Late Woodland Settlement and Subsistence in the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LATE WOODLAND SETTLEMENT AND SUBSISTENCE IN THE EASTERN UPPER PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN By Sean Barron Dunham A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Anthropology - Doctor of Philosophy 2014 ABSTRACT LATE WOODLAND SETTLEMENT AND SUBSISTENCE IN THE EASTERN UPPER PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN By Sean Barron Dunham This research revisits the debate surrounding Late Woodland subsistence practices in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. The Late Woodland period in the Upper Great Lakes region (ca. A.D. 600 to 1600) is often characterized through models emphasizing the intensive use of a single, primary key resource, particularly maize, fall spawning fish, or wild rice. For example, current Late Woodland subsistence models for northern Michigan focus on the intensive harvest, creation of surplus, and consequent storage of fall spawning fish as the cornerstone of the settlement and subsistence strategy. New data suggests that the dominant settlement and subsistence model is incomplete, lacks explanatory value, and requires revision. This study tests the hypothesis that a suite of potential resources was both present and utilized, allowing for a more flexible set of strategies, i.e. one based upon multiple rather than a single primary resource. Archaeological evidence, ethnographic data, and pilot study results reveal that acorns, maize, and wild rice are likely resources to be incorporated into such a strategy; all can be harvested and stored in the late summer or fall as a buffer against a poor fish harvest. Each, however, also has spatial, environmental, and temporal constraints with implications bearing on archaeological site locations as well as the evidence from the sites themselves. A spatial analysis of site locations and resource distributions, as well as the composition of site assemblages was conducted to determine what relationships, if any, can be found between resources and site locations. The results identified site location patterns relating to the exploitation of fish as well the potential use of wild rice and acorns, and also revealed changing patterns of site location over time including an emphasis on coastal settings in the early Late Woodland and an increase in interior setting sites in the late Late Woodland. In addition, the study examines strategies for subsistence risk buffering and decision making by Late Woodland peoples and provides new perspectives on resource scheduling, patterns of mobility, social organization, and social interaction. The nature of the data sets employed in the research, as well as the temporal and spatial scales involved led to the adoption of Resilience Theory as an organizing framework for this study. The application of Resilience Theory is relatively new in archaeology and in this case provides a useful contribution to this line of scholarship in a context which has need of greater theoretical diversity. While an important outcome of the research is a synthesis of our current understanding of the regional Late Woodland, it also contributes a robust understanding of the interaction of hunter-gatherers/marginal horticulturalists with their environment. Copyright by SEAN BARRON DUNHAM 2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation could not have been completed without the support of numerous individuals and institutions. While it is impossible to single out everyone who provided some sort of support, there are some who deserve specific mention. I could not have completed this work without my guidance committee and I would like to thank Jon Burley, Robert Hitchcock, Jodie O’Gorman, Ethan Watrall, and especially William Lovis, for their support, advice, and prodding throughout the process. Much of the data used in this project came from cultural resource surveys conducted on the Hiawatha National Forest (HNF) and many of these were carried out through contracts with Commonwealth Cultural Resource Group, Inc. (CCRG). I owe debts of gratitude to many at CCRG including Donald Weir for allowing me to direct many of these contract projects, to James Montney for preparing many of the graphics that appear in this volume, and Michael Hambacher for our numerous discussions on the nuances of UP archaeology. I also need to express my deep appreciation to John Franzen and Eric Drake of the HNF for indulging my research as well as for sharing their wealth of knowledge concerning the archaeology of the north woods. Finally, I am indebted to my family for all their support through this arduous process: Thanks Mom, Dad, Caroline, Elaine, Paige, and Barron, and especially Jenn – all my love. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ix LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................xiv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1 1.1 Research Questions and Context ...................................................................................2 1.1.1 Research Questions .........................................................................................2 1.1.2 Research Context ............................................................................................4 1.2 Theoretical Orientation ..................................................................................................7 1.3 Dissertation Organization ..............................................................................................9 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL BACKGROUND .................................................13 2.1 Environmental Background ..........................................................................................13 2.2 Cultural Background ....................................................................................................17 2.2.1 General Overview of the Woodland Period in the Eastern UP ...................... 17 2.2.2 The Late Woodland Period ............................................................................ 22 2.3 Background Discussion ................................................................................................31 3.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSEMBLAGES ..............................................................................34 3.1 Chipped and Ground Stone Artifacts ...........................................................................37 3.1.1 Chipped Stone Tools ....................................................................................37 3.1.2 Chipped Stone Debitage ..............................................................................39 3.1.3 Ground Stone Tools ......................................................................................41 3.2 Late Woodland Ceramics .............................................................................................41 3.3 Other Artifact Classes ..................................................................................................45 3.4 Diversity Use Index .....................................................................................................47 3.5 Subsistence Remains ....................................................................................................54 3.5.1 Faunal Assemblages .....................................................................................56 3.5.2 Floral Remains .............................................................................................74 3.6 Discussion ...................................................................................................................78 4.0 LATE WOODLAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE PREDICTIVE MODEL .......................82 4.1 Development of the Model ..........................................................................................83 4.1.1 Distance to Water ..........................................................................................90 4.1.2 Elevation ......................................................................................................91 4.1.3 Slope ............................................................................................................91 4.1.4 Aspect ..........................................................................................................91 4.1.5 Growing Days ..............................................................................................92 4.1.6 Distance to Potential Wild Rice Stands ........................................................93 4.1.7 Pre-1800 Vegetation .....................................................................................95 vi 4.1.8 Habitat Classification System ......................................................................96 4.1.9 Site Setting ...................................................................................................97 4.1.10 Random Points ............................................................................................98 4.2 Statistical Analysis .......................................................................................................99 4.2.1 t-Test .............................................................................................................99 4.2.2 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test .........................................................................100 4.2.3 Chi-Square test ...........................................................................................102