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

association date for maize at the Early Fall site. Maize
seemingly appeared later still at or near its Contact
period limit in central Maine. It is dated ca. A.D. 1580-
1730 (A.D. 1476-1662 calibrated) at the Conant and several
Norridgewock sites in the Androscoggin and
Kennebec River drainages, respectively (Asch Sidell
1999; Corey et al. 1997; Cowie et al. 1999; Cowie and
Petersen 1990, 1992). However, the earliest maize dates
from Maine may be ultimately pushed back, since
maize is known as early as A.D. 1020-1235 (A.D. 1043,
1091, 1119, 1140, 1155; A.D. 1259; and A.D. 1285 calibrated)
in a general association at Place Royale, Quebec
City, on the St. Lawrence River (Chapdelaine 1993;
Clermont et al. 1992).
Isotope Analysis Data
Isotope analyses of human bone and carbonized
residue on pottery are another way to help establish
late prehistoric diets in the region. Isotope research
elsewhere in eastern North America has delineated the
advent of a dietary dependence on maize horticulture
by ca. A.D. 1000 or earlier (e.g., Hart 1999b:Figure 4;
Hutchinson et al. 1998; Katzenberg et al. 1995; Milner
and Katzenberg 1999:Figure 15.1; Sciulli 1995; Vogel
and van der Merwe 1977). Although few in number,
published isotope analyses from New England using
human bone directly support the idea of some sort of
dietary shift among regional Late Woodland (and
Contact) period indigenous peoples relative to their
predecessors, although the details are incomplete.
Isotope data suggest that this dietary shift occurred by
ca. A.D. 1000-1300 in several areas where farming was
adopted before European contact.
Seven human burials from Late Woodland contexts
on Nantucket studied by Little and Schoeninger (1995)
show an overall emphasis on oceanic and near-shore
fauna. A possible emphasis on maize may be represented
in these isotope data, but this is unclear, since
the isotope signature for maize may be alternatively
attributed to marine eelgrass feeders, such as lobsters
and eels. Consequently, Little and Schoeninger use
their equivocal isotope data and the rarity of archaeological
maize in Nantucket and other coastal sites to
tentatively dismiss the importance of maize on the
coast until the Contact period, when it was historically
recorded. These data may or may not be widely representative
for the region, given the offshore setting of
Nantucket, nor do they allow us to rule out an emphasis
on horticulture in Nantucket and other coastal settings
during the Late Woodland period.
An even broader isotopic analysis by Bourque and
Krueger (1994) used human bone samples of different
ages from various sites in western and central Maine,
including coastal settings near or beyond the limit of
horticulture at European contact. This study demonstrates
considerable variation among Maine coastal
samples over time. An overall emphasis on marine protein
is evident in local diets throughout time, but with
some important changes in late prehistory. Late
Woodland and early Contact period samples from
western and central Maine again show a possible
emphasis on maize or perhaps eelgrass feeders whose
isotope values resemble those of maize, although the
authors seemingly are not supportive of the maize possibility.
Perhaps most significantly, the late prehistoric
and early historic samples from coastal Maine are different
than those from earlier contexts on the coast and
the interior, suggesting some subsistence innovation at
this time, perhaps horticulture. This supports the idea
that some fundamental change occurred between the
time of known hunting and gathering and that of
possible farming in Maine, that is, from the Middle to
Late Woodland periods; so late prehistoric maize use
cannot be ruled out in westcentral coastal Maine on the
basis of the isotope samples from the Crocker and
Great Moshier sites and some from the Nevin and
Turner Farm sites, among others. Obviously, more such
isotopic research is needed, but on the grounds of these
few studies alone we can see its potential.
Settlement Patterns
Settlement patterns for the Middle Woodland and
Late Woodland periods have been proposed for various
portions of the Northeast, including the area of
emphasis here, northern New England, and nearby
portions of the far Northeast (e.g., Petersen and Power
1983; Ritchie and Funk 1973; Sanger 1979; VDHP 1991).
These data are enigmatic and recalcitrant, perhaps
even more so than the paleoethnobotanical subsistence
data cited above. Broad-scale, systematic regional
surveys are still rare across much of the region, and this
helps account for the paucity of settlement data in
many areas. There are some exceptions, however, in
coastal settings and along a few interior rivers and
lakes, where significant samples have been collected
through research and/or consulting archaeology studies
(e.g., Cowie and Petersen 1990, 1992; Funk and
Pfeiffer 1993; Kellogg 1982, 1994; Sanger 1996; Thomas
et al. 1996). Along with a general paucity of regional
surveys, large-scale excavations at particular sites are
rare and this too hampers our understanding of sitespecific
settlement patterns. Settlement pattern variation
274 Petersen and Cowie