Camp, Cache, Stay Awhile: Preliminary Considerations of the Social and Economic Processes of Cache Pits Along Douglas Lake, Michigan
Meghan C. L. Howey and Kathryn E. Parker
Introduction fisher-forager-horticulturalist subsistence system and systematically used subter- Cache pits are the single most prolific ranean storage "to create a stable food archaeological feature in the Upper Great supply" (Holman and Krist 2001:7). Lakes, but have infrequently been the topic The region is thus an ideal setting to of research. Dr. Holman's archaeologically, extend theoretical appreciations of stor- ethnohistorically, and ecologically contex- age in non-complex societies. We look tualized work on these features stands as specifically at Douglas Lake, an inland an important exception. Her work shows lake in northern Michigan ca. 25 km that in overlooking these features we miss south of the Straits of Mackinac, where key social and economic processes in the research has documented a substantial prehistory of the Great Lakes. In this paper number of cache pit clusters. Research we attempt to follow the path established questions we address include where and by Dr. Holman in her research on storage how these cache pits were built, what may in the Great Lakes region, using her work have been stored in them, how people as inspiration in an investigation of storage accessed them, potential association with practices during the Late Woodland on habitation sites, and time period of use. In Douglas Lake in northern Michigan. We exploring these questions, we aim to un- offer a specific case study of storage prac- derstand the ways local communities used tices in the hope our contribution honors food storage to respond to regional social Dr. Holman's pioneering work while and economic changes occurring in the furthering curiosity about and research on Great Lakes during the Late Woodland storage in northern Michigan. period (particularly after A.D. 1000). The paper starts by exploring broad theoretical perspectives on storage in small-scale societies. We turn, then, Perspectives on Storage in to the Late Woodland in the Great Small-Scale Societies Lakes which is, as Dr. Holman helped to show, a place where egalitarian com- Storage, "or the setting aside of material munities practiced a seasonally arranged things (food, tools, water, seeds for plants) 19 20 THE MICHIGAN ARCHAEOLOGIST 54
for some future use, whether short or states (Halstead and O'Shea 1989:4), but long term, is a fact of economic and social this scenario has also been documented life in all cultures, at all times and in all extensively among complex hunter- places" (Halperin 1994:167). Since all gatherers, particularly among oceanic storage processes have a material refer- coastal-adapted hunter-fisher societies (cf. ent, many (but certainly not all) of which Ames 1994, 2003; Arnold 1996; Binford leave an archaeologically recoverable 1980; Fitzhugh 2002; Grier et al. 2006; signature, storage provides an important Keeley 1988:373-374; Koyama and Thomas and accessible avenue into the social and 1981; Price and Brown 1985; Sakaguchi economic processes of past societies (Hal- 2009; Testart 1982). perin 1994:168). Indeed, storage is a topic Beyond placement within the "con- of longstanding interest in archaeology stellation of conditions" leading to the because it is clear that developing better emergence of complexity (Cannon and understandings of storage offers the "po- Yang 2006:123), some have argued storage tential to yield important information not is actively and directly linked, that is, it is only on diet, subsistence strategies, and causal to, the rise of social complexity and environment" but also to "improve our inequality (Rowley-Conwy and Zvelebil understanding of larger social and cultural 1989:4o; Testart 1982). For instance, in the processes" (Wesson 1999:145). Northwest Coast, Hayden has suggested Although all societies practice some that the reliable production and long-term kind of storage within their social and eco- storage of surpluses led to competition nomic systems, storage, more explicitly, over their control. Storage allowed for food storage, is seen as particularly vital to the accumulation of differences in wealth the development and activities of complex in this competitive process which led to societies, societies based on permanent inequality (or transegalitarian societies; hierarchical leadership and ascribed cf. Hayden 1997, 2000, 2001). In New inequality (Arnold 2000:17). Food storage Guinea, Law (1999) has suggested the facilities are taken as an indicator that presence of long and large storage pits cultural systems have an ability to produce in certain domestic contexts indicates a food surplus and food storage has been those individuals asserted control over associated with increased sedentism (Hal- communal yam production, and displayed perin 1994:167). Whether accurate or not, and ultimately maintained this control food storage and sedentism tend to hold through such pits. In the Southeastern hands in archaeological thinking (DeBoer U.S., Wesson (1999:149) has made a simi- 1988:14). lar argument, suggesting the emergence of Food storage is commonly considered large public food storage facilities was "the key in a concurrent suite of events oc- conspicuous display of surplus foods dem- curring with the emergence of social onstrating the wealth and social status of stratification—economic specialization those controlling these facilities:' Wesson producing food surplus, increasing (1999) connects the rise of the control of sedentism, and intensified storage public storage with the rise of inequality facilitates said changes, ultimately with during the Mississippian in the Eastern some members of the society coming to U.S. There has been and continues to be control more of the surplus than others. debate over such a direct role for storage Food storage is considered to be of critical in the emergence of social complexity, but concern to farming-based chiefdoms and it is safe to say it is largely accepted that CAMP, CACHE, STAY AWHILE 21 storage played some kind of important suggests storage in nomadic societies will role(s) in the evolution of complexity be widely dispersed across a landscape (Ames et al. 2008:3; see DeBoer 1988 for a as people practice a kind of "fixed-point" counter argument about the connection of nomadism. In another classic work, storage and complexity). Binford (1980) proposes a spectrum of Storage is no doubt important in forager strategies with two ends. On one varied ways to the evolution of complex- end, groups can follow a foraging strategy, ity but emphasis on this connection has making seasonal residential movements resulted in a counterview that residential among resource patches, consuming their mobility and food storage are incompat- product daily and practicing no storage ible and/or that physical storage is absent (Binford 1980) and on the other end, or relatively unimportant in "small-scale" they can follow a logistically-organized societies (Halperin 1994:167). A system collector strategy, supplying themselves of social storing, involving pooling with locally available resources through of risk through sharing and storing specially organized task groups, creating social obligations rather than goods, is a local resource surplus and intensifying often prioritized as the risk buffering the storage of local food stuffs (Binford strategy to be expected in non-complex 1980). As groups adapt to specific social hunter-gatherers (Halstead and O'Shea and environmental settings, they fall 1989; Rowley-Conwy and Zvelebil 1989; along this spectrum and food storage is an Wiessner 1982). These social strategies economic decision that some groups can of far-flung connections and obligations be expected to make. to be "cashed in" in future exchange, Following Halperin (1994:189-190), although not incompatible with physical we should expect in any given com- storage (see Ingold 1983), are nevertheless munity to find variation in the economic often viewed as binary, seen as something processes around storage. Ilia is, storage used instead of physical food storage may occur directly after production. Or, in "small-scale" societies. For instance, distribution may occur after production an evaluation of contemporary hunter- and before processing and storage (goods gatherer groups concludes this kind of may have traveled back to the community, pooling of resources and obligations offers as in a collector model, or to another far more advantage than physical storage community in exchange). Or there may as a risk buffering strategy (Goland 1991). be a direct line from production to con- In a similar vein, Jochim (1981) argues that sumption with no storage at all. All three in small-scale systems, delayed exchange, of these scenarios are possible in any involving future feasts/trade events, serves community's "material-means provision- as a substitute for physical food storage ing" process (Halperin 1994:190); they are (Halperin 1994:188). not mutually exclusive. So, small-scale Appreciating the ways non-complex societies may store for themselves directly societies use social storage should not from food sources, groups may move the preclude a consideration of physical food food from one place to another, including storage in the social and economic pro- provisioning their community or trading cesses of these societies. Ingold (1983:560) it to other communities, or groups may argues "storage, even on a substantial directly consume the products of their scale, is by no means incompatible with subsistence activities. Food storage, social nomadic movement:' Ingold (1983:560) storage, and mobility can co-occur. It is 22 THE MICHIGAN ARCHAEOLOGIST 54
important to evaluate how all of these agreed that a dramatic shift after A.D. features are employed by small-scale 1000/1100 transformed the regional set- societies, not just so we can understand ting from a diffuse socio-economic system how these things do or do not lead to involving far-flung connections, high mo- complexity, but so we can develop better bility, fluid social boundaries, and diverse appreciations of past economies and the procurement activities across resource diversity contained therein. zones to a more restricted system. This shift included an increase in community size, more defined and exclusive social Storage in the Upper Great Lakes boundaries, the emergence of strong territorial systems, the formalization of It is important to conduct studies of the decision making, and the development of ways non-complex societies use storage strong senses of group identity (Cleland without framing storage as something 1982, 1992; Holman and Brashler 1999; that has to create trends towards inequal- Holman and Lovis 2008; Krakker 1999; ity or be used in opposition to social Milner 1998; O'Shea and Milner 2002; resource sharing and exchange. As a place Stothers 1999). where egalitarian communities practiced These processes were particularly a seasonally arranged fisher-forager- pronounced in Lower Michigan, an area horticulturalist subsistence system and bounded by Lake Michigan to the west systematically used subterranean storage and Lake Huron to the east and joining at "to create a stable food supply" (Holman the Straits of Mackinac. The air near the and Krist 2001:7), the Late Woodland coasts of these Great Lakes warms more period in the Upper Great Lakes provides slowly in the spring and cools more slowly an ideal "laboratory" to conduct just such in the fall than inland; this lake-effect pro- studies. duces a longer growing season in coastal Dr. Peg Holman was a pioneer in areas than in the inland Lower Peninsula research on storage practices and strate- (Burnett et al. 2003; Leighly 1941; Liu and gies in the Upper Great Lakes, and thus Moore 2004; Schaetzl et al. 2005) (Figure it seems fitting to further explore the 1). This climactic amelioration permits topic in this volume honoring her (see successful maize horticulture along the Hambacher and Holman 1995; Holman Great Lakes coasts. Cultivation of maize and Krist 2001; Holman and Lovis 2008). began in a limited manner in the Great As Holman knew, this is an exciting Lakes around A.D. 500-600, but it was not topic, and one with an abundant, albeit a significant crop until around A.D. 1000- "puzzling" (Holman and Krist 2001:7) ar- 1200 (Crawford et a1. 1997; Katzenberg et chaeological record consisting of shallow al. 1995; Martin 2008). During the Late surface depressions. These depressions Prehistoric period (ca. A.D. 1200-160o) are the single most common archaeo- maize agriculture emerged as a significant logical feature encountered in Michigan economic activity in southern parts of the (Dunham 2000:225) and scholars have Lower Peninsula, including the Saginaw sufficiently demonstrated that food stor- Valley and southwest Michigan. age was their intended function (Dunham To the north, Late Prehistory saw 200o; Holman and Krist 2001). communities living in the coastal zones While there are different interpreta- of northern Lakes Huron and Michigan tions of specific developments, it is widely develop increasingly specialized mixed CAMP, CACHE, STAY AWHILE 23
Mackinac Straits
Douglas Lake Lake Huron Lake Mullet Michigan Lake
Crooked Burt Lake
,(7-\
)
er r
Figure 1. Northern Michigan
Higgins Lake landscape with Douglas Lake and the Inland Waterway
marked.
Houghton Lake 1KM 0 15 30 60
forager-fisher-horticultural economies climate of the region (O'Shea 2003) and based on targeted exploitation of fall likewise allowed groups to secure access spawning Great Lakes fish species and to key fall spawning fishing locations the incorporation of maize horticulture (Cleland 1982; Holman and Lovis 2008). at some level, although exactly how This decrease in mobility resulted in significant corn was in the economies of more intensive interactions between local northern groups has yet to be fully estab- groups and most likely led people to make lished and remains the subject of debate stronger territorial claims to resource (Cleland 1982; Lovis 1973; Martin 1989; zones. McPherron 1967; Milner 1998; O'Shea As spatial proximity became 2003; O'Shea and Milner 2002). Both increasingly important in the new of these specialized economic activities economic and social setting, coastal benefited from an increasing focus on fisher-horticulturalists settled into larger local coastal environs. Increasing seden- villages on the coasts of Lakes Michigan tism improved prospects for successful and Huron, developed discrete corporate maize horticulture in the highly variable social identities (O'Shea 1988), and 24 THE MICHIGAN ARCHAEOLOGIST 54
demarcated more exclusive territories Storing of food – it was the custom to Again, the most common archaeological store food obtained during the summer feature in Michigan are shallow surface in caches or pits dug near the village. depressions, reflecting storage pits, and The food kept perfectly, the pits were called cache pits (Dunham 2000). If not never disturbed, and this method of from the Historic period, these prolific storage was safe and practical. The archaeological features almost always date women of two or three families usually to ca. A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1600 based on combined in the work of storing food, associated ceramics (Dunham 2000:229). and often put rice, sugar, and vegetables The major changes in the region occurring in separate pits. Seed potatoes and seed after A.D. woo were then, at the very least corn were stored in a similar manner. associated with, and we suggest they were A food cache was usually about 6 feet also likely accommodated by this prolif- deep and was lined with birch bark. The eration of cache pits (Dunham 2000). rice and sugar were in makuks, and after Michigan's cache pits are very com- they were in place the spaces between mon but not straightforward—there them were filled with hay. When the pit is marked variation to these cache pit was nearly filled a covering of birch bark features, both in terms of their numbers or hay was added. Beams of wood were and locations. Sometimes cache pits laid across and the whole was covered occur alone but more often they occur with a mound of earth. Dried meat in clusters. Clusters commonly range was stored in bags and dried fish were from 15 to 25 pits but sometimes there packed together and tied in bundles are clusters with very high numbers of [Densmore 1929:40]. visible pits, from so to 150 (Dunham 2000; Dustin 1968; Hambacher and Holman Excavations of both historic and pre- 1995; Schneider 1942). Cache pits are historic cache pits have been somewhat found near residential sites, but very often limited but available data offers a cor- they are found removed from immediate responding archaeological picture of these proximity to residential sites. Sometimes pits. Some of the extant archaeological they are even located in seeming isolation, data conforms to Densmore's description removed from any proximity to a resi- while some aspects contrast. We will re- dential site (Dunham 2000; Dustin 1968; turn to her description later in this paper Hambacher and Holman 1995; Holman when we narrow our focus to sites on and Krist 2001). Douglas Lake where our results speak very The abundant ethnohistoric literature interestingly to her observations. There available for the Great Lakes has been seems to be a notable contrast between used to help develop understandings of the ethnohistoric information and the cache pits, including their physical as extant archaeological record in terms of well as social properties, during the Late pit depth. Densmore (1929:40) suggests Woodland (see both Dunham 2000 and cache pits were typically 6 feet deep but Holman and Krist 2001). Some sense of "excavated cache pits in Michigan and cache pit size, what they contained, how Wisconsin range from 4o cm to 120 cm they contained it, and how their use may below the surface" (Holman and Krist have been scheduled is captured suc- 2001:10). The largest cache pit excavated cinctly in the ethnohistoric observations at the historic site 2oNE331 was still shy of of Frances Densmore as follows: six feet, with a combined depth from the CAMP, CACHE, STAY AWHILE 25
surface to the visible pit and then the sub- resources, most notably fish, and some surface pit being 147 cm (or 4.8 feet); the maize). They also had to engage in their rest of the excavated pits were shallower other seasonal resource procurement than this (Dunham z000: Table 8.1, 237). activities within more restricted "seasonal The majority of excavated cache pits districts" than in previous periods. We are interpreted as having very simple propose that capitalizing on incidents of stratigraphy, "with two zones consisting resource abundance and the furthering of the original pit beneath the slumped of such surplus was critical in this more and detritus filled upper zone" suggesting restricted setting. Given these consider- a single episode of use (Holman and Krist ations, it makes good sense that subter- 2001:10). Some have been recognized as ranean storage emerges as a common having "more complex stratigraphy pos- feature on the archaeological landscape sibly reflecting multiuse stages or their after A.D. 1000. post use collapse" (Dunham 2000:236) Pits, then, were dug and filled during but this is not considered the standard different seasons in different ways to scenario. We will suggest later, however, accommodate the given demands of a that it may be more standard then we have season and associated resource availability recognized. Almost all of the pits found in (Holman and Lovis 2008). Some pits were Michigan today are empty, their contents constructed in the warm summer/early having been removed during occupation fall season near villages or larger settle- which accords with the information that ments where major resource extraction these pits were lined. However, Dunham was occurring (Densmore 1929:40). Pits (2000) did confirm through intensive constructed in the autumn and spring flotation evidence of nut and berry storage were located where food was available in in the historic pits at 2oNE331, according both seasons and these pits are likely to be with the description of these as food associated with residential camps where stores. both plant and animal foods could be Working models deriving from eth- procured and stored (Holman and Krist nohistoric perspectives suggest it was the 2001:9). One explanation of those stores fulfillment of different seasonal resource we see in locales removed from any resi- demands that accounts for the variation in dential sites is that they accommodated pit features we see throughout northern winter hunting and movement. Surplus Michigan. Late Woodland communities stores were left at nonresidential loca- had "subsistence strategies that relied on tions, particularly at notable landmarks, seasonally dense, abundant plant and ani- like confluences of rivers and lakes, along mal resources" (Dunham 2000:234) which transportation routes where people were required a certain degree of seasonally ar- sure to pass during return trips from win- ranged settlement mobility. The strategic ter hunts. These storage features helped use of storage accommodated this subsis- people stage their winter moves (Holman tence system (Dunham 2000:234; Holman and Krist 2001:18; alternative explanations and Krist 2001; Holman and Lovis 2008). of these isolated stores are also available, During the late Late Woodland/Late including the idea that they were located Prehistoric period, groups were relying in isolation from residential sites for on coastal resources amenable to storage concealment purposes, the protection of and benefited from storage as storage surplus being more important to local extended the life of these resources (wild communities in the more restricted 26 THE MICHIGAN ARCHAEOLOGIST 54
setting of Late Prehistory; see DeBoer to these events with them that they 1988). housed temporarily there for subsequent Holman and Krist (2001:10, 18) sug- exchange (Howey and O'Shea 2006). The gest that the ongoing, episodic use of structured storage system of the northern specific locales for seasonal familial or Great Lakes between ca. A.D. 1200 to A.D. community storage (in seasonal districts) 1600 was so well planned and developed it is implied by the fact that cache pits often both accommodated the immediate needs occur in distinct spatial clusters that may of families in seasonal rounds (in distinct differ from other clusters at the same districts) as well as provided materials for site. They point to the fact that cache pits ritual exchange events between far-flung at site 20MN31 along Porter Creek, and communities living in different regional associated with the camp 20MN1000, are zones. smaller than those located on a low ter- The "material-means provisioning" race above the creek (see also Hambacher system developed during this period and Holman 1995); "at Black River cache involved some level of patterned seasonal there were three or four clusters of pits mobility incorporating coastal and located either on level ground above a inland resource zones into a seasonal swamp or on a ridge bounding the site; round (Holman and Lovis 2008), highly and at the Oak Lake #2 site, there were structured food storage practices used to three clusters of pits differing in elevation create a stable food supply within family and size" (Holman and Krist 2001:10). groups' "seasonal districts" (territorial Storage of food procured in each areas families/groups were able to exploit season "was an important buffer against regularly; Holman and Krist 2001:18), as times of scarcity" (Holman and Lovis well as an elaborated system of social stor- 2008:289) and the demands of varied sea- age based on ritual inter-tribal exchange sons produced the varied archaeological events (Howey and O'Shea 2006). Com- signature we see for these features on the munities accommodated this diversity of (( landscape. Storage was highly structured material-means provisioning" within a to create a stable food supply in Late social setting that never trended towards Prehistoric northern Michigan where ter- "complexity" yet was certainly not "sim- ritoriality was increasing and resource risk ple"—perhaps complicated is an accurate and variability within any circumscribed descriptor for this time and place. area was very pronounced. In addition The fact that almost all the pits found to this structured storage system, Late in Michigan today are empty has limited Prehistory (ca. A.D. 1200-1600) also saw both results emerging from studies of the communities engaging in a large scale pits as well as the quantity of studies of social storage program embedded in ritual these common features. Cache pits as a exchange events at ceremonial monu- research topic can be frustrating. How- ments in the forms of earthwork enclo- ever, a more contextualized study of them, sures, a system that placed extra demands an approach fostered by Holman, can on resource production and storage push understandings of cache pits forward (Howey and O'Shea 2006). Large clusters and more fully elaborate their strategic of cache pits have long been recorded as role. In this paper, we have attempted common at enclosures (Greenman 1926). to build on Dr. Holman's investment in Their presence indicates groups brought cache pit research and her insistence that significant quantities of resource materials these features not be overlooked as key CAMP, CACHE, STAY AWHILE 27 elements in the social, economic, and European trappers (Blackbird 1887). ideological setting of Late Prehistory. Dr. Holman was part of the NSF- funded Inland Waterway Project which involved two probabilistic survey sam- Considering the Economic and Social pling phases over io weeks in 1974 and Processes of Cache Pits on Grapevine test excavations at identified sites in 1975 Point, Douglas Lake (Lovis 1976, 1978a, 1978b). From data col- lected on this project, she produced her It is in this spirit that we turn now to formative dissertation on the Mackinac a more specific level of analysis in this Phase, laying out the model for the early paper, exploring the preliminary results of Late Woodland in this region (Holman our evaluation of a series of cache pits on 1978). This 1974/75 Inland Waterway Proj- Grapevine Point on Douglas Lake, which ect also, notably, revealed that the major is located in the northern tip of the Lower recreational draw of Michigan's inland Peninsula, ca. 25 km south of the Straits lakes posed substantial threat to the ar- of Mackinac (Figure 1). The physiography chaeological record (Lovis 1978a). Despite of the area is the result of complex glacial this call over 3o years ago, development history of Wisconsinan advances and re- has proceeded largely unchecked. One ex- treats and consists of glaciated moraines, ception is the University of Michigan Bio- outwash plains, drumlins, kames, and logical Station (UMBS), a biological and kettle lakes. Douglas Lake abuts a major environmental research and education low-level outwash plain, the Pellston station operating for the last loo years. Plain, which is the single most climatically The station preserves io,000 acres along extreme area in the Lower Peninsula of Douglas and Burt Lakes, including several Michigan. It is characterized by very short kilometers of shoreline, thereby keeping growing seasons (< 100 days), the heaviest recreational development to a minimum. snowfalls in the Lower Peninsula, and di- The protection afforded by UMBS offers urnal temperate fluctuations as extreme as the potential to find relatively undisturbed 65°F (Albert 1995; Francis 2001). A kettle archaeological sites in inland lake coastal lake, Douglas Lake has seven kettles or ba- settings that may reveal a more complete sins, covers a total area of 1,509 ha, has a archaeological picture than the one recov- maximum depth of 27 m, and mean depth ered so far from more heavily developed of 5.5 m (Francis 2001:353). It is linked to comparable settings. Burt Lake; located less than three kilome- This promise indeed seems to be ters to its south, Douglas Lake drains into coming to fruition. Since 2004, Kathryn this topographically lower lake. Burt Lake Parker (project paleoethnobotanist and is within the Inland Waterway, a series Burt Lake resident) and Robert Vande of lakes, rivers, and streams that creates Kopple (resident biologist at UMBS) an inland route between Lakes Michigan have found an impressive 67 clusters of and Huron, providing an alternate route cache pits in walk-over survey of UMBS between these two lakes to the oft-danger- property around both Douglas and Burt ous passage through the Mackinac Straits Lakes (Figure 2). These numbers speak (Figure 1; Lovis 1976:366). The use of the to an even larger number of cache pits Inland Waterway to travel between Lakes in the landscape since walk-over survey Michigan and Huron is well-documented of UMBS property is not complete and historically by Native Americans and the UMBS land only represents a small 28 THE MICHIGAN ARCHAEOLOGIST 54
portion of the total lakeshore of these two lake. Of note, we do know that private land owners have cache pits on their property so indeed the pattern continues off UMBS property that is not yet com- pletely developed. These clusters show variation in num- bers which is quite standard as discussed above. Some clusters are as small as 2-4 pits, there is a central tendency towards groups of 15-25 pits, and then there is one large outlier cluster with over 6o visible pits. Some of these are almost 2 meters in surface diameter in this large cluster. The pits are all on higher ground, located so they would not be infiltrated with water and their contents ruined (Dunham 2000) (Figure 2). This strategy of placing pits where they would be free from water rot damage is also suggested by the fact that the clusters are predominantly located on Rubicon sands, which are excessively drained soils. While all on higher ground, there is some notable variation to their topographic positions as clusters are located on differing landforms. Some are located on High Terraces, some on higher High Outwash and sometimes clusters are located in Kettle-Kame depressions on the topographically high High Outwash (landforms detailed by Pearsall 1995). Clusters tend to be, but 0 0.250.5 1 1.5 2 -Kilometers are not always, found on these high landforms when there is a substantial low terrace/shore area nearby; these broad, Figure 2. The Cache Pit clusters identified by UMBS resident biologist Robert Vande flat, close to water landforms being ideal Kopple in walk over survey of UMBS property on Douglas and Burt Lakes. These have for residential use as well as lake resource been placed on a Digital Elevation Model, where darker indicates lower elevation and extraction activities. lighter indicates higher elevation. Note: There are five recorded pit clusters further south Effort has been made to contextualize on "Colonial Point" on Burt Lake not shown in this image so as to show more detail. one series of these cache pit clusters on what is colloquially known as Grapevine Point on UMBS property on Douglas Lake (Figure 3). Here one can see a nested series of cache pits associated with a shelf of broad low terrace along the shoreline. One cluster of 20 visible cache pits is CAMP, CACHE, STAY AWHILE 29 located above this low shore shelf on the kind of habitation. As we just mentioned, High Terrace. Another two clusters, each there is a strong tendency for clusters of with io—i5 visible pits are located on the pits to be located in areas associated with High Outwash above this High Terrace notable low shore terraces, making these (Figure 3). low terraces a logical place to look for habitation. We conducted a systematic shovel test survey of the low terrace on Contextualizing: Assessing Occupation Grapevine Point. To conduct this survey, a north-south baseline 190 m long was es- One of the first keys to contextualizing tablished covering the entire length of the these pits was to determine if they were low terrace on Grapevine Point. Shovel associated with habitation and if so, what tests were placed every s m and a total of
Grapevine Point
South Fishtail Bay
Cache Pit Clusters Grapevine Point Figure 3. The series of cache LAN DFORM pits on Grapevine Point L Douglas Lake investigated in this paper MI High Outwash and their location on major landforms and next to the High Terraces low shore shelf. VA Shores and Low Terraces
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Kilometers 30 THE MICHIGAN ARCHAEOLOGIST 54
315 shovel tests were done to survey this shelf (Figure 4). Here, two discrete zones of cultural materials were identified: one • • • • on the south end of the shelf, near the • • • modern edge of Douglas Lake (state site • • • • number 2ocN61), the other on the north • • • • • • • • • • end tucked against the high terrace (state • OA • • • • • site number 2ocN63) (Figure 4). 20CN63 • • • • • • ai • • • • • We subsequently conducted excava- Douglas Lake 4i, RI • • • • • • tions at each of these sites and have • • I • • • • • • • a • • • • • • • • • determined that these are temporally and • • • • • • • • • • functionally distinct archaeological sites. • • • • • • • • • • • •
• 44 • • • • • • • • • • • Briefly, we determined through the shovel • • • • • • • • • • • • • • test results that 2ocN61 covers an area of • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • approximately is x 20 m. A 2 X 4 m block • • • • • • • • • • • • • has been excavated and cultural materials • • • • • • • • • • • Shovel Test • • • • • • • • • • and one radiometric date indicate 2ocN61 • Positive Shovel Test • • • • • • • • • (Prehistoric Cultural Material) is an early Late Woodland occupation • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • (Beta Analytic 209909; 1,310 ± 4o B.P., • • • • • • • • • • • cal. A.D. 650-780). The site produced no • • • • • • • • • • •
Shovel Test: • • • • • • • a • • • evidence of long-term habitation. There N/S, 0 E/W • • • • • • • • • • • are no features, such as hearths, and there (Tests referenced • • • • • • • • • • N/S and E/W) • 4, • • • • 4, • • • is little fire cracked rock (FCR) and sparse On Mapping Grid: • 4 • • • a. 4, a 4a. • • calcined bone. Lithics are overwhelmingly N 4995E 5055 • • • • • a. a. :4. • • • formal tools, all made on non-local cherts. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • No cortex flakes were recovered, indicat- • • • • • • • • • • ing tool production was not occurring. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Faunal remains, preserved remarkably Shovel Testing • • • • • • • • Base Line well due to the wetness of the site, sug- gest that this was a resource extraction 40 Meters site with primary processing of deer and spring-spawning fish, notably perch and pike. The shovel test survey indicated 2ocN63 covers a much larger area than 20cN61, with cultural material found in a 6o x 4o m area. A thorough descrip- Figure 4. Shovel test survey and results on Grapevine Point Low Terrace. There are two tion of 2ocN63 merits its own article, distinct clusters of positive hits, one to the north, assigned state site number 20CN63 but we will try to provide a brief sense and one to the south assigned state site number 20CN61. of the finds from this site to further our contextualization of associated storage. At 2ocN63, 83 m2 have been excavated. Cultural materials and radiometric date indicate 2ocN63 has a large Late Prehis- toric component (Beta Analytic 209910; 550 ± 40 B.P., cal. A.D. 1310-1430). This CAMP, CACHE, STAY AWHILE 31 site is substantially larger and denser recovery of trace amounts in good than 2ocN61. Numerous cultural features archaeological context, 2ocN63 being a and dense FCR suggests it was the locus typical example. Maize was likely both of substantial residential habitation. acquired by local groups through trade Four large burned posts in a tight square and grown in small plots when conditions suggest the presence of a major central seemed to favor a successful crop as part support for a large structure and smaller of a mixed forager-fisher-horticulturalist posts suggest an oblong shape. Several strategy. burned sumac seeds have also been re- Instead of maize, the edible plant re- covered from this site (and no unburned source represented most often in carbon- or modern ones). Sumac is a strong ized botanical remains was acorn, a wild indicator of disturbed and open habitat, nut mast. After the fall harvest, acorns which is what one would expect around a could have been processed and used im- long occupied dwelling where most trees mediately. However, their greater value had been cleared. This adds another line may have been as a stored resource avail- of evidence that this was a substantial oc- able during times when other foods were cupation with a long use life. in short supply. In order to prevent rot Finds inside the structure include a and insect infestation during long-term series of linearly arranged hearths with storage parching over or near a fire would dense remains from cooking activities, a have been required (Petruso and Wickens distinct ceramic production area, numer- 1984; Sakaguchi 2009). As an alternative ous pots broken in place, eight copper to storage of whole nuts, processing via tools, and a polished axe found in situ grinding would have produced flour-like with a pile of fishing net weights. The acorn meal. Numerous pecked stone tools abundance of items left in situ suggests found at the site may have been utilized the structure was abandoned suddenly, as stands for nut-cracking and grinding and the burned posts point to fire as a acorns into meal. possible cause. The lithic assemblage at In addition to fall-harvested acorn 2ocN63 is dominated by local glacial till masts, other wild plant foods probably cherts and includes numerous primary included various greens and aquatic or flakes and cores, indicating lithic produc- terrestrial tubers, most of them available tion on-site. Evidence of ceramic produc- in the spring, and with soft tissue unlikely tion further substantiates the emphasis on to be preserved in the archaeobotanical localized manufacturing. record. The small edible terrestrial bulbs/ Small maize fragments occurred at corms of trout lily from 2ocN63 represent very low frequency in flotation samples a rare example of a potential spring re- from the site. As discussed above, maize source in prehistoric deposits. agriculture emerged as a significant Faunal remains, qualitatively assessed, economic activity in southern Michigan indicate the communities using this site during Late Prehistory. There is little relied on locally available terrestrial and direct evidence for an equivalent primary aquatic animal resources that could have focus on maize production in the north- been harvested throughout multiple sea- ern Great Lakes. Nonetheless, popula- sons, including bear, deer, turtle, beaver, tions in this region became increasingly and an intensive use of multiple fish spe- acquainted with maize during this time cies from the lake. Fish is ubiquitous in the period, as demonstrated in the occasional heavy fraction of flotation samples. 32 THE MICHIGAN ARCHAEOLOGIST 54
Contextualizing: Cross-Sectioning Cache Pits From inspection of Table i and Figures 5, 6, and 7, it is clear these pits range in Having determined there are indeed habi- size but two of the pits are on the large tation sites on the low terrace, we next side (140 cm depth and 185 cm depth). wanted to learn more about the cache pits The largest, High Terrace Pit 2, has a themselves—how big were they? Were maximum depth of almost 6 feet (185 they reused? What was stored in them? cm), which if you recall, was the depth Were they associated with one of these Densmore (1929:40) recorded historically sites? What kind of storage activity do for cache pits. This pit is larger than any they represent, in what season, for what of those recorded by Dunham (2000:236), resources? Did the fact that these cache suggesting it represents a notably large pits occurred in distinct spatial clusters on storage facility, but its size still fits nicely Grapevine Point (High Terraces vs. High with the account offered by Densmore. Outwash landforms) reflect episodic use None of these pits showed the simple or something else? With these questions stratigraphy suggested as common for in mind, we proceeded to cross-section cache pits (Dunham 2000; Holman and conduct detailed geoarchaeological and Krist 2001). As mentioned above, sampling of three cache pits. Two pits geoarchaeological sampling was done on from the cluster of 20 on the High Ter- these pits by geoarchaeologist Dr. Sarah race were cross sectioned and one from Sherwood though complete results of one of the clusters on the High Outwash microstratigraphy and ICMPS are not (as of publication the final results of yet available. Dr. Sherwood supervised geoarchaeological work are unavailable). pit profile mapping and recorded several Table 1 presents a summary of the surface internal strata in these pits that the non- diameter, subsurface diameter, surface specialist may not have pulled out as depth, subsurface depth, and combined distinct. From this preliminary sample, maximum depth for each of these pits we suggest complicated stratigraphy may (this table follows closely the format used be more commonplace than previously by Dunham 2000:236). Figures s, 6, and 7 thought. This opens exciting potential for show the profiles of these three pits. thinking about how pits were reused over
Table 1. Measurements of each pit cross-sectioned and sampled on Grapevine Point.
GRAPEVINE POINT CACHE PIT DIAMETER DIAMETER MAXIMUM DEPTH MAXIMUM DEPTH TOTAL ESTIMATED
AT SURFACE ESTIMATED AT OF PIT ON SURFACE OF PIT SUBSURFACE DEPTH OF PIT SUBSURFACE BASE (SURFACE +
SUBSURFACE DEPTH)
High Terrace 1 (Figure 5) 148 69 17 82 99
High Terrace 2 (Figure 6) 220 96 70 115 185 High Outwash 1 (Figure 7) 200 94 55 85 140
All measurements are presented in centimeters (cm). The five measurements are: (1) Diameter at surface, which was recorded prior to excavation after each pit was cleared of leaf litter; (2) diameter estimated at subsurface base of the pit which was recorded from the profile of the pit (please note that if the profile was not exactly in the middle of this pit, this will be smaller than the actual base diameter); (3) Maximum depth of pit on surface, which was recorded again after the pit was cleared, taking a measurement from the current ground surface next to the pit to the deepest point in the visible potion of the pit; (4) Maximum depth of pit subsurface was the depth from the deepest point on the surface to the bottom of the pit recorded in the profile (same caution with if the profile was not exactly on the center line, this could be a bit short) and; (5) Total estimated depth of pit, which is calculated by adding columns 3 and 4. CAMP, CACHE, STAY AWHILE 33
R 4 ) Toss Up (7.5YR 4/6 )
fvtajoc • " • Buried A (10YR 2/2) . . . . . . Modem Infill 0/A Horizon •Major•root Very Dark cfacriage • (10YR 2/1) • B-Horizon (7.5YR 4/4) Washed In Toss Up Form E Honz 5/3) Figure 5. North profile of B-Horizon Gravel Band B-Horizon (7.5YR 4/4) cross-section of High Terrace 10YR 2/2 (sandy) Cut By Pit(7.5YR 4/4) Pit 1. Note the dark basin to the west of the pit; this may be some kind of feature used
in accessing the contents 10 YR 3/2 of the pit. Clear is also the buried 0/A Horizon from
C-Horizon (7.5YR 416) construction of the pit. t 10cm
Limits of Excavation
Bur d A (10YR 2/2) Limits of Excavation
B-Horizon (7.5YR 4/4) of Damage Modem Infill 01A Horizon Figure 6. North profile of cross-section of High Terrace Pit 2. Note the large size
of close to 6 feet deep and also the cut A/E horizon,
indicating reuse of the pit. Also on the east side the buried 0/A Horizon and E
Horizons from construction of the pit are visible (cross-
section not taken wide 10cm enough on west side to see
this). 34 THE MICHIGAN ARCHAEOLOGIST 54
11,,yamiYR. 6/ Aparg/MIBIrcall.7E/ oss Up (7 5YR 41 U.
used A (10YR 2/2) Buried A (10YR 2/2)
Buried E 10YR 6/3
B-Horizon (7.5YR 4/6) B-Horizon (7.5YR 4/6) MoJern Infill 0/A Horizon
Remnant Figure 7. North profile 10 YR 3/3 Modem Disturbance 10 YR 313 (10YR3/1) of cross-section of High Full of Leaf Litter
Outwash Pit 1. Note the large size, notable depth, LEnts of _op and the modern intrusion Excavator E Horizon Forming down the center which has under disturbancef eaching caused internal strata to be obscured. Also, the buried Contr.., 0/A Horizon and E Horizons Loatftta from construction of the pit are visible on both sides. C Hooz, HOER 53.3f
generations by communities using this size more commonly recorded archaeo- lake area. logically, shows a complicated profile of The largest pit, High Terrace Pit 2, infilling after it was left open but not reuse shows stratigraphy suggesting reuse (Fig- (Figure 5). However, on the western edge ure 6). Inside the pit is a cut A/E horizon of this pit is a shallow dark basin shaped which indicates this pit was originally dug, soil change (Figure 5). This basin shaped used and left open empty long enough for soil change produced no material remains detritus to fall in and form an A horizon that make its function obvious, and its with an incipient E (a process which takes presence is curious. Perhaps it was a small around 3o years in this area, J. Lemoine shelf dug to be used to help aid people as [UMBS and Department of Ecology and they accessed the pit? We can only specu- Evolutionary Biology], personal com- late at this point about this and many munication 2009; Figure 6). After being other aspects of these pits. However, what left open and infilling, the pit was recut at is obvious is these profiles are not simple least once in a 3o year interval (perhaps and they indicate these cache pit features a families' generational turn over?). The were substantial investments by the com- other large pit, High Outwash Pit 1, was munities who constructed them, and they unfortunately distributed by modern maintained and reused and perhaps even activity (a hole dug down the center of engineered them in very interesting ways the pit; Figure 7). This limits our ability to (with access shelves and such). determine if it was likewise reused. The Only one of these pits produced other pit, High Terrace Pit 1, which is a material remains; High Outwash Pit 1 CAMP, CACHE, STAY AWHILE 35 had a collared ceramic rim, a typical Late three families usually combined in the Prehistoric ceramic stylistic feature, which work of storing food, and often put rice, was recovered on the edge of the pit. This sugar, and vegetables in separate pot suggests a broad relative age for the pits" (Densmore 1929:40; emphasis added). If pit as it likely broke during removal or we correlate this with the preliminary evi- placement in the pit. Flotation samples dence from our work on Grapevine Point, were drawn from distinct non-disturbed we can note that the storage pit we exam- strata in each pit and unfortunately no ined on the highest elevation landform, botanical remains and/or other absolute the High Outwash, produced calcined datable material were recovered in any of bone and nothing similar was recovered the pits. A flotation sample from below from the pits from the High Terrace. It the modern (looter) intrusion in the heart seems reasonable to suggest some thermal of the High Outwash pit (Figure 7), which or other physical property of this raised el- produced the ceramic on the edge, did evation made meat storage more feasible/ produce one very small calcined bone (less advantageous than other resource storage than 0.01 g) and one sherd (0.18 g). (plants). We can envision these clusters as As we mentioned above, one of the nested, interconnected with occupation things Holman and Krist (2001:10, 18) on the low terrace, reused and maintained pointed to as suggestive of episodic use in a highly structured way to maximize the of locales for seasonal familial or com- storage of different resources. Given the munity storage in seasonal districts is the fact that storage in general was systemati- fact that cache pits often occur in distinct cally structured to create a stable food spatial clusters that may differ from other supply during the Late Prehistoric setting, clusters at the same site. They pointed to it should not be surprising that individual a variety of sites where cache pit clusters acts of storage were likewise highly struc- were located on differing topographic tured, engineered even, to maximize the locations, which is exactly the case here at benefits. Of course, these are preliminary Grapevine Point. We have clusters of pits ideas, but suggestive of a potential model separated spatially, located on different that could be tested. elevation landforms. It is possible this reflects the episodic use of this locale but we would like to offer another interesting Contextualizing: Establishing Storage way to look at this suggested by our work Association so far—perhaps people were placing cache pits on different elevation landforms to get Important in contextualizing these stor- different preservation qualities for their age features is establishing what time stores. That is, rather than evolving kind period(s) they date to, determining if they of organically from separate episodic uses can be associated with an occupation site, of places, storage pits on mixed elevations and exploring what part of the seasonal was actually something purposefully ar- round they may reflect. The collared vessel ranged to maximize storage of different resources. suggests a Late Prehistoric age (ca. A.D. 1200-1600), providing a broad relative If we look to the ethnohistoric obser- date; no radiometrically datable remains vation provided by Densmore (1929:40), were recovered. To try to refine the date we see support for this idea. Recall that of the pits and determine if the cache pits she observed that "the women of two or were associated with the site(s) on the low 54 36 THE MICHIGAN ARCHAEOLOGIST
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Figure 8. Shovel test survey • • • • • • • and results around cache pit • • • • • • • • • cluster on the High Terrace • • • • • • above the Low Terrace on • • • • • • Grapevine Point (Note, the • • • • • • • • • • • entire Northern portion of • • • • • • • this terrace above the low .xxxx • shelf was not surveyed but • • • • • the trend is still clear). The • • • • • • • Shovel Test pattern of positive shovel Positive Shovel Test tests trends Northeast from Rise to • • • • • General Vicinity of the proximity of the Cache Hig 0 ash nly; • • • • • • • • • • Cache Pit Cluster Pits on the High Terrace (gra not o Sc le) • • • • • which is in the direction • • • • of 20CN63 and there are • • • • • • • • no positive hits South of 20 Meters • • • • • • • N the cache pits which is the • • direction in which 20CN61 is • • • • • • • • located. • • • • • • • •
positive tests with the light debris trends terrace, we conducted a shovel test survey quite linearly in a northeasterly direction around the cache pits located on the High towards the Late Prehistoric site 2ocN63 Terrace (a strategy inspired by a visit from (Figure 8). We have interpreted this as a Dr. Janet Brashler). A 90 m North/South path of use from the site to the cache pits, baseline was laid out, extending past the supporting a Late Prehistoric date and cache pits in both directions, along the suggesting a clear association with this site. High Terrace. Transects were run East- No positive shovel tests occurred south West off the baseline every 5 m, running of the cache pits, the direction of 2ocN61, back near to the topographic rise to the which further indicates the direction of use High Outwash and down the terrace until was to the North, towards 2ocN63. slopes were too steep to be practical for This finding of an association of the survey (Figure 8). A total of 179 shovel storage pits with a site whose largest tests were completed. component comes after A.D. 1000 is not The finds in positive tests accord with surprising, as we know this is when these the findings of Hambacher and Holman's storage features proliferate as part of the (1995) shovel test survey around cache pits strategy used to adjust to the dynamic at 2omN31—light cultural debris. What is social and economic developments of this interesting here, however, is the pattern of CAMP, CACHE, STAY AWHILE 37
time period discussed above. Indeed, most of storage practices during the Late interpretations of cache pits that are not Prehistoric period (ca. A.D. 1200-1600) obviously historic build on the assump- on Douglas Lake. Many of our finds build tion these pits are late, so this additional on and accord with current models of line of evidence adds a layer of support cache pits, these ubiquitous features in to this logic, and simultaneously opens Michigan's archaeological landscape. The doors for a new way of possibly dating and association of the storage pits on Grape- associating these notoriously hard to date vine Point with 2ocN63 allows us to con- features. This association also accords template about how these cache pits were with the excavation data; the Late Prehis- incorporated into the "material-means toric component at 2ocN63 shows there provisioning" process occurring in this was a much more intense occupation of inland lake locale during Late Prehistory. this landscape during this period than Holman and Krist (2001) indicated storage during the early Late Woodland evidenced of autumn resources, like acorn, would at 2ocN6i. The connection of 2ocN63 be critical in the seasonal exploitation of to the storage facilities indicates further family/groups' districts and that these that along Douglas Lake there was a very storage facilities would be associated with different use of the landscape after ca. A.D. residential camps where procurement and 1100/1200, one that involved more invest- processing would occur. The data from ment in the place, including large, long 2ocN63 fit with this idea quite strongly. term occupation sites with maintained As discussed above, the major edible plant storage facilities. resource recovered from this site is acorn. The site produced numerous macrobotan- ical remains of acorn as well as abundant Concluding Thoughts: Camp, Cache, tools associated with nut processing for Stay Awhile, Cache Again? storage (nut cracking, grinding). Holman and Krist (zoom) further Dr. Holman opened key avenues of suggested the same sites exploited for research into storage in the northern abundant fall resources would hold spring Great Lakes. Her ecologically and resources too and people would be using ethnohistorically contextualized studies the associated camps in fall, leave for win- of storage stand as models for how to ter hunting, returning briefly in spring for conduct anthropological research on this spring resource exploitation, then head to topic. Indeed, her work provides broader the coasts for the summer. The presence insight into the ways egalitarian societies of the terrestrial tubers/corms of trout can have substantial and structured food lily from this site may suggest a spring storage systems without having to be occupation and it may have been a pattern walking up the ladder to social complex- like the one they suggested. However, the ity. Continuing to explore storage in the faunal remains of bear and the possibility Upper Great Lakes offers a prime oppor- that the higher storage pits were facilities tunity to continue to expand views of the for some kind of meat storage may suggest ways egalitarian communities use storage a different model of how this site, and this in structured and complicated, yet not inland lake landscape, was incorporated "complex," ways. into the seasonal rounds—rather than In this paper, we have presented used in the fall and then back again in preliminary results of our investigation spring, it's possible a more persistent 38 THE MICHIGAN ARCHAEOLOGIST 54
use of this locale was occurring, in the to such building, noting in her very last fall through winter and then also the work, that there are still discoveries about spring. Multiple season occupation and mobility and occupation in this period to substantial habitation may have been used be made (Holman and Lovis 2008). To this as strategies by families finding it neces- openness and inquisitiveness, we owe her sary to intensify the resource potential our thanks and we take this as a model for of this inland lake system as territoriality how to do anthropological archaeology in became more pronounced in this late the Great Lakes. period. Certainly, the differences in site size between the early Late Woodland and late Late Woodland, the evidence that REFERENCES CITED 2ocN63 was used and kept clear for a long time (the sumac), that the groups using it ALBERT, DENNIS A. built a large structure, and this was associ- 1995. Regional Landscape Ecosystems of Michigan, ated with the development of large storage Minnesota, and Wisconsin: a Working Map facilities which were reused generationally and Classification. General Technical Report lends support to this idea of a persistence NC-178. U.S. Department of Agriculture, to occupation in this period. Forest Service, North Central Forest The emergence of vast numbers of Experiment Station. Northern Prairie Wildlife storage pits (67 clusters so far identified; Research Center Online, St. Paul, Minnesota. Figure 2) in this landscape, if all dating to Electronic document, http://www.npwrc.usgs. this period, would further support this gov/resource/1998/rlandscp/rlandscp.htm idea of an increased presence in the area (Version June, 3 1998). during Late Prehistory, perhaps emerging as a response to a reduced access to coasts AMES, KENNETH M. and/or an emerging regional sense of a 1994. The Northwest Coast: Complex Hunter- need to maximize all resource locales as Gatherers, Ecology, and Social Evolution. territoriality was increasing. Certainly, Annual Review of Anthropology 23:209-229. something different was going on during 2003. The Northwest Coast. Evolutionary this time and this something different Anthropology 12:19-33. involved storage. Given that no major environmental change occurred, it seems AMES, KENNETH M., CAMERON MCP. SMITH, AND likely this something different was inspired ALEXANDER BOURDEAU by the socioeconomic changes in the 2008. Large domestic pits on the Northwest Coast region. Rather than just camping, caching of North America. Journal of Field Archaeology and moving on, and returning episodically, 1:3-18. perhaps people camped, cached, then stayed awhile, and passed on these tradi- ARNOLD, JEANNE E. tions over generations—their ancestors 1996. Archaeology of Complex Hunter-Gatherers. then camped, cached again (reusing their Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory original pits), and stayed awhile. These 3(2)77-126. ideas are not wholly inconsistent with 2000. Revisiting Power, Labor Rights, and Kinship: working models of this period, although Archaeology and Social Theory. In Social they do differ in some ways that may point Theory in Archaeology, edited by Michael B. us in new directions (or build on current Schiffer, pp. 14-30. University of Utah Press, directions). Holman herself was open Salt Lake City. CAMP, CACHE, STAY AWHILE 39
BINFORD, LEWIS R. DENSMORE, FRANCIS 1980. Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter- 1929. Chippewa Customs. Bulletin 86. Bureau of Gatherer Settlement Systems and American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Archaeological Site Formation. American Washington, D.C. Antiquity 45(1):4-2o. DUNHAM, SEAN B. BLACKBIRD, ANDREW J. 2000. Cache Pits: Ethnohistory, Archaeology, and 1887. History of the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians the Continuity of Tradition. In Interpretations of Michigan. The Ypsilantian Job Printing of Native North American Life: Material House, Ypsilanti, Michigan. Contributions to Ethnohistory, edited by Michael Nassaney and Eric S. Johnson, BURNETT, ADAM W., MATTHEW E KIRBY, HENRY pp. 225-260. University of Florida Press, T MULLINS, AND WILLIAM P. PATTERSON Gainesville. 2003. Increasing Great Lake-Effect Snowfall during the Twentieth Century: A Regional Response DUSTIN, FRED to Global Warming? Journal of Climate 1968. Prehistoric storage pits in Saginaw County, 16(21 ):3535-3542. Michigan. The Michigan Archaeologist 14(1-2):48-52. CANNON, AUBREY, AND DONGYA Y. YANG 2006. Early Storage and Sedentism on the Pacific FITZHUGH, BEN Northwest Coast: Ancient DNA Analysis 2002. Residential and Logistical Strategies in the of Salmon Remains from Namu, British Evolution of Complex Hunter-Gatherers on Columbia. American Antiquity 71:123-14o. the Kodiak Archipelago. In Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in CLELAND, CHARLES E. Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems, edited by 1982. The Inland Shore Fishery of the Northern Ben Fitzhugh and Junko Habu, pp. 257-306. Great Lakes: Its Development and Importance Springer, New York. in Prehistory. American Antiquity 47(4):761- 784. FRANCIS, DONNA R. 1992. Rites of Conquest: The History and Culture 2001. A Record of Hypolimnetic Oxygen of Michigan's Native Americans. University of Conditions in a Temperate Multi-Depression Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Lake from Chemical Evidence and Chironomid Remains. Journal of Paleolimnology 25:351-365. CRAWFORD, GARY W, DAVID G. SMITH, AND VANDY E. BOWYER GOLAND, CAROL 1997. Dating the Entry of Corn (Zea mays) into 1991. Ecological Context of Hunter-Gatherer the Lower Great Lakes Region. American Storage: Environmental Predictability Antiquity 62(0:112-119. and Environmental Risk In Foragers in Context: Long Term, Regional, and Historical DEBOER, WARREN R. Perspectives in Hunter Gatherer Studies, edited 1988. Subterranean Storage and the Organization by Preston T. Miracle, Lynn E. Fisher, and Jody of Surplus: The View from Eastern North Brown, pp. 107-120. Michigan Discussions America. Southeastern Archaeology 7(1):1-2o. in Anthropology Vol. io. Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 40 THE MICHIGAN ARCHAEOLOGIST 54
2001. Richman, Poorman, Beggarman, Chief: The GREENMAN, EMERSON Archaeology 1926. Michigan Mounds, With Special Reference Dynamics of Social Inequality. In edited by to Two in Missaukee County. Papers of the at the Millennium: A Sourcebook, Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters Gary M. Feinman and T. Douglas Price, pp. 231-272. Kluwer Academic, New York. 7:1-9.
GRIER, COLIN, JANGSUCK KIM, AND JUNZO HOLMAN, MARGARET B. The Settlement System of the Mackinac Phase. UCHIYAMA (EDITORS) 1978. Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University. 2006. Beyond Affluent Foragers: Rethinking Hunter- Gatherer Complexity. Oxbow Books, Oxford. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
HOLMAN, MARGARET B., AND JANET G. BRASHLER HALPERIN, RHODA H. Economics, Material Culture, and Trade in the 1994. Cultural Economies Past and Present. 1999. University of Texas Press, Austin. Late Woodland Lower Peninsula of Michigan. In Retrieving Michigan's Buried Past: The edited HALSTEAD, PAUL, AND JOHN O'SHEA Archaeology of the Great Lakes State, 1989. Introduction: Cultural Responses to Risk and by John R. Halsey, pp. 212-220. Bulletin 64. Uncertainty. In Bad Year Economics: Cultural Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Responses to Risk and Uncertainty, edited Hills, Michigan. by Paul Halstead and John O'Shea, pp. 1-8. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. HOLMAN, MARGARET B., AND FRANK J. KRIST 2001. Late Woodland Storage and Mobility in Western Lower Michigan. The Wisconsin HAMBACHER, MICHAEL J., AND MARGARET B. 82(1-2):7-32. HOLMAN Archeologist 1995. Camp, Cache and Carry: The Porter Creek A. Lovis South Site (2oMN1oo) and Cache Pits at HOLMAN, MARGARET B., AND WILLIAM 2oMN31 in the Manistee National Forest. The 2008. The Social and Environmental Constraints on Michigan Archaeologist 41(2):47-94. Mobility in the Late Prehistoric Upper Great Lakes Region. In The Archaeology of Mobility: edited by HANCHIN, PATRICK A., RICHARD D. CLARK, Old and New World Nomadism, H. Barnard and W. Wendrich, pp. 280-306. ROGER N. LOCKWOOD, AND TIM A. CWALINSKI Cotsen Advanced Seminars 4. Cotsen Institute 2005. The Fish Community and Fishery of Burt Lake, Cheboygan County, Michigan in 2001-02 of Archaeology, University of California, Los with Emphasis on Walleyes and Northern Pike. Angeles. Special Report 36. Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries, Lansing. HOWEY, MEGAN C. L., AND JOHN M. O'SHEA 2006. Bear's Journey and the Study of Ritual in American Antiquity 71(2):261- HAYDEN, BRIAN Archaeology. 1997. Observations on the Prehistoric Social and 282. Economic Structure of the North American Plateau. World Archaeology 29:242-261. INGOLD, TIMOTHY 2000. On Territoriality and Sedentism. Current 1983. The Significance of Storage in Hunting Anthropology 41:109-112. Societies. Man 18(0553-571. CAMP, CACHE, STAY AWHILE 41 JOCHIM, MICHAEL Liu, A. Q., AND G. W. K. MOORE 1981. Strategies for Survival. Academic Press, New 2004. Lake-Effect Snowstorms over Southern York. Ontario, Canada, and their Associated Synoptic-Scale Environment. KATZENBERG, M. ANNA, HENRY SCHWARCZ, Monthly Weather Review 132(11):2595-261o. MARTIN KNYF, AND F. JEROME MELBYE 1995. Stable Isotope Evidence for Maize LOVIS, WILLIAM A. Horticulture and Paleodiet in Southern 1973. Late Woodland Cultural Dynamics in the Ontario, Canada. American Antiquity 60:335- Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan. 350. Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. KEELEY, LAWRENCE H. 1976. Quarter Sections and Forests: An Example 1988. Hunter-Gatherer Economic Complexity of Probability Sampling in the Northeastern and 'Population Pressure': A Cross-Cultural Woodlands. American Antiquity Analysis. Journal of Anthropological 41(3):364-372. 1978a. A Case Study of Construction Impacts on Archaeology 7:373-411. Archaeological Sites in Michigan's Inland Waterway. Journal of Field archaeology KOYAMA, SHUZO, AND DAVID H. THOMAS 5:357-360. (EDITORS) 1978b. A Numerical Taxonomic Analysis of 1981. Affluent Foragers: Pacific Coasts East and Changing Woodland Site Location Strategies West. Senri Ethnological Studies 9. National on an Interior Lake Chain. The Michigan Museum of Ethnology, Osaka. Academician 11(1):39-48. 2001. Clay Effigy Representations of the Bear and KRAKKER, JAMES J. Mishipishu: Algonquian Iconography from 1999. Late Woodland Settlement Patterns, the Late Woodland Johnson Site, Northern Population, and Social Organization Viewed Lower Michigan. Midcontinental Journal of from Southern Michigan. In Retrieving Archaeology 26(1):105-119. Michigan's Buried Past: The Archaeology of the Great Lakes State, edited by John R. Halsey, pp. MARTIN, SUSAN R. 228-243. Bulletin 64. Cranbrook Institute of 1989. Reconsideration of Aboriginal Fishing Science, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. Strategies in the Northern Great Lakes Region. American Antiquity LAW, R. G. 54(3)594-604. 1999. Pits Long, Large and Prestigious: Recognition MARTIN, SCOTT W. J. of Varieties of Maori Kumara Storage Pits in 2008. Languages Past and Present: Archaeological northern New Zealand. New Zealand Journal Approaches to the Appearance of Northern of Archaeology 21:29-45. Iroquoian Speakers in the Lower Great Lakes Region of North America. LEIGHLY, J. American Antiquity 73(3)441-463. 1941. Effect of the Great Lakes on the Annual March Temperature in their Vicinity. Papers of the MCPHERRON, ALAN Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters 1967. The Juntunen Site and the Late Woodland 27:377-414. Prehistory of the Upper Great Lakes Area. Anthropological Papers No. 3o. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 54 42 THE MICHIGAN ARCHAEOLOGIST PRICE, T. DOUGLAS, AND JAMES A. BROWN MILNER, CLARE M. 1985. Aspects of Hunter-Gatherer Complexity. In 1998. Ceramic Style, Social Differentiation, and Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence Resource Uncertainty in the Late Prehistoric of Cultural Complexity, edited by T. Douglas Upper Great Lakes. Unpublished Ph.D. Price and James A. Brown, pp. 3-20. Academic Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Press, San Diego. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
ROWLEY-CONWY, P., AND M. ZVELEBIL O'SHEA, JOHN M. 1989. Saving it for Later: Storage by Prehistoric 1988. Social Organization and Mortuary Behavior Hunter-Gatherers in Europe. In Bad Year in the Late Woodland Period in Michigan. Economics: Cultural Responses to Risk and In Interpretations of Culture Change in the Uncertainty, edited by P. Halstead and John Eastern Woodlands during the Late Woodland M. O'Shea, pp. 4o-56. Cambridge University Period, edited by Richard Yerkes, pp. 68-85. Press, Cambridge. Occasional Papers in Anthropology Number 3. Ohio State University, Columbus. SAKAGUCHI, T. 2003. Inland Foragers and the Adoption of Maize 2009. Storage Adaptation among Hunter-Gatherers: Agriculture in the Upper Great Lakes of North A Quantitative Approach to the Jomon Period. America. Before Farming: The Archaeology and Journal of Anthropological Archaeology Anthropology of Hunter-Gatherers 2(3):1-21. 28(3):29o-3o3.
O'SHEA, JOHN M., AND CLARE M. MILNER SCHAETZL, RANDALL J., BRUCE D. KNAPP, AND 2002. Material Indicators of Territory, Identity, A. ISARD and Interaction in a Prehistoric Tribal System. SCOTT 2005. Modeling Soil Temperatures and the Mesic- The Archaeology of Tribal Societies, edited In Frigid Boundary in the Central Great Lakes by William A. Parkinson, pp. 200-226. Region, 1951-2000. Soil Science Society of International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann America Journal. 69,-,(A):2033-2041. Arbor, Michigan.
SCHNEIDER, R. PEARSALL, DEBORAH 1942. Report of Cleaning out a Cache Pit. Totem 1995. Landscape Ecosystems of the University Pole io(1):5. of Michigan Biological Station: Ecosystem Diversity and Ground-cover Diversity. STOTHERS, DAVID M. University of Michigan School of Natural 1999. The Late Woodland Models for Cultural Resources and Environment, Ann Arbor. Development in Southern Michigan. In Retrieving Michigan's Buried Past: The PETRUSO, KARL M., AND JERE M. WICKENS Archaeology of the Great Lakes State, edited 1984. The Acorn in Aboriginal Subsistence by John R. Halsey, pp. 194-211. Bulletin 64. in Eastern North America: A Report on Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Miscellaneous Experiments. In Experiments Hills, Michigan. and Observations on Aboriginal Wild Plant Food Utilization in Eastern North America, TESTART, ALAIN edited by Patrick J. Munson. Prehistory 1982. The Significance of Food Storage among Research Series 6(2):360-378. Indiana Hunter-Gatherers: Residence Patterns, Historical Society, Indianapolis. Population Densities, and Social Inequalities. Current Anthropology 23:523-537. CAMP, CACHE, STAY AWHILE 43 WESSON, CAMERON B. 1999. Chiefly Power and Food Storage in Southeastern North America. World Archaeology 13:145-164.
WIESSNER, POLLY 1982. Risk, Reciprocity and Social Influences on !Kung San Economics. In Politics and History in Band Societies, edited by Eleanor B. Leacock and Richard B. Lee, pp. 61-84. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.