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

etween A.D. 700 and 1300, the chapters in this volume
include discussions of contexts as early as the fourth
and as late as the fifteenth century A.D., providing a
broader context for the volume’s themes. Since this
period is referred to differently across the broad region
(e.g., late Middle Woodland, early Late Woodland,
Ceramic period 5), the term “early Late Prehistoric”
has been applied to bridge diverse archaeological culture
areas.
THE NATURE OF NORTHEAST SETTLE-
MENT AND SUBSISTENCE STUDIES
Among Northeast archaeologists, the period A.D.
700 to 1300 is defined by three major traits: (1) the
adoption and/or intensification of maize-based agriculture
(e.g., Custer 1986:11; Fecteau 1985; Kent et al.
1971:329; Mockton 1992:9; Reid 1975; Ritchie 1994:276,
310; Wright 1972); (2) the shift from a mobile to a semisedentary
village life (e.g., Custer 1986; Feder 1984;
Pollock and Henderson 1992; Ritchie 1994:280-281;
Silver 1981; Smith 1990: 279; Snow 1980; Stothers 1997;
Wall et al. 1996:219-220; Wright 1972); and (3) the use
and manufacture of cordmarked ceramics with complex
design motifs (e.g., Brose 1994:50-51; Brown
1982:17-18; Bursey 1994:46; Chapdelaine 1995:77-95;
Dragoo 1971; Fox 1990:175; Lavin 1980:3-41; Murphy
and Ferris 1990:199-207; Prufer 1967; Snow 1980:315;
Wright 1972).
The use of these traits to characterize the period
largely resulted from studies completed during the second
half of the twentieth century, which sought to create
culture-historic taxa whose characteristics were
homogeneous and bounded through space and time
(Church 1987; Custer 1986:11-19; Hart 1999a; Lenig
2000:59-60; Smith 1990:281-284). Variation within culture-historic
taxa was not viewed as important, but
variation between culture-historic taxa was (Hart
1999a:19-26; Hart and Nass 2002). Under these conditions,
theories concerning a single developmental
sequence involving the intensification of maize horticulture
and the occupation of semisedentary villages
across much of the Northeast were accepted as fact and
were “neither debatable nor demonstrable” (Custer
1986:11).
Variation within culture-historic taxa was explained
as the result of limited information in the archaeological
record or as problems with the interpretation of the
data by archaeologists (Willey and Phillips 1958). An
example of this can be seen in southern New England,
where the lack of large village sites was explained by
suggesting that such sites either were destroyed during
early development projects or were not identified
because of deep burial in floodplains (but see
Hasenstab 1999; Kerber 1988; McNiff 1990:37-38;
Thorbahn 1988).
Discrepancies in the traditional views of prehistory
were increasingly visible by the end of the twentieth
century, causing some Northeast archaeologists to
question the uniform and internally homogeneous
nature of culture-historic taxa (Custer 1986:11-12; Hart
and Nass 2002). Studies by Barber (1982), Bumstead
(1980:73-81), Ceci (1979, 1982), Graybill (1973), Hart
(1993), Kinsey and Graybill (1971), Powell (1981),
Salwin (1968) and others questioned the “one size fits
all” model proposed by culture historians, suggesting
that the archaeological record was much more complex,
with internal important variation in settlement
and subsistence patterns discernable at both the local
and regional levels.
While most archaeologists would agree that maizebased
agriculture, occupation of semisedentary villages,
and use of cordmarked containers are important
traits across most of the region, recent studies by
Northeast archaeologists acknowledge the fact that not
all groups followed the same developmental pathway.
An example of this can be seen in current discussions
of the use of maize agriculture in New England.
Following the publication of an article concerning the
timing, intensity, and degree of reliance on maize horticulture
by Ceci in 1982, archaeologists working in the
region began to question whether and to what degree
maize represented a staple food in prehistoric diets
(e.g., Bernstein 1992, 1999; Chilton 1999a; Chilton et al.
2000). While evidence for and against the use of maize
as a supplemental food item as opposed to a staple
crop is presented in the chapters by Petersen and
Cowie and Chilton, recent studies have shown that, in
addition to cultivated crops, the diets of these early
Late Prehistoric populations included a diverse array
of plants and animals that was procured from both terrestrial
and aquatic environments (Abel and Fuerst
1999:26-27; Barber 1982; Bellantoni 1987; Benison 1993;
Bernstein 1999; Bradley and Spiess 1994; Brose
1994:150-151; Carlson 1999; Chilton et al. 2000; Church
1994; Hart and Asch Sidell 1996; Lavin 1988:101-120;
Leveillee and Harrison 1996; Little 1993; Medaglia et al.
1990; Reid 1975; Smith and Crawford 1997, this volume;
Vickery et al. 2000:288-291; Wall et al. 1996;
Williams and Bendremer 1997).
Northeast archaeologists have also questioned
basic assumptions put forth during the 1940s and
1950s concerning the timing of the adoption of tropical
2 Rieth