Abstract
Plant resources have been widely relied upon by past hunter-gatherer societies; their remains uncovered at archaeological sites can serve as precious archives of the lives of past humans. However, while faunal remains are generally well preserved, botanical materials are usually charred, and less commonly preserved under conditions of desiccation, imbibition or freezing. Bonneville Estates Rockshelter (BER), Nevada, was intermittently occupied by humans from the end of the Pleistocene to recent times and has yielded a rich archaeobotanical corpus consisting of both charred and dessicated remains that have been only partially studied. The present work is an analysis of about 2500 wood charcoal fragments recovered from the PaleoIndigenous (ca. 13 000–10 500 cal. BP) and Early Archaic (ca. 8200–4800 cal. BP) strata of the site. We present the plants selected for firewood during different occupations, question whether this selection is related to cultural and/or environmental factors and compare our results with data on current firewood use by the native populations of the arid American West.
1 Introduction
Perishable materials were essential to the survival of hunter-gatherer societies (Croes 1997; Hurcombe 2008), and many archaeological disciplines examine these types of remains to better understand past societies. Such studies are particularly diverse in the arid western United States, where numerous archaeological sites are known to contain exceptionally well-preserved plant remains, including pollen, starch, charcoal, seeds, half-burned fleshy fruits, human coprolites, plant — fiber cordage, and basketry. Unsurprisingly, scholars have primarily focused on these types of remains, thus providing valuable information on subsistence pursuits and perishable technologies for ancient populations in western North America (e.g., Kelso 1970; Adovasio, 1970, 1986; Croes 1997; Rhode & Louderback 2007; Geib & Jolie 2008; Rhode 2008; Louderback & Rhode 2009; Blong et al. 2020; Coe 2020, 2021; Louderback 2021). However, despite being important sources of information, some macrobotanical lines of evidence have not benefitted from such attention. This is notably the case for wood charcoal, which reflects both the woody environment surrounding human occupations and human choices regarding firewood use (e.g., Chabal et al. 1999; Théry-Parisot 2001; Dufraisse et al. 2007). Charcoal analysis has the potential to provide significant additional information regarding both paleolandscapes and past human lifeways. In this study, we focus on a question that has been debated for a long time: To what extent is anthracology able to provide paleoethnological information? In other words, can burned wood be considered a cultural marker in the same manner as other biocultural remains?
We explore this question using charcoal analyses of the remains present at the Bonneville Estates Rockshelter (BER) archaeological site in eastern Nevada. Specifically, we aim to provide new knowledge on the use of woody resources by the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Native peoples of the Great Basin by demonstrating that: (1) firewood is not just a reflection of natural vegetation; (2) significant disparities exist between the management of fuel by PaleoIndigenous and Early Archaic groups; and (3) the uses and customs of woody plants persist among the present-day native peoples of the Bonneville Basin.
2 Paleoenvironmental and Archaeological Context
2.1 Holocene Warming in the Bonneville Basin
The Bonneville Basin is located in the eastern part of the Great Basin, mainly in what is now the state of Utah. Although the Great Basin is currently one of the driest regions in the United States, this was not always the case. During the Last Glacial Maximum, the basin was home to a large paleolake called Lake Bonneville, which covered 52 000 km2 (Oviatt & Shroder 2016). In the following millennia, this paleolake gradually dried up, becoming practically empty by approximately 13,000 cal BP. (Oviatt 2015). The various stages of high water levels carved numerous caves and rockshelters into the shorelines, including BER. The cave was originally formed by waves from the Pleistocene Lake Bonneville, which reached its maximum at approximately 18 700 cal BP. It is one of the oldest rockshelters in the region and has remained mostly dry since its creation. As the lake had dried up by approximately 15 000 cal BP, wide areas of saline playas and marshland were exposed in the valleys (Gilbert 1980; Currey et al. 1983; Oviatt et al. 1992; Benson et al. 2011; Oviatt 2015; Thompson et al. 2016; Palacios-Fest et al. 2022). Not long after, these areas were frequented by PaleoIndigenous people, with the oldest known traces of occupation of the Bonneville Basin dating to the time of the Clovis culture (approximately 13 000 cal BP) in the Smith Creek Cave (Bryan 1977; see also Goebel & Keene 2014; Lynch et al. 2024) and in BER itself (Goebel et al. 2021). The process of aridification of the basin accelerated at the very beginning of the Holocene (ca. 11 700 cal BP), resulting in a shift from a mosaic environment of open pine woodland and sagebrush shrubland in the Younger Dryas1 to the present desert shrubland at the beginning of the Holocene, where numerous Amaranthaceae, sagebrush (Artemisia), horsebrush (Tetradymia), and other shrubs grow side by side (Rhode & Madsen 1995; Rhode 2000a,b; Madsen et al. 2001; Louderback & Rhode 2009; Goebel et al. 2011; Thompson et al. 2016).
2.2 Bonneville Estates Rockshelter (BER)
BER is a large, dry shelter measuring approximately 25 m long and 10 m wide (Graf 2007). Situated in the Lead Mine Hills, approximately 50 km south of West Wendover, Nevada (40 °28′29.67″N 114 °7′17.04″E), the site is located on the Bonneville shoreline at an altitude of around 1550 m above mean sea level (AMSL) (Figure 1). The roof, which is now slightly collapsed, rises to a height of 15 m in the center of the shelter. This shelter cover, in addition to the arid climate, has resulted in the remarkable preservation of organic remains (e.g., burned and unburned seeds, unburned wood and herbaceous plants, charcoals, and coprolites) and even artifacts made of perishable materials, including fragments of baskets and twine.
Location of Bonneville Estates Rockshelter. Map background
Citation: International Journal of Wood Culture 4, 2-3 (2024) ; 10.1163/27723194-bja10033
© Google EarthIn 2000, a team of researchers conducted excavations on behalf of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Almost 55 m2 was excavated over the next nine years, and the oldest archaeological layers at the site were found to date back to 13,000 cal BP (Goebel et al. 2021; Graf 2007).
Several archaeological components have been identified in BER, including two main components of the Pleistocene-Holocene transition. The stratigraphy is well preserved, and a multitude of hearths have been identified, enabling one of the largest dating campaigns in the Northern Hemisphere (Goebel et al. 2021). The earliest archaeological traces at BER correspond to component VIII, which comprises two material-poor strata: 20 and 19 (Table 1 and Figure 2). Its associated lithic industry was provisionally attributed to the pre-Clovis techno-complex (Goebel et al. 2021), but in view of the absence of combustion features and a very small assemblage of only non-diagnostic remains, the original investigators considered this attribution to be equivocal. The next three strata (18b, 18a and 17b′) correspond to component VII. Its lithic technology was assigned to the PaleoIndigenous techno-complex referred to as the Western Stemmed Tradition, and the strata date from the late Allerød through the Younger Dryas. Following Goebel et al. (2021), we combined these three strata into a single PaleoIndigenous component. Component VI consists of a single intermediate stratum, 17b, with a limited assemblage of material attributed to the Earliest Archaic dating to the beginning of the Holocene (Goebel et al. 2021).
Bonneville Estates Rockshelter chronostratigraphy of levels studied for this paper
Citation: International Journal of Wood Culture 4, 2-3 (2024) ; 10.1163/27723194-bja10033
West block stratigraphy of Bonneville Estates Rockshelter (after Goebel et al. 2021)
Citation: International Journal of Wood Culture 4, 2-3 (2024) ; 10.1163/27723194-bja10033
Finally, the last component included in this study, component V, comprises strata 17a, 16, 15, 14c, 14b (sometimes divided into lower and upper parts), 14a (also sometimes divided into lower and upper parts) and 13. These strata date back to the Middle Holocene and are attached to the Early Archaic techno-complex.
2.3 Cultural Phases at Bonneville Estates Rockshelter (BER)
At BER, organic remains (bone and plant material), lithic pieces, and human- produced hearths make it possible to validate the stratigraphic position of most assemblages (Goebel et al. 2011). The first well-attested assemblage is the PaleoIndigenous assemblage. The diagnostic lithic material consists of stemmed points composed of obsidian or other volcanic rocks, a few bifacial pieces, several unifacial scrapers, and some marginally worked flakes. Given the scarcity of cortical fragments and other early stage stone tool manufacturing debris, it seems that tool preforms arrive at the site, with only final shaping or retouching being carried out in situ (Goebel 2007; Goebel et al. 2011, 2018). Moreover, most materials used for knapping come from distant locations (over 100 km away) (Goebel et al. 2007, 2011). The range of prey hunted by PaleoIndigenous groups, although broad, consisted mainly of artiodactyls, sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), rabbits (Sylvilagus/Brachylagus), hares (Lepus sp.), and even katydids (Capnotes occidentalis) (Hockett 2015). From the seasonality data obtained on sage grouse, it appears that the PaleoIndigenous groups occupied the site on several occasions during the spring (Goebel et al. 2011). These data indicate that PaleoIndigenous occupations were of short duration and integrated into a system of high mobility in terms of both time and space (Goebel et al. 2011).
Archaeological materials at BER are most abundant in the Early Archaic layers as the site was intensively used during this period. The Early Archaic industry was characterized by significant production of side-notched bifacial points (Goebel et al. 2018). The presence of numerous cortical flakes indicates that unprocessed blocks of lithic raw material arrived at the site and all stages of knapping activities occurred there, with most of the material coming from local sources. However, some Early Archaic materials came from more distant sources, up to approximately 300 km away, which is even farther than those exploited by PaleoIndigenous populations (Goebel 2007; Goebel et al. 2018). From a dietary perspective, the faunal assemblage of the Early Archaic was less diverse than the PaleoIndigenous ones, with the bulk of the hunting economy concentrated on artiodactyls and hares. During this period, other small game (mainly rabbit and sage grouse) declined significantly, and insects completely disappeared from the faunal spectrum. This may have resulted from environmental changes associated with landscape aridification (Hockett 2015; Goebel et al. 2018). At BER, the Early Archaic also saw the beginning of the intensive use of small seeds and other plant parts (Poaceae, Amaranthaceae and Cactaceae). Seeds have also been identified in PaleoIndigenous strata, but in much smaller quantities (Rhode & Louderback 2007). While the presence of collecting packrats (notably Neotoma spp. in the PaleoIndigenous levels has raised questions about the anthropogenic origin of these seeds (Rhode & Louderback 2007), the presence of grinding tools at the Early Archaic levels confirms the anthropogenic processing of at least some of them. Finally, the Early Archaic levels are characterized by the presence of numerous remains of basketry, which once again suggests more permanent occupations and activity diversification (Goebel et al. 2018; Coe 2020).
These data undoubtedly indicate a reduction in mobility from the PaleoIndigenous to the Early Archaic periods and suggest a shift from a mobile residential system during the PaleoIndigenous period to a logistical system during the Early Archaic period.
3 Materials and Methods
3.1 Charcoal Assemblages
The charcoal fragments analyzed in this study were obtained from two different contexts. Some were derived from two sediment columns from which the entire sediment was recovered as a bulk sediment sample. Other samples were recovered judgmentally (i.e., as grab sediment samples) during excavation, particularly when areas with a high concentration of charcoal were exposed (Figure 3). Most of the charcoal was recovered by dry-sieving the sediment samples using different sieve openings (1/4″, 1/8″ and 1/16″), with the analyzed charcoal from the <1/4″ fraction. To date, only 50 charcoal fragments have been analyzed from a well-identified hearth in square N3W14 of PaleoIndigenous level 18b. The hearth-charcoal assemblages are snapshots of the last fire. When we speak of hearths, we are generally talking about combustion structures that have been reused several times. The charcoal produced during previous fires was destroyed and reduced to ash when new combustion occurred. For this reason, charcoal from hearths is generally not studied as a priority but rather as a supplement to scattered charcoal (i.e., moved from combustion features during cleaning or other activities), as only the last species used will be recorded in hearth deposits (Chabal 1992; Chabal et al. 1999).
Map of the Bonneville Estates Rockshelter excavations between 2000 and 2009 (after Graf 2007)
Citation: International Journal of Wood Culture 4, 2-3 (2024) ; 10.1163/27723194-bja10033
Moreover, as scattered charcoal is not uniformly present in the stratigraphic layers of the site, we assume that its occurrence did not result from surface runoff (which would have been rare due to the region’s low rainfall levels). The absence of a layer of charcoal covering the entire surface of the rockshelter, burned sediment, and artifacts also rules out the intervention of a wildfire that spread into the rockshelter. In contrast, the presence of circumscribed spaces with burned sediment and charcoal in various layers of the site leads us to believe that various small-scale combustions, similar to controlled hearths, occurred throughout BER’s occupation. In this context, scattered charcoal samples have traditionally been identified in anthracology as resulting from the dispersal of hearth contents (Chabal 1992; Chabal et al. 1999). These areas may be more or less circumscribed, and scattering may be voluntary (emptying) or involuntary (in this case, trampling or other taphonomical agents).
3.2 Charcoal Analysis
Archaeological charcoals were identified under a reflected light microscope (mainly Leica DM2700) at different magnifications (between 50× and 1000×) and under different light conditions (bright and dark fields) with no prior treatment. The charcoal was fractured manually according to three anatomical sections of wood (transverse, radial longitudinal, and tangential longitudinal) to obtain fresh sections. The anatomy of the archaeological charcoal was then compared with that of modern specimens in the reference collection of the CEPAM (Cultures Environnements, Préhistoire-Antiquité-Moyen Âge) laboratory (Nice, France) to identify the family, genus, or, more rarely, species level. Other reference resources were also occasionally consulted, notably the wood anatomy site InsideWood (Wheeler 2011; Wheeler et al. 2020; available online at http://insidewood.lib.ncsu.edu/search). Our results are presented in the form of an anthracological diagram, created using the Excel macro “ACACIA” (Nourissier et al. 2019; available online at https://dendrac.mnhn.fr/spip.php?rubrique69). Finally, for illustrative purposes, scanning electron microscope (SEM) microphotographs were taken of a selection of charcoal specimens (Tescan Vega3 XMU from the CCMA de Valrose, Université Côte d’Azur and the Hitachi TM4000 benchtop SEM from the Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV, USA).
4 Results
To date, almost 2500 archaeological charcoal fragments have been identified (Table 2, Figure 4). The preservation of the charcoal is excellent, as reflected by the very low number of unidentified taxa (7). Although some charcoal fragments could not be identified at the genus or family level, they retained sufficient anatomical characteristics to be identified as “Angiosperm”. Some non-woody plants were encountered and labelled “non-woody plant”. Finally, some fragments showed completely altered or destroyed anatomy, making them impossible to identify. Therefore, they were labelled “unidentifiable” (Table 2).
Charcoal Analysis Results by Component and Strata
Citation: International Journal of Wood Culture 4, 2-3 (2024) ; 10.1163/27723194-bja10033
Archaeological charcoal identification diagram
Citation: International Journal of Wood Culture 4, 2-3 (2024) ; 10.1163/27723194-bja10033
Scanning electron micrographs — Artemisia. Arrows and box mark interxylary cork lines
Citation: International Journal of Wood Culture 4, 2-3 (2024) ; 10.1163/27723194-bja10033
4.1 Floristics Results
4.1.1 PaleoIndigenous Layers
In the PaleoIndigenous strata, including strata 20 through 17b′, 444 charcoal fragments were identified and eight taxa (minimum number of taxa (MNT): 7) were identified. Only 11 fragments (approximately 2.5%) could not be identified, at least at the family level (Table 2). Almost all of the identified taxa are meso-and xerophilous shrubs that thrive today in the lowlands and hills surrounding the site (±900–1600 msl). Sagebrush (Artemisia), a member of the Asteraceae family, can easily identified by its distinctive anatomy with interxylary cork lines and strongly dominates the assemblage. According to Carlquist (2001), “The phenomenon of interxylary corks is not easily referred to in any secondary xylem category. It is related to growth ring activity, but even in genera such as Artemisia, in which interxylary cork is conspicuous […], it occurs in only a few species” (Carlquist 2001: p. 179), including Artemisia tridentata (Diettert 1938), which is currently one of the main Artemisia species in the Bonneville Basin. Sarcobataceae, represented by greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), the only species currently present in this region, also occurs throughout the PaleoIndigenous sequence in varying proportions, similar to Amaranthaceae. Amaranthaceae are woods with phloem inclusions, which makes them considerably more fragile than taxa composed entirely of xylem, and their anatomy, which very similar among the various genera, is no longer sufficiently well preserved after combustion to allow accurate identification of genus or species. The genera and species of this family are numerous and do not all have the same environmental requirements. Nevertheless, based on charcoal vessel patterns viewed in cross-section, it is probable that the genus Atriplex is the most common among the identifiable Amaranthaceae, while a few individuals point toward the presence of the genus Grayia.2 Indeed, this taxon appears to have a cross-section with pores arranged more regularly in a tangential band.
At the same time, one taxon appeared in significant proportions in stratum 17b’ alone, namely jointfir (Ephedra), a gnetophyte that is particularly well adapted to arid environments. Finally, pine (Pinus with fenestriform cross-field pitting; Figure 6C), perhaps limber pine (Pinus flexilis),3 the only arboreal taxon, and snowberry (Symphoricarpos) were also present. These currently grow at much higher altitudes, but during the Late Pleistocene they would have grown very close to the rockshelter ( Rhode & Madsen 1995; Rhode 2000a,b).
Microphotographs of modern specimens. (A, C, E) Pinus flexilis; (B, D, F) Pinus monophylla
Citation: International Journal of Wood Culture 4, 2-3 (2024) ; 10.1163/27723194-bja10033
The taxa in the PaleoIndigenous levels suggest an open, dry landscape on lower slopes and slightly less arid conditions higher in the hills, allowing for more developed plant cover.
4.1.2 Early Archaic Layers
In total 2040 charcoal fragments were identified in the Early Archaic strata. The lower Early Archaic strata (17b, 17a, 16 and 15), on the one hand, have a floristic composition very similar to that of the PaleoIndigenous strata. On the other hand, the most recent strata (14′s various sub-strata and 13) were distinguished by greater taxonomic richness, with up to 12 taxa (MNT=11) in strata 14b upper and 13 (Table 2). The Early Archaic charcoal fragments were also well preserved, with only 2% of the assemblage categorized as unidentifiable, non-woody plants, or angiosperms.
Similar to the PaleoIndigenous layers, sagebrush is abundant and ubiquitous in the Early Archaic layers. However, in some Early Archaic layers, it is no longer sagebrush that dominates but jointfir. The proportions of these two taxa are negatively correlated over time (Figure 7).
Curves of sagebrush (Artemisia) and jointfir (Ephedra) occurrences by level
Citation: International Journal of Wood Culture 4, 2-3 (2024) ; 10.1163/27723194-bja10033
Sarcobataceae and Amaranthaceae were present in almost all of the levels. Most of the other identified species were shrubs from the Asteraceae family. These taxa, such as rabbitbrush (Ericameria), horsebrush (Tetradymia), snakeweed (Gutierrezia), and brickellbush (Brickellia) are xerophytic. A few Rosaceae were sporadically present, including the genera Amelanchier, Prunus and Purshia. While Purshia can be found among xerophilous vegetation, this is not the case for serviceberries (Amelanchier) and plums/cherries (Prunus), which are less resistant to drought but prefer upland open rocky slopes and outcrops or riparian wash areas. Other arboreal taxa were occasionally identified, such as Populus/Salix (we use this alternative name because these two genera are very similar from a microanatomical viewpoint), soft pine (Pinus with fenestriform cross-field pitting), pinyon pine (Pinus with pinoid cross-field pitting; Figure 6D), and perhaps single-leaf pinyon pine (Pinus monophylla). Finally, small mesophilous shrubs and lianas, such as snowberries or currants (Ribes) were rarely identified.
Charcoal data from the Early Archaic strata revealed an environment relatively similar to that of the PaleoIndigenous strata but dryer and more open. Owing to the greater number of samples, which allowed for the identification of secondary species, we were able to provide a much more precise portrayal of the environment with a more complete shrub community in the low and middle slopes (Amaranthaceae, Artemisia, Brickellia, Gutierrezia, Ericameria, Ephedra, Purshia, Prunus, Sarcobatus, Tetradymia) as well as a developed woody cover of the higher montane zone (Amelanchier, Pinus, Populus/Salix, Ribes, Symphoricarpos).
5 Discussion
5.1 Fuel Wood Selection
5.1.1 PaleoIndigenous Strata
The anthracological results from the PaleoIndigenous strata showed that sagebrush was used intensively. Therefore, the question of overrepresentation on the site is legitimate. Palynological studies conducted near BER indicate that during the Younger Dryas and earliest Holocene, the site environment was an open shrubland/woodland mosaic composed mainly of sagebrush and some pine (Louderback & Rhode 2009). Packrat middens are good local paleoenvironmental indicators as the nests of rats of the genus Neotoma are built from various plant macroremains collected by the rats in a relatively small territory. These packrat middens are numerous in the region, and one was located in a rock recess only a few meters away from BER. The results of the analysis of plant macroremains that make up these packrat middens provide a more detailed picture of the vegetation (Rhode 2000a; Madsen et al. 2001), indicating once again that the landscape was dominated by pine, juniper and sagebrush, although secondary species were more visible. The packrat middens near BER ceased to be built between 13 095 and 12 836 cal BP, i.e., at the beginning of the Younger Dryas. In addition to lowland woody species (Artemisia, Atriplex, Ericameria, Glossopetalon, Gutierrezia, Symphoricarpos and Tetradymia), conifers were well represented (Rhode 2000a). These packrat middens also supplied fragments of Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), a taxon completely absent from the BER area today, which is associated with the limber pine (Pinus flexilis) and common juniper (Juniperus communis) (Rhode 2000a). Since pine was very poorly represented in the archaeological charcoal assemblages of BER during this period, the preferential use of sagebrush could be the result of technical or cultural choices made by the site’s inhabitants. Nevertheless, the pine identified during this period was of the limber type (Pinus type flexilis), and currently this species only very rarely descends below an altitude of 1800 m. Furthermore, packrat middens near BER yielded five pine fragments (between 13 781–13 582 and 13 091–12 822 cal BP) representing 11% of the woody plant remains identified during this period in this packrat midden (Rhode 2000a). Therefore, it is more likely that pines did not thrive in the immediate vicinity of the site, with only a few specimens collected until the beginning of the Younger Dryas, and that the choice of sagebrush was purely practical. Targeting sagebrush, therefore, appears to be a pragmatic choice, suggesting that this species was sufficiently abundant at the site and did not require regular recourse to other species (e.g., Atriplex, Ericameria, Glossopetalon, Gutierrezia, Symphoricarpos and Tetradymia) and was likely well suited to the pyrotechnological needs of the PaleoIndigenous inhabitants.
5.1.2 Early Archaic Groups
During the Early Archaic occupation, the taxonomic diversity of charcoal assemblages increased. This could be linked to the duration of occupation, which, according to previously acquired multidisciplinary results, has increased (Goebel et al. 2018). Thus, it seems that more intensive harvesting of fuelwood over the long term resulted in a broader range of selected taxa, in accordance with one of the main postulates of anthracology (Chabal 1992, 1994, 1997; Shackleton & Prins 1992; Kelly 1995; Théry-Parisot 2002), whether it is a question of more exhaustive wood gathering, new collection territories, or plant formations. Sagebrush also continued to be used extensively, extending to craftwork, as illustrated by a study on the remains of wickerwork made from sagebrush bark (Coe 2020). The use of jointfir, which is almost absent from the region’s pollen spectra (<1%) (Thompson et al. 2016), also seems to reflect pronounced taxonomic choices made by the inhabitants of the site. Most Ephedra are wind pollinated and produce pollen that can be preserved, which is why they are frequently found in pollen spectra worldwide (Maher Jr. 1964; Girard & Renault-Miskovsky 1979; De Beaulieu et al. 1985; Rydin et al. 2006; Naughton et al. 2007; Torres et al. 2008; Louderback & Rhode 2009; Zhang et al. 2013; Bolinder et al. 2015; Qin et al. 2015;Cubizolle et al. 2022). Furthermore, Ephedra has been identified as one of the main contributors to Miocene vegetation in the Bonneville Basin region (Thompson et al. 2016), proving that the edaphic conditions of the region allow for the conservation of pollen from this taxon, just as jointfir can be the main contributor to plant formation. Ephedra was also absent from all of the packrat middens dating before 8000 cal BP in the Bonneville Basin and remains uncommon even after this date (Rhode & Madsen 1995; Rhode 2000b; Madsen et al. 2001). Thus, its near absence around the Pleistocene-Holocene transition does not appear to be due to taphonomic and/or analytical biases but rather to the fact that this taxon was not abundant in the landscape. Today, it is not a dominant species. Together, these factors allowed us to put forward the hypothesis that Ephedra wood was selected as soon as it reappeared in the environment at the beginning of the Holocene. In contrast, although juniper (Juniperus) pollen was identified in the Bonneville Basin during the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene, this taxon was absent from the charcoal analysis spectrum. However, it is interesting to note that this taxon was used by the occupants of the Early Archaic layers (stratum 14) to create basketry from its bark (Coe 2020). Therefore, this taxon seems to be present in the BER environment but does not appear to have been used as a fuel resource. Finally, while many species identified as firewood at BER are edible or produce edible fruits, only Amaranthaceae and pine type monophylla, whose pine nut seeds were consumed in the Early Archaic strata, were used for both firewood and food (Rhode 2008).
5.1 Gathering Territories
5.2.1 PaleoIndigenous Groups
The low floristic diversity and relative absence of pine in the PaleoIndigenous layers seem to indicate that the BER’s wood collection area was restricted to the immediate vicinity of the rockshelter (Figure 8). Sagebrush and Amaranthaceae dominate, and Sarcobataceae is common; today they grow on the Bonneville and Provo Lake margin terraces. The identification of very rare fragments of pine and snowberry could be evidence of some collection at higher elevations. However, it is also possible that during the Younger Dryas some of these plants still grew in the direct vicinity of the site, such as some of today’s snowberry bushes present in rocky outcrops around BER. This is confirmed by the Bonneville Estates packrat midden data, which identify these taxa at elevations of less than 1800 m between 12 900 and 11 500 cal BP (Rhode & Madsen 1995; Rhode 2000a; Madsen et al. 2001).
PaleoIndigenous gathering territories (after Goebel et al. 2021)
Citation: International Journal of Wood Culture 4, 2-3 (2024) ; 10.1163/27723194-bja10033
5.2.2 Early Archaic Groups
In view of the substantially more abundant floristic diversity of the Early Archaic strata, groups appear to have extended their collection area in conjunction with the longer duration of occupations. The precise source of the jointfir gatherings is open to question. Today, jointfir is clearly not the most abundant taxon around the rockshelter, but it can be found there, and important jointfir stands are located approximately 30 km north of the site (along U.S. Route 93 Alternate toward West Wendover; personal observations). Moreover, jointfir appears to have been rare in the past. In addition to its absence in the pollen spectra discussed above, it is uncommon in the botanical assemblages of packrat middens in the region. It is possible that a few rare stands existed in the past; however, they must have been relatively remote and modest. As the identification of Amaranthaceae species is difficult and most are fairly ubiquitous, it is difficult to draw any inferences about the collection area. Nevertheless, the identification of numerous seeds of Allenrolfea occidentalis, a more halophilic Amaranthaceae, and cattail (Typha spp.) fluff (used to light fires) in the latest Early Archaic layers (strata 14 and 13), as well as the appearance of numerous basketry elements made from tule bulrush (Schoenoplectus sp. or Scirpus sp.), reed, or cane (Phragmites sp.), and cattail (Typha sp.) fibers testifies to a close tie with the Blue Lake marshes (Rhode & Louderback 2007; Rhode 2008; Coe 2020, 2021). This exploitation of the marsh margin could also be linked to an increase in Amaranthaceae in the charcoal. More likely, however, it resulted from the shift from sagebrush to a more xeric landscape dominated by saltbush, greasewood, and horsebrush (Tetradymia). Moreover, in the charcoal assemblage, the appearance of new low-elevation taxa (e.g., Tetradymia, Brickellia and Prunus) in the same strata (14’s various sub-strata and 13) seems to indicate an intensification of wood collection and lowland exploitation in the direct vicinity of the site during the periods when the rockshelter experienced the greatest occupation (Figure 9). The fact that occupations became more intense, as suggested by our anthracological results, is supported by multiple lines of archaeological evidence (Goebel et al. 2021). This territory was exploited from the very beginning of the Late Pleistocene occupation, but the appearance of new taxa and secondary species leads us to hypothesize that the collection of wood and exploitation of the lowlands intensified during the Early Archaic. Finally, the sporadic appearance of various additional mesophilous or riparian taxa (Amelanchier, Pinus, Populus/Salix, Prunus, Ribes, Symphoricarpos) could indicate occasional excursions to higher, more forested areas or wet washes. The nearest place one can encounter this type of vegetation is to the west, particularly toward the Goshute Mountains (about a four-hour walk, round trip). Early Archaic bifacial points similar to those from BER have been found around upland springs in these mountains, and more recently (after 4000 cal BP), there are numerous open-air sites in the pinyon-juniper zone, focusing on the collection of pine nuts (Malinky 2005).
Early Archaic gathering territories (after Goebel et al. 2021)
Citation: International Journal of Wood Culture 4, 2-3 (2024) ; 10.1163/27723194-bja10033
5.3 Ethnobotanical Data on Native Uses of Woody Plants
Assessing the cultural value of perishable materials (e.g., wood) in the daily economy of hunter-gatherer groups is particularly difficult in archaeology. The possibility of conducting comparative studies on the uses and habits of current populations is a rare opportunity that should be seized. Several indigenous groups currently reside in BER, notably the Gosiute and the Western Shoshone. Therefore, a comparison between the woody plants identified in anthracology and their use or non-use by native people was considered.
As far as food is concerned, Atriplex seeds, especially A. confertifolia (Gosiute: ka’-nûm-pi), and Pinus monophylla (Gosiute: ti’-ba-wa-ra; Shoshone: wah-pee), or pinyons (Gosiute: ti’-ba), are main sources of food for the Gosiutes (Chamberlin 1911; Rhode 2002). Other species identified in archaeological charcoal are also consumed, such as the fruits of Amelanchier alnifolia (Gosiute: ti’-ûm-pi; Shoshone: ti’ampi), Ribes aureum (Gosiute: kai’-i-ûmp; Shoshone: ohapogombi) and Prunus virginiana (Gosiute: to’-o-nûmp) (Chamberlin 1911; Mozingo 1987; Rhode 2002). The leaves of Artemisia tridentata (Gosiute: po’-ho-bi; Shoshone: pohovi) are often used to coat berries for preservation among the Gosiute and used as seasoning among the Shoshone (Chamberlin 1911; Steward 1938; Rhode 2002). The Shoshone produce chewing gum from Ericameria nauseosa (Shoshone: sipümb) roots (Rhode 2002).
Domestic objects (e.g., baskets, bowls, or jugs) can be made from willow wood (Gosiute: si’-o-pi; Shoshone: coo-see see-bup) (Chamberlin 1911; Train et al. 1941; Stoffle et al. 1989), and baskets are sometimes reinforced with Amelanchier stems. Among the Western Shoshone, Amelanchier and Sarcobatus vermiculatus (Shoshone: tovini) are used to make objects requiring dense wood, such as digging sticks and arrows (Steward 1941; Rhode 2002). None of the species identified in the charcoal appeared to have been used for the architecture of Gosiute dwellings, whereas Salix exigua (Shoshone: kwishisuuvi) was used for brush houses by the Shoshone (Stoffle et al. 1989; Rhode 2002).
In medicine, sagebrush is undoubtedly one of the most versatile plants, being used in teas and poultices to treat fever, rheumatism, and colds (Chamberlin 1911). The Shoshone also use it to treat worms and eye troubles (Train et al. 1941). Similarly, the Shoshone use the leaves of Gutierrezia sarothrae (Shoshone: tavishepi) and prepare a tea from Ericameria nauseosa (Train et al. 1941; Stoffle et al. 1989). The Gosiutes use gum made from Pinus monophylla to ease suffering from intestinal parasites and employ decoctions of Prunus virginiana bark for blood disorders, notably nosebleeds. This plant is also used to treat intestinal disorders, particularly in children and infants (Chamberlin 1911). Among the Shoshone, Amelanchier bark is boiled to clean the eyes and soothe them in cases of burns from the sun’s reflection on the snow (Train et al. 1941). The Shoshone also use Salix exigua bark (chewed or boiled) to treat a variety of pain, thanks to the willow’s aspirin-like active ingredients (Rhode 2002; Train et al. 1941; Stoffle et al. 1989). Ephedra viridis tea (Shoshone: tutumbi) is also utilized as a remedy to treat numerous disorders (e.g., pain and intestinal and blood issues) (Rhode 2002; Train et al. 1941; Stoffle et al. 1989). The Shoshone use Kraschenninikovia lanata (Shoshone: shee-shup), an Amaranthaceae, to produce shampoos and prevent hair loss (Train et al. 1941). Finally, Shoshone infants regularly bathe in sagebrush-infused baths, and sagebrush-leaf fumigation is regularly performed to purify spirits or spaces (Stoffle et al. 1989).
This overview of the uses and customs associated with woody plants identified in archaeological charcoal assemblages shows that while certain taxa appear to be deliberately chosen for firewood, many woody species are used for other purposes, including within the ritual sphere. This also leads us to think that archaeological charcoal is a potent tool for identifying people’s fuel of choice, although the occasional contribution of other species may be linked to non-firewood uses of certain taxa.
5.4 The Cultural Persistence of the Fuelwood Economy among Present-day Native People of the Great Basin
In addition to its food, craft, medicinal virtues, and ritual uses, sagebrush is still used as a fuel of choice by contemporary indigenous peoples, especially in desert areas (Rhode 2002). It regularly produces seasoned wood ideal for starting fires, both as a fuel and as a friction tool (Chamberlin 1911; Zigmond 1981; Rhode 2002). Ethnological surveys have not revealed any particular use of jointfir for firewood (Steward 1938; Kelly 1939); however, Zigmond (1981) observed that jointfir charcoal is suitable for tattooing. Theoretically, researchers estimate that firewood collection by hunter-gatherer groups rarely extended beyond a radius of 5 km (Roper 1979; Kelly 1995, 1999, 2013; Théry-Parisot & Meignen 2000; Lebreton et al. 2017). As jointfir rarely grows in the Bonneville Estates area, it is possible that this taxon was collected specifically to obtain charcoal, perhaps for tattooing. While this hypothesis is difficult to sustain, our experimental results demonstrate that this species burns much longer than sagebrush, which can combust entirely within seconds. It takes an average of 1.10 minutes to burn 1 cg of sagebrush, compared with 2.09 min to burn 1 cg of jointfir, i.e., twice as long (observation based on 18 experimental burns, publication forthcoming). In the context where wood is a relatively scarce resource, wood that produces flames and, by extension, heat for an extended time was probably sought. Despite being rare, Early Archaic people could have collected jointfir during daily foraging excursions from the rockshelter, supplementing the more regular use of locally abundant sagebrush fuel. Finally, for Amaranthaceae and Sarcobataceae, the last taxonomic groups used extensively by prehistoric populations for firewood, it appears that shadscales (Atriplex spp.) are still used. Sarcobataceae, however, are not burned by contemporary populations but are instead used to make tools (Stoffle et al. 1989).
6 Conclusion
The study of archaeological charcoal from the PaleoIndigenous and Early Archaic strata at BER highlights the different ways early native peoples harvested firewood between these two major periods. Indeed, taxonomic selection and the territories covered diverged, and comparisons of anthracological and palynological data suggest that variation in firewood use was the result of environmental pressures linked to aridification during the Early Holocene as the site’s inhabitants made conscious choices. The most common taxa (sagebrush, shadscales, and greasewood) persist throughout the chronological sequence. However, during the Early Archaic, the regular use of jointfir suggests that this taxon may have been intentionally sought for its longer-lasting combustion, a quality that is no longer cited regarding jointfir by Gosiute and Shoshone. Likewise, during the Early Archaic period, the BER’s occupants occasionally supplied the rockshelter with wood from uplands more than 10 km away. These findings demonstrate the ability of charcoal to provide data complementary to those delivered by other archaeological and paleobotanical lines of evidence, thereby contributing to both environmental and societal reconstructions. Future studies should be continued at this site, integrating more data and, in particular, studying more charcoal fragments from hearths, as well as at other sites, which would provide a more general picture of the uses and customs associated with firewood in the early populations of the Bonneville Basin. Finally, despite the particular difficulty in approaching the cultural aspect of perishable materials in archaeology, as they are often invisible, ethnological examples remind us that these ecofacts, firewood in particular, are culturally charged as other materials that are more easily conversed with and better known to archaeologists.
Acknowledgements
This work was conducted as part of Aurélie Liard’s doctoral thesis, funded by EUR ODYSSEE, Université Nice-Côte d’Azur. We would also like to thank the Institut des Amériques, the World Wood Day Foundation, the EUR ODYSSEE, and the CEPAM laboratory (UMR 7264) for their support in enabling us to conduct a two-month sampling field mission in Nevada at the Desert Research Institute laboratory. In the context of this mission, we thank Peter Goebel intern for his invaluable help in the smooth execution of this project. We would also like to express special thanks to the many students (chiefly from the University of Nevada Las Vegas, the University of Nevada Reno, and Texas A&M University) who participated in the excavations at the Bonneville Estates Rockshelter (BER), as well as in the cataloguing and curating of the recovered materials. Several people helped sort the charcoal studied in this work, including Jon Varnon, Lisbeth Louderback, Jonathan Grant, Anitra Sapula and Anna Camp. We also acknowledge that the work presented here was conducted on the traditional lands of the Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation in Ibapah, Utah. Finally, we thank the editors of the International Journal of Wood Culture for their careful review and advice.
References
Adovasio JM. 1970. The origin, development and distribution of western archaic textiles. Thesis, Department of Anthropology University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Adovasio JM. 1986. Artifacts and ethnicity: Basketry as an indicator of territoriality and population movements in the prehistoric Great Basin. In: Anthropology of the desert west: Essays in honor of Jesse D. Jennings: 44–84. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT.
Baas P, Blokhina N, Fujii T, Gasson P, Grosser D, Heinz I, Ilic J, Xiaomei J, Miller R, Newsom LA, Noshiro S, Richter HG, Suzuki M, Terrazas T, Wheeler E, Wiedenhoeft A. 2004. IAWA list of microscopic features for softwood identification. IAWA Journal 25: 1–70. DOI: 10.1163/22941932-90000349.
Benson LV, Lund SP, Smoot JP, Rhode D, Spencer RJ, Verosub KL, Louderback LA, Johnson CA, Rye RO, Negrini RM. 2011. The rise and fall of Lake Bonneville between 45 and 10.5 ka. Quaternary International 235: 57–69. DOI: 10.1163/22941932-900 00349.
Blong JC, Adams ME, Sanchez G, Jenkins DL, Bull ID, Shillito, L-M. 2020. Younger Dryas and early Holocene subsistence in the northern Great Basin: Multiproxy analysis of coprolites from the Paisley Caves, Oregon, USA. Archaeological and Anthropological Science 12: 1–29. DOI: 10.1007/s12520-020-01160-9.
Bolinder K, Ivarsson LN, Humphreys AM, Ickert-Bond SM, Han F, Hoorn C, Rydin C. 2015. Pollen morphology of Ephedra (Gnetales) and its evolutionary implications. Grana 55: 1–28. DOI: 10.1080/00173134.2015.1066424.
Bryan AL. 1977. Smith Creek Cave, Anthropological papers. Nevada State Museum, Carson City, NV.
Carlquist S. 2001. Comparative wood anatomy: Systematic, ecological and evolutionary aspects of dicotyledon wood, 2nd edn. Springer, New York, NY.
Chabal L. 1992. La représentativité paléo-écologique des charbons de bois archéologiques issus du bois de feu. Bulletin de la Société Botanique de France. Actualités Botaniques 139: 213–236.
Chabal L. 1994. Apports récents de l’anthracologie a la connaissance des paysages passés : Performances et limites. Histoire & Mesure, Archéologie II 9: 317–338.
Chabal L. 1997. Forêts et sociétés en Languedoc (Néolithique final, Antiquité tardive) : L’anthracologie, méthode et paléoécologie, Documents d’Archéologie Française. MHS, Paris.
Chabal L, Fabre L, Terral J-F, Théry-Parisot I. 1999. L’Anthracologie. In: La Botanique, collection “Archéologiques”: 43–104. Errance, Paris.
Chamberlin RV. 1911. The ethno-botany of the Gosiute Indians of Utah. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association 2: 331–384.
Coe MM. 2020. Reconstructing identity in the Bonneville Basin: Holocene-aged cordage and coiled basketry from Easter Great Basin. Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Coe MM. 2021. Basketry, cordage, and perishable artifact manufacture at Bonneville Estates Rockshelter: Diachronic technological variation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 64: 1–28. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaa.2021.101325.
Croes DE. 1997. The north-central cultural dichotomy on the northwest coast of North America: Its evolution as suggested by wet-site basketry and wooden fish-hooks. Antiquity 71: 594–615.
Cubizolle H, Argant J, Serieyssol K, Fasson F, Oberlin C, Dendievel A-M, Deng-Amiot Y, Beaudouin C, Irka H, Haas JN. 2022. Environmental changes during the Late-Glacial and Early Holocene at the Gourd des Aillères mire in the Monts du Forez Mountains (Massif Central, France). Quaternary International 636: 9–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2021.03.033.
Currey DM, Oviatt CG, Plyler GB. 1983. Lake Bonneville stratigraphy, geomorphology, and isostatic deformation in west-central Utah. In: Geologic excursions in neotectonics and engineering geology in Utah. Guidebook part IV, Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Special Studies: 63–82. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, Utah Department of Natural Resources and Energy, Salt Laker City, UT.
De Beaulieu JL, Pons A, Reille M. 1985. Recherches pollenanalytiques sur l’histoire tardiglaciaire et holocène de la végétation des Monts d’Aubrac (Massif Central, France). Review of Paleobotany and Palynology 44: 37–80.
Diettert RA. 1938. The Morphology of Artemisia tridentata Nutt. Lloydia 1: 3–74.
Dufraisse A, Pétrequin P, Pétrequin A-M. 2007. La gestion du bois de feu: Un indicateur des contextes socio-écologiques. Approche ethnoarchéologique dans les Hautes Terres de Papua (Nouvelle-Guinée indonésienne). In: Besse M. (Ed.), Sociétés néolithiques. Des faits archéologiques aux fonctionnements socio-économiques: 115–126, Cahiers d’archéologie romande, Lausanne, France.
Geib P, Jolie E. 2008. The role of basketry in Early Holocene small seed exploitation: Implications of a ca. 9,000 year-old basket from Cowboy Cave, Utah. American Antiquity 73: 83–102. DOI: 10.2307/25470459.
Gernandt DS, López GG, García SO, Liston A. 2005. Phylogeny and classification of Pinus. Taxon 54: 29–42. DOI: 10.2307/25065300.
Gilbert GK. 1980. Lake Bonneville. Monographs of the United States Geological Survey. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Girard M, Renault-Miskovsky J. 1979. Analyse pollinique de la grotte de Coupe-Gorge à Montmaurin (Haute-Garonne). Bulletin de l’Association Française pour l’Étude du Quaternaire 16: 175–189.
Goebel T. 2007. Pre-Archaic and early archaic technological activities at Bonneville Estates Rockshelter: A first look at the lithic artifact record. In: Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic? Great Basin human ecology at the Pleistocene/Holocene transition: 156–184, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT.
Goebel T, Keene JL. 2014. Are Great Basin stemmed points as old as Clovis in the Intermountain West? A review of the geochronological evidence. In: Archaeology in the Great Basin and Southwest: Papers in honor of Don D. Fowle: 35–60. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT.
Goebel T, Graf K, Hockett B, Rhode D. 2007. The Paleoindian occupations at Bonneville Estates Rockshelter, Danger Cave and Smith Creek Cave (Eastern Great Basin, U.S.A): Interpreting their radiocarbon chronologies. In: On Shelter’s Ledge: Histories, Theories and Methods of Rockshelter Research: BAR International Series 1655: 147–161. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Goebel T, Hockett B, Adams DK, Rhode D, Graf K. 2011. Climate, environment, and humans in North America’s Great Basin during the Younger Dryas, 12,900–11,600 calendar years ago. Quaternary International 479–501. DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2011.03.043.
Goebel T, Holmes A, Keene JL, Coe MM. 2018. Technological change from the Terminal Pleistocene through the Early Holocene in the Eastern Great Basin, USA: The record from Bonneville Estates Rockshelter. In: Robinson E, Sellet F. (eds.), Lithic technological organization and paleoenvironmental change: Global and diachronic perspectives, studies in human ecology and adaptation: 235–261. Springer International, Cham.
Goebel T, Hockett B, Rhode D, Graf K. 2021. Prehistoric human response to climate changes in the Bonneville Basin, western North America: The Bonneville Estates Rockshelter radiocarbon chronology. Quaternary Science Reviews 260: 1–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2021.106930.
Graf K. 2007. Stratigraphy and chronology of the Pleistocene to Holocene transition at Bonneville Estates Rockshelter, Eastern Great Basin. In: Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic. Great Basin human ecology at the Pleistocene-Holocene transition: 82–104. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT.
Hockett B. 2015. The zooarchaeology of Bonneville Estates Rockshelter: 13,000 years of Great Basin hunting strategies. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 2: 291–301. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.02.011.
Hurcombe L. 2008. Organics from inorganics: using experimental archaeology as a research tool for studying perishable material culture. World Archaeology 40: 83–115.
Kelly IT. 1939. Southern Paiute shamanism, anthropological records. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Kelly RL. 1995. The foraging spectrum: Diversity in hunter-gatherers lifeways. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Kelly RL. 1999. Hunter-gatherer foraging and colonization of the western hemisphere. Anthropologie 37: 143–153.
Kelly RL. 2013. The lifeways of hunter-gatherers. The foraging spectrum, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kelso, G. 1970. Hogup Cave, Utah: Comparative pollen analysis of human coprolites and cave fill. In: Hogup Cave: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 93: 251–262. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT.
Lebreton V, Théry-Parisot I, Bouby L, Chrzavzez J, Delhon C, Ruas M-P. 2017. Archéobotanique et taphonomie. In: Taphonomies, Sciences archéologiques: 291– 318, Éditions des archives contemporaines, Paris.
Louderback LA. 2021. Climate-driven dietary change on the Colorado Plateau, USA, and implications for gender-specific foraging patterns. American Antiquity 87: 1–17. https://doi:10.1017/aaq.2021.122.
Louderback LA, Rhode DE. 2009. 15,000 years of vegetation change in the Bonneville Basin: The Blue Lake pollen record. Quaternary Science Reviews 28: 308–326. DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2008.09.027.
Lynch JJ, Doherty C, Goebel T, Barker P. 2024. The Younger Dryas-aged stemmed points from Smith Creek Cave, Nevada. In: Current perspectives on stemmed and fluted technologies in the American Far West: 132–152, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT.
Madsen DB, Rhode D. 1990. Early Holocene pinyon (Pinus monophylla) in the northeastern Great Basin. Quaternary Research 33: 94–101.
Madsen DB, Rhode D, Grayson DK, Broughton JM, Livingston SD, Hunt J, Quade J, Schmitt DN, Shaver MW. 2001. Late Quaternary environmental change in the Bonneville Basin, western USA. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 167: 243–271. DOI: 10.1016/S0031-0182(00)00240-6.
Maher Jr. LJ. 1964. Ephedra pollen in sediments of the Great Lakes Region. Ecology 45: 391–395.
Malinky BE. 2005. Fremont occupation of the western periphery: An analysis of ceramics from northeastern Nevada. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno, NV.
Monzingo HN. 1987. Shrubs of the Great Basin: A natural history. University of Nevada Press, Reno, NV.
Naughton F, Sanchez Goni MF, Desprat S, Turon JL, Duprat J, Malaizé B, Joli C, Cortijo E, Drago T, Freitas MC. 2007. Present-day and past (last 25,000 years) marine pollen signal off western Iberia. Marine Micropaleontology: 91–114. DOI: 10.1016 /j.marmicro.2006.07.006.
Nourissier A, Nocus N, Dufraisse A. 2019. Automatic creation of anthracological diagram. The user guide. ANR Dendrac, Paris.
Oviatt CG. 2015. Chronology of Lake Bonneville, 30,000 to 10,000 yr B.P. Quaternary Science Reviews 110: 166–171. DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.12.016.
Oviatt CG, Shroder Jr. JF. 2016. Lake Bonneville, a scientific update. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.
Oviatt CG, Currey DM, Sack D. 1992. Radiocarbon chronology of Lake Bonneville, Eastern Great Basin, US. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 99: 225–241.
Palacios-Fest MR, Duke, D, Young DC, Kirk JD, Oviatt CG. 2022. A Paleo-Lake and wetland paleoecology associated with human use of the distal Old River Bed Delta at the Pleistocene-Holocene transition in the Bonneville Basin, Utah, USA. Quaternary Research 106: 75–93. DOI: 10.1017/qua.2021.49.
Qin F, Zhao Y, Li Q, Cai M. 2015. Modern pollen assemblages from surface lake sediments in northwestern China and their importance as indicators of vegetation and climate. Science China Earth Sciences 58: 1643–1655. DOI: 10.1007/s11430-015-5111-9.
Rhode D. 2000a. Middle and late Wisconsin vegetation in the Bonneville Basin. In: Late Quaternary Paleoecology in the Bonneville Basin: 137–147. Utah Geological Survey. Utah Department of Natural Resources, Salt Lake City, UT.
Rhode D. 2000b. Holocene vegetation history in the Bonneville basin. In: Late quaternary paleoecology in the Bonneville Basin: 149–163. Utah Geological Survey, Utah Department of Natural Resources, Salt Lake City, UT.
Rhode D. 2002. Native plants of Southern Nevada. An ethnobotany. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT.
Rhode DE. 2008. Dietary plant use by middle Holocene foragers in the Bonneville Basin, western North America. Before Farming: 1–17. DOI: 10.3828/bfarm.2008.3.2.
Rhode D, Louderback LA. 2007. Dietary plant use in the Bonneville Basin during the terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene transition. In: Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic? Great Basin Human Ecology at the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition: 231–237. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT.
Rhode D, Madsen DB. 1995. Late Wisconsin/Early Holocene vegetation in the Bonneville Basin. Quarternary Research 44: 246–256.
Roper DC. 1979. The method and theory of site catchment analysis: A review. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 2: 119–140.
Rydin C, Pedersen KR, Crane PR, Friis EM. 2006. Former diversity of Ephedra (Gnetales): Evidence from Early Cretaceous seeds from Portugal and North America. Annals of Botany 98: 123–140. DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcl078.
Shackleton CM, Prins F. 1992. Charcoal analysis and the “Principle of the least effort” — A conceptual model. Journal of Archaeological Science 19: 631–637.
Steward DJH. 1938. Basin-plateau aboriginal sociopolitical groups. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Steward JH., 1941. Culture element distributions: XIII — Nevada Shoshone. Anthropological Records 4: 209–360.
Stoffle RW, Evans MJ, Halmo DB, Niles WE, O’Farrell JT. 1989. Native American plant resources in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada. Science Applications International, Las Vegas, NV.
Théry-Parisot I. 2001. Économie des combustibles au Paléolithique, Dossier de documentation archéologique. CNRS éditions, Paris.
Théry-Parisot I. 2002. The gathering of firewood during Paleolithic. In: Charcoal analysis: Methodological approaches, palaeoecological results and wood uses. BAR International Series 1063: 243–250. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Théry-Parisot, I Meignen L. 2000. Économie des combustibles (bois et lignite) dans l’abri moustérien des Canalettes. L’expérimentation à la simulation des besoins énergétiques. Gallia Préhistoire 42: 45–55.
Thompson RS, Oviatt CG, Honke JS, McGeehin JP. 2016. Late quaternary changes in lakes, vegetation, and climate in the Bonneville basin reconstructed from sediment cores from Great Salt Lake. In: Lake Bonneville: A scientific update: 221–291. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.
Torres L, Parra O, Araneda A, Urrutia R, Cruces F, Chirinos L. 2008. Vegetational and climatic history during the late Holocene in Lake Laja basin (central Chile) inferred from sedimentary pollen record. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 149: 18–28. DOI: 10.1016/j.revpalbo.2007.10.001.
Train P, Henrichs JR, Archer WA. 1941. Medicinal uses of plants by Indian tribes of Nevada, Bioactive Plants. Quaterman Publications, Lawrence, KS.
Wheeler EA. 2011. InsideWood — A web resource for hardwood identification. IAWA Journal 32: 199–211. DOI: 10.1163/22941932-90000051.
Wheeler EA, Gasson PE, Baas P. 2020. Using the InsideWood Web Site: Potentials and pitfalls. IAWA Journal 41: 412–462. DOI: 10.1163/22941932-bja10032.
Zhang Y, Kong Z, Zhang H. 2013. Multivariate analysis of modern and fossil pollen data from the central Tianshan Mountains, Xinjiang, NW China. Climatic Change 120: 945–957. DOI: 10.1007/s10584-013-0838-9.
Zigmond ML. 1981. Kawaiisu Ethnobotany. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT.
We place the Younger Dryas between 12 800–11 600 cal BP, in accordance with the chronozone chosen in Goebel et al. (2011) and in agreement with the results of Rasmussen (2014).
Some botanists have recently modified Grayia’s phylogeny and integrated it into the genus Atriplex. However, as this decision is not unanimous, we refer to the U.S. Department of Agriculture website (plants.usda.gov, last consulted on 16 April 2024) and the World Flora Online website (worldfloraonline.org, last consulted on 16 April 2024) and consider Grayia a genus in its own right.
The pines with fenestriform cross-field pitting (Figure 6C) from the Bonneville Basin region are from the soft pine group (sub-genus Strobus, section Quinquefolia, sub-section Strobus) (Baas et al. 2004; Gernandt et al. 2005). The corresponding species are Pinus flexilis and Pinus albicaulis (Woods et al. 2001; Bryce et al. 2003; Van Buren et al. 2011). Since the latter is not currently present in the area close to BER, and since P. flexilis is much more widespread in the Bonneville Basin, we assume that the archaeological fenestriform cross-field pitting pine corresponds to Pinus flexilis. This type contrasts with pinoids cross-field pitting pine (Figure 6D) represented in the Bonneville Basin by pinyon pines (sub-genus Strobus, section Parrya, sub-section Cembroides and Balfourianae) and hard pines (sub-genus Pinus, section Trifoliae, sub-section Ponderosae and Contorta) (Baas et al. 2004; Gernandt et al. 2005). In the Bonneville Basin, the corresponding species are Pinus monophylla, P. edulis, and P. longaeva for the section Parrya and Pinus ponderosa and P. contorta for the section Trifoliae (Woods et al. 2001; Bryce et al. 2003; Van Buren et al. 2011;). The singleleaf pinyon pine, Pinus monophyla, is the other most common pine in the Bonneville Basin region. It migrated into the BER area after approx. 8000 cal BP (Madsen & Rhode 1990). We therefore assume that the cross-field pinoid pines identified from the Early Archaic levels are probably Pinus monophylla.
