Plant remains from Feature 30 have been presented separately (see Table 37) and omitted from site calculations of ubiquity and percentage because this feature dates to an earlier occupation of the site based on ceramic types. Of particular interest are the large number of bedstraw seeds (a total of 94) as well as smaller numbers of bearsfoot (Polymnia uvedalia L.) achenes and henbit seeds. Only one corn cupule was recovered from the feature, along with moderate quantities of hickory and acorn shell.
What is especially interesting about the seed assemblage from Feature 30 is that it contains large numbers of seeds from species that are not usually considered food plants by paleoethnobotanists. Bedstraw seeds have a traditional use in northern climates of the Old World as a beverage (Hedrick 1972); it has also been speculated that the vegetative part of the plant was used as bedding (Uphof 1968:236). A use such as the latter might account for bedstraw's fairly regular occurrence in prehistoric archaeological deposits in the East. It is generally dismissed as a non-economic plant, or its use listed as unknown.
Henbit belongs to the mint family (Lamiaceae). Most species were introduced from the Old World and are naturalized widely in eastern North America (Radford et al. 1968:908). This fact casts some doubt on the placement of these seed in the genus Lamium, although the family designation is more likely to be correct. In any case, these seeds are not those of any recognized food plant typically found on archaeological sites.
The identification of bearsfoot is not in doubt. Bearsfoot is in the aster or composite family (Asteraceae) and, like bedstraw, is found in archaeological deposits in the Southeast fairly regularly, although its use, if any, is not known.
There are several interpretations of the association of these seeds in Feature 30: (1) one or more of these plants was used as food, and simply has not yet been recognized as a food plant by paleoethnobotanists (This alternative seems unlikely, unless prehistoric Piedmont Indians had a subsistence pattern rather different than that noted for parts of the East for which good paleoethnobotanical sequences have been established); (2) none of these species were utilized, but were incidentally or unintentionally carbonized and deposited (This alternative also seems unlikely for bedstraw and henbit, for which there were rather large numbers of seeds. Although all of these species might have grown in human-disturbed habitats, none of the seeds or fruits are typically windborne, which would make incidental deposition unlikely.); or (3) the species in question had nonfood uses (medicinal, ceremonial, or construction) that resulted in the deposition of seeds or seed-bearing parts either as waste or in some other behavioral context. This latter interpretation seems most likely in light of available evidence.
The possibilities are intriguing, particularly since the plant remains from Feature 30 are so different from those of the Occaneechi occupation at the Fredricks site. However, any conclusions about the behavioral correlates of deposition of these plant remains must await further information.