Doug Harris: Tau-botdan-tamock wut-che wa-me. We are giving thanks for all things. This past week, in her 85th year, the Narragansett Indian Tribe released from our physical embrace Dr. Ella Sekatau, the ethnohistorian and medicine woman of the tribe. It was from Dr. Sekatau that, more than 20 years ago, I received a piece of oral history that basically said that more than 15,000 years ago, the ancient villages of the Narragansett [inaudible] where the ocean is now. The waters began to rise overnight, and the people had to evacuate.
From that piece of oral history, I began to raise this question. If, in fact, that is so, with the various federal undertaking that will be occurring out on the continental shelf, how will presence or absence of those ancient sites be determined? We are currently working in partnership with the University of Rhode Island’s Graduate School of Oceanography, under a BOEM, grant to develop those protocols. We are looking forward to the results of those protocols, and hopefully being able to utilize them in wind turbine development, as well as other projects that may take place out on the continental shelf.
Dr. Ella Sekatau made sure that we also had an appreciation for the fact that earth is our mother and that we as earthlings are interrelated with all the other entities that have evolved from her body. Every tree, every stone, every crawling thing, every flying thing, all our relations are in fact our siblings, and that we in ancient times had covenants with all the other beings of the earth, all the other beings’ spirit of the earth.
Here we are, in a research project that we have opened up to local tribes to bring forth all histories that can influence the scientific processes that are currently being utilized to determine presence or absence. The landscapes that you’ve been hearing so much about on land. We have been, the Narragansett Indian Tribal Historic Preservation Office has been, developing protocols along with other tribes to protect ancient ceremonial sites, primarily ceremonial stone landscapes, in the terrestrial landscape. When we had the opportunity through the ocean stamp process that [inaudible] to enter into a dialogue with issues in the ocean, we began to see how we could apply what we had learned on land to the submerged land environment beneath the oceans.
Here we are, in partnership with the Graduate School of Oceanography. One of the things, other than expanding our oral history base to include the oral histories of our neighboring tribes with regards to the ocean and landscapes in the ocean, we asked that field specialists from our terrestrial preservation process be trained to do that same kind of work in the ocean.
These images represent some of the work that they are doing, but also the training process. They are now certified as scientific research divers. We’re looking to have more of our young people train so that, along with underwater archaeologists like Dave Robinson, they too can begin to take the expertise that they have learned on land, they have learned from Dr. Ella Sekatau, from our elder medicine man, Lloyd Running Wolf Wilcox, and the current medicine man, John Brown, and apply it in the ocean, and apply the National Historic Preservation Act within the ocean.
We are quite pleased to have had access to the work done by researchers like Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian, where his examination, he and his colleagues’ examination, of artifacts in a small museum in Maryland, artifacts that had come from a fishing vessel, scalloping boat, the Cinmar. Back in the 1970s, the Cinmar, in its scallop dredge, had pulled up the skull of a mastodon. In that same dredge, there was a bifacial rhylolite blade. The study that has been done of these artifacts turned [inaudible] the remains of the skull was a piece of tusk that the sea captain’s family had turned over to the museum, along with the rhylolite blade.
Dennis Stanford borrowed that from the museum, took it back, and ran collagen dating on it, and found that it was 23,600 years old. That rhylolite blade, when compared with other like lithics in the Smithsonian collection, was found to have come from an area of mining, ancient mining, 200 miles up the Susquehanna River. His belief is that this was a butchering site, 47 miles out in the ocean, where ancient peoples were butchering mastodon. I wasn’t there, I don’t know, but the scientific evidence would indicate that as a logical possibility.
That goes along with many stories that many ship captains and fishermen tell of what they have found out on the continental shelf. What we’re looking to do is to, and David and John will go into greater detail on this, but we’re looking to develop predictive models at the shoreline of what in fact we may be able to find once we get out on the continental shelf and begin to examine what the presence or absence is of these cultural resources out there.
The young people that we’re bringing into the process are not only learning the basics of underwater archaeology and how to assist and support the underwater archaeological process, but then what to do with the data after you’ve gotten it. This is a scene from our new facility, the Narragansett Indian Longhouse, where three of our young specialists, who are now scientific dive trained, are studying some of the results that Dave will talk about shortly. It’s exciting to have the United States government, in one of its agencies, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, supporting tribes in their efforts to move beyond the stereotype.
It’s our hope and our expectation that these young people who are now being trained ultimately will have careers in oceanography, careers where they will be able to bring tribal sensibility, a sense of tribal spirit contact to the ancients, as well as tribal intuition, into the scientific process. Already, I believe that that one piece of oral history of 15,000 years ago having a powerful rippling effect within the scientific community.
We’re looking forward to, this spring, bringing more of the tribes of our region into the process. We’ve already had one consultation meeting with the government representatives and the scientists, and the tribal representatives. We’re looking forward to bringing forth from these other tribes their oral histories, as well. Just recently, from the Shinnecock Nation on Long Island, we began to get stories of their ancient whaling tradition and whaling relationships to the beings of the sea. We’re looking forward to having more of that as a part of our process.
Dr. Ella Sekatau was, by many people’s account, the tribal historic preservation matriarch, not only of southern New England, but she had a very profound influence on the 26 federally recognized tribes of the United South & Eastern Tribes from Maine to Texas. We are looking to continue sharing her influence on us with not only them but with the world. I’m honored to be a part of this dialogue, and look forward to sustaining the exchange.
John King: Hi, all. This is John King from URI. Yeah, I just want to give an overview of our project. Basically, this project extends from an area called Greenwich Bay, which is a shallow arm of Narragansett Bay, where there’s a pretty well-studied site that’s been the site of the collection of several hundred stone tools. The occupation history of that site indicates that it’s been fairly continuously occupied from about 12,000 years ago up until the time it was inundated about 1,000 years ago, roughly. That’s the inland site. We’re operating on the principle that there’s connectivity between sites along waterways to sites offshore. We’ve reconstructed the ancient drainages in Narragansett Bay until they extend offshore to areas on the outer continental shelf adjacent to Block Island.
If we look at the reconstruction based on a fairly simply use of bathymetry data and our knowledge of the sea level rise curve regionally, this is what the area offshore looked like roughly 11,650 years before present. There are a couple of areas of small lakes and depressions, but it’s exposed landscape. The glaciers are long gone, and sea level has not risen over the site at this point in time.
Sea level is starting to encroach on the area. The small freshwater lake has now become a larger freshwater lake. You can see the marine shoreline to the bottom of the diagram. This is about 11,000 years before present. It’s the 50 meters before present shoreline. Marine transgression occurring across the area. The freshwater lake is now part of an estuary. You can see that the shoreline almost 10,000 years is beginning to be pretty close to the present shoreline. Block Island was a larger island at that point in time.
Now we are having a marine transgression up the east arm of Narragansett Bay, and shoreline is about 20 meters below present shoreline. This is about 7,300 years before present. Ten meters below present, about 6,000 years before present. The area offshore clearly has ceased to be available for habitation, but areas up in Narragansett Bay are still likely inhabited along the shoreline. This is what present sea level looks like. You can see the present shoreline extending from the offshore areas up into Narragansett Bay.
We’re operating on the hypothesis that shoreline areas, either freshwater lakes or along estuaries and river marine areas that extend inshore, are all areas that are likely to be potential habitation sites and higher sensitivity sites. The other aspect of this, though, is preservation. You have to consider how likely it is that some sort of a site could be preserved during the process of marine inundation, which is essentially the beach and the waves associated with the beach passing across the site. We know from various geologic studies that this usually can remove one or two meters of section from the geologic record. A lot of things that might have been preserved may have been destroyed instead.
You have to seek areas where the high-energy environment may not have been a high-energy environment. It may have been a low-energy environment. An area that’s a depression on the continental shelf that sea level might have breached and it might have flooded quickly and gone from a terrestrial environment to a relatively deep-water marine environment over a short period of time, that’s an area where things are likely to be preserved. Alternatively, things like ceremonial stone landscapes, which as the descriptor implies, consist of stones, some of them quite large that may also be something that would be likely to be preserved. One of our hypotheses is that we should try and find those offshore.
In terms of identifying the paleo-cultural landscape, the sort of data sets we’re using, that was a simple reconstruction, series of reconstructions, just using bathymetry and a sea level rise curve. This slide shows the existing data set of sub-bottom data in Narragansett Bay and offshore waters. Sub-bottom seismic data allows you to reconstruct things like paleo shorelines, paleo channels, look at the thickness of sediment that’s marine sediment. Often, the passing of that beach zone over the site produces a gravel-and-sand lag deposit that we call the ravinement, which produces a pretty pronounced regional reflector. We can identify that in the seismic records and identify the time of initial inundation. In association with that layer, that’s where you’re likely to find vestiges of habitation.
I want to start at the onshore site and describe our process a bit. Part of looking at the interaction between humans and the landscape is to try and reconstruct the paleo environment. Our approach in this study is that we’re looking at a glacial kettle lake. A kettle lake is just a lake that was formed when a buried ice block, that was essentially buried under till, melted out and formed a depression that was then occupied by a lake. We have such a lake called Gorton Pond, which is likely 15 to 16,000 years of age, around here. We go and we take cores from that site, and then we do chronology consisting of several approaches from cesium-137 and lead-210 at the youngest part of the portion, through radiocarbon dating of plant macrofossils by AMS techniques in the lower part of the section, and then various other types of chronology, like pollen reconstruction. Then we also have proxies, things like deuterium hydrogen isotope analysis of behenic acid which is produced by algae within the lake and is a proxy for temperature over time. We’re doing a multi-proxy study of a core from Gorton Pond in order to come up with a paleo-enviroment reconstruction of the interval 0 to 16,000.
Basically, the scale of the applicability of that sort of reconstruction is probably, you can use it within 100 to 150 miles of the site, so it extends well south of our field area. On this particular slide, you see the site, you see the piston quarry operation. Then in the lower right-hand corner, you see a spruce cone that was obtained from the core and then was AMS dated. You can see the proxy records that are being derived from the core in the upper right-hand corner.
At the Cinmar site, it’s well offshore of Maryland and Virginia, out near what we call the shelf break. That’s where sea level was at the last glacial maximum, roughly 120-some meters below present sea level. At the Cinmar site, the butchering knife, as Doug described it, is shown in the lower left-hand corner. I don’t believe is the mastodon skull. That looks like a walrus skull to me. We don’t actually have the mastodon skull. I guess the fishermen cut it up for souvenirs and handed out the trophies, and threw the skull back over the side.
It shows what studies of the outer continental shelf will hope to find, is evidence of human activities in conjunction with datable materials like large skeletons of marine mammals or terrestrial mammals. The number of symbols in the background shows where fishermen have recovered artifacts of mastodons and mammoths. You can see that they’re actually quite numerous along the eastern seaboard. While it’s still hunting for something fairly rare in a fairly big haystack, part of the point of this study is to zero in on areas of high sensitivity where these activities were likely to have been occurring.
Finally, trying to wrap things up, we’re trying to look at the interaction between cultures and the landscape. This image is a simple hypothesis of the types of human ecosystems as they evolved over time. In the paleo-Indian period, 15,000 to 11,500, we had relatively simple cultures that consisted of family groups of hunter-foragers. This approach probably existed up until about 4,500 before present, and then cultures started to become more complex. You had both hunter-foragers and forager-horticulturist groups. Over the last roughly millennia, you had chiefdoms and agriculturists start to evolve. I think the latest thinking is that that more complex sort of culture may have extended further back in time.
The point of this diagram, though, is, as cultures become more complex, the footprint of that culture on the landscape becomes more evident. In the early part of this diagram, we’re looking for a signal of human interaction with the environment, which is probably pretty subtle. Part of the point of our study is to try and come up with indicators of human impact on the environment. It’s not hard to do in the last 1,000 years, but it probably is not going to be terribly easy to do 15,000 to 10,000 years ago.
Final point I want to make is that this is a common concept that as cultures become more complex, the sensitivity and selections of habitation sites, ceremonial sites, becomes considerably more refined, and that the social environment tends to dictate the importance to location behavior as society has become more complex. Instead of using a GIS approach to identify sites that are based on, okay, where is the shoreline, where is the fresh water, how far would people likely be willing to live from their freshwater source, where would the fish be, where would people be likely to fish, you can start to look for things like ceremonial stone landscapes.
This sort of a site probably does not have a random distribution on the landscape. We’re looking at hypotheses that the distribution of these sites are related to astronomical events in the calendar. There is a tendency to align these sites in the landscape. We know where these sites are on land. By determining these alignments, we can have a pretty good guide as to where to go look for these sites offshore. We also have some clues, like Block Island, which is roughly is ten miles offshore. There are ceremonial stone landscapes on Block Island which seem to align with ceremonial stone landscapes on the mainland. That’s a trend that we can look along and see what we can find. It allows us to narrow the search better.
David ?: Okay. John, when he started to talk, showed you the multiple areas that we’re looking at as far as this study. They include four different areas that follow the old river drainages coming out of Narragansett Bay, going further offshore out onto what was once an exposed plain. The concept that we’re applying there is that if we follow these important ecosystems, ecozones, where we have things like freshwater and marine environments transgressing further and further inland over time, we can trace these things. There are places that we know from work that’s been done in the past in coastal environments that they are areas where people tended to focus to settle and to utilize the environment for ceremonial purposes as well as food resource procurement, and travel, as well, communication with other people.
The process that we’re engaged in here from an archaeological standpoint is not an easy one. It’s something that has not been tried all that much in the history of marine archaeology. The key concept that we bring to doing this work, that anybody that I think approaches this work, is the concept of submerged paleo-cultural landscape. Quite a bit different, I think, in some ways than the maritime cultural landscape that we heard about earlier in the conversation, in that we need to really be thinking about what’s submerged today as part of a continuum that extends past the current shoreline and inland.
We’re really looking at terrestrial environments, not necessarily maritime environments alone, but terrestrial environments that have been flooded over time by sea level rise and either destroyed by erosion caused by shore face retreat or preserved in place. As John explained, you had situations where areas become flooded rapidly and get buried quickly and are below the effect of modern marine processes. Those are really the locations that we’re trying to locate when we go out and we do geophysical surveys that are a part of this research effort.
We’re looking for elements of the preserved paleo-cultural landscape which are not, based on the research that we’ve done for the last ten to thirty years, they are not preserved to any great extent across the bottom of the sea floor. They really seem to be isolated occurrences. When we have a situation where we have an inundated site, that’s something that’s very unique and special. The initial focus of our study is in a place like that in Greenwich Bay, at a place called Cedar Tree Beach, where a local resident walking along the beach at low tide has found hundreds of stone artifacts dating from the paleo-Indian period up into the European Contact period.
These artifacts that have been found indicate that they have not been exposed for long periods of time, so they’re not something that’s eroded away from the shoreline or been transported. They’re not heavily abraded. They don’t have a lot of marine growth on them. They give us the sense that they’re coming from some in situ location that may be one of these preserved, intact landforms, these paleo-cultural landscapes that we’re looking for.
If we look at the upper left-hand image, the area around Greenwich Bay has been heavily studied. There have been a number of archaeological sites that have been located on the shore all around the bay. It’s clearly a place that would have been attractive to humans for a very long period of time. You’ll notice that when you look at the water around where all those sites are located, there aren’t any. It stops at the shoreline. What we’re trying to do is we’re trying to take what we know from what’s happening on land and what we know about the land, and using geophysical survey techniques better define what is preserved at that paleo-cultural landscape offshore out into the water.
As I said, we know we have an archaeological site at Cedar Tree Beach. We know that this environment inundated quite late in the overall marine inundation sequence. We know that it was occupied for a long period of time and that it’s a fairly benign environment to work. This location is acting as our cradle where we’re taking baby steps to come up with the methodologies and the protocols that we can then apply further offshore.
If you look at the upper right image, that’s a topographic image, a 3D topographic image, that extends into the water. By and large, that’s the majority of what we know when we look at maps, we look at data. We’re used to seeing bathymetric contours. The key information for us is understanding what’s below the surface of the seabed, what of that old paleo landscape is still there, because being able to define that is what allows us to predict and understand where sites are going to be located, where we’re going to find paleo-cultural landforms.
For Greenwich Bay, what we’ve done is there’s been a series of surveys that have been done where we’ve collected sub-bottom data across the bay. You can see there’s a little inset image there, that little black-and-white image with some of the red highlighting. That’s a cross-sectional view going from south to north across Greenwich Bay, pretty close to where the Cedar Tree Beach site is, which is located on the north side of Greenwich Bay. You can see that there’s a dark line or a series of dark lines. Those are all acoustic reflectors that are buried underneath the current sea floor and are markers for an erosional surface caused by drainage channels, as well as lacustrine features, that indicate to us that there’s preserved underneath the marine sediments of Greenwich Bay a pretty diverse and what would have been a rich paleo environment for anybody to live in.
We’ve just started to look at different ways to view the submerged paleo landscape. What you see in the two lower images are the application of those traditional sub-bottom profiles to the landscape in a visualization package that lots of us are familiar with [inaudible], that’s used to [inaudible] basically …..dock between sub-bottom profile survey lines to interpolate a land surface. That brightly colored surface that you see in the lower left image that’s cutting through the two sub-bottom profiles, that’s actually the surface of the post-glacial landform that’s now not only buried but submerged under water.
If you look at the image on the right, that’s the bottom of what is known as the ravinement surface. That’s essentially the closest we can come to tracing a surface that would have been exposed and then inundated over time. When we try to target a particular horizon or a particular [inaudible] of the sediment, we’re targeting that surface. If you look at the image, you can see that the landforms on either side, the green, you can see that there are traces of these things that seem to extend out, in particular on the right-hand side.
You can see that there’s a yellowish-orangey area that straddles just off the shore there. That is where the Cedar Tree Beach site is located. It’s located just below the inland at that. If you look over to the other shoreline, you can also see there that there are clues, there are indicators, that suggest that there are elements of this older landscape that’s now buried and inundated that are still preserved there.
What we’ve done since these sub-bottom surveys have been completed … There’s still more that we need to do. We need to refine the tracing of that paleo-cultural land surface. What we’ve done is, in the last year, we’ve gone out and done some detailed remote sensing surveys. These have included a close-interval magnetic survey, where we were trying to identify, on what we believe is a buried terrace adjacent to a stream valley, trying to identify any types of magnetic signatures that would have been associated with occupations of that terrace. We went out and did a radiometric survey using a one-meter track line spacing to be able to pick up any subtle features that might indicate the presence of something like a hearth.
The results were interesting. There were ten different anomalies that we went and we probed with a video probe that allowed us to see the sediments below the surface of the sea floor and see what was causing these anomalies. We also probed approximately 30 gridded probe points to give us a sense of what the strata is and whether or not there is a stratified deposit here that the artifacts that were encountered on the adjacent beach were coming from. The results thus far have been pretty intriguing.
We do have stratified sediments. The lower little beige-colored inset image, and the probe points I’m talking about are in the image on the lower right. Inset into that, you can see there’s that lower image there. What you can see are cracked formerly subaerial sediments buried almost two meters below the surface of the bay floor. Above that, the other little inset image, that’s what appears to be a charcoal layer deposit. Then to the right of that, there’s a dark inset image that has a gray triangular-shaped piece of something sitting on top of a white piece of shell. That appears to be a piece of chipping debris. All these materials, all these layers, are all about a meter and a half to two meters below the surface of the bay floor and seem to be correlative with that surface that we’re seeing in the sub-bottom record.
In terms of where we’re going with this, this year we’ll be going out to collect fiber cores in this area in the places where we’ve got some interesting organic deposits, with the intent of better defining and sampling the geology there so that we can begin to date some of these layers. We’re also going to go out and do some hand coring, as well. Then we’re scheduled to excavate six one-by-one units in places where we have identified some of these interesting features that I’ve just told you about.
One of the things that is paramount as we approach all this work is the native perspective that multiple practicing archaeologists are all completely aware that archaeology is an inherently destructive process. Something that can only come from actually working with tribal people, and getting to know them, and develop relationships with them, and understand their perspective and their point of views about the natural world, is that, in addition to archaeology being destructive, obviously, the tribal perspective is that that destructiveness is inherently disrespectful and dehumanizing, particularly when we’re studying sites that have been occupied by ancient humans.
The procedures that we’re trying to develop here aren’t only designed to be effective archaeologically, but also to be sensitive to the concerns of the descendants of the very people that we’re trying to learn more about. For approaches that we’re trying to put together, we’re trying to be mindful of the concerns of our tribal partners and come up with protocols and methodologies that are minimally impactful to the natural environment, to the sea floor, hence the use of the remote sensing techniques and the very limited use of excavation. This is a project that is in process. We’re learning every day as we move forward with things. We still got another two and a half, three years left of the project. I guess my closing statement is stay tuned.
Doug: One thing I’d like to add. When we first presented the concept offered by Dr. Ella Sekatau feudalization of the continental shelf more than 15,000 years ago, we were surprised after about a year, year and a half that the state archaeologist came back with an assessment that the geologic record indicated that the continental shelf going back at least 24,000 years ago was an open vegetated plain. So that gave further corroboration to the assertions of the tribal oral history. Finally we have gotten to a point where science and tradition, tribal tradition, seem to be running parallel if not hand-in-hand. Hopefully we’re in the newly dawning day.
Barbara Wyatt: It sounds like you have years of work ahead of you. Are you projecting that this will be an ongoing project?
Doug: We are currently developing the process with the University of Rhode Island to have the young people who come through our Tribal Historic Preservation Office and its field work, acquire degrees and go through the University of Rhode Island and gain specialization in the various disciplines of historic preservation, including oceanography. So we’re looking at generations of continued work with.
Speaker 2: Yeah, one point that I think needs to be made too is that the diagrams where I showed a synthesis of the existing data, some data was gathered by this project since it started a year and a half ago. Most of that data, some of it goes back to the 1970s so there’s a lot of leveraging going on here to get to the point where we’re at. I could actually put a number on it because I tried to figure it out. The amount of funding that’s gone into amassing the database is several million dollars before this project even started and I honestly think to stand a decent chance of having success with project you either have to have a budget like that, which is unlikely, or you need to try this in a place where you can leverage a lot of existing information. Starting from scratch really isn’t much of an option.
Barbara: So it sounds like you’re saying that this as a theory has been of great archaeological interest for years and years so you’re able to take advantage of that data that’s already been collected.
Doug: Well, more than that, it’s leveraging in multiple ways. A lot of that data was collected as part of a marine spatial planning exercise that was aimed at offshore renewable energy development. So when we’re doing these projects we have to be quite clever about trying to leverage activities like that which do provide the sort of budgets you need to amass the data you need to look at the cultural landscape piece. If you try and get the resources just to look at the cultural landscape alone I don’t think you’re going to amass enough resources to do it. You have to have some other reason for looking at the area to actually have the resources you need to do it properly.
Speaker 3: Right, the majority of the data that’s been collected wasn’t collected for archaeological assessment purposes, it was collected for a whole variety of other scientific data acquisition goals and needs. I’m a CRM archaeologist as well and I’ve been looking at the problem, trying to identify submerged paleo-cultural landscapes for the better part of the last twelve years and one of the things that has been made possible and allowed me to pursue this is by leveraging the engineering needs for the development projects, the offshore development projects, that I worked on that typically require sub-bottom profiling to identify buried substrate that the engineers don’t want to have to drill through or plow through and apply the data for archaeological purposes to identify these old landforms.
So every aspect of this type of research really does require thinking creatively about how to utilize the existing information as fully as possible because, I was trained as a shipwreck archaeologist and this is a very different type of, it’s a whole different head set that you need to go into this research problem with, where you’re not thinking about necessarily interfaces with coasts and ports and shipping routes and looking for isolated things like shipwrecks or traces of patterns of navigation. But actually really thinking about the water not being there and what the sea floor was below the surface of the sea floor would be like from a landscape perspective, which is why being able to participate in a conversation like this is so interesting and important because it’s essential to the whole process of doing this type of work. It’s all about landscape. It’s not so much about trying to find the isolated thing as it is trying to understand what’s left of paleo-cultural landscape so that then you can begin to go about trying to predict and identify cultural deposits.
Linda McClellan: This is Linda McClellan. I was going to ask if you’ve done any research here with paleo-botany and whether that is giving you any ideas about how that land was vegetated and how that might have been used?
John King: Yeah, this is John. My initial training as a scientist was as a paleontologist so the answer is yes, and I do pollen and plant macro-fossils so we are doing those things on this project.
Linda: Have you found any evidence that gives you some patterns that you think are more likely to be verified down the road?
John: It’s a little early yet to say yes to that. Obviously we’re finding plant macro-fossils to do AMS dates on but I’m just starting to get into the pollen. We sort of have identified European cultural horizons. It’s a good site. You can see things like the chestnut blight, the elm blight, the ragweed rise, et cetera, so if there is evidence of human habitation further down I’m sure we’re going to find it and it’s been found at other sites, not right around our area but in southern Canada there’s been some pretty elegant studies that show that corn pollen and even ragweed, which is made of … there have been smaller ambrosia rises in the past associated with human activity and in the Southeast there’s slam dunk evidence of intensive use of the landscape prior to European use of the landscape. So I think we are going to find somethings but we haven’t found them yet.