Download Navajo Ethnobotany - Diné Nanise and Ethnobotanical Analysis of

Navajo Ethnobotany - Diné Nanise
and Ethnobotanical Analysis of Early Navajo Site LA 55979
by Paul Roebuck 2007 Dykeman Roebuck Archaeology Anthropological Investigations No. 3.
Botanical Identification and classification at LA 55979 by Meredith Matthews
Archaeological site LA55979 is on the first bench on the north side of Frances Mesa. It is in Dinétah, a region centered on Tó Aheedlí, the
confluence of the Los Pinos and the San Juan Rivers, where, according to Navajo tradition, the Hero Twins Naayéé' Neizghání and Tó Bájísh
Chíní, made their home. Dinétah is also the original homeland of the ancestors of the Navajo people.
Frances Mesa and the surrounding vicinity is, today, an extensive juniper/serviceberry-mountain mahogany association. Piñon pine is present
only on northwest-facing slopes at the highest elevations, in mature stands. The lower elevations in the site's catchment area, particularly flat
areas, are dominated by saltbush, greasewood, and sagebrush.
The site has two distinct components - a Pueblo I, Piedra phase, pit house (feature 1) with an associated room block (feature 29), and several
Navajo, Dinetah phase, hogans and their associated features. Tree-ring dates and other evidence indicate that the Piedra pit house was built
after A.D. 845. Several of the Navajo Dinetah phase features can be accurately dated to 1540-1541— the year of the Spanish Entrada into the
area. The region is where "the earliest clearly identifiable and datable Navajo archaeological remains" are known (Brugge 1983:492) and site
LA55979 is among the earliest datable Navajo sites (Dice 1997; Hancock 1997; Dykeman 2000; Dykeman 2003).
The archaeologist's hope, at the outset of macrobotanical analysis, is to find good information to help us compare the diversity and abundance
of wild and domestic species in the Pueblo and Navajo collections. How similar are the two components in their use of botanicals? As this is a
very early Navajo site, what insights can we gain into Navajo domesticates in the context of horticulture or agriculture versus trade for Pueblo
goods. Were the food crops locally grown or not? How similar are ethnobotanical assemblages between hogans? Do all Navajo residents use
similar botanical resources? Can we discriminate between economic and non-economic uses of botanical materials? How does plant
manipulation at this site differ from earlier, Northern Athabascan adaptations prior to the emergence of Navajo cultural identity and from later,
subsequent, Navajo culture phases? How does it differ from that of other cultures in the region (Archaic, Anasazi, later Pueblo, Ute and
Apache)? What do these plants tell us about prehistoric landscapes and how their occupants adapted to and shaped those landscapes? How
does the data from this site compare to what we know about how these plants were used, ethnographically, by Navajo peoples? There are
more questions than we have time to investigate or sufficient data to answer. However we can address several of our initial questions.
Complicating our search for for answers, there are gaps in the prehistorical record. As Mollie Toll and Pamela McBride (2003:319) observe in
"Floral Components of Early Navajo Land Use" few direct records of plant manipulation exist for the Athabascan occupation of northern
New Mexico prior to Bosque Redondo. Kidder (1920:329) does not mention botanical remains in his discussion of Navajo sites in the upper
San Juan Drainage. Data on botanical specimens from the Navajo Reservoir surveys has never been published and is only available in
manuscript (Dittert and Dickey ca. 1960s; Eddy 1966). Much of what has been published on the Navajo comes from later periods. Recent
flotation and macrobotanical data is available on Navajo sites from the 18th to early 19th centuries: Toll 1985, 1994, 1996; Smith 1991;
Matthews 1991, 1996; Latady and Goff 1996; Brandt 1997. Several reports include flotation and macrobotanical data on Navajo sites from the
late 19th century to the present: Struever and Knight 1979; Ford 1980; Knight 1980; Toll and Donaldson 1981a, 1981b, 1982; Donaldson and
Toll 1982; McBride 1993; Toll 1983.
The Fruitland reports hold great promise for information on early Dinétah phase sites. However the synthesis of that material has yet to be
written. A sampling of the Fruitland material includes Matthews 1991, 1996; Brandt 1994; 1997; Brabant 1997a, 1997b, 1997c; Hovezak and
Sesler 2002; Brandt 2002; Roebuck in press 2007a; Roebuck in press 2007b, Dykeman (in press 2007). Smith's (1991) report on
macrobotanical data from an early Dinetah site from the La Plata Mine area, Brandt's (1994) Arkansas Loop Corridor data and McBride and
Toll's Early Navajo Land Use study in Dykeman's (2003) Morris Site 1 help round out the picture.
Archaeological site LA55979 contains strong evidence for well-developed agricultural technology, including the cultigens maize (corn) and
common beans, the storage technology to preserve these goods, and the ground stone technology to prepare hard-seeded cultigens. Both the PI
Piedra and the Navajo Dinetah botanical collections contain large number of weedy annuals, such as purslane and goosefoot which some
researchers (Asch and Asch 1977; Minnis 1978:350, 361-362, 1985:112; Allen 1989:93,98; Miller 1991:156: Doolittle and Mabry 2006) have
interpreted as evidence for prehistoric agriculture.
The Navajo component of the site also contains strong evidence for trade relations with contemporary Pueblo groups. Puebloan trade items at
this site include Jemez obsidian and Jemez Black-on-white pottery. The evidence for trade at this site is consistent with evidence from several
Pueblos. As early as A.D. 1520 Athabascan hunting technology is found at Hopi, Unshagi (Jemez), and Pecos Pueblos (Baldwin 1997; Torres
1999; Dykeman 2003).
Corn cobs recovered from the Navajo component of the site (see Table 8, Cobs with Row Count from LA 55979) include cobs with 8, 10, 12
and 14 rows. Assigning these samples to "races" or "varieties "of corn involves the study of many more traits than are available to
archaeologists. Desiccation and burning reduce the number of traits that can be compared. Though land races and varieties of corn cannot be
positively identified from archaeological data, there is some information on maize row counts from contemporary Pueblo IV sites that show the
cobs at LA55979 are comparable.
Hugh Cutler's maize data from Herb Dick's excavations at Picuris Publeo (Cutler 2001) and Rainey and Spielmann (2006) study at Salinas
Pueblos (Gran Quivira, Pueblo Blanco, Quarai and Pueblo Colorado) in central New Mexico, allow for some morphological comparison for
corn prior to and just after Spanish colonization of the region. From both Picuris and Salinas, the majority of cobs in the pre-contact and early
contact samples had 8-10 rows of kernels (Rainey and Spielmann 2006:493). This compares favorably with LA55979 where 78.9% of the
cobs had 8 to 10 rows of kernels. However the Pueblo corn from central New Mexico did have higher number of 12 and 14 row cobs (42%)
in their overall sample than we observe at LA55979 (21.1%). This may reflect somewhat harsher environmental conditions in Dinetah as
compared to central New Mexico rather than differences in the variety of corn itself. The higher absolute number of 10 row cobs at site
LA55979 are an argument in favor of local agriculture as opposed to trade for the source of maize. Had the Navajo traded for corn there
should have been a somewhat higher percentage of 12 plus row cobs.
Thus, the varieties of the maize grown by Navajos at the site and the technology for growing it both could have been obtained from Pueblo
groups. However the abundance of goosefoot, purslane and other weedy annuals that are secondary succession pioneers on agriculturally
disturbed soils (and possibly cultigens themselves) and the preponderance of 10 row corn, coupled with the local storage and processing
technology are evidence that the Navajos were practicing agriculture at LA55979 and not merely obtaining corn and common beans from the
Pueblo in trade.
In this report we use taxonomic abundance, diversity and evenness indices to quantify the degree of biodiversity and measure the agricultural
focus (see Table 9 Taxonomic Ubiquity, Diversity, Richness and Evenness at LA55979). The macrobotanical evidence indicates a strong
emphasis on agriculture in both the Pueblo I, Piedra component and the Navajo Dinétah component. The strong emphasis on agriculture in the
Dinétah component is somewhat surprising given the early date for the site. Rather than a slow, gradual change from a foraging economy to an
agricultural one, it appears that the emergence of Navajo culture was accompanied early by a strong focus on cultigens.
That this change took place early for the Navajo and that corn was a major focus of the economy from the onset rather than gradually acquired
is reinforced by traditional Navajo origin stories (Matthews 1897; Goddard 1933; Klah 1946; O'Bryan 1956: Reichard 1970; Witherspoon
1974; Wyman 1979; Zolbrod 1984; Farella 1984). In these stories, many of the Navajo Holy People were created from corn. For example,
Wyman 1970:140 refers to the bundle that First Man used to bring about the birth of Changing Woman as "First Man's medicine corn bundle"
(emphasis added). On most origin accounts corn was created in prior worlds and came into this one with the Diyin dine'é, the Navajo Holy
People. Furthermore many of the stories indicate that corn was obtained from the Pueblo, either in this or in prior worlds - a fact that is
consistent with the archaeological data from the site.
A strong case can be made for cultural use of floral materials by the inhabitants of an archaeological site when the context of discovery is clear,
e.g. food plants found in food storage containers or associated with cooking and food processing implements are clearly intentionally procured
and used cultural products. However it is more difficult to assess the cultural integrity of the intentional use of many taxa identified through
flotation analysis where the context of association is less clear. The presence in the macrobotanical assemblage of some taxa identified only
from flotation samples could be the result of unintentional inclusion in cultural assemblage.
Many paleoethnobotanists (e.g. Keepax 1977:228; Lopinot and Brussell 1982:95; Minnis 1981:147; Gasser 1982; Pearsall 2000) used the
carbonized condition of seeds as an indicator of cultural use. They consider only carbonized plant remains from open-air, non-waterlogged,
archaeological sites to be associated with the occupation of the site. Flora are reduced to relatively inert carbon when they are exposed to high
heat in thermal features or in site-wide fires (Renfrew 1973:9). Uncarbonized remains care more readily destroyed by chemical and
mechanical action in mesic soils.
We find strong spatial patterning at LA55979 that contradict parts of this assumption. Despite their high frequency of occurrence on the site,
seeds of goosefoot (Chenopodium), purslane (Portulaca), and wild tobacco (Nicotiana), both charred and uncharred, occur exclusively within
intramural hearths. This spatial patterning lends weight to the argument that uncharred remains are not necessarily intrusive, post-occupation
contaminants but were instead, in this case, intentionally used by the inhabitants and deposited while the site was occupied. We note that the
assumption that uncharred seeds are contaminants come largely from observations of sites in mesic regions, not from dry, semiarid and desert
soils.
Furthermore, macrobotanical samples can often be identified only to the level of genus or sometimes only to the level of family and thus the
specific species being exploited by the site's inhabitants remains unclear. Different species from the same genus may have different or
contradictory properties, e.g. one could be a poison and another a food. There can be frustrating ambiguities in the archaeological record. It is
helpful to know about both the taxa recovered from a site and all of the taxa known to be used on other sites in the same cultural landscape. If
we do not know how important resources could have been used we may miss or misinterpret spatial and cultural patterning of the data we do
recover from archaeological sites.
Ethnobotanical information documenting known uses for plants from historical and modern times can help bridge the gap. If archaeologists
better understand the uses that plants serve in modern and historic contexts for the descendants of the inhabitants of the archaeological sites we
study, we are potentially better able to understand their ancestors and can make better sense of the data we do find. This knowledge helps us in
more clearly articulating models of past landscapes and prehistoric adaptations to those landscapes. It may also help prevent us from projecting
our own ethnocentric prejudices onto the cultures and the peoples we are studying such as imputing solely economic motives and activities
onto people for whom ritual and ceremonial activities played a central and pivotal role in their lives and who's medical and pharmacological
systems and practices are quite different from our own.
Therefore we present ethnobotanical information on several of the principal botanical taxa recovered from this site. We gather this information
from a large number of sources. Given the extent of the Navajo component at LA55979 and the number of samples from that component, and
because of its significance as one of the earliest Dinétah phase sites found so far, our focus here is on sources that document Navajo
ethnobotany and Navajo plant use. However Pueblo, Apache, Ute and other references are also included in some instances as they represent
uses by contemporary peoples adapting to the same or similar environments and help extend our understanding of the site and its inhabitants.
Processing and Analytical Methods
Archaeologists and laboratory personnel took 174 flotation and botanical samples from site LA55979. Table 1, Scientific and Common Names
of Plant Taxa summarizes the major categories of plant remains discovered at the site. Table 2, Provenience of Analyzed Samples, LA 55979
provides a summary of the features selected for analysis and Table 2b, Floatation and Botanical Samples, Analyzed and Unanalyzed from
LA55979 in Appendix XXX gives a list of all samples. Table 3, All Data from Flotation Samples and Botanical Specimens at LA55979 in
Appendix XXX, displays all of the macrobotanical data recorded. Table 4, Synoptic View of Macrobotanicals at LA55979 by Activity Area,
provides a summary of analytic results.
Eighteen flotation samples were taken from the PI Piedra component. Four of these samples, from three features, were analyzed and the results
are in Table 5, Macrobotanical Identifications from the Anasazi PI Cultural Component of Site LA 55979. There were two botanical samples
from the PI component, one of which was derived from a bulk soil sample. Neither of these were selected for analysis.
Archaeologists took 72 flotation samples from the early Navajo component of the site and 82 botanical samples, 71 of the latter were derived
from processing bulk soil samples. Of the total, 45 botanical samples (40 of which derived from bulk soil samples) and 18 flotation samples
were selected for analysis. A total of 59 samples (some samples were combined) from the early Navajo component were analyzed. The results
of the analysis are summarized in Table 6, Macrobotanical Identifications from the Navajo Cultural Component of Site LA 55979.
Table 1. Scientific and Common Names of Plant Taxa
Family
Scientific Name
Agavaceae
Amaranthaceae
Common Name English
Navajo Name
Agave Family
Yucca
Yucca; Soapweed
Ts1’1szi’ts’00z
Amaranthus
Pigweed
Naazkaadii, spread out
Asteraceae
Composite Family
Artemisia
Big Sagebrush
Ts'ah, the sagebrush
Helianthus
Sunflower
Nid7y7liitsoh, “big sunflower”
Brassicaceae (Cruciferae)
tansy mustard
Cactaceae
Cylindropuntia
Sub-genus of Opuntia, Cholla
Hosh d7tsahiitsoh, big needle cactus
Cactus
Platyopuntia
Sub-genus of Opuntia, Prickly
Niteel7, broad cactus
Pear Cactus
Chenopodiaceae
Cupressaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Goosefoot Family
Tl'oh ligsii, grass white
Chenopodium
Goosefoot, Lambs quarters
Corispermum sp.
Bugseed
Juniperus
Juniper
Juniperus osteosperma
Utah Juniper
Gad bik2’7g77, “male juniper”
Rocky Mountain Juniper
Gad ni’ee[ii, “drooping juniper”
Euphorbia brachycera Engelm. Spurge
Fabaceae
Oak Family
Phaseolus vulgaris
Common Bean
Ch'il abe'4 y1zh7
Lamiaceae; Labatiae
Mentha arvensis L.
Mint
Loasaceae
Mentzelia
Blazingstar; Stickleaf
Malvaceae
Oxalidaceae
Malva
Mallow
Sphaeralcea
Globe mallow
Sphaeralcea coccinea
Alkali Pink
Oxalis
Wood Sorrel
Pinaceae
Plantaginaceae
Piñon Pine
Ch1’o[, “pinyon”’Neeshch’77,
Plantago major L.
Plantain
Biih yiljaa’7, “like a deer’s ear”
Grass Family
Sporobolus R. Br.
Dropseed
Zea mays
Maize, corn
Naad33’
Buckwheat Family
Eriogonum
Wild Buckwheat
{e’4tsoh yiljaa’7, “like a rat’s ear”
Portulaca sp.
Purlsane, little hogweed
Ts4gha’ni[chi’, “breeze through rock”
Rosaceae
Verbenaceae
Azee' nt[in7, "gummy medicine"
Pinus edulis Engelm.
Polygonaceae
Solanaceae
Azee’ b7l1tah [igaii, “white flowered medicine”
Pine Family
Poaceae; Gramineae
Portulacaceae
&i[t[‘ihii, “tenacious”
Cotton Family
Rose Family
Cercocarpus
Mountain Mahogany
Prunus virginiana
Chokecherry
Nicotiana obtusifolia
Wild Tobacco
Physalis L
Groundcherry
Verbena sp.
Vervain
Ts4'4sdaazii, "heavy as stone"
T1d7d77n doot[‘izh nitsaa7g77, “large blue pollen”
Flotation Methodology
All samples selected for analysis were treated using water separation by personnel of CRMC Inc. The froth flotation method employed, a
variation of the bucket method of Boher and Adams (1977), allows for separation of samples into light and heavy fractions. Most botanical
remains are lighter than water and will float, allowing them to be separated from the soil matrix. The volume of material was measured and
samples screened to remove the larger particles. Samples ranged from 2 to 11 liters. The screened material was examined separately but was
not subject to water separation. The material passing through this screen was placed in a modified flotation device for the physical flotation.
The light fraction was collected and dried separately. Substantial quantities of soil matrix from archaeological contexts were processed to
ensure maximum recovery of cultural materials expected to be present in low frequency. All samples were entirely processed however only the
light fraction residues were analyzed.
The analyst initially scanned the light fraction residue of each flotation sample. Scanning was used to assess the diversity and cultural integrity
of botanical remains. Some samples were selected to be fully sorted. Samples selected for complete analysis normally have greater diversity
of taxa or quantity of remains of individual taxon and their contents are quantified. Samples with more limited data potential were scanned and
the presence or absence of taxa and plant parts were recorded but values were not quantified. Scanning and full sort analysis were conducted
with a binocular microscope with a magnification range of 10X — 70X.
Floated residue was poured through graduated screens of various sizes (5.6 mm, 2 mm, 1 mm, 0.5 mm, catch pan) and the resulting fractions
were examined by size grades. In a full sort, 20 pieces of wood from each of the two largest screens were selected for identification and wood
within each taxon was quantified by weight. Wood charcoal specimens were examined using a modification of the snap method of Leney and
Casteel (1975) in order to expose fresh transverse surfaces. This is necessary because soil particles often coat the wood charcoal, obscuring the
characteristics necessary for identification. Identifications of wood charcoal and seed materials were based on information in published
reference materials (Martin and Barkley 1961; Montgomery1977; Panshin and DeZeeuw 1980; Schopmeyer 1974), and with comparisons
with modern reference collections. Charcoal fragments smaller than 2 mm are excluded from analysis because taxon identification cannot be
made with a high degree of confidence. During the scan process, only a few pieces of charcoal from each size grade screens were selected for
taxa identification and the material was not quantified. In full analysis, the contents of the 1 and 5 mm screens were thoroughly analyzed and
remains in the catch pan were scanned. Botanical remains were identified and separated to the finest taxonomic level possible, and
information on quantity, plant part, and condition (e.g., charred, fragmented) was recorded for each taxon. Remains within each taxon are
collected from the light fraction residue and packaged for curation. If a large number of seeds were found during a full sort, only a sub-sample
was collected from the light fraction residue. During scan analysis, the separated residue was rapidly checked for botanical remains, but
residue in the catch pan was not inspected. Identification of taxon, plant part, and condition of remains were documented, and seeds were
counted.
Table 2. Provenience of Analyzed Samples, LA 55979
Early Navajo
Feature
Type
54
hearth in hogan F17
Flotation
40
shade house
Botanical
67
posthole in shade house F40
Botanical
68
pit in shade house F40
Botanical
65
hogan
Botanical
76
hearth in hogan F65
Flotation
82
hearth in hogan F65
Flotation
3
extramural mealing bin
Botanical
132
mealing bin
Botanical
10
hearth in hogan F6
Flotation
22
hogan
Botanical
25
hearth in hogan F22
Flotation
8
hearth
Botanical
19
hearth
Botanical
21
roasting pit
Botanical
59
hogan
Botanical
79
hearth in hogan F59
Flotation
66
hogan
Botanical
70
activity area for F59
Botanical
77
hearth in hogan F66
Flotation
85
hearth in hogan F72
Flotation
90
hearth in hogan F80
Flotation
83
hogan
Botanical
119
hearth in hogan F83
Flotation
116
126
130
133
58
88
89
96
120
122
124
138
162
136
142
161
0
hearth in hogan F94
hogan
hearth in hogan F130
hearth in hogan F131
ramada?
ash dump
ash dump
ash pit
hearth
hearth
cist
cist
hearth in cist
hogan
hearth in hogan F136
F161 mealing bin in hogan F136
test unit
Anasazi PI
Feature
37
hearth in pitstructure F1
33
hearth in room block F29
35
hearth in room block F29
Flotation
Botanical
Flotation
Botanical
Botanical
Botanical
Botanical
Botanical
Botanical
Botanical
Botanical
Botanical
Botanical
Botanical
Botanical
Botanical
Botanical
Results of Macrobotanical Analysis for LA55979
Type
Flotation
Flotation
Flotation
Twenty-one families of plants were identified from the 63 samples analyzed by Meredith Matthews of San Juan College from site LA55979.
Table1, Scientific and Common Names of Plant Taxa from LA55979, lists all of the names of flora identified from samples at the site. From
the Piedra phase cultural component, 21 taxa from 16 families were identified from 3 hearths. From the Navajo Dinétah phase component, 26
taxa from 20 families were identified from 9 hogan floors, 6 hearths in hogans, the living surface of a ramada, 4 extramural hearths, 1 roasting
pit, 3 ash pit features, 1 external work areas, 2 mealing bins, 1 pit, 2 postholes and 2 cists.
One cultigen, corn, was found associated with the Piedra component and two cultigens, corn and common beans, were associated with the
Navajo component. As would be expected from farming communities, both components contained several pioneer species — weedy annuals
such as goosefoot, purslane and pigweed that thrive in disturbed soils such as might be found in corn fields (as well as in areas disturbed by
fire or erosion not anthropogenic in nature). Doolittle and Mabry (2006) discuss the growing body of evidence from Archaic period sites that
these weedy species were protected, encouraged and in some cases cultivated in the Southwest for as much as 5000 years and should be
incorporated into our models of prehistoric agriculture in the region.
insert table 4, Synoptic View of Macrobotanicals at LA55979 by Activity Area.
Are Uncarbonized Remains Contaminants?
Both charred and uncharred remains are identified for the site. Uncharred remains (particularly from prolific seed producing, weedy, pioneer
species) are considered by many paleoethnobotanists (e.g. Keepax 1977:228; Lopinot and Brussell 1982:95; Minnis 1981:147; Gasser 1982;
Pearsall 2000) to be post-occupation contaminates. Lopinot and Brussell (1982:103), on the basis of their research at the Coon Dog Site in
southern Illinois, contend that uncarbonized specimens do not survive the chemical and mechanical degradation processes to which they are
exposed at open-air sites over time. They state, “many, if not all, uncarbonized seeds from open-air sites in mesic regions represent more
recent, nonculturally deposited contaminants” (Lopinot and Brussell 1982:95 emphasis added). Keepax (1977:223-224) reports a marked
decline in the number of uncarbonized seeds with greater depth of stratigraphic-column deposits at an Iron Age site in England, and theorizes
that most uncarbonized seeds in the older deposits had decayed. Minnis (1978:362) observed an inverse relationship between uncarbonized
seed numbers and deposit depth in samples from the Mimbres Valley as did Rose (2004:33) from the NAN Ranch Ruin in Grant County,
New Mexico. The latter two references are significant because the sites on which they report are not in mesic environments. Unfortunately the
reports do not indicate the degree of soil maturity, soil moisture, drainage or other factors that might act to preserve or destroy uncarbonized
remains. Reports from wet and mesic regions should not be applied uncritically to arid soils. There has not been sufficient research on the rate
of seed decay in non-mesic, dry, Southwestern soils to conclude, categorically, that uncarbonized plant remains are non-culturally deposited
contaminants.
Using the charred/uncharred condition of a floral sample as an absolute indicator of cultural association may be an over-interpretation. Most
Anasazi sites were purposely burned on abandonment thereby charring exposed plant remains in addition to those already charred in hearths,
roasting or ash pits or other thermal features. However, on sites that were not burned on abandonment, or in features that were protected from
fire or from post-occupation contamination from seed rain, the assumption may not be warranted. Sites not burned on abandonment may be
burned long after, charring plant remains in exposed contexts that were deposited non-culturally after abandonment as part of the natural seed
rain. The charred condition may not indicate cultural procurement or intentional manipulation. As Matthews (2007) observes, the charred
condition of a seed or other plant part does not necessarily mean that the plant was intentionally procured or used by the occupants of the site.
Plant parts could enter a site gathered up with cultivated produce or attached to clothing, sandals, baskets, and so forth. Within a site, these
small plant parts become charred and incorporated into the soil. Therefore, a carbonized condition does not necessarily indicate an association
with the occupation of a site or provide clear evidence of botanical resources intentionally procured or used by the occupants.
Nor does the uncarbonized condition of a plant part provide clear evidence of non-culturally deposited contaminants - particularly in dry sites
of the desert Southwest. Interpretation should be based on a specific evaluation of each site, the soil formation processes active at the location
and the integrity and context of each feature. A persuasive case has to be made has to be made for inclusion or exclusion in each instance.
However the charred/uncharred bias is very strong among southwestern archaeologists and paleoethnobotanists, despite the rarity of mesic
environments and that bias affects most of the research conducted over the last generation regardless of context. For this report we provide
information on both charred and uncharred botanical remains.
Macrobotanical Assemblage
Quantification of macrobotanical results from archaeological sites is complicated as all samples come from contexts that are subject to biases in
deposition, preservation, selection and recovery. If durable plant parts are quickly buried and shielded from the mechanical action of freeze and
thaw or the chemical action of wet and dry cycles, they are more likely to survive in the archaeological record than fragile parts or those that
are exposed to alternating environmental conditions (Munson et al. 1971:427; Miksicek 1987; Bryant and Dering 2000:427; Pearsall
2000:245). The number of samples taken, their volume, and various aspects of recovery context including their spatial arrangement on the site
and selection of feature types, as well as the type of equipment used and treatment in the laboratory, can also affect the abundance of plant
remains identified in an assemblage (Wagner 1988). These biases make comparing absolute counts of plant remains an unreliable method for
evaluating macrobotanical abundance among different time periods or sites (Minnis 1985:103-104; Popper 1988:60; Pearsall 2000:194,196).
Paleoethnobotanists commonly use ratios to assess and report on the relative abundance of taxa at a site or during a given time period (Miller
1988; Allen 1989:96,98; Rocek 1995:227-229; Pearsall 2000:196-197). Ubiquity is an abundance measure based on the assumption that the
greater the number of times a taxa occurs in a given context category, the greater is its importance. Ubiquity scores are percentages of the total
number of samples that contain a particular taxon. Miller (1988:72-83) contends that using ratios allows comparisons among samples even
under conditions of differential deposition, preservation, and recovery. Pearsall (2000:196, 206) observes that forming ratios is straightforward
means of standardizing macrobotanical data which allows comparisons among assemblages of different sample numbers or sizes and, further,
that the use of ratios may reveal patterns that are difficult to detect in raw data.
Ubiquity Analysis
An early practitioner of ubiquity analysis, Sir Harry Godwin compiled paleontological and archaeological records of pollen and
macrobotanical remains from sites in Great Britain to document British flora prior to significant human impact. He recorded the presence of
plant taxa at a particular site and time period (Godwin 1975:7). This form of analysis is sometimes called presence analysis because it focuses
on whether a taxon is present in a collected assemblage.
Willcox (1974) used ubiquity analysis in a diachronic study of deforestation in eastern Anatolia. His analysis of charcoal from strata deposited
over a period of 4,500 – 5,000 years in the A!wan bölgesi was more circumscribed, temporally and spatially, than Godwin’s study of
quaternary phytogeography in Great Britain. In order to go beyond presence analysis and look at changes in taxa over time, Willcox calculated
the percentage of samples from each time period that contained a particular taxon. Unlike Godwin’s presence analysis, this form of ubiquity
analysis does allow relative quantitative comparison of plant remains from different time periods. Willcox (1974:125) claimed that the weight
or volume of a taxon in a sample was not a reliable indicator of its original abundance during a particular period because of depositional and
preservation biases. He says,
“the only reliable criterion for interpretation is presence of a species. This can be taken one step further if one compares the
proportion of archaeological features, that is to say samples, containing a certain species from one period to another (Willcox
1974:125).”
This type of ubiquity analysis is used by most paleoethnobotanists today to compare plant assemblages among time periods or sites.
Unfortunately, sampling strategies are not standardized and incommensurability can render comparisons between different sites' and different
components' ubiquity scores challenging to interpret. For most kinds of statistical analysis, samples should be independent of one another. This
requirement is difficult to fulfill on archaeological sites because multiple samples are often collected from the same unit or feature. Is a feature
sampled as a single unit, in halves or quads? Are all features on the site sectioned in similar ways or are some taken as whole study units? Are
sample volumes standardized? The ubiquity ratios will be quite different if they are based on number of samples instead of number of features.
For example at LA55979, three hearths were analyzed from the Piedra component. One hearth was bisected and samples taken from each half.
The other two hearths were treated as whole study units. If, in the analysis, the samples are treated discretely, a taxa occurring in a single
sample would have a ubiquity ratio of 25%. If the two bisectioned hearth samples are combined so that each hearth counts as a single sample,
the ubiquity ratio for the same taxa occurring in a single sample would be 33%.
Specimen interdependence is a problem in macrobotanical analyses. Many seeds and plant fragments could easily come from a single
individual. Burning a single goosefoot infructescence may leave hundreds of fruits in the archaeological record of a site, even though it
represents only one depositional event. Counting absolute numbers of goosefoot fruits could lead to overestimation of the significance of the
taxon at a site or during a particular time period. Ubiquity analysis is less affected by problems of this kind of specimen interdependence
because each identified taxon in a sample is simply recorded as present or absent.
A variant problem of interdependence of different taxa occurs when a change in the relative abundance of one taxon affects the relative
abundance of another taxon (Grayson 1984:121; Jones 1991:69; Nelson 1999:146). For example, given two samples with the same absolute
number of piñon nut fragments, the sample with the higher number of non-piñon remains would have a lower percentage of piñon nuts than
the other. Ubiquity analysis is less subject to this interdependence problem because the presence or absence of one taxon in a sample does not
directly affect the occurrence of another taxon (Hubbard 1976:160; Popper 1988:61).
Yet another problem arises when our analytical methods ignore the fact that data are spatially arranged on the landscape — economies do not
take place on the head of a pin. Many statistical tools require that data be randomly distributed in order for their results to be valid. Yet we
know that cultural activity distributes artifacts on the earth's surface non-randomly. To help avoid misinterpreting statistical analysis of data
from archaeological sites, several researchers call for comparing samples from similar cultural contexts (Minnis1978; 1985:103-107; Hubbard
1980; Rocek 1995:226; Rose 2004:41). The analyzed Piedra component flotation samples from LA55979 were only from intramural hearths.
Samples from the Navajo component were from a wide variety of intramural and extramural features between which we would expect there to
be pronounced differences in spatial patterning of occurrence of floral materials. The diversity index of Table 9 compares data from the Navajo
component intramural hearths with data from the Piedra samples.
Ubiquity analysis does not require data to be randomly distributed however it ignores the spatial patterning on a site and important information
can be lost without appropriate interpretation when ubiquity analysis is the principal or sole analytic method employed. In addition to ubiquity
scores, many paleoethnobotanists apply apply other measures of relative abundance such as taxonomic diversity and richness to facilitate
comparisons and ameliorate deposition, preservation, recovery and selection biases (Popper 1988:66-69; Pearsall 2000:209-212).
Taxonomic Diversity, Richness and Evenness
Diversity indices usually combine measures of richness and evenness to provide an index of taxonomic diversity (biodiversity) in a sampled
population. Richness is the number of taxa and evenness is a measure of the distribution of individuals among taxa in a sample (Barbour et al.
1999:189). Maximum evenness occurs when all taxa have equal numbers of individuals. Collections with numerous taxa (high richness) and
which have individuals evenly distributed among the taxa (high evenness) will have high diversity values (Pielou 1977:292).
Borrowing from information theory and ecological studies, Deborah Pearsall (1983:130-131) applied the Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index to
botanical data from Pachamachay Cave, a Peruvian rock-shelter site. The Shannon-Wiener diversity index is the ecologist's name for a
measure of communication entropy introduced by Claude Shannon and Norbert Weiner. Shannon and Weiner each sought to measure the
degree of order within a system. They devised the index to measure the uncertainty in predicting the occurrence of a randomly selected symbol
from a particular code. A code containing only one type of symbol would yield no uncertainty, while a code with many different symbols
would have great uncertainty (Shannon and Weaver 1949; Margalef 1968:18; Krebs 1999:444-445). Ecological studies equate uncertainty
with diversity. The uncertainty of predicting the taxon of a randomly selected individual is greater in a population with a higher diversity of
taxa (Pielou 1969:230). The advantage of this index is that it takes into account the number of species and the evenness of the species. The
index is increased either by having more unique species, or by having a greater species evenness.
The Shannon-Wiener diversity formula is
ni The number of individuals in each species; the abundance of each species.
S The number of species. Also called species richness.
N The total number of all individuals:
pi The relative abundance of each species, calculated as the proportion of individuals of a given species to the total number of
individuals in the community:
Taxonomic evenness is a diversity index, a measure of biodiversity, which quantifies how equal populations are numerically. The evenness of
a population can be represented by Pielou's evenness index:
Where H' is the number derived from the Shannon diversity index and H' max is the total number of species found. The value of Pielou's
evenness index is constrained between 0 and 1. E is inversely proportional to the variation. A greater variation in population between species,
results in a lower value for E.
A disadvantage of both of these indices is that ecosystems in nature do not normally have species evenness. For example, in a well-balance
ecosystem, higher order consumers would normally be greatly outnumbered by lower order consumers. Nor are plants are equally distributed
across the landscape and they do not normally occur in equal numbers or produce equal numbers of seeds. In archaeological contexts we
would not expect to see species or taxonomic evenness so it is not clear what additional information the measures bring to our analysis. And
finally, if our intent is to quantify our data in ways to facilitate comparisons, then there are thorny questions of how we count individuals. Does
one gram of charcoal in a sample represent one individual? Does one goosefoot or juniper fruit represent one individual? How do we count
fragments of corn. A sample may contain fragments of more than one kernel or fragments of kernel, cupule, shank and cob. How do each of
these figure in a total count of individuals for our evenness and diversity calculations? Where samples contain high numbers of seed and fruit
fragments, the resulting indices may be quite different depending on how we convert fragment counts to whole individuals. If these diversity
and evenness indices are to enable us to compare sites and components researchers must be explicit in explaining their assumptions and
techniques and consistent in the application of their methods.
Pearsall compared occupation intensity data from Pachamachay Cave to taxonomic diversity of plant remains measured there and found
sediments deposited during phases of intense occupation had high taxonomic diversity of charred seed remains whereas samples from periods
of lower occupation intensity had low plant diversity measures. Pearsall concluded that the Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index could be useful in
describing changes in plant assemblages through time at one site. She discouraged the use of the index for between-site comparisons because
of differences in preservation at different sites (Pearsall 2000:211). We extend that caveat and suggest that the method should not be used to
compare results between projects unless researchers can ensure that counts are consistently performed.
Several researchers have reported a correspondence between sample size and taxonomic richness, whether sample size is defined in terms of
volume, mass, or number of specimens (Grayson 1984:132, 136-137; Allen 1989; Rocek 1995:226-227; Barbour et al. 1999:189; Krebs
1999:451-452). Grayson (1981:82) notes there is a greater probability of encountering rare taxa in large samples, while small samples tend to
contain only the most abundant taxa. This is because most botanical (and faunal assemblages in Grayson's discussion) contain high numbers of
a few taxa and low numbers of all other taxa. He demonstrated that rare taxa drop out of small samples by quantifying faunal remains from
Hidden Cave, Nevada, and comparing his data to a sub-sample of the original sample (Grayson 1984:136-137). He found that all ten taxa that
were represented by greater than five specimens in the original sample were retained in a 33% sub-sample, while only six of the 12 taxa with
fewer than five specimens remained in the sub-sample.
Similarly, since larger samples usually yield more taxa than small samples, an assemblage with a large number of samples can be expect to
have higher taxonomic ubiquity than an assemblage with a small number of samples. Hubbard (1980:52) points out, Ceteris paribus, "a series
of very rich samples will give rise to higher presence-values than a similar series of very poor samples.” Thus, if richness and sample size
show a significant positive correlation, then ubiquity and sample size are likely to show a similar relationship. Jones (1991:64) indicated that
ubiquity analyses should only be conducted on samples of comparable size because, “the larger the sample, the greater the chance of a taxon
being present.” Kadane (1988:210), Pearsall (2000:214) and Rocek (1995:233) also warned that ubiquity scores are partially dependent on the
size of macrobotanical sample universe. Despite its usefulness, many workers in the field (Minnis 1985:106; Kadane 1988:210; Popper
1988:64; Rocek 1995:228; Pearsall 2000:214) acknowledge that ubiquity analysis does not completely remove deposition, preservation, and
recovery biases.
For the data from LA55979, Table 9, Taxonomic Diversity, Richness and Evenness at LA55979, compares the two cultural components in
similar cultural contexts with counts for each component based on the same assumptions and methods. For the diversity indices, only
intramural hearths are compared, charcoal is ignored, seed and fruit fragments in a sample are combined to count as a single individual. This
standardization allows us to diachronically compare diversity of plant remains from the two components.
Table 9 Taxonomic Ubiquity, Diversity, Richness and Evenness at LA55979
Pueblo Piedra Component
Navajo Dinétah Component
Common
samples Relative
Ubiquity Ubiquity samples Relative
Ubiquity Ubiquity
Part
Name English
w/ taxa
Abundance Ratio
Rank
w/ taxa Abundance Ratio
Rank
Yucca;
seed
1
0.03
33%
low
4
0.03
10%
medium
Soapweed
Pigweed
seed
1
0.03
33%
low
5
0.04
12%
medium
Big Sagebrush wood
3
0.09
100%
high
3
0.02
7%
low
Composite
seed
2
0.06
67%
medium 2
0.02
5%
low
Family
Sunflower
seed
1
0.03
33%
low
Mustard family seed
4
0.03
10%
low
tansy mustard seed
3
0.02
7%
low
Cactus Family fruit
1
0.03
33%
low
prickly pear,
pad
cholla
hedgehog cactus seed
1
0.03
33%
low
2
0.02
5%
low
Goosefoot
seed
3
0.09
100%
high
13
0.10
31%
high
Bugseed
seed
1
0.01
2%
minimal
Juniper
wood
2
0.06
67%
medium 16
0.12
38%
high
seed
8
0.06
19%
medium
Spurge
seed
1
0.03
33%
low
1
0.01
2%
minimal
Lupine
seed
7
0.05
17%
medium
Common Bean cotyledon
2
0.02
5%
low
Mint
seed
1
0.03
33%
low
1
0.01
2%
minimal
Blazingstar;
seed
1
0.01
2%
minimal
Stickleaf
Mallow
seed
1
0.01
2%
minimal
Globe mallow seed
2
0.02
5%
low
Wood Sorrel
seed
2
0.02
5%
low
Pine Family
seed
1
0.01
2%
minimal
Piñon Pine
wood
3
0.09
100%
high
4
0.03
10%
medium
nut
1
0.01
2%
minimal
Plantain
seed
2
0.02
5%
low
Grass Family
seed
1
0.03
33%
low
Dropseed
seed
1
0.03
33%
low
Maize, corn
all
2
0.06
67%
medium 29
0.22
69%
high
Wild
seed
1
0.03
33%
low
1
0.01
2%
minimal
Buckwheat
Dock, Sorrel
seed
1
0.01
2%
minimal
Purlsane
seed
2
0.06
67%
medium
Rose Family
Mountain
wood
1
0.03
33%
low
wood
2
0.06
67%
medium
6
0.05
14%
medium
1
0.01
2%
low
Mahogany
Chokecherry
Wild Tobacco
Groundcherry
Vervain
seed
seed
seed
seed
1
6
1
2
0.03
0.06
33%
67%
0.01
0.05
2%
14%
minimal
medium
low
medium
Number of individuals
103
2336
Taxonomic richness
21
26
Pielou's evenness index
0.04
0.02
Shannon diversity index 0.65
0.48
Only intramural hearths
compared for diversity
Wood charcoal ignored
Fragments count as 1
individual/sample
Diversity and abundance of wild and domestic species in the Pueblo and Navajo collections
diversity
14 families
19 families
cultigens
corn
corn and common bean
weedy plants
goosefoot
high
high
purslane
medium
medium
pigweed
medium
medium
For comparison purposes, Table 4 Synoptic View of Macrobotanicals at LA55979 by Activity Area shows the Shannon Diversity and Pielou
Evenness indices for the Navajo Dinétah component as a whole.
Diversity Comparison
The Dinétah phase has been characterized as the period when the Navajo must have begun farming, learning agricultural techniques and
acquiring cultigens from contact with Pueblo farmers. In the absence of data on Dinétah period sites, researchers have presumed that the
earliest Navajo sites would show economic adaptations similar to the Northern Athabascan gathering and hunting tradition and that the gradual
rise in the importance of agriculture to the Navajo economy could be traced through the Dinétah period. If this were the case, we would expect
to see a more exclusive focus on agricultural species accompanied by low diversity scores in Pueblo sites assuming they are more fully adapted
to farming and greater diversity of taxa on the more horticulturally-oriented Dinétah period Navajo sites.
In our diachronic comparison of components on LA55979, this is not the case. The Navajo component has a lower diversity index at 0.48 as
compared to a diversity index of 0.65 from the Pueblo Piedra component. Taxa occur very unevenly in both components - driving down their
respective diversity scores. However ubiquity, diversity, and evenness scores all clearly support the idea that the Navajo Dinétah period
component economy was more focused on agriculture than the Pueblo Piedra component economy. The hypothesis that agriculture slowly
increased in importance during the Dinétah period is not supported. Rather, from the macrobotanical data, it appears that the Navajo adopted
agriculture early on in a wholesale fashion, not gradually as has been hypothesized.
For valid comparisons across projects, researchers must be very clear about their underlying assumptions and methods. For this project we
have calculated ubiquity ratios but also offer ubiquity rank as a measure less prone to misinterpretation.
Site LA55979
The Piedra phase component at LA55979 includes a pit structure with a bench and a room block. Analysts identified macrobotanical remains
from one hearth in the pit structure and two hearths associated with the room block. The early Navajo occupation covered 17,200 square
meters and included 15 hogans, a ramada, a sweat lodge, a shade house/ ceremonial hogan, 31 hearths, 3 cists, 2 mealing bins and a variety of
pits including 6 undistinguished, 4 roasting, 2 each ash, refuse, and unburned pits, and a storage pit. Macrobotanical samples were analyzed
from 9 hogan floors, 6 hearths in hogans, the living surface of the ramada, 4 extramural hearths, 1 roasting pit, 3 ash pit features, 2 mealing
bins, 1 pit, 2 postholes, 2 activity areas and 2 cists. Macrobotanical data for each component is presented in Appendix XXX in Table 5,
Macrobotanical Identifications from the Anasazi PI Cultural Component of Site LA 55979 and Table 6, Macrobotanical Identifications from
the Navajo Cultural Component of Site LA 55979.
Table 4, Synoptic View of Macrobotanicals at LA55979 by Activity Area, above, shows some of the spatial patterning of floral remains on the
site when we compare the locations of different cultural activities. Strong spatial patterning is evident at the site in the intramural hearths which
showed much higher taxonomic richness than all other feature groups. Hogan hearths had a mean taxonomic diversity of 5.71. This is in
contrast to hogan floors and other non-thermal intramural features that had a mean of only 1.63 taxa identified and to extramural thermal
features which had a mean of only 1.5 taxa identified.
The three pueblo component hearths had an arithmetic mean taxonomic richness of 11.0. Hogan feature 65 in locus 1; hogan features 80, 72,
126 and 94 in locus 5; and hogan feature 136 in locus 6 have the highest taxonomic richness scores for their cultural component of six to
twelve taxa. Hogan feature 66 in locus 5 has the lowest taxonomic richness scores with two taxa identified.
Thirteen hogans and their adjacent activity areas were tested. The hogans (including their interior hearths) had an arithmetic mean taxonomic
richness of 6.4. Twelve of the hogans had goosefoot, eleven had juniper, ten contained corn, and five had wild tobacco. Taxa with high or
medium component ubiquity found only in hogans included sagebrush, tansy mustard, goosefoot, tobacco, and purslane. Taxa with low
component ubiquity found only in hogans include seeds or seed fragments from the Asteraceae family, hedgehog cactus, spurge, mint,
stickleaf, mallow, wood sorrel, plantain, wild buckwheat, rumex, and mountain mahogany. Yucca seed was found in only one hogan, feature
66, however it was found in activity areas adjacent to hogans, features 40 and 70, as well as in cist 124.
Most hogan contained similar flora. Hogans 17, 66 and 131 did not contain corn. Hogan 131 also did not contain goosefoot. It did, however,
contain seeds from mustard family, wild buckwheat and Rumex (docks and sorrels) the only occurrence in the component of the latter two
flora. The excavation notes for Hogan features 66 and 131 indicate severe erosion of parts of the features and this may account, in part, for the
difference in floral remains.
Several seeds and seed fragments appear in only a single sample in their respective cultural component. These include sunflower, bugseed,
spurge, mint, stickleaf, mallow, pine nut, piñon nut, wild buckwheat, dock or sorrel, chokecherry, groundcherry, and hedgehog cactus. It is
sometimes difficult to assess the cultural integrity of these minimal ubiquity taxa. Their presence in the macrobotanical assemblage could result
from unintentional inclusion in cultural contexts. It is possible that parts of plants that were not the resource being exploited by the site's
inhabitants could be brought into a site with other, intentionally gathered resources and then inadvertently mixed in with the cultural
assemblage. However, context matters and food source seed fragments in mealing bins and cooking fires and their absence from other working
areas, for example, does support the case for their intentional use despite their low ubiquity on the site. The intentional use of plants with
important ritual or medicinal functions cannot be ruled out because of low ubiquity.
It is interesting to note that despite their high frequency of occurrence on the site, seeds of goosefoot (Chenopodium), purslane (Portulaca), and
wild tobacco (Nicotiana), both charred and uncharred, occur exclusively within intramural hearths. This spatial patterning lends weight to the
argument that uncharred remains are not necessarily intrusive, post-occupation contaminants but were instead, in this case, used by the
inhabitants and deposited while the site was occupied. Similarly, strong spatial patterning is evident as sagebrush, sunflower seed, tansy
mustard, all forms of cactus, bugseed, spurge, mint, stickleaf, mallow, wood sorrel, wild buckwheat, plantain (indian wheat), dock, mountain
mahogany, groundcherry and verbena also were present only in intramural hearths and are absent from extramural thermal features including
hearths that were used for cooking.
On the other hand, lupine seeds, all of which were uncharred, appear to be randomly spaced on the site - occurring in thermal and non-thermal
as well as intra and extramural contexts. They appear, from the lack of spatial patterning, to be intrusive, non-cultural contaminants in the
macrobotanical assemblage. However, the use of lupine by Navajo and Pueblo peoples is well documented ethnographically (see below) and
its intentional procurement cannot be ruled out.
Table 10, Taxonomic Rank Order of Frequently Occurring Taxa at LA55979, below shows the importance of taxa identified at the site that
occurred with medium or high frequency and compares results between components. Sagebrush, goosefoot and piñon pine were the most
frequently occurring taxa in the Pueblo Piedra component. Corn, juniper and goosefoot were the most frequent taxa in the Navajo Dinétah
component.
Table 10 Taxonomic Rank Order of Frequently Occurring Taxa at LA55979
Navajo Component
Pueblo Component
Common Name
samples Relative
Ubiquity Ubiquity
samples Relative
Ubiquity Ubiquity
Part
English
w/ taxa
Abundance Ratio
Rank
w/ taxa Abundance Ratio
Rank
Maize, corn
Juniper
Goosefoot
Juniper
Lupine
Purlsane, little
hogweed
Wild Tobacco
Pigweed
Piñon Pine
Yucca; Soapweed
Big Sagebrush
Goosefoot
Piñon Pine
all
wood
seed
seed
seed
29
16
13
8
7
0.22
0.12
0.10
0.06
0.05
69%
38%
31%
19%
17%
high
high
high
medium
medium
2
2
3
0.06
0.06
0.09
67%
67%
100%
medium
medium
high
seed
6
0.05
14%
medium
2
0.06
67%
medium
seed
seed
wood
seed
6
5
4
4
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
14%
12%
10%
10%
medium
medium
medium
medium
1
3
1
0.03
0.09
0.03
33%
100%
33%
low
high
low
high
high
high
Navajo Component
3
0.02
13
0.10
4
0.03
7%
31%
10%
low
high
medium
Pueblo Component
wood 3
0.09
seed 3
0.09
wood 3
0.09
100%
100%
100%
Composite Family
Sunflower
Juniper
Maize, corn
Mountain
Mahogany
Purlsane
Vervain, verbena
seed
seed
wood
all
2
1
2
2
0.06
0.03
0.06
0.06
67%
33%
67%
67%
medium
low
medium
medium
2
0.02
5%
low
16
29
0.12
0.22
38%
69%
high
high
wood 2
0.06
67%
medium
2
0.02
5%
low
seed
seed
0.06
0.06
67%
67%
medium
medium
6
0.05
14%
medium
2
2
Fuel
There is a marked difference in fuel wood selection between the Piedra and Dinétah components. Juniper was dominant in both and nearly
equal at just over 70% by charcoal weight. However piñon use was low, at 4.8%, in the 3 Pueblo hearths and higher, at 23.8% in the 10
Navajo hearths and 4 thermal features. Mountain mahogany and wood identified to the Rosaceae family (which might have been mountain
mahogany or serviceberry) was a significant fuel source, at 14.5% in the Piedra component. Only a trace amount of mountain mahogany was
identified as a fuel wood in the Navajo component. Similarly the Piedra samples included 8.4% big sagebrush whereas in the Navajo
component only 2.3% of the charcoal was from sagebrush.
Table 7 Fuel Wood Ratios
Fuel Wood Ratios by Weight
Artemisia
Juniperus
Pinus edulis
Rosaceae
Big Sagebrush
Juniper
Piñon Pine
Rose Family
Piedra
Dinétah Component
Component Fuel
Fuel Wood
Wood
8.4%
2.3%
72.3%
73.1%
4.8%
23.8%
14.5%
trace
The occurrence of charred maize cupules at Southwestern sites may be attributed to burning cobs for fuel. Comparing maize cupules from
hearths between components shows
Charred maize cupules from hearths
Piedra
Component
2 heaths
3w/2fg
Dinétah Component
20 hearths
14w/6fg
Cultigens
In the Piedra component, whole corn kernels, kernel fragments and cupules were found in intramural hearth feature 37, and one kernel of corn
was identified from hearth feature 35. No cultigens were identified from the third hearth, feature 33. The ubiquity ratio for corn in the
component is 66% and the ubiquity rank is medium. In the early Navajo, Dinétah occupation, corn kernels, cupules, shanks, or cobs were
found in 38 out of 51 samples for a 75% sample ubiquity ratio and in 29 of 42 features for a 64% feature ubiquity ratio. The ubiquity rank for
corn in the component for both samples and features is high.
Excavation notes show that corn cob or cob fragments were recovered on floors of hogans feature 126 and feature 131. Cob fragments were
found in cist feature 138 and sixty-two cobs or cob fragments were taken from cist feature 124. Eighteen cobs from feature 124 were analyzed
and the results are presented in Table 8, Cobs with Row Count from LA 55979. Matthews (personal communication 2002) reports that the corn
from this site is indistinguishable from corn found at contemporary Pueblo sites. Row counts of the Navajo corn had an arithmetic mean of 10
with 8 and 10 row cobs accounting for 78.9% of the analyzed sample. These results compare with PIV corn from Picaris (Cutler 2001) and
Salinas Publeos (Rainey and Sielmann 2006) which had a majority of 8 to 10 row cobs however the PIV corn had nearly equal numbers of 12
and 14 row cobs whereas the corn at LA55979 had only 21.1% in that category. The lower row counts may be due to environmental
conditions in Dinetah instead of differences in the variety or land races of corn. The row counts of corn from the Navajo component at
LA55979 are well within the observed variation for row counts of contemporaneous PIV corn.
Common beans were also found in two features in the Dinétah component — cist 124 and hearth feature 133 in hogan feature 136. The
ubiquity ratio for common beans in the Dinétah component features is 5% and the ubiquity rank is low. Still, the presence of two cultigens in
this component adds additional weight to the argument for the importance of agriculture to the economy of this early Navajo, Dinétah phase
site.
Table 8. Cobs with Row Count from LA 55979
Provenience
Row Count
F. 124, NE/2, Strat 1 8
8
8
10
10
10
12
12
12
14
F. 124, SW/4, Strat 6 8
10
10
F. 124, SW/4, Strat 7 8
10
10
10
10
10
totals
8 row
5
10 row
10
12 row
3
14 row
1
Measurement (Lx W) in cm
1.1 x 0.3
1.1 x 0.2
0.6 x 0.3
1.3 x 0.5
1.4 x 0.3
1.3 x 0.5
1.2 x 0.5
1.0 x 0.6
0.2 x 0.6
0.8 x 0.5
0.4 x 1.0
2.7 x 1.0
1.5 x 1.2
0.5 x 0.3
1.2 x 0.7
1.3 x 0.3
1.2 x 0.3
0.5 x 0.3
0.5 x 0.3
length
1.1
1.1
0.6
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.2
1
0.2
0.8
0.4
2.7
1.5
0.5
1.2
1.3
1.2
0.5
0.5
Mean
0.74
1.29
0.8
0.8
width
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
1
1
1.2
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Mean
0.42
0.54
0.57
0.5
Other Food
In the Pueblo Piedra component, a single sunflower seed was found in hearth feature 37 and fragments of seeds of the Asteraceae family that
may have been sunflower (but could have been lettuce, dandelion, ragweed, etc.) were found in hearth feature 35. No sunflower seeds were
identified from the Dinétah component, however fragments of seeds from plants of the Asteraceae family, which might be sunflower, were
identified from the mealing bin in hogan feature 136 and the hearth feature 82 in hogan feature 65. From the Dinétah component, a single
piñon nut was recovered from cist feature 124 and a pine nut fragment, which might be piñon, from mealing bin feature 136. No pine nuts
were identified from the three Pueblo component features. Both sunflower and piñon seeds are particularly concentrated and nutritious food
sources.
Several "wild" food species were identified from the Pueblo component. Goosefoot, also known as Chenopodium, occurred in every sample
(hearth Features 33, 35, and 37). Medium ubiquity plants included purslane (hearth Features 37 and 35) and verbena (hearth Features 37 and
35) both of which occurred in two out of three of the features. Low ubiquity plants, which were each found in one feature, included yucca
seed, cactus seed, spurge, stickleaf, grass seed (Gramineae family), dropseed, wild buckwheat, purslane from samples of hearth feature 37; as
well as hedgehog cactus seed from hearth feature 35; and pigweed from hearth feature 33.
Several "wild" food species were identified in the Navajo Dinétah component. Goosefoot ubiquity was high, with the plant occurring in 13
features (features 54, 76, 82, 10, 25, 79, 77, 85, 90, 119,116, 130, and 136 - all of which are hearths inside hogans. Purslane (features 54, 76,
82, 85, 90, and 119), pigweed (features 66, 85, 90, 116, and ash dump feature 89), and yucca (features 68, 82, activity area 70, and cist 124 )
occurred with medium frequency. Tansy mustard and mustard family remains ranked low in ubiquity - they were each found in three features.
Food plants occurring in only one feature, with minimal ubiquity ranking, included plantain, also known as Indian wheat, mint, stickleaf, and
wild buckwheat.
Wild Tobacco
Seeds of Nicotiana, wild tobacco, were found in six samples — two hearths in hogan feature 65 (features 76 and 82), hearth feature 85 in
hogan feature 72, hearth feature 90 in hogan feature 80, hearth feature 116 in hogan feature 94, and hearth feature 119 in hogan feature 83. As
noted above, tobacco occurred only in intramural hearth contexts. Tobacco seeds are very sticky and could have entered the site as a
contaminant, unintentionally gathered in with other plant materials or tracked in on people's foot gear. However the strong spatial patterning of
the occurrence of the tobacco seeds implies that tobacco was brought in and used intentionally in the locations in which it has been recorded.
Tobacco figures prominently in several rituals, ethnographically (see below), and it is highly likely that it was consciously brought into the site.
Medicine
Medicinal plants from the Dinétah component include tobacco, mallow, globe mallow, yucca, wood sorrel, lupine and most of the food plants.
Several of these uses are cited in the ethnobotanical descriptions below.
Other
In the Navajo component, sagebrush occurs only in intramural hearths features in hogan features 80, 65 and 136. It is not an important fuel
wood in the component. Other uses are indicated. See the ethnobotanical discussion below. In the Pueblo component sagebrush occurs in all
three hearths and appears to be more significant as fuel wood source.
Bugseed, a relative of goosefoot, occurred in one feature - hearth 130 in hogan feature 126. Bugseed is listed in Wyman and Harris's
ethnobotany of the Navajo (941:38) - but no use is given for the plant. It is not mentioned in Rainey and Adams (2004) online Compendium
A, Plant Use by Native Peoples of the American Southwest: Ethnographic Documentation, nor is there an entry for bugseed or Corispermum
in Moerman's (2003) online Native American Ethnobotany Database.
Ethnobotany
We include here ethnobotanical information on plants from several of the principal taxa discovered at LA55979. This information is culled
from several sources which include, importantly, Katherine Rainey's and Karen Adams' (2004) online Compendium, Plant Use by Native
Peoples of the American Southwest and Dan Moerman's (2003) online Native American Ethnobotany Database as well as Vernon Maye's and
Barbara Bayless Lacy's (1989) Nanise': A Navajo Herbal, among others. Because of the extent of the Navajo component at LA55979 and the
number of samples from that component, and because of its significance as one of the earliest Dinétah phase sites found so far, our focus here
is on Navajo ethnobotany and Navajo plant use. However Pueblo, Apache, Ute and other references are also included as they represent uses
by contemporary peoples adapting to the same or similar environments and help extend our understanding of the site.
Yucca Pigweed Big Sagebrush Goosefoot Juniper Lupine Common Bean Piñon Pine Corn Purslane Tobacco
Yucca, Narrowleaf Yucca, Soapweed
Navajo Name: Ts1’1szi’ts’00z, “narrowleaf yucca”
Talawosh, “water suds,” name for root; Nidoodloho, “the green fruit”; Nideeshjiin,
“stalk black,” name for young, dark stalk; Nideesgai, “stalk white,” name for taller
stalk
Family
Taxon
Genus
Agavaceae
Yucca sp.
Yucca L.
Classification: Yucca L. contains 30 Species and 45 accepted taxa overall
Species: Several different species of Yucca are identified in the ethnobotanical literature:
Yucca Yucca sp.
Narrowleaf Yucca, Yucca angustissima Engelm. ex Trel.
Banana Yucca, Yucca baccata Torr.
Navajo Yucca, Yucca baileyi var. navajoa J.M. Webber
Soaptree Yucca Yucca elata Engelm.
Small Soapweed Yucca glauca Nutt.
Primary Use: fiber
Ceremonies: Evil Way, Mountain Chant, Night Chant, Snake Chant, Wind Chant, War
Chant
Ritual Use: Yucca is used in almost every ceremony, yucca fiber is used to tie ceremonial
equipment - hoops, prayer sticks, unravelers and chant arrows. It juice is used to make paint
and varnish for ceremonial objects (pipes, figurines, prayer sticks etc.) and the bristles for
brushes to apply it. Leaves from a yucca that a deer has jumped over are heated in coals.
When they are soft, juice is wrung from the leaves onto small flat stones that hold paint
pigments (Mayes and Lacy 1989:117).
Probably the most important ceremonial use is bathing in suds made from the yucca root.
Most ceremonies include a ceremonial bath of yucca suds for the patient as well as the singer,
along with other cleansing rituals (Mayes and Lacy 1989:117).
Prior to the introduction of sheep, the Navajo wove mats with yucca, the inner bark of juniper
and with cotton. Weaving is associated with Spider Woman in the Origin stories.
Fiber made into string to tie hoops, prayer sticks, chant arrows and other ceremonial
equipment (Vestal 1952:21)
Many objects are tied with yucca fiber. e.g. skunkbush Sumac wood tied with yucca
and used to make circle prayersticks (Elmore 1944:60)
Suds and ashes used to wash new born babies (Elmore 1944:34)
Yucca glauca Nutt.
Suds made from Banana Yucca root used for ceremonial purification baths (Vestal
Britton, N. L., and A. Brown. 1913 Illustrated
1952:21)
flora of the northern states and Canada. Vol.
Plant used to stir the water for the ceremonial baths (Elmore 1944:33)
1: 512.
Roots, pollen and leaves used during many different ceremonies (Elmore 1944:32,34;
Lynch 1986:31
Leaves used to make ceremonial drumstick (Vestal 1952:21)
Leaves stuck into snowballs, mixed with red clay and used to stop the snow and rain (Vestal 1952:21)
Leaves used to make ceremonial and utilitarian baskets (Vestal 1952:21)
Soaptree yucca made into scourges and used in the Night Chant (Elmore 1944:33)
Leaf juice mixed with powders and applied to shields (Elmore 1944:34)
Pitch used to cover bullroarers for some of the ceremonies (Elmore 1944:34)
Fiber used to string cakes baked for Fire God & attached to his right arm on 9th day of Night Chant (Elmore 1944:34)
Leaf strips intertwined with sprigs of fir and used to make necklaces and wristbands for ceremonies (Elmore 1944:34)
Used to make the 102 counting sticks for the moccasin game (Elmore 1944:33)
Other Uses: The range of other uses is very wide:
Paul Vestal, in the Ethnobotany of the Ramah Navaho (1952:16-17), discusses several different kinds of material tied with yucca fiber to make
various implements. These include Idaho Fescue, Prairie Junegrass, or Sand Dropseed about a foot long, tied with yucca fiber, used as a brush
for cleaning metates. Also wooden slabs tied together with yucca fiber used as snowshoes (Vestal 1952:13).
Francis Elmore, in the Ethnobotany of the Navajo, records that spruce twigs were used as beaters to make a high, stiff, lasting lather of yucca
roots and water, yucca strands used to tie rolled skins into a rabbit skin blanket, and yucca fiber and pith twisted with mountain grass and used
to make roofing, mats for sleeping mats, bedding, blankets and rugs, also to make leggings and shoes (Elmore 1944:21,34).
Harold Colton, in Hopi History and Ethnobotany, documents the use by the Hopi of Navajo Yucca. They used Navajo Yucca as a fiber and
fastener to make basketry, bind twigs used to make snow brooms, used leaf fibers for paint brushes and the whole plant as an anchor for bird
traps. They crushed roots used for soap, and took infusions as a laxative. Ceremonially, the Hopi used yucca fiber to make kachinas masks,
used the juice as varnish on kachinas and leaf fiber as whips in a variety of ceremonies (Colton 1974:370).
Tools and Toys
Leaves made into brushes used for cleaning baskets. Leaf slivers made into paint brushes. Leaf fiber made into string or rope and used
for temporary or emergency purposes (Vestal 1952:21)
Leaves used as jewelry - bracelets worn by scouts (Elmore 1944:34)
Stout leaves used as drumsticks (Bell and Castetter 1941:36)
Folded leaves used as drumsticks to beat basket drums (Elmore 1944:34)
Leaves made into a ball thrown into the air for archery target practice (Vestal 1952:21) - a game Elmore (1944:34) calls "shooting the
yucca."
Leaf pith braid woven into a basket (Elmore 1944:34
Leaf juice used as a medium for pigments of pottery paints and slips (Vestal 1952:21)
Leaf juice mixed with pottery paste as glue (Vestal 1952:21)
Juice mixed with yellow soil for a black dye or boiled alone for a red dye (Vestal 1952:21)
Leaf pitch used for waterproofing baskets (Elmore 1944:34)
Fiber used to make knitted leggings, moccasin uppers and dresses Elmore 1944:34)
Fiber used to secure the butts of the first twigs around a small stick at the bottom of the basket (Elmore 1944:34)
Used to make a brush to apply colored clays to pottery (Elmore 1944:34)
Fiber used to make a ring for a game similar to "ring toss" (Elmore 1944:34)
Roots used for soap for washing wool, hides or clothing, shampooing the hair and bathing the body (Elmore 1944:32-33; :21;Lynch
1986:31)
Roots made into ball for shinny game, played at night (Vestal 1952:21)
Wood tied to stalk with shallow holes and used at the hearth to hold a fireset (Elmore 1944:34)
Medicine:
Plant considered poisonous (Elmore 1944:34)
Compound containing leaf juice used to poison arrows (Vestal 1952:21)
Plant used as a delirifacient a drug which produces delirium (Hocking 1956:164)
Plant used as a laxative (Hocking 1956:164)
Antiemetic - infusion of pulverized leaves taken for vomiting (Elmore 1944:32)
Plant used for heartburn (Elmore 1944:32)
Poultice of plants applied to the head for sore throats (Elmore 1944:34)
Narrowleaf Yucca used in childbirth. The roots are soaked in water, the liquid strained and given to a woman having a long labor. A
cupful of yucca suds and sugar is given to the mother to help deliver the afterbirth (Mayes and Lacy 1989:117)
Juice used to lubricate midwife's hand while removing retained placenta (Vestal 1952:21)
Rotten root used to make suds taken to induce menopause (Vestal 1952:21)
Cold infusion of root used to expedite delivery of baby or placenta (Vestal 1952:21)
Soap is made from the crushed root and used for washing hair, Sometimes sagebrush is added as a perfume, to make the hair grow long
and soft and to prevent it from falling out (Mayes and Lacy 1989:117)
Food
Flower buds roasted in ashes and leaves boiled with salt and used for food (Vestal 1952:21)
Buds foraged by sheep (Elmore 1944:34)
Fruit eaten when picked or cooked (Castetter,1935:54: Bell and Castetter 1941:20; Elmore 1944:32-33)
Fruit eaten raw or baked in hot coals, dried for winter use (Vestal 1952:21; Lynch 1986:31)
Fruit sliced and dried for winter use (Elmore 1944:33)
Ripe fruits dried, ground, kneaded into small cakes and slightly roasted. Fruits dried and stored for winter use (Castetter,1935:54)
Baked or dried fruits ground, made into small cakes and roasted again, mixed with cornmeal & made into gruel or stored for winter use
(Elmore 1944:32)
Fruit boiled in water with or without sugar and eaten as a dessert (Steggerda 1941:221)
Fruit used to make preserves (Vestal 1952:21)
Ripe fruit, with seeds removed, boiled down like jam, made into rolls and dried for winter use (Steggerda 1941:221; Elmore 1944:32)
Pulp made into cakes, dried and stored for winter use (Bell and Castetter 1941:20)
Fruit pulp made into cakes and mixed with water to make a syrup eaten with meat or bread (Bell and Castetter 1941:20)
Fruit molded into foot long rolls (Vestal 1952:21)
Dried fruit rolls soaked in hot water and eaten with corn mush (Castetter 1935:54; Steggerda 1941:221; Lynch 1986:31)
Dried fruit cakes mixed with water to make a syrup and eaten with meat and bread (Lynch 1986:31)
Dried fruit eaten by warriors at war (Bell and Castetter 1941:20)
Fruit dried and carried, when at war, with grass seeds and jerked venison (Elmore 1944:32)
Fiber used to tie butt and tip of corn husks filled with dough (Elmore 1944:34)
References:
Bailey 1940:286
Bell and Castetter 1941:20
Castetter 1935:54
Elmore 1944:33-34
Franciscan Fathers 1929:194, 371-73, 417-18
Hocking 1956:164
Kluckhohn and Leighton 1946:207, 218
Lynch 1986:31
Matthews 1886:777
Mayes and Lacy 1989:116-117
Sandstead et al., 1956
Standley 1912:452
Steggerda and Eckardt 1944:221
Vestal 1952:21
Wyman and Harris 1941:21, 37, 53
Young 22,35-36, 39
Pigweed
Navajo Name: Naazkaadii, "spread out"
Family
Taxon
Genus
Amaranthaceae
Amaranthus
Amaranthus L.
Classification: 45 species in Amaranthus
Species:
pigweed, Amaranthus L.
prostrate pigweed, Amaranthus albus
redroot amaranth, Amaranthus retroflexus
Primary Use: Food
Ceremonies: Bead Chant, Coyote Chant
Ritual Use:
used in the Coyote Chant smoke for lewdness (Franciscan Fathers 1929:395)
mixed with other plants and smoked during the Coyote Chant (Elmore 1944:45)
mixed with Aster and Artemisia to make Bead Chant liniment (Elmore 1944:45)
Amaranthus hybridus L.
Britton, N.L., and A. Brown. 1913. Illustrated
flora of the northern states and Canada. Vol.
2: 2.
Medicine:
leaves contain nitrate and are listed in Cornell Poisonous Plant database
infusions used as a lotion on itches (Wyman and Harris 1941: 64)
Food: Seeds ground Standley 1912: 458)
Seeds ground, mush made with goats milk (Elmore 1944: 45)
seeds threshed from the plants ground and made into dough and baked in ashes (Bailey
1940: 287)
ground, then mixed with corn flour and made into bread (Steggerda and Eckardt 1941:
223)
parched, then ground into meal mixed with goat's milk to make gruel (Elmore 1944:
46)
seeds boiled with tallow and eaten (Bailey 1940: 286)
seeds made into dumplings (Steggerda and Eckardt 1941: 223)
greens boiled, then fried in grease and eaten or canned (Franciscan Fathers 1929: 181
Castetter 1935: 15 Elmore 1944: 46)
leaves mixed with seeds and grease and eaten (Elmore 1944: 46)
Other Uses: sheep food
References:
Bailey 1940:287
Castetter 1935:15
Elmore 1944:45- 46,82
Franciscan Fathers 1929:181, 395,405
Mayes and Lacy 1989:77
Standley 1912:458
Steggerda and Eckardt1941:223
Wyman and Harris 1941:64
Big Sagebrush
Navajo Name: Ts'ah, the sagebrush
Family
Taxon
Genus
Asteraceae
Artemisia
sp.
Artemisia
L.
Classification: Artemisia L contains 68
Species and 100 accepted taxa overall
Species:
big sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata
little sagebrush, Artemisia arbuscula
black sagebrush, Artemisia nova
silver sagebrush, Artemisia cana
threetip sagebrush, Artemisia
tripartita
sand sagebrush, Artemisia filifolia
field sagewort, Artemisia campestris
Carruth's sagewort, Artemisia
Prostrate Pigweed
Robert H. Mohlenbrock
carruthii
absinthium, Artemisia absinthium
tarragon, Artemisia dracunculus
Common Names: Big Sagebrush, blue
sagebrush, chamiso hendiondo, common
sagebrush
Primary Use: Medicine
Ceremonies: Life Medicine, Evil Way
Medicine, Other curing ceremonies, Bead
Chant, Eagle Way, Water Way,
Mountaintop Way, Night Way, Evil Way
Ritual Use:
Coyote gave this tobacco to the Water
Monster to calm her after he had stole
her baby (Mayes and Lacy 1989:107)
tied to hoops used for "unraveling
ceremonial objects" (Elmore 1944:
81)
Artemisia tridentata Nutt.
cold infusion used as chant lotion
Britton, N.L., and A. Brown. 1913. Illustrated
(Wyman and Harris 1941: 67)
flora of the northern states and Canada. Vol.
mixed with Aster and Amaranthus to 3: 530.
make Bead Chant liniment Bead
Chant (Elmore 1944: 82)
used with other brush to thatch Mountain Chant sweathouse Mountain Chant (Elmore 1944:82, 84)
patient sits on branches in sweathouse (Elmore 1944: 21)
sweatbath medication (Mayes and Lacy 1989:107)
Medicine men use sagebrush as a the hearth of the ceremonial fire drill (Mayes and Lacy 1989:107)
used in religious curing ceremonies curing ceremonies (Hocking 1956: 158)
used as a Life Medicine on wounds (Franciscan Fathers 1929: 115; Wyman and Harris 1941:63, 69; Elmore 1944: 80)
used as an Evil Way Medicine (Wyman and Harris 1941: 73)
sagewort as an Evil Way unraveling medicine (Wyman and Harris 1941: 73)
used as an Enemy Way medicine (Wyman and Harris 1941: 74)
made into wands for practicing the Night Chant Night Chant (Elmore 1944: 81)
sagebrush wood ritual charcoal used for Evil Way blackening (Wyman and Harris 1941: 74)
mixed with other plants and burned; charcoal "applied to ailing gods" (Elmore 1944: 86)
burned with other plants, patient's body coated with charcoal in Mountain Chant (Elmore 1944: 82)
Medicine:
decoction used "to stop postpartum hemorrhage" (Wyman and Harris 1941: 62)
used on burns and boils (Wyman and Harris 1941: 64)
used to treat corns (Elmore 1944: 82; Hocking 1956: 158)
treat colds and fevers Wyman and Harris 1941: 69 (Elmore 1944: 81; Mayes and Lacy 1989:107)
taken to cleanse body before strenuous activity (Elmore 1944: 81)
The tea is drunk before long hikes or athletic contests to "rid the body of undesirable things" (Mayes and Lacy 1989:107)
made into drink to ease childbirth (Elmore 1944: 81)
boiled, then liquid drunk to treat stomachache (Elmore 1944: 81)
Boiled it is good for childbirth, indigestion, and constipation (Mayes and Lacy 1989:107)
fumes breathed to treat headaches (Elmore 1944: 81)
wood burned with Portulaca oleracea seeds to purify one's body (Elmore 1944: 47)
threetip sagebrush mixed with big sagebrush, fumes breathed to treat headaches (Elmore 1944: 82)
poultice made from pounded leaves good for colds, swellings and tuberculosis or as a liniment for corns (Mayes and Lacy 1989:107)
same medicine is used on animal sores (Mayes and Lacy 1989:107)
Food:
Artemisia wrightii Gray sagebrush achene food ground and made into bread, dumplings or gruel (Steggerda and Eckardt 1941: 223;
Elmore 1944: 82)
Other Uses: Ts'ah is used to make yellow, green, and gold wool dyes (Mayes and Lacey 1989:107)
leaf or twig used to make a yellow dye (Young 1940: 63; Elmore 1944: 81; Hocking 1956: 157)
field sagewort added to Yucca shampoo as a conditioner (Wyman and Harris 1941: 53)
used for toilet paper (Elmore 1944: 81)
used for a fire drill (Elmore 1944: 81)
"said to collect dew more readily than any other plant" (Matthews 1886: 773)
bark other used for bottle stopper (Elmore 1944: 82)
References:
Elmore 1944:81, 82
Franciscan Fathers 1929: 115
Hocking 1956: 157-158
Matthews 1886: 773
Mayes and Lacy 1989:106-107
Steggerda and Eckardt 1941: 223
Wyman and Harris 1941: 53, 62, 64, 73- 74
Young 1940: 63
Data:
Goosefoot, Lambsquarters, Wild Spinach
Navajo Name: Tl'oh ligsii, grass white
Family
Taxon
Genus
Chenopodiaceae Cronquist system (1981)
Amaranthaceae in the APG II system (2003)
Chenopodium sp.
Chenopodium
Genus: Chenopodium Contains 50 Species and 78 accepted taxa overall
Species:
Goosefoot or lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L.
Blite Goosefoot, Chenopodium capitatum (L.) Ambrosi
Fremont's goosefoot, Chenopodium fremontii
Fetid goosefoot, Chenopodium graveolens Willd.
Mealy goosefoot, Chenopodium incanum
narrowleaf goosefoot, Chenopodium leptophyllum
New Mexico goosefoot, Chenopodium neomexicanum
Desert goosefoot, Chenopodium pratericola
Description: Common lambsquarters is an erect, annual herb under 4 feet. Herbage is mealy but not
hairy, stems may have lengthwise, red streaks. Small greenish flowers open from mid-May to midOctober
Distribution: From 8000 ft to lowest part of reservation ~3000 ft disturbed soil in depressions
Ceremonies: Mountain Chant, Nightway
Ritual Use:
Dried leaves bruised, then stirred in water and used for Mountain Chant liniment (Franciscan
Fathers 1929:405. Elmore 1944:44)
Seeds winnowed, ground with maize, made into bread and used as a ceremonial food in Night
Way (Elmore 1944 44; Vestal:1952:25).
Fetid goosefoot used as a liniment in the Mountain Chant
Used as equipment in other ceremonies (Mayes and Lacy 1989:43-44)
Medicine:
Chenopodium album
Melganzenvoet bloeiwijze
chopped up finely and put on arms and face for mosquito and fly repellent (Elmore 1944:44)
Mealy goosefoot or lambsquarter stem, three inches long, made into snake figurine for snake
infection (Vestal 1952:25)
Fetid goosefoot used as an emetic at Acoma and Laguna (Swank 1932:36)
Poultice of lambsquarters applied to burns (Wyman and Harris 1951:20)
Blite Goosefoot, used as a lotion for head bruises and black eyes (Wyman and Harris 1951:21)
at Zuni Fetid goosefoot steeped in water and vapor inhaled for headache (Stevenson 1915:45)
Food:
A major food plant. Seeds considered among the most important food plants when the Zuni reached
this world (Castetter 1935:21)
Chenopodium album L.
lambsquarters
Mayes and Lacy (1989:43) describe preparation: dried plants are threshed on a blanket to winnow the USDA NRCS
seeds, ground lightly to loosen the perianth, winnowed again, washed, dried and ground with corn.
Meal had a bitter taste if used alone. Seeds stored for winter (Vestal:1952:25).
seeds threshed from the plants, then eaten (Reagan 1929:156; Bailey 1940:287; Buskirk 1986:192)
ground into meal and used in recipes similar to corn (Franciscan Fathers 1929:209)
made into porridge (Standley 1912:458; Franciscan Fathers 1929:209; Bailey 1940:287; Elmore 1944:44; Hocking 1956:149)
made into bread or cakes that are pit-baked (Bailey 1940:287 Elmore 1944:44; Hocking 1956:149)
made into griddle cakes (Bailey 1940:287)
made into tortillas (Elmore 1944:44)
ground with corn and made into ash bread, dumplings boiled in water or goats milk, mush (Mayes and Lacy 1989:43)
used to flavor corn cakes (Bailey 1940:287)
ground seeds used in stews (Hocking 1956:149)
ground into meal, parched, and then eaten (Elmore 1944:44)
raw greens eaten when young and tender (Elmore 1944:44; Hocking 1956:149)
greens boiled with other foods or alone (Elmore 1944:44; Hocking 1956:149)
Leaves cooked with green chile and meat or animal bones (Castetter and 1936:46)
washed, then parboiled, set out to dry, and used in recipes like corn (Franciscan Fathers 1929:209)
dried, then "treated after the manner of corn" (Elmore 1944:44)
at Hopi, leaves packed around yucca fruit when baked in earth oven (Colton 1974:300)
at Hopi, seeds ground, mixed with corn meal and made into small dumplings wrapped in corn husks (Fewkes 1896:18)
at Zuni, ground seeds mixed with corn meal and salt, made into a stiff batter, formed into balls and steamed (Stevenson 1915:66)
Other Uses:
Cold infusion of Fetid goosefoot taken to give protection in warfare (Vestal:1952:25)
References:
Buskirk 1986:192
Castetter 1935:16, 21
Chamberlin 1911:366
Colton 1974:300
Elmore 1944:43-44
Fewkes 1896:18
Franciscan Fathers 1910:185
Hocking1956:149
Jones 1931
Matthews, W 1886:768
Mayes and Lacy 1989:43-44
Reagan 1929:156
Stevenson 1915:45, 66
Swank 1932:36
Vestal 1940 :161
Vestal 1952:25
White 1945:560
Whiting 1939:73
Wyman and Harris 1941:33,38
Young 1938:6
Juniper Little - Utah juniper, Rocky Mt Juniper
Navajo Name: Gad bik2’7g77, “male juniper”,
Gad ni’ee[ii, “drooping juniper”
Family
Taxon
Genus
Cupressaceae
Juniperus sp.
Juniperus L.
Classification: 27 species in Juniperus
Species:
Common Juniper, Juniperus communis,
Utah Juniper, Juniperus osteosperma (Torr.) Little
Rocky Mountain Juniper, Juniperus scopulorum
Oneseed Juniper, Juniperus monosperma
Description:
Juniperus communis
Common Juniper
Afbeelding
According to the species account from USDA Forest Service Fire Effects Information System
(FEIS), Utah juniper is a short tree that may live as long as 650 years (Loehle 1988). Utah junipers
grow less than 26.4 feet (8 m) and are often as short as 9.9 to 14.85 feet (3-4.5 m), with a trunk 4 to 7.5 inches (10-30 cm) thick (Hitchcock
and Cronquist 1973; Hickman 1993; Kearney et al. 1960; Ronco 1997). Sometimes the tree has multiple stems (Arnold 1964).
Utah juniper trees will grow in very stunted forms under severe site conditions. A 6-inch tree with a 24-inch (60 cm) taproot may be over 50
years old (Lanner 1983). They grow quite slowly, usually only about 0.05 inch (0.127 cm) in diameter per year (Gottfried 1992; Meeuwig and
Bassett 1983).
Utah juniper's taproot extends deep into the soil (as far as 15 feet (4.5 m). Their lateral roots may extend up to 100 feet (30.3 m) from the tree,
several inches below the soil surface. Most root biomass is within the first 3 feet (0.9 m) of soil, with fine roots concentrated in the uppermost
18 inches (46 cm) (Skau 1960) or just below the soil surface (Tiedemann 1987). Utah juniper responds to low nutrient levels in the soil by
developing extensive networks of fine roots at the base of the tree and at the end of lateral roots. This rooting habit may explain, in part, the
competitiveness of juniper with understory species (Kearney et al. 1960; Klopatek 1987). Junipers compete more efficiently for soil moisture
than do herbaceous understory plants; therefore, over time, junipers are more likely to maintain a stable population, while understory plants
decrease (Austin 1987; Everett et al. 1983; Springfield 1976). However it is interesting to note, a Utah study concluded that Utah junipers do
not use soil moisture from summer precipitation and do not have active roots in shallow soils layers during the summer (Donovan 1994).
Distribution:
Utah juniper is the most common tree in the Great Basin and is widely distributed throughout the arid West (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973;
Lanner 1983). The tree occurs occasionally in southern Idaho, southern Montana, and western Wyoming, and is common in Colorado, Utah,
Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, and southeastern California. Utah juniper is the most common juniper species in Arizona (Arnold 1964).
Ceremonies: Blessing Way, Night Chant, Mountain Chant, War Chant, Enemy Way, Evil Way, "War Dance", Enemy Way, Western
direction
Ritual Use:
emetic in 5- and 9-night ceremonies. Used to make ceremonial items (Mayes and Lacy 1989:55)
Juniper bark used for tray to hold powders for sand painting. The charcoal is ground and used for black in sand paintings. Twig dipped
in a bowl, then touched to Whirling Logs picture in Night Chant (Elmore 1944:18);
bark for tinder for Night Chant fire from lightning-struck juniper tree (Elmore 1944:17)
juniper carried by dancers in Mountain Chant Fire Dance (Elmore 1944:18).
Branches mashed with Pinus needles, mixed in water, and applied to War Chant patients (Franciscan Fathers 1929:371).
Branches are made into wand for war dance (Elmore 1944:20).
Scale leaf is chewed, then spat out for good luck (Franciscan Fathers 1929:497). (Elmore 1944:18). Wood made into prayer sticks
(Elmore 1944:18; Franciscan Fathers 1929:396).
Night Chant fire drill made from lightning-struck juniper tree (Elmore 1944:17). Wood used to make prayer sticks for the western
direction (Elmore 1944:20).
One-seed Juniper is used as an Enemy Way medicine, Evil Way hoops (Wyman and Harris 1941:73-74),
branches are carried in War Dance, tied with Chrysothamnus or Gutierrezia (Elmore 1944:19),
sharpened stick used for scratching during the Enemy Way ceremony (Wyman and Harris 1941:74).
One-seed juniper wood made into prayer sticks (Elmore 1944:19).
Rocky mountain juniper, used as an Enemy Way medicine (Wyman and Harris 1941:74),
branches pounded, then mixed with water taken internally for War Dance medicine (Elmore 1944:20)
Virginia Juniper is made into wand for war dance (Elmore 1944:20)
Rocky mountain juniper, used for medicine and ceremonial equipment in the Blessing Way, Evil Way and other ceremonials (Mayes
and Lacy 1989:55)
Medicine:
Juniper mixed with other plants and rubbed into the head to treat dandruff (Franciscan Fathers 1929:112)
juniper, Rocky mountain berry rubbed into the scalp with a grass to remove dandruff (Elmore 1944:20)
Several authors indicate that juniper (common) tea taken to treat pain after childbirth (Wyman and Harris 1941:62; Lynch 1986:22;
Bailey 1940:290)
juniper berry boiled, then liquid drunk to treat influenza (Elmore 1944:18)
juniper,(one-seed and common) decoction drunk as an emetic (Wyman and Harris 1941:58)
juniper, Utah berry (fruit) eaten to treat headache (Hocking 1956:152)
Food:
formerly mashed and eaten with mush (Bailey 1940:287)
juniper berry (fruit) eaten raw or roasted, "ground into a meal and mixed with bread dough" (Lynch 1986:22)
juniper scale leaf ashes used in making breads and cornmeal mush (Lynch 1986:22)
juniper, one-seed inner bark chewed for juice, eaten during food shortage (Castetter 1935:32; Elmore 1944:19)
juniper, one-seed berry (fruit) eaten in fall and winter (Elmore 1944:19)
Fuel
used for firewood (Bailey1940:273; Elmore1944:18-19)
made into charcoal for smithing (Franciscan Fathers1929:274)
References:
Bailey 1940:273, 287, 290
Castetter 1935:32
Elmore 1944:17-20
Franciscan Fathers 1929: 112, 274, 396, 497
Hocking 1956:152
Lynch 1986:22
Mayes and Lacy 1989:55
Wyman and Harris 1941:58, 62, 74
Lupine
Navajo Name: Azee' b7ni'7, "wondering about medicine"
Family
Taxon
Genus
Fabaceae
Lupinus
Lupinus
Classification: 236 genera in Fabaceae, 165 species in Lupinus, 356 accepted taxa overall
Species:
Silvery lupine, Lupinus argenteus
King's Lupine, Lupinus kingii S. Wats.
Dwarf Mountain Lupine, Lupinus lyallii Gray
Rusty Lupine, Lupinus pusillus Pursh
Intermountain Lupine, Lupinus pusillus ssp. intermontanus (Heller) D. Dunn
Ceremonies: Male Shooting Chant
Ritual Use:
used in the Male Shooting Chant (Elmore 1944: 56)
leaves used as a ceremonial emetic. Leaves used as life medicine (Vestal 1952: 32)
at Hopi, Rusty Lupine juice used as holy water in the Po-wa-mu ceremony (Colton 1974:333)
Medicine:
cold infusion of leaves used as a lotion on poison ivy blisters (Vestal 1952: 32)
at Hopi, King's Lupine used as an eye medicine (Whiting 1939: 33, 80)
Dwarf Mountain Lupine used for boils (Elmore 1944: 97)
at Hopi, Rusty Lupine used as an ear and eye medicine (Colton 1974:333)
Intermountain Lupine used for earaches and nosebleeds (Wyman and Harris 1951: 28)
Food:
none cited
Other Uses:
Intermountain Lupine used as a fumigant ingredient (Wyman and Harris 1951: 28)
flowers used to make a blue dye, also used to make a green dye (Elmore 1944: 57)
Lupinus decumbens
Britton, N.L., and A. Brown. 1913.
Illustrated flora of the northern states
and Canada. Vol. 2: 348.
References:
Colton 1974:333
Elmore 1944: 56-57, 97
Mayes and Lacy 1989:60
Vestal 1952: 32
Whiting 1939: 33, 80
Wyman and Harris 1951: 28
Common Bean
Navajo Name:
Family
Taxon
Genus
Fabaceae
Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus
Classification: 12 species in Phaseolus and 18 accepted taxa overall
Species:
Common bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L.
Tepary bean Phaseolus acutifolius
Slimleaf Bean, Phaseolus angustissimus Gray
Sieva Bean, Phaseolus lunatus L.
Ceremonies: Night Chant
Ritual Use:
used with Zea mays and other plants for Night Chant medicine (Elmore 1944:28)
Snijboon peulen
Phaseolus vulgaris
Medicine:
At Zuni, slimleaf bean leaves, blossoms and root are crushed and powdered then rubbed on a child's body as a strengthener (Stevenson
1915:85)
Food:
Beans grown in small quantities, when possible, and eaten (Franciscan Fathers 1929: 204)
Beans formed a large part of the vegetable diet (Steggerda and Eckardt 1941: 221)
Large, white bean and small white lima bean cultivated for local use (Vestal 1952: 33)
Beans boiled and used in stews (Steggerda 1941: 221; Steggerda and Eckardt 1941: 221 )
Beans cultivated and stored for use during the winter (Steggerda and Eckardt 1941: 221)
Other Uses:
Beans cultivated as a commercial crop (Vestal 1952:33)
Plants, after harvesting the beans, used as stock feed (Vestal 1952:33)
References:
Elmore 1944:28
Franciscan Fathers 1929: 204
Steggerda 1941: 221
Vestal 1952:33
Piñon Pine
Navajo Name: Ch1’o[, “piñon”
’Neeshch’77, “piñon seeds”; Atlish, “piñon butter”; Deetsiin, “piñon logs”; Deetsiin bijeeh, “piñon
gum”
Family
Taxon
Genus
Pinaceae
Pinus edulis
Pinus L
Classification: Pinus L has 75 species and 70 accepted taxa overall
Species:
twoneedle pinyon, Pinus edulis Engelm. aka Colorado pinyon
singleleaf pinyon, Pinus monophylla Torr. & Frém. var. monophylla
Mexican piñon, Pinus cembroides
Single-leaf pinyon
showing single leaves and immature
cones
Toiyabe
Description:
According to the species account from USDA Forest Service Fire Effects Information System (FEIS), Mature singleleaf pinyon is usually
found in open woodlands (Lanner 1999; Meeuwig et. al. 1990:380-384). It is a short tree (6-12 m). Because of a lack of self-pruning, it grows
to a rounded to flat-topped crown with multiple, upswept branches. It is sometimes multi-stemmed from simultaneous establishment from seed
caches (Tomback and Linhart 1990: 185-219). The bark is thin (1-2 cm) and smooth on young trees and grows up to an inch thick with age
(Graves 1917). The wood is soft and not resinous (Perry 1991). Singleleaf pinyon has an extensive lateral root system. Therefore it can
penetrate open areas between tree canopies and extract water and nutrients. This helps it maintain a seasonally stable xylem water potential and
thereby to endure drought better than the associated shrubs (Evans 1988).
Singleleaf pinyon needles are long-lived (5-12 years) (Graves 1917; McCune 1988). This "evergreenness," allows the tree to conserve
nutrients and take advantage of short favorable conditions within a generally unfavorable landscape (McCune 1988: 353-368). The needles
have an allelopathic effect on the germination and growth of herbaceous plants (Everett 1987: 152-157; Wilt et. al. 1988: 228-231).
Singleleaf pinyon trees are long-lived. Where protected from fires, large trees can live 350 years or more (Everett et. al. 1986). Dominant
pinyons are often 400 years old and have been known to reach 800 to 1000 years (Keeley and Zedler 1998; Ronco 1987).
Distribution:
Colorado pinyon extend through the southwestern United States and Colorado Plateau, reaching to the eastern rim of the Great Basin (Peet
1988). It is abundant in Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico (Peet 1988), and its range extends to southern Wyoming, eastern Nevada
and California, western Oklahoma, the Trans-Pecos region of Texas, and northern Mexico (Little 1971; Peet 1988). Colorado pinyon
occurrence is generally rare or localized on the edges of its distribution (Little 1971).
Pinyon-juniper woodlands cover more than 55.6 million acres in the western U.S. (Mitchell and Roberts 1999). Singleleaf pinyon has a large
area of distribution which results in a large degree of genetic variation (Lanner 1975). It is the dominant tree species in the mountains of the
Great Basin. It extends from southern Idaho, western Utah and northwestern Arizona, through most of Nevada and eastern and central
California to northern Baja California (Lanner 1975; Little 1971; Meeuwig et. al. 1990:380-384). It is also found in the Mojave Desert
borderlands of southern California and in small, fragmented populations in a belt across Arizona south of the Mogollon Rim into southwestern
New Mexico (Lanner 1981; 1983).
The distribution of singleleaf pinyon has undergone many changes in both prehistoric and historic times (Chambers et. al. 1999:29-34), and
any assessment of pinyon and juniper woodland distribution is only a snapshot of a woodland in motion (Everett 1985: 53-62). Historic
changes in distribution are well documented (Gordon et. al. 1992; Richardson and Bond 1991: 639-668; Tausch and Nowak 1999: 71-77;
Yorks et. al. 1994:359-364). The evolutionary distribution of pinyon may provide information helpful in understanding climate
change(Betancourt 1987, 1991; Ernst and Pieper 1996:14-16).
Ceremonies: War Chant, War Dance, Mountain Chant, Witch Chant, Night Chant, Lightning Chant, Shooting Chant, Evil Way,
Piñon Pine is used to make medicine or equipment in almost every Navajo ceremony: to build ceremonial hogans and corals in the Mountain
Chant and Night Chant, piñon charcoal is preferred for the black pigment in sand painting and piñon pitch is used in the ritual necessary after
the death of a relative or friend (Mayes and Lacy 1989:79)
Ritual Use:
pollen used in ceremonies (Franciscan Fathers 1929: 400)
bark made into trays for holding sand painting colors (Elmore 1944:23)
needle mashed with Juniperus twigs, mixed in water, and applied to War Chant patients (Franciscan Fathers 1929: 371)
needles put in bowl of water, then drunk or used by Mountain Chant patient to wash (Elmore 1944:23)
needles carried by dancers on the last night of the Mountain Chant (Elmore 1944:23)
needles taken internally for medicine for War Dance (Elmore 1944:22)
branch used with juniper to make a Mountain Chant circle (Elmore 1944:22)
branch used to mark the cardinal directions for the Witch Chant (Franciscan Fathers 1929: 415)
sap worn by someone who is about to bury a dead person burial (Elmore 1944:22)
sap burned as incense during Night Chant initiation (Elmore 1944:22)
War Dance patient coated with pitch (Elmore 1944:22)
sapling ritual stripped of branches, carried by Talking God for male patients in Night Chant (Elmore 1944:22)
wood made into arrows for shooting in the Witch Chant (Franciscan Fathers 1929:418)
wood used to make ceremonial bull-roarer Elmore 1944:23)
wood made into arrows for shooting in the Lightning Chant (Franciscan Fathers 1929: 418)
wood ritual made into ceremonial wands (Elmore 1944:22)
wood ritual charcoal used for black in sand paintings (Elmore 1944:22)
wood ritual made into ceremonial pokers (Elmore 1944:22)
Medicine:
decoction drunk as an emetic (Wyman and Harris 1941: 58)
sap mixed with tallow and red clay to make salve to treat sores and cuts (Elmore 1944: 22)
Food:
nut eaten raw gathered in fall and early winter (Castetter 1935: 40; Elmore 1944:22; Lynch 1986:21)
nut shells removed, then nuts mashed to make a paste (Elmore 1944:22)
nut ground, made into balls or cakes and eaten gathered in fall and early winter (Lynch 1986:21)
nut ground and made into cakes and dried stored for winter use (Bailey 1940:287)
nut ground into pinyon butter and eaten (Bailey 1940:287)
nut roasted in pots or skillets and eaten (Elmore 1944:22)
nut roasted, then mashed into piñon butter (Franciscan Fathers 1929: 211)
nut roasted in the shell, then nut meats eaten with roasted corn (Bailey 1940:287)
nut roasted, then shelled and meats ground; used like butter (Steggerda and Eckardt 1941:222 )
nut boiled to make gruel and eaten gathered in fall and early winter (Lynch 1986:21)
bark formerly eaten with salt gathered in summer (Bailey 1940:286)
sap used for chewing gum (Castetter 1935:32; Elmore 1944:23)
Fuel
wood fuel used for light and warmth, but not cooking (Franciscan Fathers 1929:66)
wood fuel used for tinderbox for friction fire-making (Elmore 1944:23)
wood fuel used for firewood (Elmore 1944:22-23; Bailey 1940:273)
Other Uses:
nuts were important trade item (Mayes and Lacy 1989:79)
nut (seed) dried, then strung for necklaces and bracelets (Elmore 1944:22)
bark dried and used to cover summer shelters (Elmore 1944: 23)
bark used to cover the sides of temporary hogans (Franciscan Fathers 1929: 335)
branch used to thatch summer shelters (Franciscan Fathers 1929: 335)
branch used to build corrals (Elmore 1944: 22)
sap used to waterproof water jars (Elmore 1944:23)
sap mixed with boiled sumac and yellow ochre and roasted to make black dye (Elmore 1944:21)
sap melted, then poured inside jars to make them waterproof (Elmore 1944:22)
wood used for tinderbox for fire-drill fire starting (Franciscan Fathers 1929: 65)
wood used in making cradles (Elmore 1944:22-23)
wood made into a ball for playing shinny (Elmore 1944:23)
wood used for logs for hogans (Elmore 1944: 22)
wood used to enclose the circle for public dancing (Franciscan Fathers 1929: 335)
wood used for weaving loom frames (Franciscan Fathers 1929:243; Elmore 1944:22)
References:
Bailey 1940:273, 286-287
Castetter 1935:32,40
Elmore 1944:21-23
Franciscan Fathers 1929:65-66, 211, 243, 335, 371, 400, 415, 418
Lynch 1986:21
Mayes and Lacy 1989:79
Steggerda and Eckardt 1941:222
Wyman and Harris 1941:58
Corn, Maize
Navajo Name: Naad33’
Family
Taxon
Genus
Poaceae
Zea mays
Zea L.
Classification: Zea mays L. contains 2 Subspecies, 3 Varieties
and 2 accepted taxa overall
Species: Zea mays L.
Ritual Use:
Coyote Chant, Night Chant, "Nubility ceremony", Women's
puberty ceremony, Mountain Chant, Bead Chant, Wind Chant,
Motion-in-hand ceremony, Prominent in origin stories (Matthews
1897; Farella 1984; Zolbrod 1984)
Ear
used in ceremonies, if kernels are in straight rows (Elmore
1944:30)
Corn meal
batter baked into doughnut-shaped cakes and given to the
Firegod (Franciscan Fathers 1929:208)
mush used to make a figurine of a kit fox, coyote and of
various animals in the Coyote Chant, a bear in the
Mountain Chant and a wildcat in the Bead Chant (Elmore
1944:30)
cornmeal dough pit-baked; cakes cut up and used in the
Night Chant vigil, "Nubility ceremony" (Franciscan
Fathers1929:207)
cornmeal batter baked into small cakes and used for Wind
Chant offerings (Franciscan Fathers 1929:208)
meal made into cakes and baked in pits during the Night
Chant (Elmore 1944:30)
made into mush, then pit-baked; cakes used in women's
puberty ceremony (Bailey 1940: 281)
Leaves
mixed with other plants to make Night Chant medicine
(Elmore 1944:28)
Zea Maize
Otto Wilhelm Thomé
Corn pollen
used in most ceremonies (Franciscan Fathers 1929:404)
scattered along routes of ceremonial processions (Elmore 1944:27)
placed on sand paintings, prayer sticks, sacred masks and scattered on dancing grounds (Elmore 1944:27)
used for the motion-in-hand ceremony (Elmore 1944:28)
sprinkled on a gila monster, then collected, and used for "live pollen" (Elmore 1944:28)
Medicine: cornmeal mush mixed with herbs and liquids, then applied to sore throats (Elmore 1944:28)
Husk
used to wrap green corn bread while baking (Bailey 1940:280)
occasionally used to hold blood sausage (Elmore 1944:28)
Husk or leaves
used to wrap cornmeal mush while boiling or while baking in ashes (Franciscan Fathers 1929:206)
Leaves
Leaves eaten like lettuce when plants are 3 inches high (Elmore 1944:30)
Ears
roasted over an open fire or in an oven (Elmore 1944:29)
gathered after first frost, when ears are immature steamed in pits and eaten or dried for winter use Steggerda and Eckardt (1941:217)
steamed in pits, then removed from cob and dried stored for winter use
pit-roasted with husks on, then shucked and eaten (Franciscan Fathers 1929:208)
boiled with meat to make stew (Franciscan Fathers 1929:212)
pit-roasted in the husk and eaten when green or stored for future use (Bailey 1940:285)
roasted, shelled, ground, then dried and wrapped in husks gathered when green and used during journeys (Elmore1944:28)
Meal
mixed with juniper ash and made into bread (Elmore 1944:29)
boiled juniper water added to cornmeal, allowed to thicken, then eaten as mush or as a beverage (Elmore 1944:28)
batter mixed with juniper ashes to make blue bread (Franciscan Fathers 1929:207)
made into mush, then baked in ashes (Franciscan Fathers 1929:204)
mush boiled in corn leaf pockets or wrapped in husks and baked in ashes (Franciscan Fathers 1929:205; Steggerda and Eckardt
1941:219)
batter baked on griddle stones (Franciscan Fathers1929:207)
meal parched, sweetened with saliva, boiled into mush, then frozen; later eaten (Franciscan Fathers 1929:205)
meal mixed with juniper ash and made into dumplings (Elmore 1944:29)
meal mixed with salt and water and baked (Steggerda and Eckardt 1941:219)
meal batter made into piki (wafer) bread (Franciscan Fathers1929:207)
mixed with pumpkin, wrapped in a husk, and baked in ashes gathered when not quite mature (Elmore 1944:29)
dried corn ground and mixed into coffee (Bailey 1940:285)
blue corn ground and mixed with juniper ashes and then boiled for dumplings (Steggerda and Eckardt 1941:220)
boiled in goat milk and eaten (Bailey 1940:285)
mixed with ground sprouted wheat and water, then baked (Steggerda and Eckardt 1941:219)
Kernels
parched, then ground into meal and made into mush (Franciscan Fathers 1929: 205)
boiled with meat and eaten (Steggerda and Eckardt 1941:218)
kernels oiled with cut-up pieces of squash and eaten (Bailey 1940:285)
Other uses:
Cobs used for fuel, pith used for tinder,
Cob "used to beat leather when dyeing it",
Husk used to roll cigarettes and stalk occasionally used for thatching (Elmore 1944:28)
References:
Farella, John R.
1984 The Main Stalk: A Synthesis of Navajo Philosophy. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson and London
Zolbrod, Paul G.
1984 Diné Bahané: The Navajo Creation Story. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Matthews, Washington
1897 Navaho legends. Collected and tr. by Washington Matthews With introduction, notes, illustrations, texts, interlinear translations, and
melodies. Pub. for the American folk-lore society by Houghton, Mifflin and company, Boston, New York,
Purslane, Little Hogweed
Navajo Name: Ts4gha’ni[chi’, “breeze through rock”
Family
Taxon
Genus
Portulacaceae
Portulaca sp.
Portulaca L.
Classification: Portulaca L. Contains 18 Species and 20 accepted taxa overall
Species:
little hogweed, Portulaca oleracea
aka Portulaca retusa Engelm.
Ceremonies: none cited
Ritual Use:
none cited
Medicine:
Seed burned with big sagebrush on hot coals, to cure sickness (Elmore 1944:47)
Plant eaten to cure stomach aches, to treat pain in general - plant seen as a kind of panacea to
"cure sick people" (Elmore 1944: 47)
Plant used as a lotion for scarlet fever (Wyman and Harris 1951: 22)
Portulaca retusa
Britton, N.L., and A. Brown. 1913.
Illustrated flora of the northern states
and Canada. Vol. 2: 40.
Food:
Plants used for food (Hocking 1956:154)
Seeds used for food (Standley 1912:458; Elmore 1944: 47)
Leaves used as a potherb (Vestal 1952 :26)
Leaves boiled as greens with meat (Vestal 1952 :26)
Other Uses:
Plant used as a good sheep forage (Elmore 1944: 47)
References:
Elmore 1944:47
Hocking 1956:154
Standley 1912:458
Vestal 1952 :26
Wyman and Harris 1951:22
Wild tobacco
Navajo Name:
Portulaca villosa Cham.
Eric Guinther
Family
Taxon
Genus
Solanaceae
Nicotiana
Nicotiana L
Classification: 41 genera in Solanaceae, 22 species in Nicotiana
Species:
Wild tobacco Nicotiana
Coyote Tobacco, Nicotiana attenuata Torr. ex S. Wats.
Cultivated Tobacco, Nicotiana tabacum L.
Palmer's Tobacco, Nicotiana obtusifolia var. palmeri (Gray) Kartesz
Desert Tobacco, Nicotiana obtusifolia
Ceremonies:
Evil Way, Blessing Way, Night Chant, Raven Chant, Mountain Chant
Ritual:
Nicotiana rustica L.
Britton, N.L., and A. Brown. 1913.
Illustrated flora of the northern states
and Canada. Vol. 3: 170.
used in many ceremonies (Franciscan Fathers 1929:200)
used to make Evil Way smoke (Wyman and Harris 1941:74)
mixed with other plants and burned in the Blessing Way ceremony (Wyman and Harris 1941:71)
leaf mixed with other plants and smoked in Blessing Way to treat mental problems (Wyman and Harris 1941:60)
leaf used to fill Night Chant prayer sticks (Elmore 1944:75)
leaf smoked after making masks for the Night Chant (Elmore 1944:75)
Infusion of leaves given to the patient in a painted turtle shell during the Raven Chant (Elmore1944:74)
used for sores caused by the handling or burning a raven's nest (Elmore1944:74)
Sacred plant depicted with beans, corn & squash in the first sacred painting of the Mountain Chant (Elmore1944:75)
Plant smoked in corn husks for ceremonial purposes (Vestal 1952:43)
Medicine:
Leaf smoke blown in patient's face to treat fainting (Wyman and Harris 1941:59)
Plant used for nosebleed (Wyman and Harris 1951: 41)
Plant used as a narcotic (Wyman and Harris 1951: 41)
Leaves smoked in corn husks for headache (Vestal 1952:l43)
Leaves smoked in corn husks for cough (Vestal 1952:43)
Food:
none cited
Other:
Plant used to heal castration cuts on a young race horse (Vestal 1952:43)
Coyote Tobacco used as substitute for commercial tobacco (Vestal 1952:43)
References:
Discussion
We sought at the outset of macrobotanical analysis, to find information to help us compare the diversity and abundance of wild and domestic
species in the Pueblo and Navajo collections. We asked several specific questions: How similar are the two components in their use of
botanicals? As this is a very early Navajo site, what insights can we gain into Navajo domesticates in the context of horticulture or agriculture
versus trade for Pueblo goods. Were the food crops locally grown or not? How similar are ethnobotanical assemblages between hogans? Do
all Navajo residents use similar botanical resources? Can we discriminate between economic and non-economic uses of botanical materials?
How does plant manipulation at this site differ from earlier, Northern Athabascan adaptations prior to the emergence of Navajo cultural
identity and from later, subsequent, Navajo culture phases? How does it differ from that of other cultures in the region (Archaic, Anasazi, later
Pueblo, Ute and Apache)? What do these plants tell us about prehistoric landscapes and how their occupants adapted to and shaped those
landscapes? How does the data from this site compare to what we know about how these plants were used, ethnographically, by Navajo
peoples?
The two components are remarkably similar in their use of botanicals. Both were agriculturally focused, both had high numbers of weedy
pioneer species that would be found in the disturbed soils of agricultural fields (or were themselves exploited as protected, enhanced or
cultivated species) and both show that the inhabitants were gathering and using a wide variety of wild species to supplement their focus on
corn. The Navajo Dinéetah component also contained common beans in three features - a cultigen not evident in the Pueblo I Piedra
component. Diversity and taxonomic richness indices suggest that the Navajo component may have been somewhat more narrowly focused on
agriculture than its Pueblo predecessors. A disparity in sample sizes between the two components and the substantial difference in their time
depth makes comparison somewhat problematic and we caution against drawing strong conclusions about differences. A better comparison
might be to look at a number of contemporary Pueblo and Navajo sites from the mid 16th century controlling as much as possible for subtle
environmental differences and see the different ways in which the two different cultures adapted to and used the flora of similar environments.
The principal research questions addressed by the macrobotanical analysis focused on the insights can we gain into early Navajo agriculture
versus trade for Pueblo goods. Were the food crops locally grown or not?
Scholars generally agree that the Navajo are closely related to Northern Athabascans and that the Navajo culture emerged in the region known
as Dinétah. However there is still a spirited debate over when the Athabascans arrived in the Southwest, what route they took and what factors
were dominant in causing a separate Navajo identity to emerge and differentiate that culture from the other principal southwestern Athabascan
group, the Apache.
Northern Athabascan groups who migrated to the Southwest prior to 1600 (some say prior to 1500 or even 1400), were nomadic gatherers and
hunters. By the historic era, the Navajo had perfected an adaptive strategy of economic specialization and regional seasonal mobility, that
efficiently used all available ecological zones within a marginal environment. They employed agriculture, gathering of pioneer (secondary
succession) and wild floral materials, hunting, pastoralism, trading and raiding. Our model for the emergence of Navajo culture seeks to
explain the transition from gatherers and hunters to economic specialists. Until recently, scholars have been hampered by a lack of data on the
transition as few early Navajo archaeological sites had been located or excavated. The Dinétah period, defined by Dittert and Eddy, was
largely an abstraction as the Navajo reservoir sites did not fall into this time period. The Dinétah phase was characterized as the period when
the Navajo must have begun farming, learning agricultural techniques and acquiring cultigens, presumably, from contact with Pueblo farmers.
It was also the period prior to the adoption of pastoralism which occurred after the Spanish Entrada - perhaps as late as 1700. In the absence of
data on Dinétah period sites, we presume that the earliest Navajo sites would show economic adaptations similar to the Northern Athabascan
gathering and hunting tradition and that the gradual rise in the importance of agriculture to the Navajo economy could be traced through the
Dinétah period.
Paradoxically, what we see at LA55979, one of the earliest Dinétah period sites, is evidence for fully developed agriculture focused on corn
and beans, accompanied by the strong presence of weedy species, such as goosefoot and purslane, that would proliferate in the disturbed soils
of agricultural fields. Corn found on the site is similar in form to Pueblo corn of the period. Tradeware and obsidian found on the site indicate
trade relations with Pueblos in the Jemez area. The site has cultigens, weeds, storage technology and processing technology that support the
argument that the inhabitants were farmers. Wild and pioneer flora remains show that they supplemented their diet with gathering.
Our diachronic comparison of the sites' components biodiversity indices show that the Navajo Dinétah component's economy was "more
agricultural" than the economy of the earlier Pueblo Piedra component, with lower biodiversity, lower taxonomic evenness and, given the
seven hundred year time difference and the substantial difference in sample size, the two components have remarkably similar taxonomic
richness. Spatial patterning of the occurrence of weedy pioneer (secondary succession) species restricted to intramural hearths supports the
notion that these plants were targeted and economically exploited by the Navajo and furthermore the presence of the weedy species lends
strength to the argument for local Navajo agriculture as the source of cultigens in the Dinetah component over acquisition of the domesticates
through trade.
How does plant manipulation at this site differ from earlier, Northern Athabascan adaptations prior to the emergence of Navajo
cultural identity and from later, subsequent, Navajo culture phases? How does it differ from that of other cultures in the region
(Archaic, Anasazi, later Pueblo, Ute and Apache)?
York (1983) developed an economic model of seasonal mobility and land use patterns for Navajo inhabitants of the Navajo Mine area. He
used the traditional Navajo lunar calendar (Hill 1938; Young and Morgan 1980; Franciscan fathers 1910) as a baseline to represent the annual
cycle for the historic period dating from the mid 19th century to A.D. 1900. The calendar round involved lowland agricultural residential
bases, transhumance to upland pastures with livestock during the growing season, and winter residences near wood fuel sources. The complex
subsistence system included wild plant gathering, hunting, agriculture, and animal husbandry.
Hovezak and Sesler (2003:212-214), looking at excavation data for Dinétah and Gobernador phase Navajo sites on the Fruitland project in
Dinétah, extend and modify York's historic period Navajo economic model and apply it back to Navajo origins in the Dinétah period. They
say, "Although the traditional Navajo economy had clearly undergone significant changes by this time, the calendar also has comparative
value in the study of settlement and subsistence for the early Navajo occupation of the Dinetah" (Hovezak and Sesler 2003:212).
The Navajo year ends with the fall harvest and begins with winter. The month of October, Gaaji can be translated as "back to back", implying
the end of the fall harvest and the beginning of winter. Gaaji is a time of harvesting, processing and storage of the year's agricultural produce
(Hill 1938; Hovezak and Sesler 2003:212). In the winter months of Nich'its'osi, Slender (light) Wind" (November), Nich'itsoh, Big Wind
(December), and Yas Nilt'ees, "Snow is Melted Over the Fire" (January), the Navajo moved to areas with abundant firewood. Winter diets
drew on stored agricultural products. Rabbit, deer and communal antelope hunts in 'Atsa Biyaazh (February), or "the time when eagles laid
their eggs," provided fresh meat to supplement the stores of dried meat and produce. The Diné returned to lowland areas to prepare agricultural
field for planting in Wóózch'ííd (March or April). Planting occurs when the constellation, Dilyéhé — " The Planters" (Pleiades) appears over
the morning horizon. Ya'iishjaashchili, "Gathering the First Wild Seeds that Mature" (June), and Ya'iishjaastoh, "Gathering of Weed Seeds on
a Big Scale" (July), indicate that the Navajo themselves were acutely aware of the importance of both wild and weedy species to their
economy. Bini'ant'aats'ozi, "Maturing in a Small Way" (August) required gathers, hunters and herders to return to the fields to help with the
early harvest. Bini' ant' aatsoh, "Big Ripening" (September) is the time for the major harvesting of corn, beans and other cultigens preceding
Gaaji, when agricultural produce is processed and stored for the following winter and the calendar round begins again.
The calendar emphasizes the broad basis of the Navajo economy and supports the idea that from earliest times into the historic era the
economy included wild and pioneer plant produce along with a very strong emphasis on agriculture. It reflects the early focus on agriculture
that characterizes the Navajo identity we see in the early Dinetah period. It provides insight into how the Navajo occupants of LA55979
themselves understood their own economy and how that understanding helped shape the cultural landscape.
One of the principal changes that occurred to set the Navajo off from earlier Archaic adaptations in the region and from their own Northern
Athabascan ancestors as well as from their near neighbors in the Southwest - the Apaches and the Ute who continued to practice gathering and
hunting, was the adoption of agriculture from the Pueblo.
That this change took place early for the Navajo and that corn was a major focus of the economy from the onset rather than gradually acquired
is reinforced by Navajo ethnography as recorded in the traditional origin stories (Matthews 1897; Goddard 1933; Klah 1946; O'Bryan 1956:
Reichard 1970; Witherspoon 1974; Wyman 1979; Zolbrod 1984; Farella 1984). Many of the Holy People were created from corn. Wyman
1970:140 refers to the bundle that First Man used to bring about the birth of changing woman as "First Man's medicine corn bundle"
(emphasis added). On most origin accounts corn was created in prior worlds and came into this one with the Diyin dine'é. Farella (1984:87-89)
describes how Changing Woman, child of First Man's medicine corn bundle, created the Navajo people. Quoting Wyman's recounting of Slim
Curly's version of the origin story, Farella describes how Changing Woman "mated corn" taking corn from First Man's bundle drawing it,
bringing it to life and creating from it twelve "children of the corn pair" which he describes as also children of Changing Woman and children
of the Earth. He says these twelve are the corn and vegetation dine'é, those things that will be of primary importance to the Navajo way of life.
Changing Woman says
Now this represents something that will take care of you, regularly it will clothe you, and you will eat it," she told
them. "If through your own fault, you are instructed uselessly, if you do not are for it, it will cause you suffering,
"she told them (Wyman 1970:203 in Farella 1984:89).
She uses the medicine corn bundle to create other things needed by the earth-surface people and then she she creates the Navajo themselves.
The ethnographic and the oral tradition evidence supports the macrobotanical evidence from LA55979 that agriculture was a major emphasis
of Navajo culture near the beginning of the Dinétah phase. Later, in the Gobernador phase, when livestock raising started to become more
dominant there was another shift in the economy. We are likely to be able to find material evidence of that change as the synthesis data from
the Fruitland projects becomes available.
How similar are ethnobotanical assemblages between hogans? Do all Navajo residents use similar botanical resources? In general, the
hogan ethnobotanical assemblages are very similar and the Navajo residents are using very similar resources.
Strong spatial patterning is evident at the site in the intramural hearths which showed much higher taxonomic richness than all other feature
groups.
Juniper is the primary fuel wood in both components. The Pueblo component included several brushy fuels, the Navajo component did not.
Ethnobotanical literature suggests that the Navajo preferred to use piñon for light and warmth but not cooking (Franciscan Fathers 1929:66).
This is consistent with the material remains at the site.
All thirteen hogans tested contain taxa known from the ethnobotanical literature to have been used for food. These include pigweed, mustard
and tansy mustard, hedge hog cactus, goosefoot, juniper, spurge, common bean, mint, pine nut, piñon nut, plantain, corn, wild buckwheat, and
purslane. In the Navajo component, goosefoot was found only in interior hearths and was found in twelve of the thirteen hogans tested. Ten of
the hogans had corn. Clearly the hogans were a site of food preparation and consumption.
Taxa with high or medium component ubiquity found only in hogans included sagebrush, tansy mustard, goosefoot, tobacco, and purslane.
Taxa with low component ubiquity found only in hogans include seed fragments from the Asteraceae family, hedgehog cactus, spurge, mint,
stickleaf, mallow, wood sorrel, plantain, wild buckwheat, rumex, and mountain mahogany. Yucca seed was found in only one hogan, feature
66, however it was found in activity areas adjacent to hogans, features 40 and 70 as well as in cist 124.
What do these plants tell us about prehistoric landscapes and how their occupants adapted to and shaped those landscapes?
How does the data from this site compare to what we know about how these plants were used, ethnographically, by Navajo peoples?
Can we discriminate between economic and non-economic uses of botanical materials?
References
Adams, K.
1994 A Regional Synthesis of Zea mays in the Prehistoric American Southwest. In Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric New World, edited by
S. Johannessen and C. A. Hastorf, pp. 273-301. Westview Press, Boulder.
Allen, M. S.
1989 Archaeobotanical Assemblages from the Anahulu Rockshelters. In Prehistoric Hawaiian Occupation in the Anahulu Valley, O’ahu
Island: Excavations in Three Inland Rockshelters, edited by P. V. Kirch, pp. 83-102. Contributions of the University of California
Archaeological Research Facility No. 47, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.
Arnold, Joseph F.; Jameson, Donald A.; Reid, Elbert H.
1964. The pinyon-juniper type of Arizona: effects of grazing, fire and tree control. Production Research Report No. 84. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 28 p.
Asch, D. L., and N. B. Asch
1977 Chenopod as Cultigen: A Re-Evaluation of Some Prehistoric Collections from Eastern North America. Mid-Continental Journal of
Archaeology2(1):3-45.
Austin, Dennis D.
1987. Plant community changes within a mature pinyon-juniper woodland. The Great Basin Naturalist. 47(1): 96-99.
Bailey, Flora,
1940 "Navajo Foods and Cooking Methods," American Anthropologist, 42(2):270-90.
Baldwin, Stuart J.
1997 Apacheans Bearing Gifts: Prehispanic Influence on the Pueblo Indians, The Arizona Archaeologist No. 29, Arizona Archaeological
Society, Phoenix, Arizona.
Barbour, M. G., Burk, J. H., Pitts, W. D., Gilliam, F. S., and M. W. Schwartz
1999 Terrestrial Plant Ecology. Addison Wesley Longman, New York.
Basehart, Harry W.
1974 Apache Indians XII. Mescalero Apache Subsistence Patterns and Socio-Political Organization. New York. Garland Publishing Inc.
Bell, Willis H and Edward F. Castetter 1941 Ethnobiological Studies in the Southwest VII. The Utilization of of Yucca, Sotol and Beargrass
by the Aborigines in the American Southwest. University of New Mexico Bulletin 5(5):1-74.
Betancourt, Julio L.
1987. Paleoecology of pinyon-juniper woodlands: summary. In: Everett, Richard L., compiler. Proceedings--pinyon-juniper conference 1986
January 13-16; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station: 129-139.
Betancourt, Julio L.; Schuster, William S.; Mitton, Jeffry B.; Anderson, R. Scott. 1991. Fossil and genetic history of a pinyon pine (Pinus
edulis) isolate. Ecology. 72(5): 1685-1697.
Bohrer, Vorsila L.and Karen Adams
1977 Ethnobotanical Techniques and Approaches at Salmon Ruin, New Mexico Contributions in Anthropology v. 8, no. 1. Eastern New
Mexico University, Portales.
Brabant, Merry Lyn
1997a A Macrobotanical Report for LA 100696. Ms. on file, Cultural Resources Management Consultants, Inc., Farmington, New Mexico
1997b A Macrobotanical Report for LA 100697. Ms. on file, Cultural Resources Management Consultants, Inc., Farmington, New Mexico
1997c A Macrobotanical Report for LA 82446. Ms. on file, Cultural Resources Management Consultants, Inc., Farmington, New Mexico
Brandt, Carol B.
1994 Analysis of Plant Macroremains. Chapter 26 in Excavations along the Arkansas Loop Pipeline Corridor, Northwestern New Mexico.
edited by Linda Honeycutt and Jerry Fetterman, Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants Inc. Yellowjacket, Colorado.
1997 Analysis of Plant Macroremains from the Fruitland Coal Gas Recovery Project. M.S. on file, Helianthus Ethnobotanical Consulting,
Albuquerque, New Mexico
2002 Analysis of Plant Macroremains. Chapter 5 in Archaeological Investigations in the Fruitland Project Area: Late Archaic, Basketmaker,
Pueblo I, and Navajo Sites in Northwestern New Mexico. Timothy D. Hovezak and Leslie M. Sesler, ed. La Plata Archaeological
Consultants, Dolores, Colorado.
Britton, N.L., and A. Brown.
1913. Illustrated flora of the northern states and Canada.
Brugge, David A.
1983 Navajo Prehistory and History to 1850. in Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 489-501 Handbook of North American Indians, vol.
10, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bryant, V. M., and P. Dering
2000 Paleoethnobotany. In Archaeological Method and Theory: An Encyclopedia, edited by L. Ellis, pp. 423-432. Garland Publishing, New
York.
Buskirk, Winfred 1986 The Western Apache: Living With the Land Before 1950. Norman. University of Oklahoma Press.
Castetter, Edward F. 1935 Ethnobiological Studies in the American Southwest I. Uncultivated Native Plants Used as Sources of Food.
University of New Mexico Bulletin 4(1):1-44.
Castetter, Edward F. and M. E. Opler 1936 Ethnobiological Studies in the American Southwest III. The Ethnobiology of the Chiricahua and
Mescalero Apache. University of New Mexico Bulletin 4(5):1-63.
Chambers, Jeanne C.; Schupp, Eugene W.; Vander Wall, Stephen B. 1999. Seed dispersal and seedling establishment of pinon and juniper
species within the pinon-juniper woodland. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard, compilers. Sustaining and restoring a diverse
ecosystem: Proceedings: ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities within the Interior West; 1997 September 15-18; Provo,
UT. Proc. RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 29-34.
Chamberlin, Ralph V.
1911 The Ethno-Botany of the Gosiute Indians of Utah. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association 2(5):331-405.
Colton, Harold S. 1974 Hopi History And Ethnobotany. IN D. A. Horr (ed.) Hopi Indians. Garland: New York. (p. 300)
Donaldson, Marcia and Mollie Toll
1982 Analysis of Flotation Samples and Macrobotanical Remains: NIIP Blocks XIII and IX Mitigation and X and XI Testing. Ms. on file
Navajo Nation Cultural Resources Management Program, Window Rock, Arizona.
Dittert, A. E. and Beth L. Dickey
ca. 1960s Rock Shelters in the Lower Navajo Reservoir. Ms. on file [MS90MSS.019] Museum of New Mexico, Laboratory for Public
Archaeology Archives, Sante Fe, New Mexico.
Dice, Michael
1997 Archaeological Investigations for Williams Field Services Trunk S Pipelne Reroute: 1996 Field Season Interim Report. Cultural
Resources Management Consultants, Inc., Technical Report No. 96-024. Farmington, New Mexico.
Donovan, L. A.; Ehleringer, J. R. 1994. Water stress and use of summer precipitation in a Great Basin shrub community. Functional Ecology.
8: 289-297.
Dykeman, Douglas D.
2000 Accuracy and Precision in Archaeological Dating: A Correlation of Tree-Ring, Thermoluminescence and Radiocarbon Techniques.
Paper presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
2003 Early Navajo Settlement and Land Use. in The Morris Site 1 Early Navajo Land Use Study: Gobernador Phase Community
Development in Northwestern New Mexico. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology No. 39. Navajo Nation Archaeology Department,
Window Rock, Arizona.
Eddy, Frank W.
1966 Prehistory of the Navajo Reservoir District, Northwestern New Mexico (2 parts). Museum of New Mexico Papers in Anthropology No.
15, Santa Fe.
Elmore, Francis H.
1944 Ethnobotany of the Navajo. School of American Research Monograph. Series No. 1(7). University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Ernst, Reg; Pieper, Rex D.
1996. Changes in pinon-juniper vegetation: a brief history. Rangelands. 18(1): 14-16.
Evans, Raymond A.
1988. Management of pinyon-juniper woodlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-249. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Research Station. 34 p.
Everett, Richard L.
1985. Great Basin pinyon and juniper communities and their response to management. In: Symposium on the cultural, physical and biological
characteristics of range livestock industry in the Great Basin: Proceedings, 38th annual meeting of the Society for Range Management; 1985
February 11-14; Salt Lake City, UT. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 53-62.
Everett, Richard L.
1987. Plant response to fire in the pinyon-juniper zone. In: Everett, Richard L., compiler. Proceedings--pinyon-juniper conference; 1986
January 13-16; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station: 152-157. ]
Everett, Richard L.; Koniak, Susan; Budy, Jerry D.
1986. Pinyon seedling distribution among soil surface microsites. Research Paper INT-363. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 3 p.
Everett, Richard L.; Sharrow, Steven H.; Meeuwig, Richard O.
1983. Pinyon-juniper woodland understory distribution patterns and species associations. Torrey Botanical Club. 110(4): 454-463.
Farella, John R.
1984 The Main Stalk: A Synthesis of Navajo Philosophy. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson and London
Fewkes, J. Walter
1896 A Contribution to Ethnobotany. American Anthropologist 9:14-21 (p. 18)
Ford, Richard I.
1980 Plant Remains: In Prehistory and History of the Ojo Amarillo: Archaeological Investigations of Block II, Navajo Indian Irrigation
Project, San Juan County, New Mexico, edited by David T. Kirkpatrick, pp. 1277-1298. Cultural Resource Management Report 276.
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico.
Franciscan Fathers
1929 [1910] An Ethnologic Dictionary of the Navajo Language, Saint Michaels, Arizona: The Franciscan Fathers. Reprinted by Saint
Michael's Press, Saint Michaels, Arizona, 1968
Gasser, Robert E.
1982 Anasazi Diet. In The Coronado Project Archaeological Investigations. The Specialists' Volume: Biocultural Analyses, edited by Robert
E Gasser, pp. 8-95. Museum of Northern Arizona, Coronado Series 4, MNA Research Paper 23. Museum of Arizona Press, Flagstaff,
Arizona.
Goddard, Pliny Earle
1933 Navajo Texts. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, vol. 34.
Godwin, H.
1975 The History of the British Flora. Cambridge University Press, London.
Gordon, Bruce R.; Parrott, Gary P.; Smith, Jack B. 1992. Vegetation changes in northern Arizona: the Alexander Gardner photos.
Rangelands. 14(6): 308-320.
Gottfried, Gerald J. 1992. Ecology and management of the southwestern pinyon-juniper woodlands. In: Ffolliott, Peter F.; Gottfried, Gerald J.;
Bennett, Duane A.; [and others], technical coordinators. Ecology and management of oaks and associated woodlands: perspectives in the sw
United States & n Mexico: Proceedings; 1992 April 27-30; Sierra Vista, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-218. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 78-86.
Graves, Henry S. 1917. The pine trees of the Rocky Mountain region. Bulletin No. 460. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service. 48 p.
Grayson, D. K.
1981 The Effects of Sample Size on Some Derived Measures in Vertebrate Faunal Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 8:77-88.
1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Academic Press, New York.
Green, Lisle R.; Sharp, Lee A.; Cook, C. Wayne; Harris, Lorin E.
1951. Utilization of winter range forage by sheep. Journal of Range Management. 4: 233-241.
Hancock, Patricia M.
1997 Dendrochronology Dates of the Dinétah. Paper presented at the 1997 Fruitland Conference, Farmington, New Mexico.
Hickman, James C., ed.
1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p.
Hill 1938;
Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur.
1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p.
Hocking, George M.
1956 "Some Plant Materials Used Medicinally and Otherwise by the Navajo Indians in the Chaco Canyon, New Mexico" El Palacio 56:146165.
Hovezak, Timothy D. and Leslie M. Sesler
2002 Archaeological Investigations in the Fruitland Project Area: Late Archaic, Basketmaker, Pueblo I, and Navajo Sites in Northwestern
New Mexico. Research Papers No. 4. La Plata Archaeological Consultants, Dolores, Colorado.
Hubbard, R. N. L. B.
1976 Crops and Climate in Prehistoric Europe. World Archaeology 8(2):159-168.
1980 Development of Agriculture in Europe and the Near East: Evidence from Quantitative Studies. Economic Botany 34(1)51-67.
Johnsen, Thomas N., Jr. 1987. Using herbicides for pinyon-juniper control in the Southwest. In: Everett, Richard L., compiler. Proceedings-pinyon-juniper conference; 1986 January 13-16; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Research Station: 330-334.
Jones, G. E. M.
1991 Numerical Analysis in Archaeobotany. In Progress in Old World Palaeoethnobotany: A Retrospective View on the Occasion of 20
Years of the International Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany, edited by W. van Zeist, K. Wasylikowa, and K-E. Behre, pp. 63-80. A. A.
Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam.
Jones, Volney H.
1931 The Ethnobotany of the Isleta Indians. University of New Mexico, M.A. Thesis
Kadane, J. B.
1988 Possible Statistical Contributions to Paleoethnobotany. In Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of
Archaeological Plant Remains, edited by C. A. Hastorf and V. S. Popper, pp.206-214. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kaplan, L.1981 What is the Origin of the Common Bean? Economic Botany 35(2):240-254.
Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1085 p.
Keeley, Jon E.; Zedler, Paul H. 1998. Evolution of life histories in Pinus. In: Richardson, D. M., ed. Ecology and biogeography of Pinus.
Boston: Cambridge University Press: 219-250.
Keepax, Carole
1977 Contamination of Archaeological Deposits by Seeds of Modern Origins with Particular Reference to the Use of Flotation Machines,
Journal of Archaeological Science 4:221-229.
Kidder, A. V.
1920 Ruins of the Historic Period from the Upper San Juan Valley, New Mexico. American Anthropologist 22: 322-329.
Klah, Hasteen
1946 Navajo Creation Myth, The Story of Emergence. Museum of Navajo Ceremonial Art, Sante Fe, New Mexico.
Klopatek, Jeffrey M. 1987. Nutrient patterns and succession in pinyon-juniper ecosystems of northern Arizona. In: Everett, Richard L.,
compiler. Proceedings--pinyon-juniper conference; 1986 January 13-16; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 391-396.
Kluckhohn, Clyde and Dorothea Leighton.
1946 The Navaho. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Knight, Paul J.
1980 Flotation and Macrobotanical Analysis, In Human Adaptations in a Marginal Environment: The UII Mitigation Project, edited by James
L. Moore and Joseph C. Winter, pp. 310-336. University of New Mexico Office of Contract Archaeology, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Krebs, C. J.
1999 Ecological Methodology. Addison Wesley Longman, New York.
Lanner, Ronald M. 1983. Trees of the Great Basin: A natural history. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 215 p.
Lanner, Ronald M. 1975. Pinyon pines and junipers of the Southwestern woodlands. In: The pinyon-juniper ecosystem: a symposium:
Proceedings; 1975 May; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources, Utah Agriculture Experiment Station:
1-17.
Lanner, Ronald M. 1981. The pinon pine: A natural and cultural history. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 208 p.
Lanner, Ronald M. 1999. Conifers of California. Los Olivos, CA: Cachuma Press. 274 p.
Latady, Richard R. and Joell Goff
1996 LA80986: Terrace Overlook Site. In Archaic, Basketmaker II, Protohistoric and Aceramic Sites in Northwestern New Mexico, edited by
Timothy G. Baugh, Timothy M Kerns, and Charles W. Wheeler, vol. II, Book 2, Chapter 17. Western Cultural Resource Management,
Farmington New Mexico.
Leney, L., and R. W. Casteel
1975 Simplified procedure for examining charcoal specimens for identification. Journal of Archaeological Science 2: 153-159.
Little, Elbert L., Jr.
1971. Atlas of the United States trees. Volume 1. Conifers and important hardwoods. Misc. Publ. 1146. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 320 p.
Loehle, Craig.
1988. Tree life history strategies: the role of defenses. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 18(2): 209-222.
Lopinot, Neal H., and David Eric Brussell
1982 Assessing Uncarbonized Seeds from Open-Air Sites in Mesic Environments: An Example from Southern Illinois. Journal of
Archaeological Science 9:95-108.
Lynch, Regina H. 1986 Cookbook (Ch'iyáán 'Ííl'íní Binaaltsoos). Navajo Curriculum Center, Rough Rock Demonstration School, Rough
Rock, AZ.
Margalef, R.
1968 Perspectives in Ecological Theory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Martin, A. C., Barkley, W. D.
1961 Seed Identification Manual. University California Press, Berkeley.
Matthews, Meredith H.
1991 Results of Analysis of Macrobotanical Remains from Site LA80846, Report 91-SJC-044D. On file, San Juan College Cultural
Resources Management Program, Farmington, New Mexico.
1996 Macrobotanical Analysis. In Results of Limited Data Recovery Investigations at Site LA 104020 Located on the Unit 210 Well Tie as
Part of Phillips Petroleum Company's 30-5 Gathering System, Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, prepared by Edward M. Kotyk. Appendix F.
San Juan College Papers in Anthropology 11. an Juan College Cultural Resources Management Program, Farmington, New Mexico.
2002 Personal Communication, Ms. on file Dykeman Roebuck Archaeology, LLC. The cobs from Feat. 124 that a row count was possible look
no different than what you might get off a PI-PII site. The 8 row is a little strange only because if it is like Maiz de Ocho, that is an early corn, like PI,
which was crossed with 12 row to create 10 row. But once the more advanced farmers started messing with genetics, I assume that the full range was
possible. The size of the cobs recovered, however, are very PI-PII like.
2007 72759 get page #
Matthews, Washington,
1886 Navajo Names for Plants. American Naturalist 20:767–777.
1897 Navaho legends. Collected and tr. by Washington Matthews With introduction, notes, illustrations, texts, interlinear translations, and
melodies. Pub. for the American folk-lore society by Houghton, Mifflin and company, Boston, New York,
Mayes, Vernon and Barbara Bayless Lacy. 1989. Nanise': A Navajo Herbal. Navajo Community College Press, Tsaile.
Mayes, Vernon O., and J. M. Rominger
1994 Navajoland Plant Catalog. National Woodlands, Lake Ann, Michigan.
McBride, Pamela J.
1993 Navajo Paleoethnobotany along the Transwestern Pipeline. In Across the Colorado Plateau: Anthropological Studies for the
Transwestern Pipeline Expansion Project, Volume XV, Subsistence and Environment, edited by Joseph C. Winter, 93-266. University of New
Mexico Office of Contract Archaeology and Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque.
McCune, Bruce. 1988. Ecological diversity in North American pines. American Journal of Botany. 75(3): 353-368.
Meeuwig, R. O.; Budy, J. D.; Everett, R. L. 1990. Pinus monophylla Torr. & Frem. singleleaf pinyon. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala,
Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service: 380-384.
Meeuwig, Richard O.; Bassett, Richard L. 1983. Pinyon-juniper. In: Burns, Russell M., compiler. Silvicultural systems for the major forest
types of the United States. Agriculture Handbook No. 445. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 84-86.
Miksicek, C. H.
1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeobotanical Record. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 10:211-247.
Miller, N. F.
1988 Ratios in Paleoethnobotanical Analysis. In Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of
Archaeological Plant Remains, edited by C. A. Hastorf and V. S. Popper, pp. 72-85. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
1991 The Near East. In Progress in Old World Paleoethnobotany: A Retrospective View on the Occasion of 20 Years of the International
Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany, edited by W. van Zeist, K. Wasylikowa, and K-E. Behre,pp. 133-160. A. A. Balkema Publishers,
Rotterdam.
Minnis, Paul E.
1978 Paleoethnobotanical Indicators of Prehistoric Environmental Disturbance: A Case Study. In The Nature and Status of Ethnobotany,
edited by R. Ford, pp.347-366. Anthropological Papers No. 67. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
1981 Seeds in Archaeological Sites: Sources and Some Interpretive Problems, American Antiquity 46:143-152
1985 Social Adaptation to Food Stress. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
1986 Macroplant Remains. In Short-Term Sedentism in the American Southwest: The Mimbres Valley Salado, by B. A. Nelson and S. A.
LeBlanc, pp. 205-218. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
1992 Earliest Plant Cultivation in the Desert Borderlands of North America. In The Origins of Agriculture: An International Perspective,
edited by C. W. Cowan and P. J. Watson, pp. 121-141. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.
Mitchell, John E.; Roberts, Thomas C., Jr. 1999. Distribution of pinyon-juniper in the western United States. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens,
Richard, compilers. Sustaining and restoring a diverse ecosystem: Proceedings: ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities
within the Interior West; 1997 September 15-18; Provo, UT. Proc. RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station: 146-154.
Montgomery, F. H.
1977 Seeds and fruits of plants of eastern Canada and northeastern United States. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Moerman, Dan
2003 Native American Ethnobotany Database. University of Michigan, Dearborn. http://herb.umd.umich.edu/ 1 February 2007
Munson P. J., Parmalee, P. W., and R. A. Yarnell
1971 Subsistence Ecology of Scovill, A Terminal Middle Woodland Village. American Antiquity 36(4):410-431.
Nelson, M. C.
1999 Mimbres During the Twelfth Century: Abandonment, Continuity, and Reorganization. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
O'Bryan, Aileen
1956 The Diné: Origin Myths of the Navajo Indians. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, 163. Washington, DC.
Panshin, A. J., and C. DeZeeuw
1980 Textbook of Wood Technology, 4th edition. McGraw Hill, New York.
Pearsall, Deborah M.
1983 Evaluating the Stability of Subsistence Strategies by Use of Paleoethnobotanical Data. Journal of Ethnobiology 3(2):121-137.
2000 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures. Academic Press, New York, New York.
Peet, Robert K. 1988. Forests of the Rocky Mountains. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Billings, William Dwight, eds. North American terrestrial
vegetation. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press: 63-101.
Perry, Jesse P., Jr. 1991. The pines of Mexico and Central America. Portland, OR: Timber Press. 231 p.
Pielou, E. C.
1969 An Introduction to Mathematical Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
1977 Mathematical Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Popper, V. S.
1988 Selecting Quantitative Measurements in Paleoethnobotany. In Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural
Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains, edited by C. A. Hastorf and V. S. Popper, pp. 53-71. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Rainey, Katherine D. and Karen R. Adams
2004 Compendium A: Ethnographically Documented Uses of Plants. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.
http://www.crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/Archaeobotanical/Plant_Uses/compendium_A.asp 1 February 2007.
Reagan, Albert B.
1929 Plants Used by the White Mountain Apache Indians of Arizona. Wisconsin Archeologist 8:143-61.
Reichard, Gladys A.
1970 Navajo Religion: A Study in Symbolism. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Renfrew, J. M.
1973 Palaeoethnobotany: The Prehistoric Food Plants of the Near East and Europe. Columbia University Press, New York.
Richardson, David M.; Bond, William J. 1991. Determinants of plant distribution: evidence from pine invasions. The American Naturalist.
137(5): 639-668.
Rocek, T. R.
1995 Sedentarization and Agricultural Dependence: Perspectives from the Pithouse-to-Pueblo Transition in the American Southwest.
American Antiquity 60(2):218-239.
Roebuck [2007] in press a
Roebuck [2007] in press b
Ronco, Frank, Jr. 1987. Stand structure and function of pinyon-juniper woodlands. In: Everett, Richard L., compiler. Proceedings--pinyonjuniper conference; 1986 January 13-16; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Research Station: 14-22.
Rose, Carolyn June
2004 Quantitative Analyses of Plant Remains from the Nan Ranch Ruin, Grant County, New Mexico. M.A. Thesis, Department of
Anthropology, Texas A&M, College Station, Texas.
Sandstead, H. R., McGanity, W. J., Smith, H. H., McKinley, P., Temeche, L. and Darby, W. J. (1956) A study of the dietary background and
nutriture of the Navajo Indian. Journal of Nutrition, 60, 35–62.
Shannon, C. E., and W. Weaver
1949 The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Schopmeyer, C. S.
1974 Seeds of Woody Plants in the United States. U.S.D.A. Agriculture Handbook No. 450, Forest Service, Washington D.C.
Skau, Clarence McClelland.
1960. Some hydrologic characteristics in the Utah juniper type of northern Arizona. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. 156 p.
Dissertation.
Smith, Craig S.
1991 Plant Macrofossil Analysis. In Archaeological Data Recovery at San Juan Coal Company's La Plata Mine, San Juan County, New
Mexico, edited by Gary M. Brown, pp. 629-658. Technical report 355. Mariah Associates, Inc. Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Springfield, H. W.
1976. Characteristics and management of Southwestern pinyon-juniper ranges: the status of our knowledge. Res. Pap. RM-160. Fort Collins,
CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Standley, P. C.
1912 Some Useful Native Plants of New Mexico. In Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution Showing the
Operations, Expenditures, and Condition of the Institution for the Year Ending June 30, 1911, pp. 447–462. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
Steggerda, Morris
1941 Navajo Foods and Their Preparation. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 17(3):217-25
Steggerda, M., and R. B. Eckardt
1941 Navajo Foods and Their Preparation. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 17:217–225.
Stevenson, Matilda Coxe
1915 Ethnobotany of the Zuni Indians. SI-BAE Annual Report No. 30
Struever, Mollie and Paul J. Knight
1979 Analysis of Flotation and Macrobotanical Remains, Block III Mitigation, Navajo Indian Irrigation Project. Technical Series 3. Castetter
Laboratory for Ethnobotanical Studies, Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Swank, George R.
1932 The Ethnobotany of the Acoma and Laguna Indians. Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, M.A. Thesis
Tausch, Robin J.; Nowak, Robert S.
1999. Fifty years of ecotone change between shrub and tree dominance in the Jack Springs Pinyon Research Natural Area. In: McArthur, E.
Durant; Ostler, W. Kent; Wambolt, Carl L., compilers. Proceedings: shrub ecotones; 1998 August 12-14; Ephraim, UT. Proceedings RMRSP-11. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 71-77.
Tiedemann, Arthur R.
1987. Nutrient accumulations in pinyon-juniper ecosystems--managing for future site productivity. In: Everett, Richard L., compiler.
Proceedings--pinyon-juniper conference; 1986 January 13-16; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 352-359.
Toll, Mollie S.
1983 Changing Patterns of Plant Utilization for Food and Fuel: Evidence from Flotation and Macrobotanical Remains. In Economy and
Interaction along the lower Chaco River, edited by Patrick Hogan and Joseph C. Winter, pp. 331-350. Office of Contract Archaeology,
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico
1985 Flotation, Macrobotanical, and Charcoal Analyses. In The Excavation of the Cortez CO2 Pipeline Project Sites, 1982-1983, by Michael
P. Marshall, pp. 219-234. Office of Contract Archaeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico
1994 Plant Materials of Cached 18th c Navajo Ceremonial Paraphernalia from Palluche Canyon (LA 6532), Northwestern New Mexico. Ms.
on file, Bureau of Land Management, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
1996 Floral Remnants at a 17th c. Navajo Site on the Jicarilla Apache Reservation, NM. Ethnobotany Lab Technical Series 40, Museum of
New Mexico, Office of Archaeological Studies, Sante Fe, New Mexico.
Toll, Mollie S. and Marcia L. Donaldson
1981a Analysis of Flotation and Macrobotanical Remains, Blocks VI and VII Mitigation, Navajo Indian Irrigation Project. Technical Series
29. Castetter Laboratory for Ethnobotanical Studies, Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
1981b Flotation Analysis at an Historic Site on the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project. Technical Series 42. Castetter Laboratory for
Ethnobotanical Studies, Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
1982 Flotation and Macrobotanical Analysis of Archaeological Sites on the McKinley Mine Lease: A Regional Study of Plant Manipulation
and Natural Seed Dispersal Over Time. In Anasazi and Navajo Land Use in the McKinley Mine Area Near Gallup New Mexico, edited by
Christina G. Allen and Ben A. Nelson, vol. 1, part 2, pp. 712-786. Office of Contract Archaeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque,
New Mexico.
Toll, Mollie S., and Pamela J. McBride
1998 Plant Remains from 17th and 18th Century Navajo Occupations at LA 78178 and 79469, the Trunk S Project, Northwestern, New
Mexico. Office of Archeological Studies, Ethnobotany Lab Technical Series No. 62. Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
2003 Floral Components of Early Navajo Land Use in The Morris Site 1 Early Navajo Land Use Study: Gobernador Phase Community
Development in Northwestern New Mexico. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology No. 39. Edited by Douglas D. Dykeman. Navajo Nation
Archaeology Department, Window Rock, Arizona.
Tomback, Diana F.; Linhart, Yan B.
1990. The evolution of bird-dispersed pines. Evolutionary Ecology. 4: 185-219.
Torres, John A.
1999 Adapting Old Lithic Traditions to a New World Order. Paper Presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology, Chicago, Illinois, March 24-28, 1999.
Vestal, Paul, A.
1940 Notes on a Collection of Plants from the Hopi Indian Region of Arizona Made by J. G. Owens in 1891. Botanical Museum Leaflets
(Harvard University) 8(8):153-168.
1952 Ethnobotany of the Ramah Navaho. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 40, no. 4. Harvard
University, Cambridge.
Wagner, G. E.
1988 Comparability among Recovery Techniques. In Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of
Archaeological Plant Remains, edited by C. A. Hastorf and V. S. Popper, pp. 17-35. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
White, Leslie A
1945 Notes on the Ethnobotany of the Keres. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Arts, Sciences and Letters 30:557-568 (p. 560)
Whiting, Alfred F.
1939 Ethnobotany of the Hopi. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin No. 15
Willcox, G. H.
1974 A History of Deforestation as Indicated by Charcoal Analysis of Four Sites in Eastern Anatolia. Journal of the British Institute of
Archaeology at Ankara 24 (1974): 117-133.
Wilt, F. Martin; Miller, Glenn C.; Everett, Richard L. 1988. Monoterpene concentrations in litter and soil of singleleaf pinyon woodlands of
the western Great Basin. The Great Basin Naturalist. 48(2): 228-231.
Witherspoon, Gary
1974 "The Central Concepts in Navajo Worldview (I)." Linguistics: An International Review. 119, 41-59, Jan 1 74.
Wyman, Leland C.
1970 Blessingway, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.
Wyman, L. C., and S. K. Harris
1941 Navajo Indian Medical Ethnobotany. University of New Mexico Bulletin, no. 366, Anthropological Series, vol. 3, no. 5. University of
New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
1951 The Ethnobotany of the Kayenta Navaho: An Analysis of the John and Louisa Wetherill Ethnobotanical Collection. University of New
Mexico Publications in Biology, no. 5. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
York (1983)
Yorks, Terence P.; West, Neil E.; Capels, Kathleen M.
1994. Changes in pinyon-juniper woodlands in western Utah's Pine Valley between 1933-1989. Journal of Range Management. 47(5): 359364.
Young, S. (compiler)
1940 Navajo Native Dyes: Their Preparation and Use. U.S. Office of Indian Affairs, Education Division, Chilocco Agricultural
School, Chilocco, Oklahoma.
Young and Morgan 1980
Zolbrod, Paul.
1984 Dine bahane': The Navajo Creation Story. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press,