ENDURING RECORDS: THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE OF WETLANDS Edited by Barbara A. Purdy 2001 Oxbow Books, Oxford 23. Wet Sites, Wetland Sites, and Cultural Resource Management Strategies George P. Nicholas ‘Archaeologists face many challenges in pursuit of the past: raging rivers, restless natives, hungry bears, and fever- maddened colleagues. Perseverance (and a good research design) often leads to new discoveries and ultimately to new knowledge of the history, challenges, and accomplish- ments of earlier societies. OF no less importance is the quest for representativeinss in the archaeological record, itself an important mandate of the discipline. After all, if our desire is to reconstruct and understand past human lifeways, itis essential that we seek the full range of variation that once existe’ regarding past social end political organization, ~sttlement and subsistence, techno- logical adaptations, and all ofthe other important facets of human existence. Representativeness is also crucial in cultural resource management, both for ensuring adequate survey coverage and for defining significance. Much effort has thus been devoted to devising methods to explore adequately and appropriately the range and settings of past human behavior However, one major component of past human land- scapes that has not received adequate or consistent attention by archaeologists and cultural resource managers alike is wetland environments (Table 23.1), Wetlands are tran- sitional zones between dry land and open water that are defined by land that: a) is periodically water-covered or saturated; b) supports hydrophytic vegetation; and/or ¢) has hydric solls (NRC 1995; se also Mitsch and Gosselink 1993:23-29). These settings include swamps, bogs, fresh and saltwater marshes, fens, and other “permanent” and temporary forms (see Finlayson and van der Valk 1995; Mitsch and Gosselink 1993:30—40). As importantly, wet- lands also represent distinct ecological entities (.g., Gore 1983; Lugo etal. 190) comprised ofa variety of associated floral and faunal communities and the hydrological, terres- trial, and other components with which they interact. Wetlands have long been viewed as marginal and unattractive places to be avoided (e.,, Miller 1989) or developed (Vileisis 1997); alternatively, they may be seen as peripheral to other more “important” landscape features. ‘The limited attention paid to wetland settings has two important implications regarding archaeology. First, it constrains or channels our knowledge of past human societies to coastal, riverine, or other more popular places to work. Swamps, playas, marshes, and bottomlands have been important in human affairs throughout prehistory (Nicholas 1998), and have at times been among the most attractive areas onthe landscape based on thei high values for resource diversity, productivity, and reliability (Nicholas 1988:268-269; Niering 1985:29; also see Forman and Godron 1986). The range of activities associated with them is diverse, and includes resource harvesting, settlement, sacred and spiritual uses, and defense (Coles and Coles 1989, 1996; Nicholas 1998a). Thus, if we don't consider the role that wetlands had in past, our knowledge of past human lifeways remains incomplete. The second impli- cation is that this lack of recognition and understanding limits the protection that wetlands should receive as important and often unique cultural heritage sites (Coles 1990; Coles and Coles 1996). Of course, wetlands are more than just a setting for prehistoric settlement, ora repository for organic artifacts ‘They have a central role in local and regional ecologies, and are vital to water purification and storage, climate regulation, waterfowl habitat, and biological diversity (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). For such reasons, wetlands in North America and elsewhere are today subject to extensive study, management, and conservation (¢.g, Dennison and Berry 1993); in fac, they probably receive more attention and funding than virally any other teres- trial ecozone. Despite this, wetland protection methods areGeorge P. Nicholas 263 Table 23.1. Wetland Descriptive Terms (after Mitsch and Gosselink 1993:32), Bog Peat-accumulating wetland with no sigaificant inflow or outiow, usually supporting sphagnum Botiomland Lowland along civers and stream, generally on alluvial floodplain, that is periodically flooded; usually forested Fen Peat-accumulating wetland that receives some rainage from surroundingmineral sol; usually supports marshlike vegetation. ‘A frequently or continually inundated, fresh water of saltwater wetlands characterized by emergent herbaceous vegetation adapted to saturated soil conditions. Mire In Europe, any peat-accumulating wetland Moor/Peatland In Europe, any wetland that accumulates par- Tally decayed plant mater. Mast Muskeg, A large expanse of peatlands or bogs, especially in subarctic regions. Playa/Pothole Shallow, mars-like ponds Resdswamp In Europe, a marsh dominated by Phragmites Swamp Tn North America, a wetland dominated by tees lorshrubs; in Europea forested fen or reed grass- dominated wetland Examples of Common Wetland Types, North America Coastal Wetlands * Spartina or Juncus-dominated tial salt marsh + Mangrove swamp Inland Wetlands + Typha-dominsed freshwater marsh + Riparian forested swamp + Spaghnur-sedge peatland contentious, inconsistent, and incomplete (e.g, Holloway 1994; Malakoff 1998; Alper 1992). In addition, wetland management strategies often ignore cultural values and, in some cases, actually contribute to their loss. This paper challenges these restrictive ways of thinking about and managing wetlands by looking at three com- plementary issues. The first concerns the difference between ‘wet sites and weland sites ~a distinction considered very important here. The second reviews the relationship between wetland environments and human affairs, as reflected by different types of sites and scales of interaction, which are used as the basis for a discussion on represen- tativeness. The third issue is the need for more effective wetland conservation strategies that recognize the unique archaeological and ecological character of wetlands, and that subsequently engage both cultural and natural resource legislation. Finally, the emphasis of this paper on wetland ecology and hunter-gatherer archaeology reflects my own research focus (Nicholas 1998a). Although they receive only passing mention here, the use of wetlands by prehistoric farmers and later folk is no less important (see Coles and Coles 1989, 1996 for overviews) Wet Sites And Wetland Sites Something long overdue in the field of wetlands-oriented archaeology is the need to differentiate wer sices from wetland sites. The two terms have had a long association, and in fact have sometimes been used almost synonymous. Wet sites occur in a variety of coastal, lacustrine, and riverine/estuarine environments, and ae exemplified by the remarkable preservation of organic artifacts in water- saturated sediments (e.g., Lake Neuchatel (Egloff 1988]; Biskupin [Piotrowski 1998]; Hoko River (Croes 1988). In contrast, wetland sites have a more restricted distribution, beeing located within or adjacent to existing swamps, marshes, and comparable settings, or where such features, were once present. These sites are exemplified by a variety of human activities associated with such ecozones, in- cluding habitation, resource procurement, and travel (e.g, Flag Fen (Hall and Coles 1994]; Stillwater Marsh (Kelly 1990}; various Australian locales (Meehan 1991]). While itis evident tha there may be considerable overlap between ‘et sites and wetland sites, there are significant differences, that must be recognized, as discussed below. Both types of sites have been well represented at conferences and in their published proceedings. Figure 23.1 provides a breakdown of the major types of studies included in four edited volumes: Wet Site Archaeology (Purdy 1988); The Wetland Revolution in Prehistory (Coles 1991); Hidden Dimensions: The Cultural Significance of Wetland Archaeology (Bemick 1998); and finally, Bog Bodies, Sacred Sites, and Wetlands (Coles et al. 1999). The major types of reports identified ae: |. Overview Studies that included introductions to the volume and broad reviews of wet site and wetland site research, 2. Wet Site studies; articles on the so-called Bog Bodies. 3. Wetland Site studies. 4, Preservation studies that focused on the stabilization of organic artifacts. 5. Other Studies. This classification scheme was based on very general criteria, and some papers were difficult to type when they spanned several classes. In addition, the number of papers for any one category varied substantially between the volumes, due at least in part to the structure and venue of | the corresponding conference. For example, the relatively hhigh number of papers on bog bodies in 1998 (Coles et a 1999) is clearly linked to the conference being held in Denmark. However, when all four years are combined266 Overviews Wet Sites Wet Sites, Wetland Sites and Cultural Resource Management Strategies Bog Bodies Wetland Sites Preservation Other Figure 23.1, Types of Reports in Conference Proceedings: (Figure 23.2), the two categories that clearly stand out are wet sites and wetland sites. That these are almost equally represented tells us something important about the research interests of members. Wet sites and wetland sites provide valuable information about the past. Each has produced a remarkable array of artifacts, especially in regards to organic materials and composite tools. However, it must be emphasized that wet sites are not wetland sites, although there may be substantial overlap between them, The Sweet Track in Britain (Coles and Coles 1986) and the Windover cemetery in Florida (Doran and Dickel 1988), for example, can be considered both wetland sites and wet sites because each was originally situated within a marshy/swampy area, and subsequently preserved in a water-saturated context, On the other hand, Stillwater Marsh is a wetland site only, and Hloko River is a wet site only. The distinction between the two types is clearly a slippery one because a wetland site may have a ‘wet component where hydric conditions have persisted to the present, ort may be dry where conditions have changed. Likewise, wet sites frequently have no association at all with wetlands, and indeed some sites e.g. Lake Neuchatel) ‘would normally be considered “underwater sites.” My concern is with more than making an arbitrary distinction between the two, based on the type, amount, oF context of organic artifacts found, or whether what was originally a lake or river-oriented habitation site is pre- served by subsequent wetland formation or inundation. What has gone largely unnoticed is that they represent two fundamentally different things. Wetland sites are defined here by a relationship between people and the particular types of ecological settings represented by wetlands, and the archaeological record it has produced; the site is present primarily because of past human association with, ot exploitation of a swamp, marsh, moor, or other wetland types. Many wetland sites do not have a wet component; inGeorge P. Nicholas Overviews Wet Sites Figure 23.2. fact, the wetlands that were associated with some early or middle Holocene sites may bave since been transformed into grassland, forest, or desert by changes in hydrology or plant succession Wet sites, on the other hand, are defined by the associ- ation between artifacts and the context of preservation. In this case, the association is not necessarily with wetlands (as distinct ecological features), but rather with wet, often anaerobic conditions. What have been termed wet sites are not only found in swamps, bogs, and so on, but also associated with bays, lakes, estuaries, and other settings Fish weir sites, by this definition, are wet ites by virtue of the fact that the preservation of stakes and watting is due to their water-saturated context. As their original conte vas usually within a riverine or tidal environment, they are not considered wetland sites per se (although fresh or Bog Bodies Wetland Sites Preservation ublications by Category: Proce Other ings 1988, 1991, 1998, 1999. saltwater marshes may indeed have been nearby, the association i largely secondary). On the other hand, eet traps in southeastern Australia (Lourandos 1987) are considered wetland sites because they were constructed in channels created in swamps. Scale is also an important factor inthe recognition and management of these different types of sites. Wet sites are relatively small, and may consist of anything from isolated orelustered sets of artifacts to entire lakeshore communities now underwater. These tend to be relatively visible types of archaeological sites ~ muck, peat, and water aside — because they are defined by artifacts and features, In fact, the recovery of such normally perishable basketry and fabric, wooden bowls, boats, and paddles, trackways, and even bodies may carry significant weight in public recog- nition and protection, Wetland sites, on the other hand,266 Wet Sites, Wetland Sites and Cultural Resource Management Strategies hhave a much greater spatial and temporal extent, ranging froma single site adjacent to a marsh to the site distribution patterns associated with regional ecozones, and from single ‘occupations to thousands of years. In some cases, wetland sites, and the changing ecological relations they reveal, may be more important than the material culture of indi- vvidual components or sites (see Janetski and Madsen 1990 for Great Basin examples). This emphasis on relationships, not things, may challenge some conventional cultural resource management strategies. The potential of new approaches to CRM is illustrated by David Sanger’s Milford Reservoir Project in Maine for which he obtained $150,000 for wetland history reconstruction (D. Sanger, pers. comm, 2000). ‘This discussion isn’t meant to suggest that wet sites should not be included within the scope of wetlands research in general, for wet and wetland sites are in many regards complimentary and there is considerable overlap between them. They do, however, represent very different types and scales of archaeological phenomena. Thus itis time to utilize these terms with greater precision and awareness. It is also important that we recognize that the distinction between the two (and between the types of environmental settings and ecological relations repre- sented), has implications for both research and resource management. Wetlands And Archaeological Representation It is the responsibility of archaeologists and cultural resource managers o ensure that the archaeological record reflects the full range of human behavior to the degree possible. The archaeology of wetland areas has much to ‘contribute in this regard. We can identify three important dimensions ofthe wetland archaeological record that guide ‘our quest for representativeness: culture history and chron- ology, culture process and explanation, and interpretation and meaning. Culture History And Culture Chronology ‘The dimensions of culture history and chronology document the basic association between people and wetlands (see Nicholas 19988 for overview). This relationship has con- siderable antiquity, as first evidenced at H. erectus sites in Africa (Walker and Leakey 1993) and southern Europe (Klein 1987), Wetland-associated sites are present in the Middle Pleistocene, with evidence of Typha processing at the Mousterian site of Combe Grenal in France (Binford, cited in Wendorf 1993:355). The association is strongly developed by the late Pleistocene-Holocene transition. In North America for example, Paleoindian and Archaic sites often cluster around large, wetland mosaics and other wetland-dominated environments (Almquist-lacobson and Sanger 1999; Custer 1989; Dillehay 1988; Langemann and Dempsey 1993; Nicholas 1988). During the Holocene, the diversity and richness of wetlands contributed to the economic diversity and special- ization of hunter-gatherers worldwide, as seen in the ‘American Great Basin (Fowler 1992; Janetski and Madsen 1990; Simms 1987). These factors may have also facilitated increased population size and decreased territory require- ‘ments of some hunter-gatherers as evidenced in south- eastern Australia (Lourandos 1987) and in central California (Moratto 1984) and the eastern United States (efferies 1987; Saunders ef al. 1997). The archaeology of wetlands has also contributed significantly to documenting aspects of past technology, subsistence, health, and worldview that are infrequently, if ever, found elsewhere. Both fortuitous discoveries and systematic surveys and excavations fill in gaps in our knowledge; the types of organic artifacts frequently found not only contribute to the historical dimension, but may also humanize it. For example, when we gaze atthe stubbled face of the Tollund Man (Glob 1969) or think about the person who made this cloak or wore these shoes, our connectionto the past is often more immediate and stronger than when we hold a stone blade or ceramic bow! of the same age and provenience Culware Process And Explanation It is one thing to document the emergence during the Holocene of relatively sedentary and complex, pre-horti- cultural societies within the context of wetland-tich environ- iments; itis another to explain that emergence. Through examining the processes of change at different scales, (Nicholas 1998: Fig. 1), we can see that these societies ‘were active participants inthe various interaction spheres, not merely responding to stimuli in an environmentally deterministic manner. Situations where the same wetlands were used in differ- ent ways overtime provides the opportunity o investigate both the processes of adaptation and the historical dimen- sions of land use and social organization (e.., Jefferies 1987), In some locations, the increasing use of wetland resources (¢8., wapato, rice, taro, els) may have been a response to, as wel a facilitator of, growing local popu- lations (Nicholas 19983:726) as evidenced Asia, Central and North America, and elsewhere. In addition, intensive harvesting of some wetland-associated plants, such as sumpweed(Jva annua) inthe Ilinois and Mississippi River valleys may have contributed to the process of plant domestication “The search for explanation may require that we consider the archaeologial record in new ways. For example, weGeorge P. Nicholas 261 can look at how and where the formation of core areas of settlement and social and economic interactions relates to the changing degree of regional ecological contrast. An example ofthis occurred in southern New England between ‘wetland-dominated settings and coastal and riverine ec zones during the early Holocene, which may help to explain the strong association between wetlands and early post- slacial land use in places like Robbins Swamp (Nicholas 1988), Finally, the ecological focus of processual archaeology enables us to see how hunter-gatherers modified their landscape through a variety of intentional and unintentional ‘means. In North America, Britain, and Australia, burning was used to thin forests, rejuvenate swamps, or otherwise ‘manipulate the local resource base. in those areas where substantial settlements were developing, wetlands were also probably very heavily exploited to the degree that their developmental trajectory could have been influenced by plant harvesting or beaver exploitation (Nicholas 1998b). Insome cases, intentional swamp management and manipu- lation, as in southeastern Australia (Lourandos 1987), may have permitted continued intensive resource harvesting Interpretation and Meaning The third dimension of wetland-oriented research concerns interpretation and meaning ~ goals that require both processual and postprocessual methods. At issue here is not only our interpretation of setlement and subsistence pattems, but the need to identify those aspects ofthe wetland atchacological record that may reflect the ideology and worldview of past societies. Perceptions of wetlands are remarkably broad, as defined by host of aesthetic, economic, spiritual, and environmental values (Giblett 1996; Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Many ‘oday view wetlands as marginal places to be altered; thers cherish their natural beauty and wildlife habitat. But beyond these extremes, wetlands are given litle thought by most people (including archaeologists. It is obvious, however, that wetlands were of great importance to prehistoric peoples in many regions, as we see with the self-named Toidikadi, or Cattail-Eaters, of Stillwater Marsh (Fowler 1992; Wheat 1967). Even today, a strong association with ‘wetland persists among many aboriginal people worldwide where they are afforded the opportunity. The archaeological record associated with wetlands, ‘whether viewed as core and peripheral space or something else, can eveal much about how people conceptualized the landscape around them. This is evident by the presence of cemeteries in and around wetlands, such as the Windover site (Doran and Dickel 1988), and by isolated and some- times sacrificed interments in European bogs (see Coles et ai, 1999). Both cases indicate that wetlands figured promin- ently in meeting spiritual needs. Cemeteries also served as territorial markers of places to be returned to and possibly even defended, In those areas where wetlands contributed to semi-sedentary or sedentary lifeway, such as southeastern Australia (Pretty 1977), the elaborate burials are atypical of “classic” hunter-gatherers. The special and sometimes spiritual dimension of wetlands is also found in stories and mythology (¢.g,, Dean 1992). ‘The very richness of the archaeological record associated with wetlands (end wet sites) provides opportunities to both test assumptions and revise interpretations. Perhaps the best example of this is the Mesolithic site of Star Carr (Clark 1971), a site that has been revisited and reinterpreted by @ succession of archaeologists. Regardless of whether we take a-culture historical, processual, or other approach to ‘wetlands, each contributes to a more representative archaeo- logical record. The challenge remains to conserve the rich cultural and natural heritage of wetlands Conservation Strategies Of the estimated 86 million acres of wetlands in the United states present in 1700, less than half remain (Tiner 1984:29), Comparable figures are found worldwide where wetlands have been or are being dredged, channel, drained, or filled for farming, peat mining, or other purposes. The loss ofthese swamps, marshes, estuaries, and such has had its greatest impact on local and regional ecology, but has also had a profound effect on associated cultural resources. Drainage causes preserved in situ organic artifacts 10 deteriorate, while such activities as dredging may destroy & ‘wet site completely. With enough time and funding, wet- lands can be restored or even created ~ archaeological sites cannot be. There is thus a pressing need for more effective wetland preservation strategies that recognize and integrate cultural heritage values into their charter. Wetland conservation efforts have had a long history in North America (Vileisis 1997), but intensified substantially inthe 1970s and 1980s in the United States (WWF 1992). During that period, studies by ecologists and others led to a greater understanding of the nature of wetlands, and of, their overall role in wildlife and human habitat. This research, in turn, contributed to such federal legislation as the Clean Water Act: Section 404, Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands, and the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, and to such state legislation as the Maine Natural Resources Protection Act and the Illinois Inter- agency Wetlends Policy Act of 1989, A suite of legislation slowed wetland loss appreciably in the 1980s. Unfor- tunately, as public opinion shifted inthe early 1990s against the regulatory efforts of the U.S. Government, wetlands policies have been challenged on many fronts (Tiner 1998:11-12), Although there are @ host of private and268 Wet Sites, Wetland Sites and Cultural Resource Management Strategies special interest conservation strategies, ranging from Ducks Unlimited incentives to land trusts, these lack the strength of federal and state regulations. One notable wetland conservation strategy used by the federal government and adopted by some states is the “No Net Loss” Policy of 1988. In theory, “no net loss” limits further reduction in the national wetland inventory, based on acreage and function, through the restoration and creation of wetlands, Yet from the perspective of cultural resource management, tis strategy contains a serious flaw. As already noted, the archaeological record associated with ‘wetlands is substantial. However, while the creation of new wetlands may do much to enhance biological productivity, it cannot create new archaeological sites. In fact, the idea that wetlands located in prime development areas can, in effect, be relocated without affecting local habitat values and hydrology is dangerous because it does not consider critical cultural resources. Likewise, ina recent volume published by the World Wildlife Fund, Statewide Wetlands Strategies: « Guide to Protecting and Managing the Resource (WWF 1992), proposed conservation strategies are based on flood control, water quality, fisheries, waterfowl habitat, biological diversity, groundwater recharge, erosion and land form- ation, and recreation. Cultural heritage factors are not included, a perspective that is widespread (although historic/archaeological site presence may be included in some types of wetland evaluation (WWF 1992:212-219). ‘Thus, when the different pc tential values of wetlands are viewed individually, rather than collectively, much more than wetland acreage may be lost. Cultural and archaeological resource protection legislation provide the greatest protection to wetland archaeological sites. There is a host of federal and state legislation in the United States, including the Archaeo- logical Resources Protection Act of 1979, that offer strong, protection for archaeological sites on federal and Indian land, or that take effect when federal or state monies are involved, Such mandated protection is not available to sites, located on private lands, however, such as in the case of the Lafotane peat bog in Connecticut (Nicholas 1998¢) where cultural material are found not only around the bog, but within it~ one quartz biface was even recovered from the peat processor. In Canada, where comparable legislation is absent atthe federal level, cultural resources are protected by provincial mandate. The Heritage Act of British Columbia theoretically protects all archaeological sites, ‘whether on private or public lands, but in reality there are many exceptions as when itis over-ridden by the Municipal Act. However, in both countries archaeological sites associated with wetlands that might not otherwise be exempt from development or disturbance may possibly qualify for protection under existing wetlands protection legislation, ‘The management of wet sites requires proteetion not only ofthe land itself, but ofthe original hydric conditions that preserved the artifacts and structures inthe first place (See Corfield 1998). A case in point in Britain is the Somerset Levels and Moors, which have an exceptionally rich record of trackways and other archaeological remains (Coles and Coles 1986). Now designated an Environ- mentally Sensitive Are, farmers there receive £400 or more per hectare for adjusting their practices to raised water levels (Coles and Coles 1996:128). Similarly, in the United States, under the “Swampbuster” provision of the 1990 Farm Bill farmers who drain wetlands may be denied crop subsidies and other agricultural benefits. While this policy is designed to protect water quality and related values primarily, it may also benefit wet and wetland sits. Currently interaction between wetlands scientists and archaeologists remains limited, presumably because each is largely unaware of what the other is doing. However, there are many examples of collaborations that have proved valuable, as exemplied by Harry Godwin’s contribution to the interdisciplinary Star Carr project (Clark 1971), and numerous examples from Scandinavia. The exchange of information and the integration of cultural and biological ‘conservation efforts may strengthen appreciably what can bbe achieved by all parties involved. This is especially the ‘case for the unique and fragile archeological sites whose protection can be increased if appropriate environmental protection legislation can be invoked. Archaeologists actively involved in wetlands-oriented research should consider membership in such organizations a the Society for Wetland Scientists (bttp:/www.sws.org). Another ‘opportunity is involvement with the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (httpi//www.ramsar.org), which is an inter- ‘governmental treaty signed by 117 members that identifies and conserves wetlands of international importance; social and cultural values are included in the evaluation of ‘wetlands being considered for inclusion, Conclusions ‘As has been amply demonstrated in recent decades, the archaeological record associated with both wetlands and Wet sides is extraordinary in many regards. Whether we are talking the development of the earliest earthen mounds in ‘America in Louisiana during the middle Holocene (Saunders er al. 1997) or the remarkable preservation of Water-saturated artifacts and bodies of Europe (Coles eal 1999), the archaeology of wetlands is not only allowing us to refine our knowledge of the past, but in some cases to ‘overturn conventional wisdom. This is certainly the case when we consider the hunter-gatherers who lived in some wwetlands-rich ares: they assume airs ~ building mounds,George P. Nicholas 269 achieving relatively high population densities, settling down ~ acting in decidedly atypical hunter-gatherer fashion. 1 is thus important that we seek such cultural and ecological diversity, as represented at different scales and in different ways, on the past landscape (Nicholas 1994). Some types of behaviors or aspects of material culture may even be associated only with swamps, bog, or marshes. Without recognizing the importance of wetlands, we will not have a representative view of the past, nor a complete understanding of past and present human ecology, On the other hand, by integrating such perspectives, we can achieve both a more complete understanding of the human con- dition, and more effective legislation to preserve this record for future generations. Acknowledgments For their invitation, encouragement, or assistance, I am grateful to Barbara Purdy, John and Bryony Coles, Catherine Carlson, and Thomas Crisman. David Sanger provided helpful comments on a draft ofthis paper. Travel \was supported by a Vice-President’s Research Fellowship, ‘Simon Fraser University References Cited ‘Almquis-Jacobson, H., and D. Sanger. 1999. Paleogeographic Changes in Wetland and Upland Environments inthe Milford Drainage Basin of Central Maine in Relation to Holocene Human Settlement History. In Current Northeast Paleo- ethnobotany, edited by LP. Hart, pp. 177-190. New York State Museum Bulletin 494, Alper, J. 1992. War Over the Wetlands: Ecologist v. the White House, Science 257:1043-1044, Bernick, K., (¢8). 1998. Hidden Dimensions: The Cultural Significance of Wetland Archaeology. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Clark, 1.G.D. 1971, Excavations at Star Carr (2nd ed) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coles, B. 1990. Wetland Archaeology: A Wealth of Evidence. Ia Wetlands: A Threatened Landscape, edited by M. Williams, pp. 145-180. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Coles, B, (ed). 1991. The Wetland Revolution in Prehistory. WARP. Occasional Paper 6, Department of History and Archaeology. Exeter: University of Exeter. Coles, B, and J. Coles, 1989. People of the Wetlands: Bogs, Bodies, and Lake-Dwellers. New York: Thames and Hudson. Coles, J, and B. Coles. 1986, The Sweet Track to Glastonbury. London: Thames and Hudson. Coles, J, and B, Coles. 1996, Enlarging the Past: The Contei= bution of Wetland Archaeology. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Monogeaph Series |, Edinburgh; Welland Archs ology Research Project Occasional Papers 10. Coles, B,J. Coles, and MS. Jorgensen, (eds). 1999. Bog Bodies, Sacred Sites, and Wetlands, WARP Occasional Paper 12. Department of Archaeology. Exeter: University of Exeter. Corfield, R, 1998, The Role of Monitoring in the Assessment ‘and Management of Archaeological Sites. In Wet ite Aschae- ology, edited by B. Purdy, pp. 302-316. Caldwell, NJ Telford Pres. (Custer J. 1989, Prehistoric Cultures ofthe Delmarva Peninsula: ‘An’ Archaeological Study. Newark: University of Delaware Press Dean, J. 1992, Wetland Tales: A Collection of Stories for Wetland Education. Publication 92-17. Washington State Department of Ecology (Olympis, WA). Dennison, MS., and JF. Berry. 1993. Wetlands: Guide to Science, Law, and Technology. Park Ridge, N.J: Noyes Publications Dillehay, T. 1988. Monte Verde: A Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Vol. I: Paleoenvironment and Site Context. ‘Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press. Doran, G-H,, and DN. Dickel. 1988, Multiiseiplinary Invesi- gations atthe Windover Site. In Wet Site Archacology, edited by B, Purdy, pp. 263-289, Caldwell, NJ: Telford Pres, Eglaff, M.D. 1988, Recent Archaeological Discoveries in Lake ‘Neuchatel, Switzerland: From the Paleolithic to the Middle Ages. In Wet Site Archaeology, edited by B. Purdy, pp. 31 42, Caldwell, NJ.: Telford Pres. Finlayson, C.M., and A.G. van der Valk, (eds) 1995. Classifi- cation and Iaventory of the World's Wetlands. Boston Kluwer, Academic Publishers. Forman, R.T-7, and M. Godron. 1986, Landscape Ecology. New York: Jolin Wiley. Fowler, C:S. 1992. Inthe Shadow of Fox Peak: An Ethnography of the Catail-Eater Northern Paiute People of Stillwater Marsh. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Cultural Resource Series 5. Giob, P.V. 1969. The Bog People: ron-Age Man Preserved ‘New York: Ballatine Books Gore, A.-P. (ed). 1983, Ecosystems of the World, Vol. 4A: Mires: Swamp, Bog, Fen, and Moor. Amsterdam: Elsevier Giblett, R. 1996. Postmodern Wetlands: Culture, History, Ecology. Cambridge: Cembridge University Press. Hall, D., and J. Coles. 1994, Fenland Survey: An Essay in Landscape nd Persistence. Archaeological Report I. London: English Heritage, Holloway, M. 1994, Nurturing Natur. Sclemtific American April: 99-108, Janetski, J.C, and D.B. Madsen, (eds). 1990. Wetland Adap- tations in the Great Basin. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers 1, Brigham Young Univesity. Provo, Utah. Jefferies, R.W. 1987. The Archaeology of Carrer Mills: 10,000 Yearsin the Saline Valley of Minos, Ilinois University Press, Carbondale Kelly, RL. 1990. Marshes and Mobility in the Western Great Basin. In Wetland Adaptations inthe Great Basin, edited by 4. anetski and D.B, Madsen, pp. 259-276, Brigham Young, University Museum of People and Cultures Occasional Papers 1 Provo, Utah, Klein, R. 1987. Problems and Prospects in Understanding How Early People Exploited Animals. In The Evolution of Human Hunting edited by MH. Nitecki and D.V. Niteci, pp. I= 45, Plenum Press, New York Langemann, G,, and H. Dempsey. 1993. The Vermillion Lakes270 Wet Sites, Wetland Sites and Cultural Resource Management Strategies Wetlands: Interpreting 10,000 Years of Human Oveupation| in Banf® National Park, Alberta, In Culture and Environment: A Fragile Coexistence, edited by R.W. Jamieson, S.Albroni, and N.A. Mira, pp. 237-245. Archaeological Association of| the University of Calgary, Alberta Lourandos, H. 1987, Swamp Managers of Southwestern ‘Australia, In Australians to 178, edited by DJ. Mulvaney and P, White, pp.. 292-307. Sydney: Fairfax, Syme and Weldon. Lugo, A.E, S. Brown, and M. Brinson, 1990, Concepts in Wetland Ecology. In Forested Wetlands: Ecosystems of the World 15, edited by A.E. Lugo, M. Brinson, and S. Brovn. ‘New York: Elsevier. Malakoff, D, 1998, Restored Wetlands Flunk Real-World Test Science 280:371-372. Meehan, B. 1991. Wetland Hunters: Some Reflections. In ‘Monsoonal Austealia: Landscape, Ecology, and Man in the Northern Lowlands, edited by C.D. Haynes, M.D. Ridpath, and M.AJ. Williams, pp. 197-206, Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, Miller, D.C. 1989, Dark Eden: The Swamp in 19th Century ‘American Culture, New York: Cambridge University Press Mitsch, W.t,, and J.G. Gosseling. Wetlands (2nd edition). New York: Van Nostrand and Reinhold. 1993. [National Research Council (NRC). 1995. Wetlands: Character- istics and Boundaries, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press Nicholas, G.P, 1988. Ecological Leveling: The Archacology and Environmental Dynamics of Early Postglacial Land Use. In Holocene Human Ecology in Northeastern North America, edited by G.P. Nicholas, pp. 257-296. New York: Plenum Press. Nicholas, G.P. 1994. Prehistoric Human Ecology as Cultural ‘Resource Management. In Cultural Resource Management ‘Archaeological Research, Preservation Planning, and Public Education in the Northeastern United States, edited by I.E. Kerber, pp. 17-50. Greenwich, Conn.: Bergin and Garvey, Nicholas, G.P. 1998a, Huater-Gatherers and Wetlands: A Global Perspective, Curent Anthropology 39: 720-731 Nicholas, G.P. 1998b, A Light But Lasting Footprint: Human Influences on the Northeastern Landscape. In The Archaco- logical Northeast, edited by M.A. Levine, K.E, Sassaman, and MS, Nassaney, pp. 25-38. Greenwich, Coon. Bergin and Garvey, Nicholas, GP. 1998. Wetlands andthe Mid-Holocene Warming, “Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 14:147-160. \iering, W.A. 1983. Wetlands. New York: Knopf. Piotrowski, W. 1998, The Importance ofthe Biskupin Wet ite for Twentieth-Century Polish Archaeology. In Hidden Dimen- sions: The Cultural Significance of Wetland Archaeology, edited by K, Bernick, p. 89-106, Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Pretty, GL, 1977. The Cultural Chronotogy ofthe Roonks Fla. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers, edited by RS. Weight Canberra: Australian Insitute of Aboriginal Studies. Purdy, B., (ed). 1988, Wet Site Archaeology. Caldwel, NI Telford Press. Saunders, 5.W., RID. Mandel, R-T. Saucier, £:7, Allen, CLT Hallmark, JK. Johnson, E.H. Jackson, CM. Allen, G.L. Stringer, D.S. Frink, LK. Feathers, S. Williams, K.l Gremillion, M.P. Vidrine, and R. Jones. 1997. A Mound Complex in Louisiana at 3400-000 Years Before Present Seince 277:1796-1799, ‘Simms, $.R. 1987. Behavioral Ecology and Hunter-Gatherer Foraging: An Example from the Great Basin, BAR Inter- national Series 381 Tiner, R.W, 1998, In Search of Swampland: A Welland Source- book end Field Guide, New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Uni= versity Pres, Vileisis, A. 1997, Discovering the Unknown Landscape: A History of America’s Wellands. Washiugton, D.C. Island Press Walker, A., and R, Leakey, (eds) 1993. The Nariokotome Homo erectus Skeleton. Cambridge, Mass.: Hs vent University Press Wendorf, F, 1993. B-87-$: Occupations Dating to the Grey Phases. In Egypt During the Last Interplacial: The Middle Paleolithic of Bi Tarfawi and Bir Sahara Eas, edited by F. Wendorf, R. Schild, and A.B. Close, pp. 345-355, Plenum Press, New York. World Wildlife Fund (WWF), 1992. Statewide Wetlands Strat- gies: A Guide to Protecting and Managing the Resource. Washington, D.C: Island Press.