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

Post-A.D. 1200/1250 Developments
Sometime around A.D. 1200, a new settlement pattern
began to emerge within the central Ohio Valley,
occurring initially in southwestern Ohio in the late
Turnip phase (A.D. 1000-1250) (Cowan 1986), and
then spreading differentially throughout the central
Ohio Valley. This new pattern, as revealed in the
Sunwatch site of the Anderson and the Philo site of
the Philo phase (Carskadden and Morton 2000;
Essenpreis 1982; Graybill 1981; Nass 1987), takes the
form of nucleated, well-planned villages containing
several rectangular, wattle-daub dwellings (Figure
2.11). This form of community, which is based on
intensive maize agriculture, stands in marked contrast
to the pre-A.D. 1200 pattern of dispersed household
clusters (Church 1987; Graybill 1981; Nass and
Yerkes 1995). That maize was an important staple is
also reflected in the large number of shell hoes recovered
at all post-A.D. 1200 sites (Nass 1987), dental
pathology (Schneider 1984), and stable carbon ratios
(Broida 1983; Conard 1985; Greenelee 1996). This settlement
type is also sedentary (Rafferty 1985), and
data by Shane and Wagner (1980) support the belief
that at least part of the population remained at these
villages throughout the entire year. Winter dispersal
of at least part of the population has also been demonstrated
to have been part of the settlement strategy for
post-A.D. 1200 villages (Essenpreis 1982; Shane and
Wagner 1980; Turnbow and Jobe 1984). Radiocarbon
dates also support occupations exceeding 10 or more
years at many of these post-A.D. 1200 sites.
But is nucleation the solution to or a causal agent of
continued social and environmental risks initially
brought on by dependency on cultigens? Would
nucleation and sedentism ameliorate or exacerbate
social and/or environmental perturbations? The definition
of nucleation will facilitate the investigation of
these questions and provide a context within which to
examine the implications of risk.
The term nucleation denotes a situation in which
previously dispersed households of a community are
contained within a single, contiguous settlement (see
Fuller 1981). The term community (which can take the
form of a village) refers to a group of people who are
socially, economically, and politically related to one
another. According to Fuller’s (1981) model, each
community also exhibits a cohesive set of stylistic and
other material traits from a single occupation.
The nucleated villages or communities that characterize
the post-A.D. 1200, Philo, Baum, Anderson, and
Schoemaker phases in Ohio (Carskadden and Morton
1977, 2000; Church 1987; Cowan 1986; Essenpreis 1982;
Graybill 1981; Nass and Yerkes 1995) and the Manion
phase in Kentucky (Sharp 1990) share a similar site
plan. This consists of two distinct parts: a central plaza
devoid of domestic architecture and trash, and an
encircling domestic ring containing burials, dwellings,
and storage/trash pits (Dunnell 1983; Dunnell et al.
1971; Graybill 1981) (see Figures 2.12-2.14).
Although data about the spatial and temporal variability
in dwellings are imperfect, dwelling size in
these communities is somewhat larger than the preceding
transitional sites (Church 1987; Nass 1987). We
therefore feel that there is a general trend toward larger
dwellings. More importantly, if labor is an important
ingredient for successful maize farming, then
population nucleation could be a tactic to concentrate
labor as opposed to biologically increasing the size of
the individual family household.
Three different scales of household organization
have been proposed for explaining the spatial arrangement
of dwellings, pit features, and burials: the discrete
household, the household cluster, and the village
(Flannery 1976, 1981; Nass 1987; Nass and Yerkes 1995;
Wilks and Netting 1984). The household or household
unit (Flannery 1981) takes the form of a discrete
dwelling and pit cluster that often includes burials
(Figure 2.15). This contrasts with the household cluster,
which takes the form of several coeval household
units, and the village, which represents a single, contiguous
settlement of several household units spatially
arranged to a predetermined plan. Artifact content
from one household unit (bone, shell, antler, and lithic
tools) duplicates the same range of artifact types and
domestic activities within another household unit
(Nass 1987; Nass and Yerkes 1995).
Households also seem to form clusters within the
villages. Evidence supporting this proposition occurs
in the form of rim sherd refits (Figure 2.16). The quantity
of refits (over 50) and the corresponding distances
(between 2 and 20 meters) between refuse pits and
burials from which rim sherds were recovered hints at
economic cooperation between household units. Most
likely these house/feature clusters represent the dispersed
household clusters that characterized the Late
Woodland and the pre-A.D. 1200 Fort Ancient sites
such as Muir, Howard Baum, and Killen.
The arrangement of dwellings around the plazalike
area and the fact that doorways open onto it support
the belief of community-wide cohesion, since the
plaza would serve the entire community. This space
would have been used for both daily social activities
and village-wide ritual/ceremonial activities.
30 Church and Nass