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

ed) is by no means straightforward, since extended
families can inhabit a cluster of smaller dwellings,
rather than a single larger dwelling (Butt 1977:6; Wilk
1983:102). An extended family may build additional
structures nearby when the original family dwelling
becomes too crowded (James 1949:19; Wilk 1991:217).
This is supported by ethnoarchaeological studies,
which have shown that spatial proximity between
dwellings usually indicates social proximity as well,
suggesting that clusters or groupings of dwellings can
represent residential corporate groups related along
kin lines (Douglas and Kramer 1992:105; Wilk
1991:208-217).
Many village settlements in small-scale societies
also have structures that are unusually large compared
to residential dwellings within the settlement
(Chang 1958:303). Other than being unusually large,
these structures may be similar in design and construction
to residential dwellings in the same village
settlements (James 1949:54; Wallace 1969:22). These
unusually large structures may function as a council
house, a chief’s lodge, or a men’s house (Chang
1958:303; Fabian 1992:49; Wallace 1969:22).
Hayden and Cannon (1982) argue that individual
households are difficult to define archaeologically
and that one should instead look more generally for
residential corporate groups: configurations of
dwellings and associated features that represent the
archaeological manifestations of cooperative economic
or social groupings (see also Rocek 1995:10). Such a
cluster may meet Ashmore and Wilk’s (1988:6) definition
of a household as a social unit that shares activities
including production, pooling of resources, reproduction,
and co-residence. Nonarchitectural features
also concentrate around these clusters because, in traditional
societies, mobilization of labor and access to
goods is usually structured by kinship systems (Cobb
1993:47-48). Variation in the distribution of nonarchitectural
features may indicate not only different economic,
social, and reproductive strategies, but also
differential economic success (Hart and Nass 2002).
Following from Johnson’s (1978, 1982) discussion
on information theory and scalar stress, a village consisting
of more than about six households would likely
need to form a level of suprahousehold decision
making to remain stable; that is, a decision making
level above individual households but below that of
the entire village community would develop (see
Lightfoot and Feinman [1982] for Southwestern
cases). The development of suprahousehold decision
making could be tied to the rise of sodalities, which
cooperated not only for specific acts of ceremony and
labor, but in political decisions as well (Flannery
1972:47; Hill 1970:42-43). The heads of households
would be likely candidates for suprahousehold decision-making
roles, perhaps organized as a council or
less formal network, since they already would be
serving a similar role within their own households.
STUDIES OF MONONGAHELA
VILLAGE ORGANIZATION
Monongahela village organization has attracted the
attention of a number of researchers. Fuller (1980,
1981a, b) explicitly considers the transition from dispersed
hamlets to nucleated village communities, but
does not expand on their respective social structures.
Hart (1993) synthesized much of the extant data on
the Monongahela and developed a sophisticated
model on the sharing of risks related to the uncertainties
inherent in following a horticultural lifestyle.
While he discussed social organization to some
degree, Hart’s (1993) focus was on developing his
divided-risk model to integrate hamlets and villages
located in diverse ecological settings into a single subsistence-settlement
system. Nass (1995) attempted to
define discrete Monongahela activity areas at the
Throckmorton (36GR160) village site, following
approaches he used for his study of the Fort Ancient
Incinerator site (Nass 1987, 1989). While not successful
at delineating discrete activity areas, Nass’ (1995)
analysis suggests that household organization at this
site was at the level of individual, independent households
and not in clusters of dependent households.
Hart and Nass have examined village layouts to
explicitly consider aspects of village organization,
particularly as related to the differential use of storage
within and between village communities (see,
notably, Hart 1995; Hart and Nass 2002; Nass 1995).
MODELING RING-SHAPED VILLAGE
SPATIAL AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION
Approaches that focus on recognizing and defining
individual household clusters through the distribution
of features and artifacts within village sites are
insufficient to interpret archaeological remains in
terms of community organization. This is partly
because the organization of activities and social relationships
within and between households in any village
community are directly influenced by the physical
reality of the village itself—the architectural
48 Means