Paleoethnobotany at Wanuskewin Heritage Park: Plant Use at the Red Tail (FbNp-10) and Wolf Willow (FbNp-26) Sites and An Evaluation of Macrobotanical Flotation Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant use of mobile hunter-gatherers of the Northern Plains has been vastly understudied. The analysis of macrobotanical (seeds and charcoal) remains from archaeological sites, if they are conducted, are often an addendum to general site reports and subsistence research rather than being an integral part of the research design. Using Wanuskewin Heritage Park (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan) as a case study, forty-one feature and non-feature sediment samples were collected from the Red Tail (FbNp-10) and Wolf Willow (FbNp-26) sites. The intent of this research is two-fold. First, to determine which method for extracting macrobotanicals from archaeological sediments produces the highest recovery rate. Second, to determine the nature and extent of plant use at these two sites, with a particular focus on the McKean complex (ca. 4750-3150 cal BP). For part one, 19 samples were subjected to a recovery rate test by adding known quantities of both buoyant and non-buoyant seeds prior to processing using Flote-Tech, IDOT, and wet-screening methods. The results indicated that the IDOT was the preferred method for this sample-set, while issues of contamination were discovered using the Flote-Tech, and issues of organic fragmentation were identified with the wet-screen method. For part two, the feature samples from the Red Tail and Wolf Willow sites indicated that plants were being used for food, medicines, and other uses such as fuel. The analysis of the non-feature results provided greater interpretative value regarding the nature and extent of plant use at the sites. Further, as the organics recovered from these samples evidenced food and medicinal plant use outside of known features and plant processing areas, they clearly document the need to sample all contexts and not just the more typical practice of just sampling feature contexts. This research denoted that the feature and non-feature results indicate that plant use was important to the different mobile hunter-gatherer groups that inhabited both the Red Tail and Wolf Willow sites. It also emphasised that it is important to have established research questions and an understanding of sediment matrix as the method chosen for extracting macrobotanicals is dependent on both.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".