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

several centuries after its first appearance in the
archaeological record. In those regions with relatively
well-established histories of maize, its remains do not
become frequent on archaeological sites until several
centuries after its first confirmed archaeological visibility
(central Ohio River basin, southern Ontario).
Assuming that maize continued to be grown in these
areas after its initial archaeological visibility, this evidence
suggests that there was not a sudden shift of
subsistence patterns or diets immediately following
maize’s introduction into these regions, consistent
with expectations in Hart (1999a). The SCIA data from
the lower Upper Ohio River basin suggest that maize
was an important source of protein in some individuals’
diets soon after its initial appearance in the
archaeological record, but archaeobotanical data are
lacking from most pre-A.D. 1000 contexts in this
region; direct AMS dates on purportedly early
Meadowcroft maize may change this assessment.
SCIA data for the Susquehanna River basin and New
England that would help to determine when maize
became an important source of protein in these
regions are not available.
Nucleated villages do not occur in most of the
regions covered in this book until well after (1) the initial
archaeological visibility of maize, (2) current evidence
suggests maize became an important source of
protein in some individuals’ diets, and (3) maize
becomes frequent in the archaeological record. In
southern Ontario, for example, nucleated villages are
first evident around A.D. 800; larger nucleated villages
with many large longhouses are not apparent
until around A.D. 1200. In the West Branch of the
Susquehanna, nucleated villages are not evident until
approximately A.D. 1250; larger nucleated villages
occur after approximately A.D. 1350. In New England
and New Brunswick, there is no evidence for nucleated
villages until at or just before European contact. In
other areas, such as the lower Upper Ohio and the
Upper Susquehanna River basins, nucleated villages
are apparent at or soon after the first evidence of
maize. However, in both of these areas, there is a
paucity of archaeobotanical data prior to approximately
A.D. 1000, and as reviewed above, evidence
for nucleated villages before the twelfth century A.D.
in the Upper Susquehanna River basin is suspect.
Current evidence for the lower Upper Ohio River
basin suggests that maize may be present at hamlet
sites approximately a century before the appearance
of nucleated villages, though this is a tenuous conclusion,
based on dates at two sites. The majority of village
sites in the Allegheny Mountains of this region
currently have no radiocarbon dates, and until these
are obtained from organic remains or residue on
ceramics in museum collections, the association
between maize and nucleated villages in the lower
Upper Ohio River basin will remain unclear.
DISCUSSION
Early Maize
Taken at face value, the above summary suggests a
gradual west-to-east spread of maize. This apparent
trend, while attractive from a commonsense point of
view, may in fact be quite misleading. The earliest
maize recovered in a region does not necessarily represent
the introductions of that crop (Hart 1999a:160-
161). When first adopted, maize use was probably
below the level of archaeological visibility. Without
intensive sampling and identification efforts at older
sites, it is not possible to rule out the presence of earlier
maize in a region. The presence of maize at an
open-air archaeological site is a function of the length
and intensity of maize use at the site and the length of
site occupation, charring of accidentally lost maize,
and deposition in contexts favorable for preservation
over many hundreds of years (Hart 1999a:160).
Recovery of early maize from a site is dependent on
the use of flotation recovery, the intensity of sampling
relative to the density and distribution of maize on
the site, and sampling intensity and identification
efforts in the laboratory (Hart 1999a:160). For example,
the earliest direct dated maize east of the
Mississippi River, 2077±70 B.P. (cal 2σ 354 B.C. [90, 76,
59 B.C.] A.D. 72), is from the Holding site in Illinois
(Riley et al. 1994). Over 5,300 liters of soil from midden
and feature contexts were subjected to flotation
from this site, producing only 19 pieces of maize following
an intensive identification effort. This level of
sampling has not been done across most of the
Northeast, which suggests that our knowledge of
maize history is far from complete. An emphasis in
some areas on the excavation of more archaeologically
visible nucleated villages (due to the number and
density of remains) as opposed to other site types
may also bias the recovery of early maize.
Also of note is that the purportedly earliest maize
samples in many of the regions reviewed above have
not been subjected to direct AMS dating. Direct AMS
dating of seemingly early domesticates has consistently
shown that the formation of archaeological
deposits is more complex than often thought. There is
Chapter 18 Maize and Villages: A Summary and Critical Assessment of Current Northeast Early Late Prehistoric Evidence 351