Archaeological Investigations at Yourhaney Plantation (38GE18)

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT YOURHANEY PLANTATION129VI. SUBSISTENCE STUDIESThe following chapter discusses the archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological remains recoveredfrom feature contexts at the Yauhannah Bluff Site (38GE18). The first portion of the chapterdiscusses the analytical methodologies that were utilized, which is followed by sections discussingthe archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological studies.ANALYSIS METHODSARCHAEOBOTANYMacroplant remains analyzed in this study were derived from 26 flotation samples from 25 culturalfeatures and one general excavation fill sample (Table 14). The five to 10 liter samples werefloated by New South Associates, Inc. staff members. The samples were subjected to machineassistedwater separation in a 55-gallon Shell Mound Archaeological Project (SMAP) type flotationmachine (Pearsall 1989; Watson 1976). The heavy fraction insert of the system was screened with0.8 mm mesh.In the laboratory, each flotation sample was first weighed, and then passed through nestedgeologic sieves (2.0 mm, 1.0 mm, 0.71 mm, 0.5 mm). Each size-graded light fraction was fullysorted under low magnification (10-25x). All charred plant remains that were greater than 2.0 mmwere pulled from the sample matrices and were quantified by material type, by weight, and bycount. Material that was smaller than 2.0 mm was fully sorted, but only charred seeds wereremoved. The greater than 2.0 mm fraction of each of the flotation heavy fractions was sorted inorder to check the flotation separation, which was verified as excellent. Seeds and wood charcoalwere identified with standard reference texts (e.g. Martin and Barkley 1961, Montgomery 1977;USDA 1974) and a modern reference collection.Identifications were made of wood charcoal fragments from each flotation sample (Tables 17-18).Wood charcoal was separated from other debris before attempting specific identification.Whenever possible, wood specimens were identified to genus. Segments that were toofragmentary or poorly preserved to specifically identify were placed in the more general categoriesof conifer, monocot, indeterminate hardwood, or unidentifiable. Wood taxa were identified bycomparison with charred and natural transverse, tangential, and radial thin sections of modernwood, as well as textbook illustrations. The transverse view was emphasized due to magnificationlimitations, size of the specimens, and time constraints. As needed, dichotomous keys wereemployed. Since these are geared toward fresh wood they are of limited use, but by employingboth the microscopic and macroscopic keys, following multiple paths, and with frequent referenceto the comparative collection, a genus can generally be determined.In this analysis, the macroplant data were quantified by individual feature, time period (Woodland,Mississippian, Woodland/Mississippian, 18 th century, circa 1800, 19 th century, 18 th /19 th century,control), total prehistoric and historic, and total number of samples.