TARL Workshop: Methods in Dental Pathological Data Collection!

Our wonderful participants and instructors all gloved and masked up per TARL protocol.

This past weekend, TARL had the pleasure of hosting instructors from Texas State University, Caroline Znachko and Lauren Koutlias, for our methods in dental pathological data collection. The studies received a series of lectures where the instructors presented on tooth identification in the morning and dental pathology in the afternoon.

Instructor Caroline Znachko aiding students in tooth identification. 

Each lecture was followed by hands on tooth identification and pathology identification with case studies from TARL. These case studies allowed participants to observe a series of individuals marked by supernumerary teeth, abscesses affecting the alveolar process around dentition, linear enamel hypoplasias, and caries. Participants learned methods for recording both dental presence and all of the unique characteristics of each dental arcade.

Instructor Lauren Koutlias aiding in participants in dental pathology identification. 

We are grateful to our expert instructors for sharing their knowledge with our participants and thank you to all of our wonderful participants for taking part of your weekend to participate in this TARL workshop! TARL looks forward to having more successful workshops in the near future!

To suggest future workshops or to aid in providing a workshop please contact TARL staff in the comments section or through email.

TARL Internship Program Update for the 2019-2020 Long Session!

 

We are delighted to announce that all TARL internship spots are taken for the 2019-2020 long session! Our interns are integral in achieving our mission here at TARL and we are thrilled that the UT students have eagerly sought out these positions. The internship program provides students with the opportunity to explore their interests in archaeology and best practices in curation. If you are an interested student please reach out about our open internship spots for the 2020-2021 sessions.

 

 

TAS Curation Task Force: Training and Curation Days

TARL has been delighted to host a series of curation workshops in conjunction with the Texas Archeological Society. Two three-day workshops focused on collections management, curation ethics, proper curation techniques and  aiding in the repackaging of artifacts from TAS field schools including Musk Hog, Oblate, and data entry for the Columbus field school. Attendees received hands-on experience in processing artifacts, creating condition
assessments for field and lab reports, database systems inventorying and artifact tag creation along with box tag creation. We are delighted to be continuing this series of curation workshops by supporting the regular TAS  curation day over the weekend once a month.

TAS participants inventorying artifacts.

To all of our wonderful attendees and TAS members, thank you for your support of Texas Archaeology!

Microwear Analysis of Experimental and Artifactual Burin Tools from the Edd Melton Site, 41BL1138, Bell County, Texas.

David G. Robinson and Marilyn Shoberg

 

The analysis and write-up of the 2002 TAS Field School excavations at the Edd Melton Site in Bell County, Texas, yielded surprising finds. After excavation and inventorying, the Edd Melton Site assemblage showed an interesting co-occurrence of burin spalls and the unusual finds of 24 perforated freshwater mussel shells.  Burin spalls are tools struck deliberately at an approximate ninety-degree angle to the face of the flake or core. A working hypothesis that burin spalls were tools used for working the mussel shells was formulated after Prof. Fred Valdez of UT-Austin alerted the authors to the meaningful correlation of burin spalls and carved shell.  In Valdez’s work in the Mayan culture area of Belize, long burin spalls are associated with carved shell (Valdez, pers. Com.).  It is accepted generally in Mayan archeology that specialized burins are tools for working shell artifacts.

The hypothesis derived from this correlation is direct: the site burins were tools to carve, perforate, and drill the perforated mussel shell on the site.  It was decided to test the hypothesis by conducting an experiment of high magnification examination of site burins and comparing them to burins worked experimentally on modern shell.

The conduct of the experiment proceeded timewise in two phases. The first phase involved the production of chert burin spalls and their application to modern shell surfaces to identify actual shell wear on tools.  The second phase was the high magnification use-wear analysis of both the experimental burins and the archeologic burins recovered from the Edd Melton site.  Relevant patterns could then be compared with reliability.  Christopher W. Ringstaff of The Texas Department of Transportation kindly donated expert skill and Bell County chert material to produce the experimental burin spalls. Marilyn Shoberg of TARL and Texas State University conducted the second phase of the experiment.  All the microscope work was conducted at the Microscopy Laboratory, the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, UT-Austin. This study of the combination of experimental archeology and microwear analysis is reported in great detail in the report on 41BL1138 forthcoming in the Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society in the fall of 2019.

The analytical method for microwear analysis is patterned after the work of Semenov (1964) comparing a complex of wear traces including edge damage, micropolishes, and striations to those attributes on experimental tool analogs at magnifications greater than 100x.  Keeley (1980) improved the “high-power approach” to include kinematics of use or angle of attack to describe more clearly how striations in micropolish reflect the action used in specific tasks.  The microscope at TARL used for this analysis is a reflected-light differential-interference Olympus BH2 microscope with Nomarski optics.  The interpretation of wear traces is based on comparison with experimental tool analogs used in a broad range of experiments.  In conjunction with the analysis of this sample of four small tools from 41BL1138, experimental burins were used individually cutting, drilling, slicing, and graving fresh water mollusk shell; and analyzed for reference.

The analysis indicates that three of the small tools from the site were used in manufacturing tasks on shell; two used as drills, one used cutting.  One tool was used cutting soft animal tissue.  One of the drills has additional use of one edge in scraping shell.

The photomicrograph shows the wear on one of the two archaeological tools used drilling shell.

Burin spall 123, lateral  facet @ 500x;  overlapping groups of subparallel troughs in bright platy micropolish originate at the edge of a flake scar at the utilized end of the burin.  The tip of the tool is beyond the bottom of the photomicrograph.  The orientation of the striations (arrows) to the edge of the tool reflect the kinematics of use or angle of attack, i.e. sequential actions parallel and oblique to the tip as in piercing and twisting motions.

Experimental burin spall used drilling shell @ 500x.  Smooth subparallel troughs of variable width in micropolish reflect the angle of attack when the drill bit was inserted into the shell.  Sharp single striations across the long sleeks are from grit particles dragged across the edge in a subsequent action.  Patches of very bright angular debris are embedded in the polish.

The diagnostic wear traces observed in this study of experimental burins used on fresh water mollusk shell are bright patches of platy micropolish with long subparallel troughs of variable width, and with angular particles or bright debris of considerable variability in size embedded in the micropolish.

 

References Cited

Keeley, L.

1980   Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear Analysis.  University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Semenov, S.

1964   Prehistoric Technology.  Cory, Adams & Mackay, London.

1970s Archaeological Investigations along Bayou Loco in Nacogdoches County, Texas

By Timothy K. Perttula and Paul Marceaux

In 1972 and 1975, University of Texas (UT) archaeologists conducted investigations on sites located within the proposed Bayou Loco Reservoir or Lake Nacogdoches project area in Nacogdoches County, Texas; the Nacogdoches Archeological Society also completed archaeological investigations on the project. Bayou Loco is a southward-flowing tributary of the Angelina River. During that work, extensive excavations were conducted at the Mayhew (41NA21) and Deshazo (41NA13/27) sites, and the results of work at those sites has been published by Kenmotsu (1992) and Story (1982, 1995). Much more moderate archaeological investigations were conducted in 1975 by UT at four other sites: Pleasant Hill (41NA19), Riser (41NA20), Iron Rock (41NA22), and Loco Bottom (41NA23) (Figure 1). Without detailed analysis in 2018 of the project records and recovered artifacts curated at the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory at The University of Texas at Austin, the results of the archaeological work at these sites had not been made available before now.

 

Figure 1. The general locations of the four sites tested by UT at Lake Nacogdoches. Figure prepared by Lance Trask.

 

What the UT archaeologists found out was that the valley was occupied as early as the Middle Archaic (ca. 8000-5000 years ago) and Late Archaic (ca. 5000-2500 years ago) periods, but the first evidence of a substantial use of the land only took place during the Woodland period (ca. 2500-1150 years ago) by Mossy Grove peoples. Each of the four sites have evidence for settlement by Woodland period hunters and gatherers. Ancestral Caddo peoples that may be descendants of Mossy Grove groups lived and occupied the Bayou Loco valley from as early as ca. A.D. 900, but the most intensive settlement of the valley was after ca. A.D. 1400-1450 (during the Late Caddo period), and particularly after ca. A.D. 1680 and as late as ca. A.D. 1720 or so during the Historic Caddo Allen phase. There is a very high proportion of brushed sherds in the utility wares at the Iron Rock and Loco Bottom sites, as well as at the Mayhew and Deshazo sites in the reservoir project area. Taken together with substantial amounts of Patton Engraved fine ware ceramics, as well as the recovery or reporting of early 18th century European glass beads from the two sites (Figure 2), and substantial numbers of European goods at the nearby Mayhew and Deshazo sites, this indicates that they were occupied by Caddo peoples during the Historic Caddo period, and that they were a part of the community of Caddo peoples that lived along Bayou Loco during the period of early European contact and settlement (cf. Jackson et al. 2012; Prewitt 2019). These Caddo peoples appear to be affiliated with the Hainai Caddo, the preeminent ancestral Caddo group in East Texas at that time.

 

Figure 2. White oval-shaped glass bead from the Iron Rock site. Figure prepared by Paul Marceaux.

 

These Caddo peoples were farmers that lived year-round in farmsteads, hamlets, and villages dispersed across the Bayou Loco valley, and in a number of other drainages in the Angelina River basin. As best as can be determined from the archaeological investigations, the four sites tested by UT in 1975 were places of one to several ancestral Caddo houses that had associated trash midden deposits, and were likely surrounded by fields and maintained landscapes with available wild plant foods, wood for fires, and wood and grass for construction purposes. These settlements were probably occupied for at most 1-2 generations of Caddo families, before they were abandoned or the farmsteads moved to another location in the valley.

 

The most abundant artifact category at the Bayou Loco sites are sherds from ceramic vessels made, used, broken, then discarded at the ancestral Caddo settlements. Most of the sherds are from vessels tempered with grog or crushed sherds, with the regular use of burned bone or crushed pieces of hematite as additional temper inclusions. The sites are dominated by brushed utility wares from Bullard Brushed and Spradley Brushed-Incised jars, likely used primarily as cooking and storage vessels (Figure 3). Brushed pottery comprises 72.3-84.2 percent of the decorated sherds from the Bayou Loco sites occupied after ca. A.D. 1680. Incised, punctated, and incised-punctated decorative classes are relatively abundant among the vessel sherds not decorated with brushed marks, as are Lindsey Grooved sherds, and sherds with neck banded and appliqued-punctated decorative elements.

 

Figure 3. Brushed-incised, brushed-lip notched, and brushed-appliqued rim and body sherds from the iron Rock site: top row, Spradley Brushed-Incised; lower left, brushed-lip notched rim sherd; lower right, brushed-appliqued rim sherd. Figure prepared by Paul Marceaux.

 

Fine ware vessel sherds with engraved, engraved-punctated, and engraved-brushed decorative elements only comprise between 6.6-13.8 percent of the decorated sherds at the Bayou Loco sites. The principal fine ware type is Patton Engraved, a diagnostic element of Allen phase sites in the Neches and Angelina river basins (Figure 4), but there are also sherds from Poynor Engraved and Hume Engraved vessels; most fine ware sherds are from carinated bowls, but there are also bottles and compound bowls in the assemblages. Fine wares used for serving foods and holding liquids appear to have been regularly used by the inhabitants at each of these Historic Caddo sites.

Figure 4. Patton Engraved and Hume Engraved rim and body sherds from the Loco Bottom site: b, e-l, Patton Engraved; a, c-d, Hume Engraved. Figure prepared by Paul Marceaux.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References Cited

 

Jackson, M. K., T. Middlebrook, G. Avery, H. Shafer, and B. Meissner

2012    Trade and Cultural Interaction along El Camino Real de los Tejas During the Spanish Colonial and Republic Periods in Nacogdoches County, Texas. 2 Vols. Nine Flags Museum, Nacogdoches.

 

Kenmotsu, N. A

1992    The Mayhew Site: A Possible Hasinai Farmstead, Nacogdoches County, Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 63:135-174.

 

Prewitt, E. R.

2019    Bayou Loco: Investigations and Speculations. Journal of Northeast Texas Archaeology 80:1-16.

 

Story, D. A. (editor)

1982    The Deshazo Site, Nacogdoches County, Texas, Vol. 1: The Site, Its Setting, Investigations, Cultural Features, Artifacts of Non-Native Manufacture, and Subsistence Remains. Texas Antiquities Permit Series No. 7. Texas Antiquities Committee, Austin.

 

1995    The Deshazo Site, Nacogdoches County, Texas, Vol. 2: Artifacts of Native Manufacture. Studies in Archeology 21. Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin.

 

The Prehistory Research Project is moving (back) to TARL

Nancy Velchoff and Thomas J. Williams

 

We are delighted to announce that The Prehistory Research Project (formerly known as The Gault Project) will be returning to its roots: Starting early summer 2019 the PRP staff will move the project from its current home at Texas State University in San Marcos to Building 5C at TARL.

Some of you (indeed many of you) are long-familiar with the old Gault Project but for those who might not be, it was a research project that was formed under the auspices of the TARL family and operated out of TARL Building 5A from 1999 to 2009. The Gault Project was created to help manage cultural materials that were being excavated from the Gault Archaeological Site which is located 40 miles north of Austin. The Prehistory Research Project (PRP) expanded its research from the Gault Project to dedicate research efforts beyond the Gault Site to exploring the early human occupations of the Americas.

Volunteers and professional Archaeologists hard at work in Area 15 of the Gault Site

Background in Brief

The Gault Archaeological Site is named for the original owner, Henry Gault whose farm had a colorful past; attracting unwanted collectors, as well as professional and avocational archaeologists for over a century. Thankfully, science and education prevailed and helped stop the damage being done from pay-to-dig operations by the late 1990s.  Archaeologists were eventually allowed unrestricted access to the property to conduct excavations when the owners, Ricky and Howard Lindsey granted a 3-year access – 1999 to 2002 – for Dr. Mike Collins to investigate the site. These excavations revealed a prolific, multi-component, well-stratified site representing almost every stone-age culture known in Central Texas.

As is often the case when conducting large-scale archaeological excavations (and as many an avocational and professional can attest), it was the final few days of that 3-year excavation lease that last minute testing revealed artifacts well-below the known Clovis zone. These findings were convincing evidence of older occupations at the site and led to renewed negotiations with the landowners for several years. In early 2007 Gault was purchased by Dr. Collins and the deed ownership donated to The Archaeological Conservancy.

Excavations resumed by 2007, however in the summer of 2009, a generous invitation to move the project to San Marcos from the Anthropology Department at Texas State University was accepted by Dr. Collins and Dr. Clark Wernecke. The relocation of such a high-profile group of researchers would prove beneficial in Texas State’s quest for recognition as an emerging research institution.  It was clear that the Gault Site had mounting evidence that would eventually re-write prehistory of the earliest peoples in the Americas. Thus, The Gault Project grew and expanded to become The Prehistory Research Project.

Artifacts from the deepest stratigraphic levels at the Gault Site, named the Gault Assemblage. These artifacts are dated to between 16,000 and 21,000 years old.

Today, the PRP is an active, vibrant project that supports research across the globe with a special interest in all early archaeological evidence, from North, Central, and South America, where sites much older than 13,500 years ago are being discovered or rediscovered on a consistent basis.

A tour group from the Society for American Archaeology explore the Gault Site with Dr. Michael Collins

Moving to TARL

As of August 31, 2019, our 10-year arrangement with Texas State University will end on a high note as some of our biggest and most prominent accomplishments have occurred under the auspices of Texas State University. But we are more than ready to move back home to TARL. We will be bringing with us a dedicated team of researchers and, in conjunction with the Gault School of Archaeological Research (GSAR).

Our move to TARL is very much a homecoming for the Gault Archaeological Site and the Prehistory Research Project.  We are thrilled to re-unite with our colleagues and begin a new collaborative partnership with the great folks at TARL and the University of Texas at Austin that we believe will create exciting new opportunities and make archaeology accessible to all!

In the meantime, look for additional details as we get closer to making this endeavor happen, and would like to extend our thanks and gratitude to Texas State University for hosting the project over the past decade and thank all of our friends, colleagues, volunteers, and students who have supported us throughout our time there.

Heartfelt Gratitude and Thanks to TARL for a much-anticipated homecoming!

Sincerely

The Staff of the Prehistory Research Project

Mike Collins

Clark Wernecke

Nancy Velchoff

Sergio Ayala

Tom Williams

Jennifer Gandy

Robert Lassen

Mike Quigg

Alan Slade

 

 

TARL Accepts Gift of Jeri Redcorn Ceramic Vessels

The Texas Archeological Research Laboratory at The University of Texas (TARL) recently accepted a gift from an anonymous donor of 13 ceramic vessels made by Jeri Redcorn, a noted modern Caddo ceramic artist (Redcorn 2019). Jeri began to make Caddo ceramics in 1992 (Figure 1), successfully reviving the tradition of Caddo ceramics. In 2009, President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama selected one of her engraved bottles for display in the White House Oval Office.

Figure 1. Jeri Redcorn preparing clay coils for the manufacture of a ceramic vessel.

The ceramic vessels (Figure 2) were made by Jeri between 1995-2007, and had been purchased by the anonymous donor either at one of the annual Caddo Conferences, or by special request. They include both reduced fired black vessels—engraved bottles (n=3), an engraved bulbous-necked engraved bottle (n=1), engraved neckless bottles (n=1), engraved seed jars (n=2), engraved bowls (n=1), and plain effigy bottles (n=1)—and vessels fired to a reddish-brown or red color. These include an engraved carinated bowl, an effigy bowl with a turkey head and a tail rider, and a neckless engraved bottle. Finally, there is a large reconstructed trailed-incised jar. These vessels feel right at home amidst the impressive collection of ancestral Caddo ceramic vessels at TARL from sites investigated throughout East Texas.

Figure 2. A selection of the ceramic vessels donated to TARL includes the seed jar, engraved bottles including the bulbous-necked engraved bottle, engraved bowl,  and effigy bowl.

References Cited

Redcorn, Jeri

2019    Caddo Pottery: Connecting with my Ancestors. In Ancestral Caddo Ceramic Traditions, edited by Duncan P. McKinnon, Jeffrey S. Girard, and Timothy K. Perttula. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, in preparation.

 

Current Research on Painted Pebble Styles

Elton R. Prewitt

Texas Archeological Research Laboratory

The University of Texas at Austin

Archeologists have known of the painted pebbles in southwest Texas for about 100 years. Extensive excavation of dry rockshelters in the eastern and central Trans-Pecos region began in the 1920s. Initial digging by local collectors was followed in the 1930s by over half-dozen institutions that mounted multiple museum-stuffing expeditions.

Davenport and Chelf (1941) compiled 281 pebble designs observed in various collections from Val Verde county made during the 1920s and 1930s. The Amistad Reservoir salvage program carried out by UT Austin’s Texas Archeological Salvage Project (TASP) from 1958 to 1969 provided numerous additional samples that were recovered from various rockshelters in the Lower Pecos River portion of the eastern Trans-Pecos. As a result, the greatest number of known painted pebbles are from Val Verde county.

UT Austin student and TASP employee Mark Parsons (1967) studied painted pebbles intensively during the early 1960s. His full research paper, in which he worked with a sample of roughly 400 specimens (interpolated from his 1967 references), was never published, but a summary of it appeared later (Parsons 1986). Parsons’ work provides a foundation for continuing study of these fascinating artifacts. He demonstrated that the narrow end of most pebbles is the top portion of the design, but importantly he also defined a Core Motif comprised of 3 elements, and he described six proposed styles of pebbles.

The three elements of the Core Motif defined by Parsons include a Bisecting Element consisting of one or more vertical lines, a Central Element that is horizontal and located toward the lower portion of the pebble, and Flanking Elements positioned on either side of the bisecting element (Fig. 1). Each of these elements may comprise a variety of motifs.

Figure 1: Core Motif showing a) Bisecting Element; b) Central Element; c) Flanking Element (SID00411).-

The six painted pebble styles proposed by Parsons are currently being reviewed as part of a long-term study initiated by Shumla in 2009. The research team that includes Dr. Jean Clottes (Foix, France), Dr. Carolyn E. Boyd (Texas State University), and Elton R. Prewitt (TARL) currently works with a sample of roughly 750 painted pebbles. Although modifications to Parsons’ styles appear warranted, the basic structure he presented is sound and requires tweaking only in light of specimens excavated subsequent to his study.

Mock (1987, 2011, 2012, 2013) employs a different method of grouping painted pebbles based upon individual motifs rather than overall style. Her work has contributed significantly to possible pebble motif interpretations. However, we choose to follow the earlier work by Parsons that was based upon analysis techniques used in art history studies.

Pebbles may be painted in red, black or both, and sometimes yellow or white may be observed. Color is not used as a factor in the present examination of style. The illustrations that follow are enhanced either by pencil shading or digital overlay in order to make the sometimes very dim designs visible. Specimens are identified by their Shumla identification number (SID).

Parsons’ Style 1 exhibits geometric patterns. The Bisecting Element generally is three vertical lines while the Central Element has concentric circles and the Flanking Elements contain “X”s or diagonal lines.  Designs often wrap around the lateral edges and most frequently are executed by fine lines. However, some pebbles of this style are executed by broader lines, prompting a suggestion that two substyles might be defined (Fig. 2).

Figure 2: Style 1, Early Geometrics; a) Style 1A (SID00775); b) Style 1B (SID00715).

In Parsons’ Style 2 the Bisecting Element usually is three lines, but the Central Element may be rectangular or circular with linear or spatulate forms radiating from it. The Flanking Elements include horizontal crescent lines or “flags.” While not overtly so, this style has elements of anthropomorphic representation. The Central Element circle is very suggestive of female genitalia. Two substyles are distinguished, the first of which includes horizontal crescents as originally defined by Parsons. The second includes straight lines (flags) that may be horizontal or diagonal and usually intersect a vertical line (Fig. 3).

Figure 3: Style 2, Flag Design showing obverse and reverse patterns; a) Style 2A (SID00154); b) Style 2B (SID00155).

Style 3 pebbles are overtly anthropomorphic with female genitalia apparent in the Central Element. The key features that identify this style are vertically-oriented chevrons positioned to suggest eyes in the Flanking Elements. Sometimes there are multiple chevrons, and some may be joined into a heart shape (Fig. 4).

Figure 4: Style 3, Chevron Eyes oriented vertically; a) SID00148; b) SID00500.

Parsons’ Style 4 is problematical. He defined this style based upon only three specimens, all of which are anthropomorphic exhibiting eyes similar to Style 5. The key motif he proposed is a “V” shape suggestive of projectiles. While this motif appears on several pebbles other than the original three, none of them are anthropomorphic with identifiable eyes. Tentatively, Style 4 may be redefined to include pebbles that have anthropomorphic qualities, especially female genitalia in the Central Element, but that lack eye representations in the Flanking Elements. The three pebbles Parsons used to define this style are now included in Style 5. Five substyles of Style 4 may be recognized (Fig. 5).  In Style 4A the Bisecting Element includes a vee shape or a zigzag. Style 4B has anthropomorphic elements but no eyes while Style 4C is defined by fine-line application and the Central Element exhibits open circle or brackets. Style 4D comprises most examples not assignable to Styles 4A, 4B or 4C. Style 4E includes examples where apparent hair (or head) only is depicted either in red or black monochrome.

Figure 5: Style 4, Anthropomorphic, lacking eyes; a) Style 4A (SID00630); b) Style 4B (SID00626); c) Style 4C (SID00181); d) Style 4D (SID00611); e) Style 4E (SID00256).

Parsons’ Style 5 includes clearly anthropomorphic representations that he divided into two substyles. However, considering the observable variation in the currently available examples it appears four substyles might be appropriate for this group. Basic to the style is the presence of open brackets or circles in the Central Element and depictions of eyes in the upper Flanking Elements (Style 5A). Some examples exhibit downward diagonal lines or bands that converge toward the open brackets or circles (Style 5B). Others appear to have subtle shading on the upper portions of the pebbles suggestive of hair or possibly skull caps (Style 5C). Some anthropomorphic pebbles (Style 5D) are simply not assignable to a specific substyle (Fig. 6).

Figure 6: Style 5, Anthropomorphic, eyes depicted; a) Style 5A (SID00632); b) Style 5B (SID00022); c) Style 5C (SID00535); d) Style 5D (SID00285).

Style 6 also is anthropomorphic, but hair is clearly depicted both on obverse and reverse faces of the pebble. The Central Element is positioned higher on the pebbles than in other styles; it usually includes a rectangle or oval suggestive of a mouth. Eyes are most frequently depicted by short horizontal bars, but sometimes are depicted by vertical chevrons. No revisions are proposed for Style 6 (Fig. 7).

Figure 7: Style 6, Anthropomorphic, hair clearly depicted; a) SID00397; b) SID00701.

Newly proposed Style 7 includes a variety of geometric designs that differ markedly from those included in Style 1. Divided into three substyles, Style 7 pebbles may exhibit designs that depict “butterfly” motifs (Style 7A) while others comprise vertical lines only (Style 7B). Still others (Style 7C) contain various geometrics such as chevrons that may be nested or sometimes interlocking (Fig. 8).

 

Figure 8: Style 7, Late Geometrics; a) Style 7A (SID00382); b) Style 7B (SID00733); c) Style 7c (SID00189).

Parsons (1967, 1986) thought the various styles of painted pebbles formed a continuous artistic tradition that extended from the Early Archaic period through the Late Prehistoric period. That notion, however, was based on an outdated concept of Lower Pecos River regional chronology wherein the Late Archaic began at about 3000 B.P. As currently understood, the Late Archaic begins at about 4000 B.P. (Black and Dial 2005; Castaneda et al. 2018).

As originally proposed by Parsons, Style 1 pebbles indeed date to the Early Archaic (9000 – 6000 B.P.) as is confirmed by stratigraphic position and radiocarbon assays obtained from Eagle Cave (41VV167) near Langtry (Koenig and Black 2017). None of the styles are found in contexts suggesting a Middle Archaic (6000 – 4000 B.P.) age affiliation, contrary to assertions by some researchers (Mock 2012; Turpin and Middleton 1998). Styles 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 are all Late Archaic (4000 – 1200 B.P.) in age although some may extend into the early part of the Late Prehistoric. While Parsons postulated a temporal seriation among those styles, this suggestion cannot be confidently supported at this time. That Style 6 dates to the Late Prehistoric (1200 – 400 B.P.) as Parsons proposed seems quite reasonable although no examples have been found in clear unmixed context.

Acknowledgements:  Thank you to the numerous people who have assisted in this ongoing study. The staff at TARL, the Witte Memorial Museum in San Antonio, the Amistad National Recreation Area of the National Park Service and the Jack Skiles family generously allowed access to their collections.

This summary is revised and condensed from a paper entitled “A Review of Parsons’ Painted Pebble Styles” presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the Texas Archeological Society, San Antonio TX 26-28 October 2018.

 

 

References Cited

Black, S. L. and S. W. Dial, 2005. Electronic document, https://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/plateaus/prehistory, (accessed 19 December 2018).

Castañeda, A. M., C. W. Koenig, M. W. Rowe and K. L. Steelman, 2018. Portable X-ray Fluorescence of Lower Pecos Painted Pebbles: New Insights Regarding Chaîne Opératoire, Context, and Chronology. Manuscript on file, Shumla, Comstock TX (submitted to Journal of Archaeological Science).

Davenport, J.W. and C. Chelf, 1941. Painted Pebbles from the Lower Pecos and Big Bend Regions of Texas. Bulletin V, Witte Memorial Museum, San Antonio, TX.

Koenig, C.W. and S.L. Black, 2017. Low Impact, High Resolution: Unraveling and Learning from 10,000 Years of Hunter-Gatherer Use of Eagle Cave. Paper presented at Society for American Archaeology 82nd Annual Meeting, March 29th-April 2nd, Vancouver BC, Canada.

Mock, S.B., 1987. The Painted Pebbles of the Lower Pecos: A Study of Medium, Form and Content. M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at San Antonio.

Mock, S.B., 2011. Portable Rock Art of the Lower Pecos Canyonlands: The Symbolic Work of Women. American Indian Rock Art 37:115-132.

Mock, S.B., 2012. 41VV2079 – A Rock Shelter Excavated by Ted Sayles in 1932. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 83:191-213.

Mock, S.B., 2013. Painted Pebbles: Lower Pecos Women Take Charge. In: Shafer, H.J. (Ed.), Painters in Prehistory: Archaeology and Art of the Lower Pecos Canyonlands. Trinity University Press, San Antonio, TX, pp. 223-240.

Parsons, M.L., 1967. Painted Pebbles: A Stylistic and Chronological Analysis. Manuscript on file at Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, Austin TX.

Parsons, M.L., 1986. Painted Pebbles: Styles and Chronology. In: Shafer, H.J. (Ed.), Ancient Texans: Rock Art and Lifeways along the Lower Pecos. Texas Monthly Press, Austin, TX, pp. 180-185.

Turpin, S.A., and L. Middleton, 1998. Painted Pebbles from Archaic Contexts in 41VV156, A Rockshelter in the Lower Pecos Region, Val Verde County, Texas. La Tierra 25(3):51-54.

 

An Update on Research at Spirit Eye Cave

 

By Bryon Schroeder

A recent collaboration between the Center for Big Bend Studies of Sul Ross State University and the Texas Archeological
Research Lab focuses on advancing the analysis of both plant and human DNA at Spirit Eye Cave. The impetus for the maize
research follows from the results of radiocarbon dated cobs that confirm the presence of Late Archaic maize at the cave.
Housed at TARL are additional corncobs from a private collection that was recovered in the late 1990s from a collector in
California. The morphology of the cobs in this collection are consistent with older examples from southern New Mexico
and it is possible they are older than previously dated examples. In addition to dating the specimens housed at TARL, BioArch
at the University of York is sequencing the DNA so we can understand the phylogenetic history of this maize in regards to
previously sequenced specimens from the American Southwest and Mexico.

This is important because the role of maize in Late Archaic groups in the eastern Trans-Pecos is assumed to be minimal.
As Mallouf (2005:239) suggests “the use of cultigen was cursory at best, possibly serving only as a dietary supplement, and
may have been restricted to occasional, relatively haphazard and experimental plantings in suitable soils near springs or along
segments of larger drainages …” However isotopic analysis from several eastern Trans-Pecos burials suggests opposite trophic
patterns. As a general statement Piehl (2009:81) states, the Late Archaic individuals look, “similar to incipient agriculturalists in
the Jornada-Mogollon region” whereas the Late Prehistoric individuals, some presumed to be agriculturalists, look like Archaic
populations, “outside of the eastern Trans-Pecos or Lower Pecos regions, rather than incipient agriculturalists or those relying
on maize agriculture.” Although Piehl’s results were limited, they indicate maize may have had a longer and more significant role
in the region than was previously assumed.

Sampled Cob from Spirit Eye Cave

In addition to the maize research, we extracted samples to sequence the DNA from an individual that was part of the Spirit Eye
Cave collection recovered in California. Much like the maize research, the combination of mtDNA and radiocarbon data will help
us understand the individual’s phylogenetic history and provide a step forward for future collaboration for both descendant
communities and researchers grappling with heavily looted sheltered sites in Texas.

ONE BURNED PRICKLYPOPPY SEED AND A FEW OTHER THINGS WE DIDN’T EVEN KNOW WE HAD

Leslie L. Bush

Macrobotanical Analysis

 

 

Last fall, an archeologist working at TARL recognized a rare opportunity to look for plant remains from a site that had been excavated nearly 80 years ago. The site is the Rob Roy Site (41TV41), located in western Travis County, Texas on a terrace of the Colorado River. Austin residents will recognize the name for the residential subdivision that now overlooks the site. University of Texas personnel led by Dr. Kalvero Oberg excavated at Rob Roy from December 1938 to April 1939 with funding from the Works Progress Administration (WPA). Artifacts and notes were sent to TARL, but as attention turned toward World War II, the materials were never properly analyzed or written up.

 

Regular readers of the TARL blog know that retired archeologist Dan Prikryl is currently working on the Rob Roy collections (December 2016, December 2017). He originally planned to use two charcoal samples from Rob Roy for radiocarbon dating, but he quickly realized that the soil collected along with the wood charcoal could contain small seeds or bulbs from foods and other useful plants. These could be parts of food plants that were accidentally burned during cooking, medicinal plants discarded after being used in poultices or teas, or debris from plants used for objects like baskets that were disposed of by burning in a campfire. Only plants that have been carbonized (turned to charcoal in a fire) can survive in the soil for hundreds or thousands of years at a site like Rob Roy where the deposits aren’t protected by cave walls and where the climate is humid enough that fresh plant parts decay into compost within weeks, months, or decades.

 

It’s not quite clear why Dr. Oberg directed workers to save charcoal samples from the Rob Roy site. WPA-era excavators working on large mound centers like the George C. Davis Site collected burned corn cobs and beans but not usually wood charcoal. Radiocarbon dating, which is often done on wood charcoal, hadn’t been invented in the late 1930s when excavations were going on. The principle of flotation processing, the method for extracting small seeds from archaeological soils, was known but didn’t come into common use in archeology until the 1980s. It’s possible Dr. Oberg knew about early studies in dendrochronology and dendroclimatology and decided to collect samples in case they turned out to be useful for tree ring dating or understanding past climate and weather patterns.

 

Since I specialize in identifying wood, nutshell, seeds, and similar plant material from archeological sites, Dan showed me the two charcoal samples from Rob Roy in the spring of 2017. I was able to select and identify a few fragments of wood charcoal for radiocarbon dating. Even in that quick scan, I could see that two types of wood had been burned in Feature 1, live oak (Quercus fusiformis; Figure 1) and an oak of the white group (Quercus sect. Quercus, which includes post oak, Q. stellata). Feature 2 contained white group oak, but it wasn’t clear if any other kind of plant material was present.

Figure 1: A fragment of live oak wood charcoal from Feature 1.

 

The size of the sample from Feature 1 was 4.1 cubic decimeters, about a gallon, and it included loose soil as well as charcoal. At 0.1 cubic decimeters, the sample from Feature 2 was smaller, roughly ½ cup, but it also included some soil. Dan and I judged that flotation processing would allow us to recover small seeds or bulb fragments that might be present but not readily recognizable among all the dirt and wood charcoal. Dan was interested in knowing what kinds of foods might have been cooked in the earth ovens at Rob Roy. Bison was abundant at the site, but plant foods are commonly cooked in earth ovens, too (Thoms et al. 2018). Many bulbs, roots, and tubers are more palatable and nutritious after the long slow cooking that earth ovens provide (Wandsnider 1997). In central Texas, these include wild onions and garlic (Allium spp.), eastern camas (Camassia scilloides), and scurfpea (Pediomelum spp.). We also hoped to recover plant material such as grass stems, grape leaves (Vitis spp.), and pricklypear pads (Opuntia spp.) that would have been used to provide moisture and insulate the food plants from the ash and charcoal in the fire. Dr. Steve Black, another archeologist associated with TARL (TBH co-editor) who has worked extensively on earth ovens, was also interested in seeing what, if any, plants might have been cooked in the earth ovens at Rob Roy. He provided a small grant to get the project underway.

 

TARL curator Marybeth Tomka prepared loan papers that allowed me to take the charcoal samples to my laboratory for processing and microscopic examination. Flotation processing is a water separation method where soil from an archeological site is placed in water to allow any bits of plants to float to the surface while soil particles and any artifacts sink to the bottom of the container. Floating plant material can then be poured off (decanted) into a fine mesh or scooped off with a fine mesh strainer. Flotation processing can be as simple as placing soil in a 5-gallon bucket and decanting plant material into the kind of fine mesh used in tent windows (Figure 2). Any heavier artifacts still in the soil can be separated by pouring the remaining sludge through a screen. This method is what I used for the Rob Roy samples. More elaborate flotation systems use devices like electric sump pumps, jet nozzles, and aerators to make flotation faster and easier. All three editions of Deborah Pearsall’s essential textbook, Paleoethnobotany, include extensive discussion of various flotation devices.

Figure 2: Flotation light fraction from the Eagle Bluff Site (41ME147), where light gastropods were decanted from the water surface along with modern rootlets and ancient charcoal. “24” is the number of this sample in the flotation log book.

 

Microscopic examination of the flotation samples showed that the archeological plants at Rob Roy consisted mostly of wood charcoal. Based on a sample of twenty fragments selected at random from each feature, Feature 1 contained about 85% live oak and 15% white oak. Feature 2 was at least 95% white oak, but a single fragment of wood charcoal was clearly not oak. The fragment was too small and brittle to identify conclusively, but the closest match appears to be povertyweed (Baccharis spp.), a weedy shrub that colonizes open areas near streambanks. Use of oaks for earth oven cooking makes a lot of sense both because they would have been common in the area even thousands of  years ago and because they are dense woods that produce hot, long-lasting coals (Collier and Turner 1981; Marcouiller and Anderson n.d.). Carbonized fungi and insect droppings (probably termite) identified under the microscope indicate that the oak wood had been dead for some time prior to burning (Figure 3). Fuelwood was probably collected from snags or fallen trees in the gallery forest along the Colorado River.

 

Figure 3: Carbonized fungus from Feature 1 at the Rob Roy Site

 

No evidence of bulbs or tubers that are commonly cooked in earth ovens or evidence of any material used to wrap foods during cooking was found in either sample. Feature 1 did produce seeds from one food plant and one medicinal plant, however.

 

The probable food plant remains consisted of three seeds and one seed fragment of goosefoot (Chenopodium spp.) (Figures 4 and 5). Seeds of goosefoot plants are edible, and two species, C. quinoa (yes, that quinoa!) and C. berlandieri, were domesticated for their edible seeds in ancient times by Native American Indians. At least four species of goosefoot grow in Central Texas today, including C. berlandieri (Figure 6). No evidence for domesticated C. berlandieri has been found in the area, and the seeds from Rob Roy have thick, wild-type seedcoats. Goosefoot, quinoa, and other chenopodium species are members of the spinach family, known for nutritious, iron-rich greens. Goosefoot greens as well as seeds may have been exploited by the ancient inhabitants of the Rob Roy Site. In addition, the flowering seedheads of chenopodium species are edible, raw or cooked, like modern broccoli (Glore 2006). Nutritional studies of various species of chenopodium show they can be important sources of protein, minerals (especially iron), anti-oxidants, and anti-microbials (Navruz-Varli and Sanlier 2016; Poonia and Upadhayay 2015).

 

Figure 4: Goosefoot (Chenopodium spp.) seeds and seed fragment from Feature 1, Rob Roy Site.

Figure 5: Chenopodium plants can be difficult to identify to species. This one, photographed in San Saba County on August 18, 2018, is either slim-leaf goosefoot (C. leptophyllum) or thick-leaf goosefoot (C. pratericola).

 

Figure 6: Fruits of pitseed goosefoot (Chenopodium berlandieri) from a wild stand in western Travis County, Texas.

 

The probable medicinal plant remains consisted of one seed and two seed fragments of pricklypoppy (Argemone spp.) (Figures 7 and 8). To the author’s knowledge, this is the first pricklypoppy recovered archeologically in central Texas, although it is known from the Tres Metates Site in the Trans-Pecos (Dering 2008). Among historic Native Americans, use of pricklypoppies was almost always medicinal, and seeds were typically the plant part used. Paiutes, Shoshones, Kawaiisu, and Washoes used a salve containing the crushed seeds for cuts, sores, and burns (Moerman 1998:89-90). Shoshones used the salve to kill lice as well. Shoshones and Comanches used an infusion of pricklypoppy seeds to treat sore eyes, and Shoshones also ate pulverized seeds as a more general medicine (Moerman 1998:89-90). An American native, pricklypoppy is now widespread in warm regions worldwide, and its seeds, leaves, and roots have been used by many people to treat ailments from toothaches and eye problems to cancer (Cheatham et al. 1995:448-458).

 

Figure 7: Pricklypoppy seed from Feature 1, Rob Roy Site

 

Figure 8: Prickypoppy (Argemone sp.) photographed in western Travis County, Texas.

 

Although it was disappointing not to find evidence of typical earth oven plants like camas bulbs, scurfpea tubers, or prickypear pads, the information gained by processing and examining the flotation samples is still useful. First, we discovered evidence that the ancient inhabitants at the Rob Roy site were using pricklypoppy, probably medicinally, and eating the leaves, seeds, and/or flowering seedheads of goosefoot. As to what was cooked in the earth ovens, the lack of bulbs, tubers, or packing material suggests either that the people at Rob Roy were such very careful cooks that no plant foods or packing material were accidentally charred or that the earth ovens were used to cook something other than plant foods. Given the abundance of bison bone at the site, pit cooking of bison is a strong possibility.

 

Insights from plant remains at the Rob Roy Site highlight the long-term research potential of the extensive WPA collections at TARL: eight decades on the shelf and still yielding new data!

 

 

 

References Cited

 

Cheatham, Scooter, Marshall Corning Johnston, and Lynn Marshall

1995 Useful Wild Plants of Texas, the Southeastern and Southwestern United States, the Southern Plains, and Northeastern Mexico, Volume 1: Abronia-Arundo. Useful Wild Plants, Inc., Austin, Texas.

 

Collier, Kathy, and Larry Turner

1981 Obtaining, Seasoning and Burning Wood, University of Kentucky College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service AEES-18. Lexington, Kentucky. https://www.bae.uky.edu/publications/AEES/AEES-18.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2015.

 

Dering, J. Phillip

2008 Ethnobotany of the Lower Pecos Canyonlands. https://texasbeyondhistory.net/ethnobot/index.html. Accessed 9/15/18.

 

Glore, Angela Gordon

2006 Domesticated Chenopodium in North America: Comparing the Past and the Present. Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington University.

 

Marcouiller, Dave, and Steven Anderson

n.d.   Firewood: How to Obtain, Measure, Season, and Burn. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, NREM-9440. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma. http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-2507/NREM-9440web.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2015.

 

Moerman, Daniel E.

1998 Native American Ethnobotany. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.

 

Navruz-Varli, Semra, and Nevin Sanlier

2016 Nutritional and Health Benefits of Quinoa (Chenopodium Quinoa Willd.). Journal of Cereal Science 69: 371–376.

 

Pearsall, Deborah M.

2015 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures. 3rd ed. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California.

 

Poonia, Amrita, and Ashutosh Upadhayay

2015 Chenopodium Album Linn: Review of Nutritive Value and Biological Properties. Journal of Food Science and Technology 52(7): 3977–3985.

 

Thoms, Alston V., Laura M. Short, Masahiro Kamiya & Andrew R. Laurence

2018 Ethnographies and Actualistic Cooking Experiments: Ethnoarchaeological Pathways toward Understanding Earth-Oven Variability in Archaeological Records. Ethnoarchaeology 10(2):76-98. https://doi/full/10.1080/19442890.2018.1510125

 

Wandsnider, LuAnn

1997 The Roasted and the Boiled: Food Composition and Heat Treatment with Special Emphasis on Pit-Hearth Cooking. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16:1-48.

The Texas Archeological Research Laboratory