User talk:Grantstorm

Archaeology of Minnesota wild rice

Anthropologists since the early 1900s have focused on wild rice as a food source, often with an emphasis on the harvesting of the aquatic plant in the Lake Superior region by the Anishinaabe people, also known as the Chippewa, Ojibwa and Ojibwe (Densmore 1929: 128). The Smithsonian Institution’s Bureau of American Ethnology published “The Wild Rice Gatherers in the Upper Great Lakes: A Study in American Primitive Economics” by Albert Ernest Jenks in 1900. In addition to his fieldwork interviewing members of various tribal communities, Jenks examined the accounts of explorers, fur traders and government agents from the early 1600s to the late 1800s to detail an “aboriginal economic activity which is absolutely unique, and in which no article is employed not of aboriginal conception and workmanship” (Jenks 1900: 1019). His study further notes wild rice’s importance in the fur-trading era because the region would have been nearly inaccessible if not for the availability of wild rice and the ability to store it for long periods of time (Jenks 1900: 1019). Wild rice’s social and economic importance has continued into present times for the Anishinaabe and other north woods tribal members despite the availability of more easily obtainable food sources (Vennum 1988: 58-80).

This continued use of wild rice from ancient to modern times has provided opportunities to examine the plant’s processing by various cultures through the archaeological record they left behind during their occupation of seasonal ricing camps. Early ethnographic reports, tribal accounts and historical writings also inform archaeological research in the human use of wild rice. For example, geographer and ethnologist Henry Schoolcraft in the mid-1800s wrote about depressions in the ground on the shore of a lake with wild rice growing in the water. He wrote that wild rice processors placed animal hides in the holes, filled them with rice and stomped on the rice to thresh it (Jenks 1900: 1067). These jigging pits are part of the husking needed to process wild rice, and archaeologists see these holes in the soil stratigraphy in archaeological excavations today. Such historical records from the post-contact period in the Lake Superior region focus on Anishinaabe harvesting and processing techniques. Archaeological investigations of wild rice processing from the American era, before and after the creation of federal Indian reservations, also provide information on the loss of traditional harvesting areas, as 1800s fur trader and Indian interpreter Benjamin G. Armstrong wrote about outsiders “who claimed to have acquired title to all the swamps and overflowed lakes on the reservations, depriving the Indians of their rice fields, cranberry marshes and hay meadows”(Armstrong 1892: 81). Despite the close association of the Anishinaabe and wild rice today, indigenous use of this food for subsistence also predates their arrival in the Lake Superior region. The Anishinaabe today were part of a larger Algonquian group who left eastern North America on a centuries-long journey to the west along the St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes. The Anishinaabe migration story details a vision to follow a giant clam shell in the sky to a place where the food grows on the water. This journey ended between the late 1400s and early 1600s in the Lake Superior wild rice country when they encountered the plant (Warren 1885: 76-95).

Archaeological and other scientific investigations have focused on the prehistoric exploitation of wild rice by humans, including: 1) the Anishinaabe, 2) so-called proto-Anishinaabe who may have later transformed into this culture from an earlier form, 3) other indigenous groups who exist today such as the Sioux people, and 4) archaeological-categorized cultures from the Initial and Terminal Woodland periods whose living linages today are more difficult to identify. A seminal 1969 archaeological study indicated the prehistoric nature of indigenous wild rice harvesting and processing through radiocarbon dating, putting to rest argument made by some European-Americans that wild rice production did not begin until post-contact times. Researchers tested clay linings of thermal features and jigging pits associated with parching and threshing of the plant (Johnson 1969: 276-277).

But a more precise dating of the antiquity of human use of wild rice and the appearance of the plant itself in lakes and streams have been the subjects of continuing academic debates. These disputes may be framed around these questions: When did wild rice first appear in various areas of the region? When was it plentiful enough to be harvested in quantities to be a significant food source? What is the relationship of wild rice to the introduction of pottery and to increases in indigenous populations in the past 2,000 years? “The use of wild rice by and its influence on prehistoric people in northeast Minnesota has led to much argument among archaeologists and paleoecologists” (Huber 2001: 2).

As an example, archaeologists divide human occupation of northeast Minnesota into numerous time periods. They are: the Paleo-Indian period from 7,000 years ago (5000 BC) extending back to an uncertain time after the glaciers receded from the last Ice Age; the Archaic period from 2,500 to 7,000 years ago (5000-500 BC); the Initial Woodland period from 2,500 to 1,300 years ago (500 BC-700 AD); the Terminal Woodland period from 1,300 to 400 years ago (700-1600 AD); and the historical period after that time(Huber 2001: 34-52). These rough dates are open to debate and vary by location in the state. In general, two lines of inquiry have focused on archaeological wild rice: 1) The radiocarbon dating of charred wild rice seeds or the associated charcoal left behind during the parching stage of rice production, and 2) Examination of preserved wild rice seeds associated with specific prehistoric pottery styles found in excavations of processing sites. Different pottery styles in northern Minnesota are linked to certain times in the Initial and Terminal Woodland periods stretching from around 500 BC to the time of contact between indigenous peoples and Europeans. To place this in context, “Although ceramics may have appeared as early as 2,000 BC in the southeastern United States, it is about 1,500 years later that they became evident in the Midwest” (Anfinson 1979). After European contact, indigenous wild rice processors generally abandoned ceramic vessels in favor of metal kettles (Hilger 1951/1992: 148).

The Initial Woodland period in northeast Minnesota marks the beginning of the use of pottery and burial mound building in the archaeological record. The Initial Woodland also experienced an increase in indigenous population. One hypothesis is that wild rice as a food source was related to these three developments (Valppu 1989: 1). An example of a northeast Minnesota wild rice location, the Big Rice site in the Superior National Forest, considered a classic Initial and Terminal Woodland period type site, illustrates the methods of archaeological investigations into the plant’s use by humans through time. Archaeological techniques along with ethnographic records and tribal oral testimony, when taken together, suggest use of this particular lakeside site since 50 BC.

On its own, accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating of wild rice seeds and charcoal samples from the Big Rice itself indicated indigenous use of this site dating to 2,050 years ago. Furthermore, all excavation levels that solely contained ceramics only used during the Initial Woodland period (known as Laurel pottery complex) also included wild rice seeds. This indicated the use of wild rice during the Initial Woodland period, according to the study (Valppu and Rapp 2000: 86).

Excavators have documented more than 50,000 pottery sherds from the site from the Initial and Terminal Woodland periods. Specifically, researchers analyzed ceramic rimsherds of Laurel pottery from the Initial Woodland period and Blackduck, Sandy Lake and Selkirk pottery styles from the Terminal Woodland period (Shafer 2003: ii, 1). Each pottery style had wild rice seeds associated with in it in the soil layers of the archaeological deposits. There was no contamination in these soil levels from pottery from other eras.

This suggests intensive exploitation of the site for wild rice processing through these time periods by different cultures. For example, archaeologists often associate Sandy Lake pottery with the Sioux people, who were later displaced by the Anishinabee and possibly other Algonquian migrants. Archaeologists often associate Selkirk pottery with the Cree people, an Algonquian group.

An examination of the pollen sequence at Big Rice indicates that wild rice existed in “harvestable quantities” 3,600 years ago during the Archaic period. This date is 1,600 years before the AMS radiocarbon date of human-processed charred wild rice seeds at the site during the Initial Woodland period, although there is no archaeological evidence of human use of the wild rice at the site that far back in time as yet (Huber 2001; 1-2).