Richard I. Ford

Paleoethnobotany in American Archaeology

Publisher Summary This chapter discusses the paleoethnobotany in American archaeology. For a half-century, American archaeologists have been encouraged to save plant remains from their sites for botanically trained scientists to identify and to interpret. Paleoethnobotany lacks a unifying theory. Its methods are principally derived from botanical sciences and its contributions are determined by botanical questions or specific archaeological problems. Plants have been crucial to the religious life of most cultures; indeed, they are often the metaphor for life itself. Calendrical rites are signaled by the changes in the life cycles of important plants. To understand how plant populations withstand exploitation, one must have detailed knowledge of their biology. Three major forces affect plant variability, viability, and productivity: human selection, animal predation, and insect herbivority and nonbiological natural phenomena.

SANGRE DE CRISTO MICACEOUS CLAYS

Abstract Archaeological research has shown that northern Rio Grande potters have used micaceous clays in the production of cooking, serving, and ritual vessels for more than 700 years, yet little is known about the raw material sources used to make these remarkable wares. Recent survey with traditional potters reveals the locations of micaceous clay deposits and the criteria used to select clays for pottery manufacturing. Instmmental neutron activation analysis (INAA) of raw material samples demonstrates that sources are chemically distinct and that archaeological and ethnographic vessels may be matched to them with a high degree of confidence. Source matches for ceramics attributed to Pueblo, Jicarilla Apache, and Hispanic potters illustrates the potential of geochemical testing to reveal previously unrecognized complexity in the ceramic markets and land-use patterns of the northern Rio Grande. A case study from Picurís Pueblo showcases the relevance of ceramic source analysis to modern pottery communities. Abstract La investigación arqueológica ha demostrado que los alfareros del septentrional del Río Grande han utilizado arcillas micáceas en la producción de vasijas para cocinar, para servir, y para uso ritual durante más de 700 años; sin embargo, se sabe poco sobre las fuentes de la materia prima usada para fabricar estas impresionantes vasijas. Un examen reciente de alfareros tradicionales revela las localizations de depósitos de arcilla micáceos y de los criterios usados para seleccionar las arcillas para la fabricatión de la cerámica. El análisis por medio de Activación Instrumental de Neutrón de las muestras de materia prima demuestra que las fuentes son químicamente distintas y que las vasijas arqueológicas y etnográficas se pueden aparear con un alto grado de confianza. El acoplamiento de fuentes de la cerámica atribuida al Pueblo, Jicarilla Apache, y a los alfareros hispánicos, ilustran el potential de la prueba geoquímica para revelar una complejidad previamente desconocida en los mercados de cerámica y los patrones del uso del suelo del septentrional del Río Grande. Un estudio de caso del pueblo de Picurís muestra con claridad la importancia del análisis de fuentes de la cerámica a las actuales comunidades de alfarería.

Anthropological perspective of ethnobotany in the Greater Southwest

During the formative period of ethnobotanical studies in the Southwest, Edward Palmer established a standard for reporting useful plants that continues today and Frank. H. Cushing wrote a classic ethnobotany from an anthropological perspective,Z uni Breadstuff. Since these beginnings single tribal studies and, more recently, archaeobotanical investigations have received emphasis. Linguistic studies of plant names and their classification have lagged and synthetic summaries and interpretative explanations of plant use are still demanded. Anthropology’s unique contribution to Southwestern ethnobotany is relating socially shared plant taxonomies and cultural rules for behaving with plants to explain why certain plants are used and others are ignored.

Basketmaker Food Plants from the Cimarron District, Northeastern New Mexico

ABSTRACTUse of wild food plants during the Basketmaker period is not well known. For this reason, carbonized plant macro remains were collected from two Basket maker sites near Cimarron, New Mexico. Corn, beans, and 11 other food plants were identified. New additions to the Basket maker food plant inventory include marsh elder, wild plum, squawbush, and chokecherries. The paleobotanical evidence is interpreted to indicate that pigweed, lambsquarters, sunflowers, and marsh elder were probably permitted to grow among the corn and beans. If so, this practice would have maximized production, insuring additional food in years of crop failure and adding variety in years of plenty.

The Distinguished Ethnobiologist Award Address: Dick in Wonderland: Adventures of an Ethnobiologist

I am most grateful to the Society of Ethnobiology for presenting me with its first Distinguished Ethnobiologist Award. Naturally, the recipient questions if he is deserving of such an honor when there are so many others whose contributions are equally or more meritorious. This new award, I am certain, will honor them as they become historically recognized contributors to the dynamic field of Ethnobiology. As I prepared this acceptance speech, I received many messages asking me to include the sources of inspiration for my career and to provide guidance for the next generation of ethnobiologists so that they may appreciate the multifaceted field of Ethnobiology as a very satisfying career choice. I am now part of history as I present this brief autobiographical review of my experiences in the wondrous field of ethnobiology. Although I was fortunate to have had personal friendships with many of our pioneers, the most influential were Volney Jones, my mentor and dissertation adviser at the University of Michigan, and Dr. Edward Castetter, Volney’s M.S. adviser at the University of New Mexico. Volney taught me how to conduct ethnobotanical fieldwork and to engage in paleo-ethnobotanical laboratory identifications, both morphometric and microscopic, as flotation fragments came to dominate archaeological plant inventories. Professor Castetter encouraged my ethnobiological research in the Pueblos by providing me with his unpublished field notes and ideas to integrate plants and animals from an ecological perspective. Others contributed uniquely to my ethnobotanical field methods and paleo-ethnobotanical comparative studies. Al Whiting, Dick Schultes, Jim Duke, and even the now forgotten Gretchen Beardsley (1939, 1942) assisted my field training through advice and helpful criticism. C. Earl ‘‘Smitty’’ Smith, Hugh Cutler, Leonard Blake, and Larry Kaplan advanced my plant identification skills and comparative studies. I am disappointed that I did not know Melvin R. Gilmore or John Peabody Harrington. All inspired me and made me a better ethnoscientist. I will present four vignettes to examine my career choices and how they might help others fully appreciate Ethnobiology.

Volney Hurt Jones, 1903–1982

On 12 December 1982, Volney Jones succumbed to heart failure. He had had a long and distinguished career as a pioneer ethnobotanist. He was born in Comanche, Texas, and his father was a minister who was frequently transferred and hence many Texas towns became Volneys temporary residence. His professional career began to develop at North Texas Agricultural College where he majored in agriculture. He transferred to Texas A&M University where he was employed by Professor Robert G. Reeves, geneticist and specialist in corn. Upon graduation, Jones was invited to the University of New Mexico to assist Professor Edward S. Castetter as a graduate student in his ethnobiology program. He received his M.A. degree in biology with a minor in English in August 1931 and immediately moved to Ann Arbor to become a student assistant to Dr. Melvin R. Gilmore, a North American Indian specialist, Curator of Ethnology in the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, and Director of its Ethnobotanical Laboratory. In 1940 following the death of Gilmore, Jones was appointed to the same positions, which he held until his official retirement in 1969. Although his formal training was in botanical systematics, genetics and plant physiology, at Michigan his initial responsibility was to identify plant remains from archaeological sites. There was no precedent for this undertaking on a major scale and certainly no standard methodology or keys for identifying charred and desiccated plants existed in the United States. Jones developed a series of new techniques for charcoal identification, seed analysis, and coprolite investigations. He returned to the archaeologists detailed reports with an anthropological interpretation of the plants based upon American Indian ethnobotany. His publications about the archaeobotany of Newt Kash Hollow, Kentucky; Jemez Cave, New Mexico; and Durango, Colorado, Basket Maker shelters remain exemplary. Because of his reputation, he was selected as staff ethnobotanist on Harvard University Peabody Museums Awatovi Expedition. Despite his seminal contributions to archaeobotany, however, his preoccupation was American Indian ethnobotany. His training in ethnology was secondary to botany but he brought a professional level of anthropology to ethnobotany. His masters thesis at New Mexico remains the only ethnobotanical study of Isleta Pueblo. His papers on the vegetal crafts of the Ojibwa are models for the technological study ofnonwestern material culture. After his retirement, several comparative studies of American Indian ethnobotany occupied his time. These await publication in the Handbook of North American Indians. Volney Jones left ethnobotany with a legacy of original contributions and a generation of trained graduate students. Students fondly remember him as a warm, witty, and dedicated teacher. Those who were his graduate students marvelled at his encyclopedic memory for American Indian and ethnobotanical citations. He