Antiquity of early Holocene small-seed consumption and processing at Danger Cave.

Rhode, David ; Madsen, David B. ; Jones, Kevin T. 等

Introduction

The adoption of small seeds as a food staple is a crucial turning point in human dietary history. Instances of the so-called 'broad-spectrum revolution' of subsistence diversification (Flannery 1969, 1973) occur worldwide during the late Pleistocene/Holocene transition (see, for example, recent summaries in Cowan & Watson 1992; Harris & Hillman 1989; Price & Gebauer 1995). Dramatic and rapid climate-induced fluctuations in the abundance and distribution of food resources during this period forced foraging peoples to adopt new foodstuffs (including small mammals, aquatic resources and small-seeded plant foods) that were abundant but entailed high procurement and processing costs (Richerson et al. 2001; Stiner 2001 ; Watson 1995).

The archaeological record of the North American Great Basin shows a similar trend towards dietary reliance on small seeds, but the timing of small-seed adoption is not certain. Danger Cave, located on the western margin of the Great Salt Lake Desert, Utah (Figure 1), has long played a central role in the interpretation that intensive small-seed use began during the earliest Holocene in parts of the Great Basin (Aikens & Madsen 1986; Beck & Jones 1997; Fowler 1986; Grayson 1993; Jennings 1957, 1978; O'Connell et al. 1982; Willig & Aikens 1988). This is because Danger Cave contains seed-processing residue, human palaeofaecal samples and abundant groundstone artefacts (grinding stones and handstones) associated with small-seed processing all found in deposits dated as old as 10 300 b.p. These three lines of evidence have been widely thought to demonstrate a reliance on small seeds since earliest Holocene times (Fry 1976; Grayson 1988, 1993; Harper & Alder 1972; Jennings 1957).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

In this paper, we re-examine each of these three fundamental sources of evidence of earliest Holocene small-seed consumption and processing at Danger Cave. We demonstrate that small-seed consumption and processing began at Danger Cave c. 8600 b.p. Although not as early as previously supposed, this is the best documented and one of the earliest dates for the onset of significant small-seed use in western North America.

Early Holocene occupations at Danger Cave

Jennings (1957) identified two major early Holocene stratigraphic units in Danger Cave, which he labelled DI and DII (Figure 2). The earliest occupation, in the DI level, takes the form of several small fire hearths accompanied by a sparse scatter of artefacts and ecofacts on a bed of beach sand ('Sand 1'), capped by a variably thick layer of wind-deposited sand containing abundant artiodactyl scat ('Sand 2'). Jennings's original radiocarbon dating of the hearths, together with recent excavations we have conducted, confirm that this earliest human occupation of Danger Cave took place at 10 300 b.p. (Table 1). This earliest occupation was likely coeval with the existence of a large shallow lake that coveted the Great Salt Lake Desert at the level of the Gilbert Shoreline, approximately 20m below the cave's portal (Oviatt et al. 1992, 2003).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

The DI level contains a small number of palaeofaecal specimens and groundstone artefacts that have been commonly thought to indicate earliest Holocene use of small seeds. Five palaeofaecal samples reported from the DI level (Fry 1976) contain pickleweed seeds (Allenrolfea occidentalis). This halophytic playa-margin shrub produces tiny seeds that rank low in caloric efficiency (Simms 1987), but the seeds were evidently processed and eaten in substantial quantities during the middle and late Holocene occupations at Danger Cave (Fry 1976; Madsen & Rhode 1990; Rhode & Madsen 1998). Jennings (1957) reported three grinding stone fragments and three possible handstones from the DI level, but these he considered to be too inconclusive to demonstrate small-seed processing; one handstone and milling slab were covered with red pigment, suggesting grinding of ochre, not seeds. They do, however, count for a significant proportion of the small DI artefact assemblage (Beck & Jones 1997).

More substantial evidence of early Holocene small-seed use comes from the overlying DII level, a thick deposit of organic debris, cemented ash, rockspall, bat guano and artefacts that incorporates three main stratigraphic layers (Figure 2). The DII level was initially thought to date between c. 10 000-9000 b.p. (Grayson 1988, 1993; Jennings 1957, 1978). However, recent excavations and radiocarbon dating now show that the three main layers of DII span a longer duration (Table 2): an upper layer (called F30 in Jennings's field notes) dating to 8200-7500 b.p.; a middle layer (F16) estimated to date to c. 8500 b.p. (see below) and a lower layer (F31) resting on DI sands dated c. 10 100-9800 b.p. The DII level contained over 160 grinding stone and handstone artefacts (Jennings 1957), and t 1 palaeofaecal samples from DII all contained pickleweed seeds (Fry 1976). Numerous thin layers of nearly pure pickleweed chaffin DII clearly demonstrate that pickleweed seed winnowing and processing took place in the cave during DII times.

To many researchers, the abundant grinding stones, layers of pickleweed chaff and seed-rich palaeofaecal specimens from DI and especially from DII 'illustrate the great antiquity of a subsistence base that persisted virtually unchanged' (Fry 1976) for 10 000 years, a subsistence base in which the processing and consumption of small seeds was key. The abundance of groundstone artefacts in DII led Jennings (1957, 1964, 1978) to consider the grinding stone a hallmark of the 'desert culture' since the beginning of the Holocene. The inference that small-seed use dates as early as 10000b.p. at Danger Cave is an important empirical underpinning for concepts that entail an ancient and long-running 'Palaeoarchaic' to 'Archaic' tradition of broad-spectrum subsistence strategies in the Great Basin (Aikens & Madsen 1986; Fowler 1986; Jennings 1957, 1978; Willig & Aikens 1988). This view contrasts with the concept of a 'pre-Archaic' precursor that differed sharply from later Archaic adaptations (Elston 1982; Elston & Zeanah 2002), a view developed in large part because groundstone artefacts are only rarely found in association with early Holocene time-marker artefacts such as western stemmed projectile points (Elston 1982; Warren & Crabtree 1986). Several researchers have pointed out that the abundant milling stone assemblage found at Danger Cave stands out as an exception among early Holocene occupation sites in the Bonneville basin and, indeed, the Great Basin as a whole. This exception is usually explained as a strategy of early subsistence diversification in response to local environmental deterioration (Beck & Jones 1997; Grayson 1993; O'Connell et al. 1982). The early Holocene milling stone abundance at Danger Cave is often cited to support arguments for the presence of early Holocene grinding stone technology (and, by extension, small-seed processing) elsewhere in the Great Basin and western North America as part of a broad Desert Archaic cultural complex (Basgall 1993: 394; Huckell & Haynes 2003; Waters 1986; Willig & Aikens 1988).

Because Danger Cave is both so influential and so exceptional, a detailed reconsideration of the age of small-seed consumption and processing at the site is needed. Three tests were made to better determine the age of small-seed processing and dietary use at Danger Cave: (1) direct AMS radiocarbon dating of seed-bearing human palaeofaecal specimens from DI and DII levels, (2) AMS radiocarbon dating of the lowest observed pickleweed-processing residue layers and (3) a reassessment of the stratigraphic distribution and age of grinding stone artefacts. To conduct these tests, we relied on notes and records from several previous excavations and analyses (Fry 1976; Harper & Alder 1972; Jennings 1957), on the excavations that we conducted in 1986 (Madsen & Rhode 1990; Rhode & Madsen 1998), and finally on the re-exposure of previously excavated stratigraphic profiles, together with sampling and radiocarbon dating, that we pursued in 2001-2004.

Palaeofaecal specimen ages

Palaeofaecal specimens are the most direct evidence available for prehistoric diet, and the age test for these specimens has a straightforward expectation: if small seeds were an important dietary component of Danger Cave inhabitants as early as 9000-10 000 b.p., then palaeofaecal specimens from DI and DII containing small seeds should date older than 9000 b.p. Samples from fifteen palaeofaecal specimens, all previously analysed and determined to contain pickleweed seeds (Fry 1976), were dated by the accelerator mass spectrometric radiocarbon method. As Table 3 shows, none of the samples fall within the expected age bracket. The oldest specimen, D-5 at 8680 b.p. (c. 9760-9540 cal. b.p.), is at least 500 and as much as 2000 cal. years younger than would be expected if small-seed use was indeed prevalent from 10 000-9000 b.p. (11 550-10 250 cal. b.p.). Several specimens dating to c. 6000-3000 b.p. indicate the incorporation of younger specimens into much older deposits and have serious implications for the interpretation of other material, such as faunal remains (Grayson 1988), from these layers. In sum, the palaeofaecal specimen ages show that dietary use of seeds began by c. 8700 b.p., but run contrary to the hypothesis that small seeds were an important dietary component at Danger Cave in 9000-10 000 b.p.

Pickleweed-processing residue ages

The second test involves the age of pure to nearly pure layers of processed picldeweed chaff found in middle and upper layers of DII. Again, the expectation is straightforward: the lowest and earliest layers of chaff resulting from processing should pre-date 9000 b.p., if small seeds were processed and consumed in significant quantities prior to that time.

Harper and Alder (1972) reported that samples of 'pickleweed chaff', collected in the upper part of DII from a trench excavated by Fry and colleagues in 1968, returned two radiocarbon dates of 9900 [+ or -] 200 (Gak-1900) and 9590 [+ or -] 160 (Gak-1896) b.p. However, Harper and Alder (1972: 15) also indicated that these were bulk samples of the DII level, not specifically stringers of processed pickleweed chaff, and that the dates may have actually been obtained from 'selected twigs and dungs etc.', rather than pickleweed chaff. To more accurately date the lowest observable pickleweed-processing layer, and to assess whether the ages of samples reported by Harper and Alder are trustworthy, we reopened the 1968 trench that was the source of those samples. After removing backfill from the trench and vicinity, we found the lower deposits to be remarkably intact, and their constituent strata as mapped by the original investigators could easily be delineated. The middle DII layer (called F12 in Fry's notes and equivalent to F16 in Jennings's field terminology) contains the lowest stringers of pickleweed chaff (Figure 3). Samples of pure pickleweed chaff from the lowest and uppermost of these thin stringers, bounding the bottom and top of this middle DII layer, respectively, were submitted for AMS radiocarbon dating (Table 2). The lowest pickleweed chaff processing layer in Danger Cave dates to 8570 [+ or -] 40 b.p., while the uppermost layer ofF16 dates to 8380 [+ or -] 60 b.p., providing firm chronological placement of the middle DII layer. The difference between the dates reported here and the GaK dates given by Harper and Alder (1972) is likely to be due to the incorporation of older twigs into the GaK samples or to laboratory error. This re-dating of the earliest pickleweed chaff deposits, like the dating of the palaeofaecal specimens, shows that pickleweed processing and the use of small seeds began at Danger Cave by approximately 8600 b.p., not 9000-10 000 b.p. as previously supposed.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

Distribution of milling stones

The third test addresses the expectation that if milling stones were important for processing small seeds before c. 9000 b.p., then they should be abundant in stratigraphic contexts predating that age. This test is less robust than the palaeofaecal specimen age test, for several reasons: grinding stones are used for purposes besides seed processing, they are not directly datable by radiocarbon techniques and the evidence for the distribution of grinding stones within DII is limited to available excavation and catalogue records.

The excavation catalogue lists field specimens collected from different stratigraphic layers, including the upper (F30), middle (F16) and lower (F31) layers of DII. We tallied all grinding stone artefacts listed in each layer as 'lots', based on field specimen numbers assigned at the time of excavation. If the count of groundstone artefacts was given in a field specimen entry, each artefact was counted as one lot. If the count of artefacts was not given (e.g. an unspecified number of 'grinding stone fragments'), then the entire field specimen entry was counted as one lot. (For example, from the upper layer F30, 32 mano and grinding stone fragments were specified, while 5 other collections contained an unspecified number of 'grinding stone fragments', making a total count of 37 grinding stone lots.) A few grinding stone fragments came from mixed features which could not be unambiguously assigned, and these are not included in the tallies.

Using this approach, we were able to assign 49 lots containing grinding stones to the three main DII subdivisions: 26 lots (53 per cent) from the upper F30 layer, 18 lots (37 per cent) from the middle F 16 layer and only 5 lots (10 per cent) from the lowermost F31 layer. These data (assuming they adequately represent overall grinding stone distribution) suggest that grinding stone artefacts were abundant in the upper part of DI! dating after c. 8500 b.p. (90 per cent), but they were far fewer (10 per cent) in the lower part dating c. 10 000-9800 b.p.

The small number of grinding stones in DI and lowermost DII could indicate limited use of grinding stone technology as early as 9800-10 300 b.p., but the presence of these few artefacts may as easily be accounted for by mixing of later artefacts into earlier sediments as the example of the palaeofaecal specimens attests. It appears unlikely that the presence of a few grinding stone fragments in earliest Holocene deposits represents significant seed processing.

Grinding stones are rare in deposits older than 9000 b.p. not just because they are relatively infrequent in those deposits, but because those old deposits contain few artefacts of any kind. A total of 105 separate field specimen lots containing artefacts were collected from the DII level; of these, only 20 came from the pre-9000 b.p. lower DII deposits. Based on this admittedly crude measure of artefact abundance, lower DII holds relatively fewer grinding stones compared to later layers; but more importantly, the lower layers older than 9000 b.p. contain little occupation debris of any kind. Rather than being a centre of small-seed processing from 10 000-9000 b.p., Danger Cave appears to have been only sparsely and sporadically inhabited during that time; the majority of occupation debris comprising the DII level is younger than that.

Discussion

Taken together, all three tests fail to support claims for significant small-seed processing and consumption at Danger Cave prior to 8700 b.p. If small seeds were processed and consumed in abundance at Danger Cave before 9000 b.p., then evidence of its early use should be as notable as it is in deposits dating after that time. The fact that no palaeofaecal specimens or pickleweed-processing chaff layers date older than 9000 b.p. and that milling stones are rare in pre-9000 b.p. contexts strongly implies that significant dietary use of small seeds did not occur until after that time.

Equally important, however, the evidence unambiguously establishes that small seeds became a significant component of the diet at Danger Cave beginning c. 8600b.p. This date is about 1100 radiocarbon years earlier than the 'dramatic increase in ground stone in Great Basin sites after about 7500 B.P., [that indicates] increasing diet breadth, including the use of high cost seeds' (Beck & Jones 1997: 209) observed elsewhere in the Great Basin.

These conclusions accord well with current models of human land use and palaeoenvironmental change in the Bonneville basin. One hypothesis accounting for the development of low-quality small-seed use, drawn from optimal foraging theory (Grayson 1993; O'Connell et al. 1982), suggests that people occupying Danger Cave resorted to seeds only after calorically higher-ranked resources and high-quality resource patches diminished in abundance. The emerging record of environmental change in the Bonneville basin (Madsen 2000; Madsen et al. 2001; Oviatt et al. 2003) suggests that extensive patches, rich in high-quality resources, persisted until sometime after 9000 b.p. The former Lake Bonneville had retreated from the Gilbert Shoreline by 10 000 b.p. (Oviatt et al. 1992), but large stretches of marshes and wetlands in parts of the Great Salt Lake Desert continued to flourish until c. 8700 b.p. (Oviatt et al. 2003). Recent archaeological investigations in the Old River Bed delta area (Arkush & Pitblado 2000; Oviatt et al. 2003) document approximately 100 known occupation sites that date c. 10 000-8700 b.p. (with hundreds more estimated to exist there), demonstrating that human populations spent considerable time exploiting the resource-rich wetlands of the southern Great Salt Lake Desert. Importantly, milling stones are absent from these sites. Desert shrublands had replaced conifer woodlands in the surrounding piedmonts, but the xerophytic shrublands that are dominant today did not develop until after c. 8500 b.p. (Rhode 2000), a trend that is paralleled by the record of changing small mammal populations (Grayson 2000; Schmitt et al. 2002). The small and probably highly mobile human populations (Elston & Zeanah 2002; Jones et al. 2003) inhabiting the Bonneville basin were likely not constrained to live at Danger Cave subsisting on low-quality pickleweed seeds until after c. 8700 b.p., when better resource patches nearby had disappeared or deteriorated. The independent archaeological record from Danger Cave and other sites in the Bonneville basin (Aikens 1970; Schmitt et al. 2002) substantially matches the expected human land use and dietary response of post-9000 b.p. environmental change.

The reconsidered record from Danger Cave cautions against making broad inferences about the timing of small-seed reliance in the absence of clear chronological control of unambiguous dietary use. Significant small-seed use and processing may pre-date 8500 b.p. elsewhere in western North America, as subsistence diversification is expected to vary in time depending upon local environmental conditions (e.g. Waters 1986). But as Huckell and Haynes (2003: 366) warn, 'our current understanding of the antiquity of ground stone milling equipment in the West is based on a very small sample of sites'; that message extends even more directly to other evidence of small-seed dietary use such as processing residue and palaeofaeces. The Danger Cave record highlights the need for a fuller understanding of the origins of subsistence diversification and the florescence of grinding stone technology in western North America, particularly in the context of early Holocene environmental fluctuations.

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided in part by NSF Grant BCS-0312252 to D. Rhode, Utah Division of State History, the Sundance Research Foundation (Univ. Nevada-Reno) and the Desert Research Institute. Palaeofaecal samples and original excavation records were provided by the Utah Museum of Natural History, through the kind offices of D. Metcalfe. Thanks to T. Goebel, D.K. Grayson and D.N. Schmitt for lively discussion, good advice and camaraderie in the field.

Received: 10 August 2004; Accepted: 11 March 2005; Revised: 6 April 2005

References

AIKENS, C.M. 1970. Hogup Cave. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 93.

AIKENS, C.M. & D.B. MADSEN. 1986. Prehistory of the eastern area, in W., d'Azevedo (ed.) Great Basin: handbook of North American Indians 11: 149-60. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

ARKUSH, B.S. & B.L. PITBLADO. 2000. Paleoarchaic surface assemblages in the Great Salt Lake Desert, northwestern Utah. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 22: 12-42.

BASCALL, M. 1993. Early Holocene prehistory of the north-central Mojave Desert. PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California at Davis.

BECK, C. & G.T. JONES. 1997. The terminal Pleistocene/early Holocene archaeology of the Great Basin. Journal of World Prehistory 11: 161-236.

COWAN, C.W. & P.J. WATSON (ed.) 1992. The origins of agriculture: an international perspective. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

ELSTON, R.G. 1982. Good times, hard times: prehistoric culture change in the western Great Basin, in D.B. Madsen & J.E O'Connell (ed.) Man and environment in the Great Basin: 186-206. SAA Papers 2. Washington, DC: Society of American Archaeology.

ELSTON, R.G. & D.W. ZEANAH. 2002. Thinking outside the box: a new perspective on diet breadth and sexual division of labor in the prearchaic Great Basin. World Archaeology 34: 103-30.

FLANNERY, K.V. 1969. Origins and ecological effects of early domestication in Iran and the Near East, in P.J. Ucko & G.W. Dimbleby (ed.) The domestication and exploitation of plants and animals: 73-100. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

--1973. The origins of agriculture. Annual Review of Anthropology 2: 271-310.

FOWLER, D. 1986. History of research, in W. d'Azevedo (ed.) Great Basin: handbook of North American Indians 11: 15-30. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

FRY, G.F. 1976. Analysis of prehistoric coprolites from Utah. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 93. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah.

GRAYSON, D.K. 1988. Danger Cave, Last Supper Cave, and Hanging Rock Shelter: the faunas. American Museum of Natural History Anthropological Papers 66 (1). New York: American Museum of Natural History.

--1993. The desert's past: a natural prehistory of the Great Basin. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

--2000. Mammalian responses to middle Holocene climatic change in the Great Basin of the western United States. Journal of Biogeography 27:181-92.

HARPER, K.T. & G.M. ALDER. 1972. Paleoclimatic inferences concerning the last 10,000 years from a resampling of Danger Cave, Utah, in D. Fowler (ed.) Great Basin cultural ecology: a symposium: 13-23. Reno, NV: Desert Research Institute Publications in the Social Sciences 8.

HARRIS, D.R. & G.C. HILLMAN (ed.) 1989. Foraging& farming: the evolution of plant exploitation. London: Unwin Hymen.

HUCKELL, B.B. & C.V. HAYNES, JR. 2003. The Ventana complex: new dates and new ideas on its place in early Holocene western prehistory. American Antiquity 68 (2): 353-72.

JENNINGS, J.D. I957. Danger Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 27. Salt Lake City: University of Utah.

--1964. The Desert West, in J.D. Jennings & E. Norbeck (ed.) Prehistoric man in the new world: 149-74. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

--1978. Prehistory of Utah and the eastern Great Basin. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 98. Salt Lake City: University of Utah.

JONES, G.T., C. BECK, E.E. JONES & R.E. HUGHES. 2003. Lithic source use and paleoarchaic foraging territories in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 68 (1): 5-38.

MaDSEN, D.B. 2000. Late quaternary paleoecology in the Bonneville Basin. Utah Geological Survey Bulletin 130. Salt Lake City: Utah Geological Survey.

MADSEN, D.B., D. RHODE. 1990. Early Holocene pinon (Pinus monophylla) in the northeastern Great Basin. Quaternary Research 33: 94-101.

MADSEN, D.B., D. RHODE, D.K. GRAYSON, J.M. BROUCHTON, S.D. LIVINGSTON, J.M. HUNT, J. QUADE, D.N. SCHMITT & M.W. SHAVER III. 2001. Late quaternary environmental change in the Bonneville Basin, western USA. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 167: 243-71.

O'CONNELL, J.F., K.T. JONES & S.R. SIMMS. 1982. Some thoughts on prehistoric archaeology in the Great Basin, in D.B. Madsen & J.F. O'Connell (ed.) Man and environment in the Great Basin: 227-40. SAA Papers 2. Washington, DC: Society of American Archaeology.

OVIATT, C.G., D.B. MADSEN & D.N. SCHMITT. 2003. Late Pleistocene and early Holocene rivers and wetlands in the Bonneville Basin of western North America. Quaternary Research 60: 200-10.

OVIATT, C.G., D.R. CURREY & D. SACK. 1992. Radiocarbon chronology of Lake Bonneville, eastern Great Basin, USA. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 99: 225-41.

PRICE, T.D. & A.B. GEBAUER (ed.) 1995. Last hunters, first farmers: new perspectives on the prehistoric transition to agriculture. Advanced Seminar Series. Santa re, NM: School of American Research Press.

RHODE, D. 2000. Holocene vegetation history in the Bonneville Basin, in D.B. Madsen (ed.) Late quaternary paleoecology in the Bonneville Basin: 149-64. Utah Geological Survey Bulletin 130. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Geological Survey.

RHODE, D. & D.B. MADSEN. 1998. Pine nut use in the early Holocene and beyond: the Danger Cave archaeobotanical record. Journal of Archaeological Science 25 (12): 1199-1210.

RICHERSON, P.J., R. BOYD & R.L. BETTINGER. 2001. Was agriculture impossible during the Pleistocene but mandatory during the Holocene? A climate change hypothesis. American Antiquity 66: 387-412.

SCHMITT, D.N., D.B. MADSEN & K.D. LUPO. 2002. Small-mammal data on early and middle Holocene climates and biotic communities in the Bonneville Basin, USA. Quaternary Research 58: 225-60.

SIMMS, S.R. 1987. Behavioral ecology and hunter-gatherer foraging: an example from the Great Basin. British Archaeological Reports International Series 382. Oxford: Archaeopress.

STINER, M.C. 2001. Thirty years on the 'broad spectrum revolution' and Paleolithic demography. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 98: 6993-6.

TAMERS, M.A., F.J. PEARSON, JR & E.M. DAVIS. 1964. University of Texas radiocarbon dates II. Radiocarbon 6 (1): 138-59.

WARREN, C.N. & R.H. CRABTREE. 1986. Prehistory of the southwestern area, in W. d'Azevedo (ed.) Great Basin: handbook of North American Indians 11 : 183-93. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

WATERS, M.R. 1986. The geoarchaeology of Whitewater Draw, Arizona. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona 45. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.

WATSON, P.J. 1995. Explaining the transition to agriculture, in T.D. Price & A.B. Gebauer (ed.) Last hunters, first farmers: new perspectives on the prehistoric transition to agriculture. Advanced Seminar Series. Santa re, NM: School of American Research Press.

WILLIG, J.A. & C.M. AIKENS. 1988. The Clovis-Archaic interface in far western North America, in J.A. Willig, C.M. Aikens & J.L. Fagan (ed.) Early human occupation in far western North America: the Clovis-Archaic interface: 1-40. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers 21. Carson City, NV: Nevada State Museum.

David Rhode (1), David B. Madsen (1) & Kevin T. Jones (2)

(1) Earth and Ecosystem Sciences, Desert Research Institute, Reno NV 89512, USA

(2) Antiquities Section, Utah Division of State History, Salt Lake City, UT 84101, USA

Table 1. Radiocarbon dates from DI at Danger Cave. New dates reported
herein are in bold face. Two radiocarbon determinations obtained using
the solid carbon method (Jennings 1957) are considered unreliable and
are not reported here.

 Context Reference Age

Sand 1 surface Jennings 1957 10 270 [+ or -] 650

Occupation layer on Jennings 1957 10 270 [+ or -] 650
 Sand 1 surface
Occupation layer on Tamers et al. 1964 10 600 [+ or -] 200
 Sand I surface
Occupation layer on Tamers et al. 1964 8970 [+ or -] 150
 Sand 1 surface
Occupation layer on Tamers et al. 1964 10 150 [+ or -] 170
 Sand 1 surface
Occupation layer This report 10 310 [+ or -] 40#
 on Sand 1 surface#
Occupation layer This report 10 270 [+ or -] 50
 on Sand 1 surface#
Stratum 2, 1986 Madsen & Rhode 1990 9780 [+ or -] 210
 excavations
Sand 2 Jennings 1957 11 000 [+ or -] 700
Sand 2 Jennings 1957 10 400 [+ or -] 700
Sand 2 lower part Tamers et al. 1964 9050 [+ or -] 180
Sand 2 lower part Tamers et al. 1964 9740 [+ or -] 210
Stratum 3, 1986 Madsen & Rhode 1990 9920 [+ or -] 185
 excavations

 Context Lab # Comments

Sand 1 surface M-204 Slightly charred sheep
 dung
Occupation layer on M-202 Charcoal from F108
 Sand 1 surface fireplace
Occupation layer on Tx-85 Twigs from F108
 Sand I surface fireplace; replicate of
 M-202
Occupation layer on Tx-86 Charred dung and
 Sand 1 surface twigs next to and
 below F 108 fireplace
Occupation layer on Tx-87 Scattered charcoal and
 Sand 1 surface vegetal debris on
 Sand I surface
Occupation layer Beta-168656# F111 Charcoal lens#
 on Sand 1 surface#
Occupation layer Beta-158549# F112 Charcoal lens#
 on Sand 1 surface#
Stratum 2, 1986 Beta-19336# Equivalent to Sand 1
 excavations surface
Sand 2 M-118 Uncharted sheep dung
Sand 2 M-119 Uncharted twigs and
 leaves
Sand 2 lower part Tx-88 Sheep pellets overlying
 F108 fireplace
Sand 2 lower part Tx-89 Twigs and sticks
 associated with
 Tx-88
Stratum 3, 1986 Beta-19611 Equivalent to Sand 2
 excavations

Note: New dates reported herein are in bold face indicated with #.

Table 2. Radiocarbon dates from DII at Danger Cave. New dates reported
in this paper are in bold face. Two radiocarbon determinations
obtained using the solid carbon method (Jennings 1957) are considered
unreliable and are not reported here.

 Context Reference Age

Stratum 5, 1986 Madsen & Rhode 1990 10 080 [+ or -] 130
 excavations
F31 (lower DII)# This report# 10 050 [+ or -] 50#
'DII lower part' Harper & Alder 1972 10 130 [+ or -] 250
'DII lower part' Harper & Alder 1972 6960 [+ or -] 210
F12 (middle DII), This report# 8570 [+ or -] 40#
 lower bound#
F12 (middle DII), This report# 8380 [+ or -] 60#
 upper bound#
Stratum 6, 1986 This report# 8440 [+ or -] 50#
 excavations#
Stratum 7, 1986 This report# 8200 [+ or -] 50#
 excavations#
Stratum 8, 1986 This report# 8410 [+ or -] 50#
 excavations#
Stratum 9, 1986 Madsen & Rhode 1990 7920 [+ or -] 80
 excavations
Stratum 10, 1986 Rhode & Madsen 1998 7410 [+ or -] 120
 excavations
F30 (upper DII)# This report# 8270 [+ or -] 40#
'DII upper part' Harper & Alder 1972 9900 [+ or -] 200
'DII upper part' Harper & Alder 1972 9590 [+ or -] 160

Context Lab # Comments

Stratum 5, 1986 Beta-19333 Equivalent to lower
 excavations DII (F31)
F31 (lower DII)# Beta-169848# From 143 Face
 (Jennings 1957)#
'DII lower part' Gak-1899 Bulk sample of twigs,
 ash & dung from
 1968 trench
'DII lower part' Gak-1895 Bulk sample of twigs
 & ash from 1968
 trench; considered
 too young
F12 (middle DII), Beta-193123# Equivalent to F16;
 lower bound# lowest pickleweed
 layer#
F12 (middle DII), Beta-193124# Equivalent to F16;
 upper bound# uppermost
 pickleweed layer
 in F16#
Stratum 6, 1986 Beta-190887# Equivalent to middle
 excavations# DII (F16)#
Stratum 7, 1986 Beta-190866# Equivalent to middle/
 excavations# upper DII (F16 or
 F30)#
Stratum 8, 1986 NSRL-11436# Equivalent to upper
 excavations# DII (F30)#
Stratum 9, 1986 Beta-23653 Equivalent to upper
 excavations DII (F30)
Stratum 10, 1986 AA-3623 Equivalent to upper
 excavations DII (F30) or lowest
 DIII
F30 (upper DII)# Beta-168857# From 143 Face
 (Jennings 1957)#
'DII upper part' Gak-1900 Bulk sample of
 'pickleweed chaff',
 but see text
'DII upper part' Gak-1896 Bulk sample of
 'pickleweed chaff',
 but see text

Note: New dates reported in this paper are in bold face
indicated with #.

Table 3. Radiocarbon dates of palaeofaecal samples from DI and DII
levels at Danger Cave (Fry 1976; Jennings 1957).

Sample # Level [sup.14]C Age Cal. YR Lab # (Beta-)
 b.p.(2[sigma])

D-5 DI 8680 [+ or -] 50 9760-9540 187 446
D-79 DI 3310 [+ or -] 60 3680-3385 97 898
D-2 DI 3270 [+ or -] 40 3580-3390 187 444
D-1 DI 3030 [+ or -] 40 3350-3090 189 083
D-3 DI 3020 [+ or -] 50 3350-3060 187 445
D-10 DII 8380 [+ or -] 40 9490-9290 187 449
D-11 DII 8300 [+ or -] 40 9440-9140 187 450
D-9 DII 8190 [+ or -] 50 9290-9020 187 448
D-8 DII 8160 [+ or -] 40 9250-9010 189 084
D-7 DII 8130 [+ or -] 50 9240-9000 187 447
D-77 DII 8100 [+ or -] 40 9120-9000 187 453
D-78 DII 8100 [+ or -] 40 9120-9000 187 454
D-15 DII 6020 [+ or -] 50 7000-6740 187 452
D-14 DII 5060 [+ or -] 40 5910-5710 189 085
D-13 DII 5030 [+ or -] 40 5900-5660 187 451