g versus 140 grains/g respectively
(see Table 8). Tansy mustard seeds are much smaller than
those of beeweed, so there is a far greater surface area per
seed weight, but the oily nature of tansy mustard seeds is,
we believe, what accounts for the greater pollen abundance.
Human behavior also contributes to the variability in
pollen abundance, as there are intercultural differences in
the time people are willing to invest in cleaning the chaff
from seeds or technological innovations or special handling
techniques that result in cleaner seeds, and with cleaner
seed, less pollen is transferred to grinding tool surfaces.
For example, a moderate amount of sunflower pollen is
present on parched sunflower seeds, in part because the seeds
are oily, but largely because they are still in their shells.
Given their moderately small size (compared to domesticated
sunflower), it is far more energy efficient to simply grind the
seeds in their hulls, a practice that fecal analysis reveals to
have been common in the past (Van Ness, 1986). Nonetheless, if some group developed a means for removing the
hulls, then it is highly probable that the concentration of
sunflower pollen would decline.
Indian ricegrass is another species worth considering here,
because the grains are tightly encased by bracts and we did not
try to remove these prior to grinding the seed, a practice also
supported by coprolite studies (e.g., Aasen, 1984). The
exterior of this dry floret retained little of the target taxon
pollen (just 160e190 grass grains/g), but the metate wash
from laboratory grinding contained twice or more the concentration of target taxon. The likely explanation for this is that
grinding crushes the bracts thereby freeing pollen from under
these floret structures. Some Paiute groups, for whom ricegrass
was a food staple, used specialized milling stones in order to
crack free the bracts and thereby remove them in a second
winnowing (Catherine Fowler, personal communication,
1996), which would doubtless greatly reduce the concentration
of grass pollen.
5.2. What happens in a field setting?
The question we asked of the field grinding experiments
was whether a palynologist would correctly identify the
processed seed? We thus discuss the results from field trials
in terms of pollen percentages, since most pollen analysts
base interpretations on percentage data. Naturally, there are
different expectations depending upon whether the processed
resources are insect- or wind-pollinated.
Seeds from seven taxa were processed on grinding tools in
two different outdoor settings (Table 10). Three taxa were
ground during August of 1998 at a camp on the Kaiparowits
Plateau, south-central Utah, surrounded by dense pinyon and
juniper forest, and four taxa were ground later that year in
November at a camp on the Kaibito Plateau, northeastern
Arizona, within a vegetation community of sparse juniper
trees with shrubs and grasses. Metates were left exposed
outside for 13 days at the Kaiparowits camp and 4 days at
the second camp. Comparisons between lab and field grinding
trials (Tables 8 and 10) show that other pollen types increased
by 14e88% in the field metate washes, with the exception of
the sunflower family, which remained unchanged. Clearly,
there was a pulse of environmental pollen deposited on field
metates and recovered in the washes threatening to swamp
the pollen that is of potential behavioral interest.
Although this is a limited and not directly comparable data
set, there was no clear-cut seasonal difference between camps;
other pollen, fall and summer, ranged from 36% to more than
90% of the pollen counted. There were differences in the
pollen spectra between the two field camps that correspond
to the local vegetation communities. Juniper and pinyon are
dominant pollen types in two of the three field metates from
the Kaiparowits Plateau, whereas grasses, herbs, and shrub
types are better represented in the pollen washes of metates
used on the Kaibito Plateau. Overall, the samples from the
juniper savannah produced less ambiguous results, which
P.R. Geib, S.J. Smith / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2085e2101
2098
Table 10
Pollen percentages from metate washes for field grinding experiments
Metate wash taxon
Target taxon %
Other taxa %
Pine (Pinus)
Pinyon (Pinus edulis)
Juniper (Juniperus)
Oak (Quercus)
Ash (Fraxinus)
Hackberry (Celtis)
Buckbrush (Ceanothus)
Sagebrush (Artemisia)
Mormon tea (Ephedra)
Cheno-Am
Sunflower family (Asteraceae)
Ragweed/bursage (Ambrosia)
Sunflower type (Helianthus)
Grass (Poaceae)
Beeweed (Cleome)
Buckwheat (Eriogonum)
Globemallow
Mustard (Brassicaceae)
Indian wheat (Plantago)
August 1998, Kaiparowits Plateau, pinyon-juniper
forest, metates exposed 13 days
November 1998, Kaibito Plateau, juniper savannah,
metates exposed 4 days
Dropseed
(S. giganteus)
Amaranth
(A. palmeri)
Goosefoot
(C. leptophyllum)
Ricegrass
(A. hymenoides)
Beeweed
(C. serrulata)
Tansy mustard
(D. pinnata)
Sunflower
(H. annuus)
4
96
1
4
65
<1
7
<1
e
<1
<1
6
2
2
e
4
e
<1
e
<1
4
19
81
5
36
9*
<1
e
e
<1
3
<1
19
6
13
<1
4
e
e
e
<1
e
63
37
1
18
9
e
e
e
e
<1
e
63a
3
1
<1
<1
e
<1
e
e
e
19
81
14
9
5
2
e
e
2
5
7
16
11
5
e
19
e
e
e
e
e
5
95
4
4
2
e
e
e
e
3
e
3
5
6
<1
59a
5
e
e
6
e
57
43
6
3
5
2
e
e
e
2
2
5
5
2
1
2
e
e
4a
59
e
65
36
5
3
5
<1
e
e
e
e
e
9
4
2
65
1
e
3
e
1
e
Numbers in bold type highlight potential pollen types that could be interpreted as the processed resource.
a
Notes occurrence of pollen aggregates.
given the native vegetation (e.g. saltbush, goosefoot, etc.). Finally, because experience and background varies among
palynologists, different analysts likely would not agree with
all of the interpretations in Table 10.
5.3. What about maize?
The results of pollen washes of separate portions of three
corn ears are shown in Fig. 6. As expected, there is a dramatic
reduction in corn pollen after removal of the outer husks. Indeed,
except for the outer husks, nearly no corn pollen was recovered
7000
Husked Ears
gr/gm washed materials
6000
Corn Pollen Concentration
may be due both to a shorter exposure period (4 days versus
13 days), and to the November timing of the experiment.
November air should contain less pollen because plants are
well past flowering, compared to the August experiment on
the Kariparowits Plateau.
Other taxa contributed more than 80% of all pollen counted
in 4 of the 7 metate washes, and there were dramatic spikes in
individual types. In the beeweed field trial, 59% of the pollen
counted was grass, and 65% of the dropseed metate wash was
juniper pollen. If these were wash samples from excavated
artifacts, an analyst might well conclude that grass was
processed on the beeweed metate and juniper on the dropseed
metate. Only three taxa, goosefoot, sunflower, and tansy
mustard, produced strong metate wash signatures that were
correct. Two wind-pollinated taxa, dropseed grass and
amaranth, did not register high enough in the metate washes
to be clearly recognized as the processed seed. It is perhaps
noteworthy that two of the seeds that registered strong pollen
signatures of processing were oily ones, both insect-pollinated
(sunflower and mustard).
In Table 10, numbers in bold font highlight potential pollen
types that could be interpreted as the processed resource. The
inferential process encompasses consideration of pollen
representation relative to what is known about vegetation at
the site, pollination ecology, ethnography, and archaeology.
For example, 19% Cheno-Am pollen from the Kaiparowits
Plateau is interpreted as significant in the amaranth wash
sample, yet 16% Cheno-Am from the juniper savannah is
not interpreted as significant in the Indian ricegrass trial
because of the potential for a greater Cheno-Am component
Silks
Inner Husks
5000
Middle Husks
Outer Husks
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Fig. 6. Concentration of corn pollen (grains/g washed materials) from husked
ears, silks, and husks (n ¼ 16).
P.R. Geib, S.J. Smith / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2085e2101
from the other portions of the maize ears, and none came from
the silks or the husked ears. With no pollen adhering to the
kernels there is no reason to expect that maize pollen would
be present on a metate used to reduce maize kernels to flour.
Husking removed all of the maize pollen in our controlled
experiment, but prehistoric people probably were not so careful when they husked corn, and handling could transfer pollen
from the outer husks to kernels or through other mechanisms.
To determine if this might be the case, we also pollen washed
nine samples of kernels from corn ears husked and shelled
following standard practice. Five of these consisted of
100e200 g of loose kernels for each of three color varieties
(white, yellow, and blue) that were purchased in bulk from
Navajo families living in Long House Valley and near White
Mesa, Arizona; three consisted of loose kernels from ears that
we husked and shelled; the final sample was parched Hopi
corn purchased from a family living on First Mesa, Arizona.
Pollen washes of these nine kernel samples revealed a largely
similar absence of maize pollen (Fig. 7). Three of the nine
samples contained maize, with one yielding seven maize pollen
grains, one three grains, and one just a single grain. The former
has the highest concentration value (22.6) because the sample
consisted of just 20 g of kernels, whereas the latter two have
concentration values of less than 2 because of heavy sample
weights (208 g and 97 g) in the concentration calculation.
Our basic finding is that maize pollen is exceedingly rare on
kernels or shucked ears, the items that archaeologists are most
interested in making inferences about. In four samples of
husked ears and nine samples of shelled kernels, only three of
the kernel samples produced any maize pollen, with the counts
ranging from just 1 to 7 grains. With so little maize pollen actually present on kernels, there is serious doubt that processing
this resource into flour with metates and manos would ever reveal a directly related pollen trace. It also seems unlikely that
storage of kernels or ears would leave a pollen signature.
6. Conclusions
Palynologists have analyzed and interpreted artifact pollen
washes generally according to how pollen is transported and
25
gr/gm washed materials
Corn Pollen Concentration
Corn Kernels
20
15
10
5
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
Fig. 7. Concentration of corn pollen (grains/g washed materials) from corn
kernels (n ¼ 9).
2099
deposited in natural systems. Pollination ecology and the
physics of pollen deposition are of course important, but we
submit that for archaeological studies, it is critical to understand that there is a dynamic relationship between pollen
ecology, seed architecture, and human behavior that determines how pollen moves and where it will be preserved in
an archaeological site. It is only through hands-on practice
of harvesting, processing, and grinding seeds that we have
gained some understanding of how the archaeological pollen
record of subsistence resources is related to the specific plant
and what is done to it during the various steps that transform
a harvested resource into food.
We presented an archaeological case study to examine
several artifact-related variables that might have an important
bearing upon how to interpret pollen wash assemblages, but
with full realization that the archaeological record itself can
only provide the results of some unknown cause. We examined
two issues concerning pollen washes of artifacts: the relationship of pollen abundance to surface area and tool texture; and
whether artifact washes produce distinct pollen signatures
compared to control samples and to washes from different
areas of the same artifact. We predicted that as artifact usesurface area increased, pollen concentration from the wash
samples would increase. Pollen density was measured two
ways: by pollen grains per cubic centimeter of sediment
recovered during the pollen washes and by area of the use surface as grains per square centimeter. Of these two parameters,
grains/cm3 tracked a more sensible relationship to artifact size
and texture. Neither the amount of sediment recovered from
washes nor pollen density by surface area corresponded to
the size of the artifact. The most robust pattern in the investigation of pollen abundance was that more pollen by sediment
volume (grains/cm3) was recovered from stone grinding tools
with many vesicles and coarse grain size. Since resource
texture can vary by temporal period (e.g., more fine grained
ones during the Archaic Period of the North American
Southwest with coarser varieties during the Formative) or by
tool type for specific resources, this might introduce variability
in pollen recovery.
The comparison of control sediment samples and multiple
washes from the same artifact also did not track expectations.
The composition of pollen assemblages was not unique to the
use-surface of the artifact washed. Sediment control samples
are closely linked to the locations of food processing where
plant materials may have accumulated, whereas manos and
metates are processing ‘‘cleaned’’ seeds and other resources.
One of the many surprises from the archaeological portion
of our study was that maize pollen, the only clear cultigen
type, was associated with the sediment control samples and
not the artifact washes. Why this is so might be related to
an insight gained in the seed wash experiments: that more
pollen of the processed plant resides in the chaff. The structure
of enclosing husks in maize is especially restrictive of maize
pollen being transferred to the kernels, the plant portion that
archaeologists are most interested in making inferences about.
Our maize washes suggest that little or no pollen signature
would result from grinding maize kernels or the storage of
2100
P.R. Geib, S.J. Smith / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2085e2101
the same or ears with the husks removed as was common
practice among Puebloan tribes of Colorado Plateau.
The artifact washes and experiments show that in the
archaeological record, there is no linear connection between
plant part processed by a rock and pollen recovered from
that artifact several centuries later. It is possible to identify
plant processing from pollen washes, but the pathways are
infinitely more subtle and complex than a simple cause and
effect link. Moreover, the centuries or millennia that intervene
between last tool use and archaeological recovery also influence the pollen assemblage that can be obtained from an artifact as do the curation procedures and laboratory techniques.
Our practical recommendations to archaeologists are
perhaps rather self-evident. Perhaps most important is to caution against any expectation for overly dramatic and clear-cut
results from pollen washes. Candidates for artifact washes
should be exceptional in depositional and recovery context,
anything less only furthers the ambiguity of interpretation.
Materials with coarse textures and micro-pits, holes, or vesicles will have a greater probability of carrying and preserving
a pollen signature of cultural plant use than artifacts with
smooth, polished, and pit-free surfaces. The tools chosen for
washing should be those with the most direct association in
plant processing or storage, such as metates and ceramic
vessels. Metates stored upside-down in protected contexts
and artifacts deliberately stored inside another feature, such
as a house or pit, are good examples. Tools that appear to
have been casually left on a surface or in a feature, or artifacts
found in trash fill are not likely to be informative even though
they may yield abundant pollen. Artifacts selected for pollen
washes should be bagged as soon as detected, which means
well before even partial exposure (tools needed for a finishing
photo should be pollen-washed first then replaced). It is best to
remove the artifact with an encasing rind of sediment so that
this matrix can be scraped away from the artifact in the
laboratory. We also recommend that artifact washes be
performed by an experienced palynologist to ensure that the
materials washed from the artifact are from the use-surface
and not diluted by extraneous sediment.
Concerning a different topic of archaeological inference,
Thomas (1986, p. 243) quipped that ‘‘it seems preferable to
exercise a degree of interpretive restraint than to blither on
about what simply is not so.’’ Experiments such as those
reported here help to warrant a degree of interpretive license
by providing an empirical and nuanced understanding of
how pollen assemblages are formed and transformed. Palynologists have perhaps conducted informal studies of how pollen
enters the archaeological record, but few of these have been
published, such that no cumulative knowledge has been
generated (Kelso, 1976). Only through continued experimental
research and publication will interpretations of archaeological
pollen assemblages become well founded. The contract world
of American archaeology is continually funding the analysis
of pollen samples from prehistoric and historic sites. It seems
advisable to funnel some of this money into basic research
focused on unraveling the complexities of how human behavior creates pollen assemblages and how natural pollen rain and
post-depositional processes distort and transform the pollen
record. These concluding thoughts could be extended to other
microbotanical analytical techniques such as starch grains and
phytoliths, which could equally benefit from conducting
similar types of experimental studies to place behavioral
inferences on a sounder footing.
Acknowledgments
Our manuscript was significantly improved by thoughtful
comments provided by reviewers Julia Hammett, an
anonymous reviewer, and especially Karen Adams. Vorsila
Bohrer, as usual, was there ahead of us, lighting the way
and we were also inspired by Jenny Adams’s work with grinding corn (Adams, 1999). Louella Holter, Northern Arizona
University, provided editorial guidance, and Dan Boone and
Ryan Belnap, Northern Arizona University, assisted with
graphics and photographs. This research was funded by the
Navajo Nation Archaeology Department for a project supported by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo Area Office,
Branch of Roads, Gallup, New Mexico under the administration of the Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department,
Window Rock, Arizona.
References
Aasen, D.K., 1984. Pollen, macrofossil, and charcoal analyses of Basketmaker
coprolites from Turkey Pen Ruin, Cedar Mesa, Utah. MA thesis,
Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA.
Adams, J., 1999. Refocusing the role of food-grinding tools as correlates for
subsistence strategies in the US Southwest. American Antiquity 64,
475e498.
Adams, K.R., 1988. The ethnobotany and phenology of plants in and adjacent
to two riparian habitats in Southeastern Arizona. PhD thesis, Department
of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson,
AZ. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Adams, K.R., Stewart, J.D., Baldwin, S.J., 2002. Pottery paint and other uses
of Rocky Mountain beeweed (Cleome serrulata Pursh) in the Southwestern
United States: ethnographic data, archaeological record, and elemental
composition. Kiva 67, 339e362.
Anderson, R.Y., 1955. Pollen analysis, a research tool for the study of cave
deposits. American Antiquity 21, 84e85.
Arnold, P.J., 2003. Back to basics: the middle range program as pragmatic archaeology. In: VanPool, T.L., VanPool, C.S. (Eds.), Essential Tensions in
Archaeological Method and Theory. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City, UT, pp. 55e66.
Binford, L.R., 1977. For Theory Building in Archaeology. Academic Press,
New York.
Binford, L.R., 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Bohrer, V., 1972. Paleoecology of the Hay Hollow site, Arizona. Fieldiana
Anthropology 63, 1e30.
Bohrer, V., 1981. Methods of recognizing cultural activity from pollen in
archaeological sites. Kiva 46, 135e142.
Bryant, V., Hall, S., 1993. Archaeological palynology in the United States:
a critique. American Antiquity 58, 277e286.
Castetter, E.F., 1935. Ethnobiological studies in the American Southwest I.
Uncultivated native plants used as sources of food, 4. University of New
Mexico Bulletin. 1e44.
Castetter, E.F., Bell, W.H., 1951. Yuman Indian Agriculture. University of
New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM.
Castetter, E.F., Opler, M.E., 1936. Ethnobiological studies in the American
Southwest III. In: The Ethnobiology of the Chiricahua and Mescalero
Apache, 4. University of New Mexico Bulletin. 1e63.
P.R. Geib, S.J. Smith / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2085e2101
Curtin, L.S.M., 1949. By the Prophet of the Earth. San Vicente Foundation,
Santa Fe, NM.
Dimbleby, G.W., 1985. The Palynology of Archaeological Sites. Academic
Press, Orlando, FL.
Elmore, F.H., 1944. Ethnobotany of the Navajo. School of American Research,
Santa Fe, NM.
Fægri, K., Iversen, J., 1989. Textbook of Pollen Analysis, fourth ed. John
Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
Fægri, K., van der Pijl, L., 1979. The Principles of Pollination Ecology, third
ed. Pergamon Press, Oxford and New York.
Fagerlind, F., 1952. The real signification of pollen diagrams. Botiniska
Notiser (Sweden) 105, 185e224.
Geib, P.R., Spurr, K. (Eds.), 2007. Prehistory of the Northern Kayenta
Anasazi Region: Archaeological Excavations along the Navajo Mountain
Road Report No. 02-48. Navajo Nation Archaeology Department, Window Rock, AZ.
Gish, J., 1991. Current perceptions, recent discoveries, and future directions in
Hohokam Palynology. Kiva 56, 227e235.
Halbirt, C.D., 1985. Pollen analysis of metate wash samples: evaluating
techniques for determining metate function. MA thesis, Department of
Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.
Hevly, R.H., Mehringer, P.J., Yocum, H.G., 1965. Studies of the modern pollen
rain in the Sonoran Desert. Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science 3,
123e135.
Hall, S., 1985. Bibliography of quaternary palynology in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. In: Bryant Jr., V., Holloway, R.C.
(Eds.), Pollen Records of Late Quaternary North American Sediments.
American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists, Dallas, TX, pp.
405e423.
Hall, S., 1991. Progressive deterioration of pollen grains in south-central US
rockshelters. Journal of Palynology, 159e164.
Hill, J.N., Hevly, R.H., 1968. Pollen at Broken K Pueblo: some new
interpretations. American Antiquity 33, 200e210.
Huckell, L.W., Toll, M.S., 2004. Wild plant use in the North American
Southwest. In: Minnis, P. (Ed.), People and Plants in Ancient Western
North America. Smithsonian Books, Washington, DC, pp. 37e114.
Hunter, A., 1999. Plant use. In: Kamp, K.A., Whittaker, J.C. (Eds.), Surviving
Adversity. The Sinagua of Lizard Man Village, Anthropological Papers
No. 120. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT, pp. 139e151.
Jacobs, B.F., 1985. Identification of pine pollen from the southwestern United
States. In: Jacobs, B.F., Davis, O.K. (Eds.), Late Quaternary Vegetation
and Climates of the American Southwest, Contribution Series No. 16.
American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists, Dallas, TX, pp.
155e168.
Jones, W.D., Newell, L.C., 1946. Pollination Cycles and Pollen Dispersal in
Relation To Grass Improvement, Agricultural Experimental Bulletin,
148. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NB.
Kapp, R.O., Davis, O.K., King, J.E., 2000. Pollen and Spores, second ed.
American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists, Dallas, TX.
Kelso, G., 1976. Absolute pollen frequencies applied to the interpretation of
human activities in northern Arizona. PhD dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. University Microfilms,
Ann Arbor.
2101
McLaughlin, D., 1977. Analysis of pollen from the Baca Float Sites. In:
Doyel, D.E. (Ed.), Excavations in the Middle Santa Cruz River Valley,
Southeastern Arizona, Contributions to Highway Salvage Archaeology in
Arizona, No. 44. Arizona State Museum. University of Arizona, Tucson,
AZ, pp. 170e177.
Moerman, D.E., 1998. Native American Ethnobotany. Timber Press, Portland,
OR.
Moore, P.D., Webb, J.A., Collinson, M.E., 1991. Pollen Analysis, second ed.
Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.
Nabhan, G., Smith, S., Coder, M., 2004. Woodlands in Crisis: A Legacy of
Lost Biodiversity on the Colorado Plateau. University of Arizona Press,
Tucson, AZ.
Nequatewa, E., 1943. Some Hopi recipes for the preparation of wild plant
foods. Plateau 18, 18e20.
Rea, A.M., 1997. At the Desert’s Green Edge. An Ethnobotany of the Gila
River Pima. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.
Sears, P., 1937. Pollen analysis as an aid in dating cultural deposits in the
United States. In: MacCurdy, G.G. (Ed.), Early Man. Lippincott,
Philadelphia, PA, pp. 61e66.
Sears, P., 1952. Palynology in southern North America. I. Archaeological
horizons in the basins of New Mexico. Geological Society of America
Bulletin 63, 241e254.
Smith, S., 1998. Processing pollen samples from archaeological sites in the
Southwestern United States: an example of differential recovery from
two heavy liquid separation procedures. In: Bryant Jr., V.M.,
Wrenn, J.H. (Eds.), New Developments in Palynomorph Sampling, Extraction, and Analysis. American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists,
Dallas, TX, pp. 29e34.
Smith, S., Geib, P.R., 2007. Special pollen studies from the N16 project: bridging the inferential gap between pollen analysis and past behaviour. In:
Geib, P.R., Spurr, K (Eds.), Prehistory of the Northern Kayenta Anasazi
Region: Archaeological Excavations along the Navajo Mountain Road,
Chapter 12, Report No. 02e48. Navajo Nation Archaeology Department,
Window RockAZ.
Stevenson, M.C., 1915. Ethnobotany of the Zuni Indians, Thirtieth Annual
Report. The Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, DC.
Thomas, D.H., 1986. Contemporary hunter gatherer archaeology in America.
In: Meltzer, D.J., Fowler, D.D., Sabloff, J.A. (Eds.), American Archaeology: Past and Future. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC,
pp. 237e276.
US Department of Agriculture, 2006. National Resources Conservation
Service, The Plants Database. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge,
LA. http://plants.usda.gov (accessed June 2005).
Van Ness, M.A., 1986. Desha complex macrobotanical fecal remains: an
Archaic diet in the American Southwest. MA thesis, Department of
Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.
Van Ness, M.A., Hansen, E., 1996. Archaic subsistence in Glen Canyon. In:
Geib, P.R. (Ed.), Glen Canyon Revisited, Anthropological Papers No.
119. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT, pp. 117e125.
Vestal, P.A., 1952. The ethnobotany of the Ramah Navaho. Papers of the
Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 40, 1e94.
Wheat, M.M., 1967. Survival Arts of the Primitive Paiutes. University of
Nevada Press, Reno, NV.