It occurred to me as an archaeologist and now Master Gardener intern that there is a strong connection between my profession and my new avocation. For years , as part of my job, I have been working to compile data pertaining to the way prehistoric Native Americans grew and utilized plants. Archaeology is one means we possess for recovering information about how people in another time lived their lives. Prehistory is defined as a time before written records; since the people are not around to query, we must rely on archaeology to answer those questions. While there are many hypotheses about when and how plant manipulation first occurred, there are some ways archaeologists conduct research to obtain this information.
Archaeologists in Maryland agree that sometime around 1,000 B.C., people began some form of early horticulture. Prior to this time people moved from place to place within a given territory to gather the seasonally available plant materials for food (plants were an important dietary constituent in addition to meat, seafood, etc.). In a sense, people were at the mercy of nature for the amount and types of plant foods gathered at certain times of the year.
There is little evidence that food storage took place during this time. Something happened to change all of this. It is possible that on various plant collecting forays, some seeds may have been accidentally preserved and spread; the following year more of the plant type would have been available or found in areas away from its known location. (We can all relate to this phenomenon in our own gardens.) How it was discovered is not as important as that it was discovered, for it was when people learned that plants could be grown as well as harvested, prehistoric lifeways changed dramatically.
These early groups became the ancestors of the Native American groups who were living in the Maryland area when the first Euroamerican colonists arrived. By this time these Amerindian groups were manipulating local vegetation conditions by using fire; intentional burning of forest cover and undergrowth was a common practice to clear land for agriculture, to clear campsites, increase visibility, facilitate movement, eliminate rodents, improve soil fertility, and foster growth of certain plant species.
How do archaeologists go about finding out what took place before this? Until the mid 20th century, most archaeological investigations were centered around describing and defining artifacts. However, in recent years, science has played an important role in understanding the diverse and complicated inter-relationships between food acquisition, storage, and consumption and disposal of by-products in prehistoric archaeological sites. The research capitalizes on the unique interplay seeds have with culture and the environment.
When sites are excavated today there is an attempt to retrieve as much data as possible including the collection of microscopic "ecofacts" which includes seeds. When hearths, pits, burials, etc. are excavated, constant volume soil samples are collected from these features. The soil is water screened through very fine mesh; what is left is sorted through to collect any small seeds or plant parts. The most important part of this process is to delineate what is prehistoric material and what has been percolated into the soil from natural seed rain.
First and foremost, the botanical history of each plant recovered must be considered. Plants which are not native to America and were introduced by the colonists were obviously plants not available to prehistoric populations.
The second important criteria is that seed specimens must have been modified in a manner that allows preservation of what is really a biodegradable artifact. This is accomplished by choosing only seeds which have been charred. The logic behind this assumption is that given normal soil conditions, seeds will either fulfill their reproductive function or will decay. Therefore, the way that a seed enters the archaeological record is by short circuiting that reproductive function. In addition, all factors which influence preservation are considered because archaeological plant remains are neither a large nor representative sample of the diet.
Once the samples have been isolated, examination of the biological materials is made with a binocular dissecting microscope. Material is identified by species level where possible using an extensive type collection of floral material and reference materials. Although individual counts are made of all species, these figures are used with great reservation because the amount of plant food used by a prehistoric population may be meagerly represented in the archaeological record. Ethnographic records (documented by the colonists and missionaries) are used to speculate on what parts of the plants in the collection were grown, eaten, or used for other purposes.
In addition to looking at what has happened at a specific archaeological site, many sites are compared to evaluate similarities and differences between sites, geographic areas, and cultures. Based on the information which has been archaeologically accumulated in recent years, there is little reason to doubt that some simple form of horticulture was developed first. For instance, simple weeding around young shoots and saplings might have imparted an advantage to young plants by eliminating competitors. Protection of plants probably led to several beneficial results not only to the plants but to the human groups who utilized their products. Opening the way for a larger crop would produce more light for a plant than would normally be produced in a closed canopy forest.
Although history has focused on American Indian crops, almost no attention has been given to Native American farming. Books and movies have provided us with images of Indians fighting, hunting, and participating in ceremonies, but hardly anything on Indian farming and gardening. Perhaps with the information being accumulated currently by archaeologists, we will have a better understanding of the agriculture and culture that was truly native to our land.
--Hettie Ballweber, MG, 1996