Northeast Subsistence-Settlement Change: A.D. 700 –1300

More documents

Recommendations

Info

chronology considerably. To date, we have collected six new radiocarbon dates, all AMS, that apply to the Princess Point period. These dates are discussed in detail elsewhere (Crawford et al. 1997a), and the results are simply summarized here (see Table 5.1). The most important new data are the two Grand Banks assays on corn dating to the sixth century A.D. These dates extend the inception of Princess Point back to A.D. 500- 600, and demonstrate conclusively that maize was present and most likely being grown in southern Ontario much earlier than was previously appreciated (see Fox 1990; Snow 1995). They also suggest considerable chronological overlap of Transitional and Middle Woodland sites (Smith 1996b), raising the possibility that both Princess Point and Point Peninsula communities cohabited this region for up to three hundred years. Chronology within the Princess Point period remains somewhat imprecise. One of the primary reasons for this imprecision is that all the sites for which radiocarbon dates are available appear to be multicomponent. The seriation study conducted by Bekerman (1996) was limited by several factors (discussed below), but did produce a relative ordering of seven sites. From earliest to latest this series is: Glass -> Varden -> Middleport -> Cayuga Bridge -> Grand Banks -> Porteous -> Lone Pine. This order basically confirms the one generated by Stothers (1977). However, we see no evidence for dividing the sequence into three phases at the moment. The latest dates in the sequence, from Grand Banks and Lone Pine, pose questions about the terminal date of Princess Point and the inception of the Glen Meyer period. These dates suggest that Princess Point persisted until at least A.D. 1000. Dating of the Porteous site, admittedly controversial, places it at A.D. 900 (Fox 1995). This date is now supported by the A.D. 1010 date from Lone Pine and the pottery seriation of Lone Pine later than Porteous. If Lone Pine is also interpreted as an early Glen Meyer village, we have an overlap of Princess Point and Glen Meyer for at least one hundred years. As mentioned above, we have some concerns about the attribution of cultural affiliation for Lone Pine and, by implication, for Porteous and other sites dating in the A.D. 900-1000 range. The general issues are chronology, settlement type and pottery styles; specifically, there is the question of whether Porteous and Lone Pine should be classed as Princess Point or Glen Meyer components, or as something else. The problem lies with how Princess Point and Glen Meyer are defined, a question with which Fox (1990) and Williamson (1990) have previously grappled. For chronology, Fox (1990:181) and Williamson (1990:310) agree on A.D. 900 as the terminal date for Princess Point and the inception date for Glen Meyer. However, our research suggests that the transition from Princess Point to Glen Meyer was not abrupt, and that some Princess Point communities may have persisted until at least A.D. 1000. Although many researchers (Fox 1990; Smith and Crawford 1995; Stothers 1977; Williamson 1990) have argued that Princess Point is Iroquoian and likely ancestral to the Glen Meyer branch of the Early Ontario Iroquoian stage (Wright 1966), the actual relationship between Princess Point and Glen Meyer is not clear. There is some disparity between Princess Point and “classic” Glen Meyer pottery. For example, Wright’s typology for Glen Meyer ceramics cannot be applied to Princess Point pottery assemblages dating prior to A.D. 900, nor with any great success to the Porteous and Lone Pine assemblages. The settlement issue turns on the definition of Porteous as a village site, with the argument being made that the appearance of such habitations signals the beginning of the Early Ontario Iroquoian period (Fox 1990:173). If we accept a date of A.D. 900 for Porteous, then villages appeared at least in the LGRV by this relatively early time period. The ceramics from Porteous and Lone Pine, however, show no clear stylistic breaks with Princess Point. We are left with the question of whether imposing what now appears to be an arbitrary dateline and abrupt changeover from one cultural period to another does justice to the transitional nature of Porteous and Lone Pine, plus others sites such as Moyer Flats and Stratford Flats. Material Culture and <strong>Settlement</strong> Pattern The hallmarks of Princess Point pottery are cordroughened surface treatment, cord-wrapped stick decorative motifs arranged in horizontal bands, and the application of deep external punctates accompanied by internal bosses. These attributes occur in varying frequencies and combinations in all Princess Point pottery assemblages, and continue with decreasing frequency into the Early Ontario Iroquoian period. The pottery of any one point in time in the Princess Point continuum is, however, difficult to characterize. Bekerman’s seriation study (1996) faced the limitation that, at present, no single Princess Point pottery assemblage can be identified unequivocally as representing a single component. It is now clear that the Grand Banks assemblage covers a period of up to five hundred years 110 Smith and Crawford
(Crawford et al. 1997a). The same is likely true for Cayuga Bridge, and also for the Princess Point component at the Middleport site (Jamieson 1986). In addition, sample sizes for most sites are statistically small. Unfortunately, the pottery assemblages recovered from Grand Banks, Young 1 and Lone Pine do little to remedy this situation. The test excavations at Young 1 yielded only 2 rim sherds, and only 26 were recovered from Lone Pine. Grand Banks yielded a much larger sample, but it is now clear that this site was occupied for an extended period of time, perhaps for five hundred years. Little of the Grand Banks pottery can be limited to any particular point in time. The assemblage of roughly six to eight pots from Feature 210, now undergoing analysis, is an exception, and provides us with an interesting “snapshot” of pottery dating from the early eleventh century A.D. This sample is, however, too small to allow valid generalizations. Ceramic smoking pipes are present on Princess Point sites, but their frequencies are low. (Fewer than 10 pipes have been recovered from pre-A.D. 900 Princess Point components to date.) Pipe bowls are, as a rule, either barrel or cylindrical in shape, stems are either round or D-shaped, and elbows are both rightand obtuse-angled. About half the pipe bowls are plain and the other half are decorated with rows of punctates or incised motifs. These pipes can be characterized as fully functional, if unelaborate. Since tobacco seeds have not been recovered from any Princess Point site to date, what was smoked in these pipes is unknown. The frequency of smoking pipes at the Lone Pine site is surprising; there are more pipes from Lone Pine (nine) than for all the previous Princess Point sites combined. This anomaly is discussed elsewhere (Smith 1996a; Smith and Crawford 1995); suffice it to say here that this florescence may relate to increasing use of smoking pipes as a social mediator in villages or protovillages. It may also accompany the first introduction of tobacco to Ontario, although evidence to support this association is generally lacking at present. Flaked lithics are generally the most numerically common artifacts from Princess Point sites. The lithic assemblages include all aspects of chipped stone manufacturing: cores, shatter, primary flakes, core trimming flakes, biface trimming flakes, informal utilized flakes and formal tools. The latter include projectile points, bifaces, drills, and scrapers. The chipped lithic artifacts from Lone Pine and Grand Banks have been analyzed in detail (Ormerod 1994; Shen 1997). One of the most important general characteristics to emerge from these studies is that Princess Point lithic assemblages are dominated by informal flake tools, with curated formal tools forming a small subset. As part of our examination of the relationship between technology and the emergence of the Iroquoian mixed economy, use-wear analysis is playing an important role. Shen’s study includes a comparison of use-wear between a Middle Woodland lithic sample and a sample from Grand Banks. This comparison documents a significant increase in the variety of use-tasks performed by lithic tools from Middle Woodland to Princess Point, and a decrease in the proportion of tools devoted to meat-preparation and/or butchering as opposed to plant-working (Shen 1997:273). Because of Muller’s suggestion that the bow and arrow played a critical role in the transition to the Late Woodland in the Midwest (1987), we have paid close attention to projectile points. So far, we have not been able to confirm that the bow and arrow played an important role at this time in Ontario, because the evidence points to all but three of the projectile points in the Princess Point assemblages having been used as generalized bifacial tools (Shen 1997). Unfortunately, bone preservation on the four Princess Point sites we have been excavating is extremely poor. This anomaly cannot be explained at present, and will require future clarification. A range of taxa is represented in the small collection, and the most abundant elements appear to belong to fish. Rigorous examination of the Princess Point settlement system is still in its infancy. Interpretation depends on ongoing analyses of animal bone, plant remains, site functions, materials procurement and site chronology. We have offered our evaluation of the status of settlement system interpretation elsewhere, based on the archaeological record as we currently understand it (Crawford and Smith 1996; Crawford et al. 1997b; Smith and Crawford 1995). We caution basing Princess Point settlement models on unsubstantiated Middle Woodland patterns. Furthermore, the particulars of riverine geomorphology must be worked out before concluding that specific natural cycles such as periodicity of flooding helped determine scheduling decisions on the part of Princess Point peoples. In addition, crop production logistics need to be properly factored into any proposed Princess Point settlement system. Resource procurement must also take into account other raw materials such as clay and stone. So far we have concentrated on chert extraction and have identified numerous outcrops of Onondoga and Bois Blanc cherts within a 40 km radius of Cayuga, Ontario. This study is in its early stages but there is a clear emphasis on Onondoga cherts, probably from the north shore of Lake Erie (Quin 1996). As a result, we are questioning Chapter 5 Recent Developments in the Archaeology of the Princess Point Complex in Southern Ontario 111
Page 1 and 2:
Northeast Subsistence-Settlement Ch
Page 3 and 4:
Northeast Subsistence-Settlement Ch
Page 5 and 6:
TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures L
Page 7 and 8:
LIST OF FIGURES 2.1 Map of the cent
Page 9 and 10:
9.3 Topographic map of Broome Tech.
Page 11 and 12:
11.1 Upper Susquehanna Site Types (
Page 13 and 14:
PREFACE The New York State Museum h
Page 15 and 16:
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Christina B.
Page 17 and 18:
domesticates and the occupation of
Page 19 and 20:
and Rieth highlight the important c
Page 21 and 22:
Dunnell, R. C. (1971). Systematics
Page 23 and 24:
Anthropology, University of Massach
Page 25 and 26:
CHAPTER 2 CENTRAL OHIO VALLEY DURIN
Page 27 and 28:
L a k e E r i e PENNSYLVANIA INDIAN
Page 29 and 30:
L a k e E r i e INDIANA R i v e r G
Page 31 and 32:
Olentangy River and other minor tri
Page 33 and 34:
Figure 2.6. Comparison of Late Wood
Page 35 and 36:
support the notion of resource stre
Page 37 and 38:
F4 F7 F5 F6 F3 F2 F9 F10 F12 F13 F1
Page 39 and 40:
B B M F42 F43 F41 F44 S5 S4 S1 F30
Page 41 and 42:
Table 2.3. continued Temporal Age A
Page 43 and 44:
Table 2.3. continued Temporal Age A
Page 45 and 46:
L a k e E r i e INDIANA o i O h Sal
Page 47 and 48:
Figure 2.13. Map of the Late Prehis
Page 49 and 50:
Figure 2.15. Map of households with
Page 51 and 52:
Figure 2.17. Sample of Late Prehist
Page 53 and 54:
Barkes, B. M. (1982). An Analysis o
Page 55 and 56:
Fort Ancient Tradition, edited by J
Page 57 and 58:
CHAPTER 3 “ . . . to reconstruct
Page 59 and 60:
IT TAKES A VILLAGE Figure 3.2. Arti
Page 61 and 62:
social organizations is drawn prima
Page 63 and 64:
elements of the village, the spaces
Page 65 and 66:
Diametric, concentric, and circumfe
Page 67 and 68:
egion, including Reckner (Augustine
Page 69 and 70:
Chapter 3 Modeling Village Communit
Page 71 and 72:
Figure 3.9. Architectural and nonar
Page 73 and 74: Figure 3.11. Measuring distances in
Page 75 and 76: Table 3.2. Descriptive Statistics f
Page 77 and 78: DISCUSSION Table 3.3. Descriptive S
Page 79 and 80: Figure 3.14. Box-and-whisker plot o
Page 81 and 82: Augustine, E. A. (1938d). Important
Page 83 and 84: Among Some Amazon Tribes. Privately
Page 85 and 86: on Black Mesa, Arizona. The Univers
Page 87 and 88: CHAPTER 4 THE EARLY LATE WOODLAND I
Page 89 and 90: Figure 4.3. Gibraltar Cordmarked ce
Page 91 and 92: Figure 4.5. Ceramics of the Gibralt
Page 93 and 94: points and notched Chesser or Lowe
Page 95 and 96: dated to A.D. 890 (1025) 1230 (DIC-
Page 97 and 98: Table 4.3. Available Stable Carbon
Page 99 and 100: where fishing and farming may have
Page 101 and 102: Figure 4.10. Ceramic of the Sandusk
Page 103 and 104: singular Mixter Stamped vessels typ
Page 105 and 106: urial with the dead, broadcasted a
Page 107 and 108: during the early Late Woodland time
Page 109 and 110: Valley. North American Archaeologis
Page 111 and 112: CHAPTER 5 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TH
Page 113 and 114: interest in exchange of service or
Page 115 and 116: CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS In view of t
Page 117 and 118: 710 Area C 700 B-75084 TO-4556 TO-4
Page 119 and 120: Table 5.1. Summary of Artifacts fro
Page 121 and 122: e Bull's Point C o o t e s P a r a
Page 123: classification system has been appl
Page 127 and 128: in Ontario was Middle Woodland-deri
Page 129 and 130: 207-212. Smithsonian Institution, W
Page 131 and 132: CHAPTER 6 EARLY LATE WOODLAND IN SO
Page 133 and 134: Figure 6.2. Lower Grand River Valle
Page 135 and 136: Table 6.1. Radiocarbon Dates from t
Page 137 and 138: segment of the terrace that effecti
Page 139 and 140: Figure 6.7. Meyer site terrace, vie
Page 141 and 142: Figure 6.10. Forster site reconstru
Page 143 and 144: Figure 6.12. Middle Thames River 20
Page 145 and 146: Figure 6.13. Site situation: a comp
Page 147 and 148: Dieterman, F. (2001). Princess Poin
Page 149 and 150: CHAPTER 7 EARLY LATE PREHISTORIC SE
Page 151 and 152: ticultural hamlets, small and large
Page 153 and 154: that Clemson Island was greatly inf
Page 155 and 156: local deposits. Alternately, Stimme
Page 157 and 158: Table 7.1. Radiocarbon Dates from S
Page 159 and 160: Pennsylvania continued to practice
Page 161 and 162: level) overlaps with the West Branc
Page 163 and 164: Under a population metaphysic, the
Page 165 and 166: Hatch, J. W., and Koontz, K. L. (19
Page 167 and 168: CHAPTER 8 NEW DATES FOR OWASCO POTS
Page 169 and 170: Table 8.1. Key Components of the Th
Page 171 and 172: Figure 8.1. Location of the Kipp Is
Page 173 and 174: Table 8.4. Carpenter Brook Phase Ho
Page 175 and 176:
Table 8.5. Physical Characteristics
Page 177 and 178:
Table 8.6. AMS Dates and Calibrated
Page 179 and 180:
REFERENCES CITED Ammerman, A. J., a
Page 181 and 182:
CHAPTER 9 PITS, PLANTS, AND PLACE:
Page 183 and 184:
Thomas/Luckey Broome Tech N 0 0 50
Page 185 and 186:
confluence with the Susquehanna Riv
Page 187 and 188:
Figure 9.3. Topographic map of Broo
Page 189 and 190:
Table 9.2. Feature Types at Thomas/
Page 191 and 192:
Figure 9.4. Histogram of feature de
Page 193 and 194:
Table 9.4. Plant Remains from Thoma
Page 195 and 196:
Figure 9.7. Sample composition of n
Page 197 and 198:
Figure 9.9. Seed composition (exclu
Page 199 and 200:
suggests that the gathering of wild
Page 201 and 202:
of posts may mark remnants of tempo
Page 203 and 204:
for allowing me repeated and unteth
Page 205 and 206:
History Press, Garden City, New Yor
Page 207 and 208:
CHAPTER 10 UPLAND LAND USE PATTERNS
Page 209 and 210:
LOCAL LEVEL ANALYSIS Local level an
Page 211 and 212:
N104 E101 Unit 19A Unit 7A Unit 12A
Page 213 and 214:
Table 10.2. Park Creek II Feature A
Page 215 and 216:
Fea. 2 Fea. 5 0 1 2 N Figure 10.4.
Page 217 and 218:
encounterlike hunting/butchering st
Page 219 and 220:
END NOTES 1. A village is defined a
Page 221 and 222:
Perrelli, D. J. (1994). Gender, Mob
Page 223 and 224:
CHAPTER 11 EARLY LATE PREHISTORIC S
Page 225 and 226:
Table 11.1. Upper Susquehanna Site
Page 227 and 228:
Table 11.2. Summary of Late Middle
Page 229 and 230:
Table 11.3. Settlement Features of
Page 231 and 232:
approximately 1,000 sq. ft, there i
Page 233 and 234:
Table 11.5. Summary of Seed Identif
Page 235 and 236:
importance of hunting and hunting-r
Page 237 and 238:
portion of the Susquehanna Valley,
Page 239 and 240:
Herrick, J. W., and Snow, D. R. (19
Page 241 and 242:
CHAPTER 12 WOODLAND PERIOD SETTLEME
Page 243 and 244:
oundaries were given. According to
Page 245 and 246:
Table 12.1: Selected Radiocarbon an
Page 247 and 248:
shads and herrings of the family Cl
Page 249 and 250:
consists of large concentrations of
Page 251 and 252:
(1990) survey of recorded sites in
Page 253 and 254:
York State 92:1-8. Busby, M. (1966)
Page 255 and 256:
CHAPTER 13 PALEOETHNOBOTANICAL INDI
Page 257 and 258:
Figure 13.1. Forest regions of the
Page 259 and 260:
Table 13.1. Distribution of Nut Tre
Page 261 and 262:
ation in feature contents. For mult
Page 263 and 264:
Figure 13.4. Nutshell density (gray
Page 265 and 266:
Figure 13.5. Seed density and maize
Page 267 and 268:
Table 13.3. Seed Indicators-Maine S
Page 269 and 270:
Table 13.4. Broome Tech Site: Selec
Page 271 and 272:
6, and it occurred in 58 percent of
Page 273 and 274:
Table 13.6. Continued Site Uncalibr
Page 275 and 276:
Acknowledgments I thank John Hart f
Page 277 and 278:
y K. J. Gremillion, pp. 161-178. Th
Page 279 and 280:
CHAPTER 14 FROM HUNTER-GATHERER CAM
Page 281 and 282:
Figure 14.1. Distribution of select
Page 283 and 284:
available to Ceci were simply too l
Page 285 and 286:
the AMS date of A.D. 1185 (A.D. 127
Page 287 and 288:
Table 14.1. Continued Site Lab C14
Page 289 and 290:
within single settlements remains e
Page 291 and 292:
noncoastal residential sites certai
Page 293 and 294:
Figure 14.3. Two stratigraphic prof
Page 295 and 296:
to the Maritime Provinces on the Gu
Page 297 and 298:
other related questions yet, and so
Page 299 and 300:
Northeast Historical Archaeology 21
Page 301 and 302:
Thomas, P. A. (1976). Contrastive s
Page 303 and 304:
CHAPTER 15 “towns they have none
Page 305 and 306:
Table 15.1. Key to Figure 15.1: Arc
Page 307 and 308:
Maize will normally not preserve fo
Page 309 and 310:
artifacts. Cowie (2000) suggests th
Page 311 and 312:
creativity to resolve, but is also
Page 313 and 314:
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of A
Page 315 and 316:
CHAPTER 16 OUT OF THE BLUE AND INTO
Page 317 and 318:
Figure 16.2. Map of the Bliss Islan
Page 319 and 320:
shell-bearing sites located on the
Page 321 and 322:
site. Middle Maritime Woodland occu
Page 323 and 324:
(e.g., Black 1992:190) limit and co
Page 325 and 326:
Table 16.3. Faunal Remains Associat
Page 327 and 328:
and often poor vertebrate faunal pr
Page 329 and 330:
the Maine/Maritimes area have argue
Page 331 and 332:
SE: warm season (Rojo 1987:221); sp
Page 333 and 334:
Ethnohistory 36:257-284. Bourque, B
Page 335 and 336:
CHAPTER 17 ABORIGINAL LAND AND RESO
Page 337 and 338:
Table 17.1. Chronological and Ceram
Page 339 and 340:
Among the food plants listed above,
Page 341 and 342:
species, the American eel (Anguilla
Page 343 and 344:
the Early Woodland period. Tools ma
Page 345 and 346:
Copper Resources Throughout the Lat
Page 347 and 348:
midden deposits were located along
Page 349 and 350:
a model with two distinct populatio
Page 351 and 352:
Table 17.2. Summary of Landscape an
Page 353 and 354:
File Report 93-1, Fredericton. Alle
Page 355 and 356:
Anthropology, Temple University, Ph
Page 357 and 358:
stone age found at Maquapit Lake. N
Page 359 and 360:
CHAPTER 18 MAIZE AND VILLAGES: A Su
Page 361 and 362:
use of the term “small village”
Page 363 and 364:
1325 [1425] 1460) (Boyd et al. 1998
Page 365 and 366:
several centuries after its first a
Page 367 and 368:
from excavations at village sites h
Page 369 and 370:
133-156. New York State Museum Bull
Page 371 and 372:
longhouses. American Antiquity 55:4
Page 373 and 374:
CONTRIBUTORS Timothy J. Abel. Carth
show all

Northeast Subsistence-Settlement Change: A.D. 700 –1300

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?