The Northeast, as we delimit it for the purposes of this chapter, is =cult ktegrate in a cogent manner, and northeastern paleoethnobo~cal eU& has not provided balanced coverage of all the periods and subregions. this chapter, therefore, we define the Northeast narrowly, as an area &ding the boreal regions. Our focus is on the Great Lakes region, Atlantic and New England. This chapter deals with the Eastern Collecting, astern Coastal, and Northern Mixed Economy patterns. Ill g the past 20 years, researchers at the University of Toronto have J \\ tensi~elystudied a variety of plant remains collections. These include assem- tfa& Northeast from the late precontact Iroquoian seed-~arkerand Wallace sites neap orthwest end of Lake Ontario; the Auger, Ball, Bidmead, and Peden sites Georgian Bay in Huronia (Monckton 1992); the early Late Woodland GARYW. CRAWFORDAND DAVIDG. SMITH dB&, Cayuga Bridge, Meyer, and Forster sites (Bowyer 1995; Saunders 2; Smith and Crawford 1997); a number of Early Iroquoian sites in south- tern Ontario (Ounjian 1998); an Iroquoian site in New York State onckton 1988); the probable Algonkian Shawana and Providence Bay sites Manitoulin Island, the Hunter's Point site on Bruce Peninsula, and the ghland Lake site in the Madawaska Highlands (Crawford 1989; Goode 1993; Gernet 1992); and the Late Maritime Woodland Skull Island site in New 0th foragers and peoples with a mixed fora ck (Leonard 1991, 1996) (Figures 6.1 and 6.2). Because a single chap- farming economy lived in the Northeast in the ot do justice to all of the data available, we explore the paleoethno- past. About 40 distinct local populations occupi of the Northeast focusing on primary data from University of Toronto region stretching from the Atlantic coast west to the Gre earch. Data from the Seed-Barker and Wallace sites are reported here for and from the Arctic south to the headwaters are first time, as are summary metric data on cultigen remains from Ontario. Mississippi River. Despite this extraordinary cultural have made every attempt to appropriately integrate the University of researchers have discerned five cultural patterns through onto data with paleoethnobotanicd data from the rest of the Northeast. space: Eastern Collecting, Adena-Hopewell, Mississi t we outline the history of research in the region. Next we briefly dis- Northern Iroquoian, and Northeastern Coastal (Trig nvironmental history, emphasizing pollen data. Our approach in the The patterns that we distinguish di£fesomewhat quent text is to move from general to specific issues. First we summa- scheme. We consider ulterior New England groups aleoethnobotanical studies, grouped according to the three main cul- 2 s-i crops to be distinctive, ~articularlybecause they wer atterns on which we focus. The Eastern Collecting pattern is subdi- Algonkian rather than Iroquoian. Furthermore, because to four topics: (1) Paleoindian and Archaic, (2) Early and Middle I3 3 groups occupied the westernmost edge of the Northeast &and, (3) Late Woodland and Upper Mississippian (non-mixed-econ- H we feel that the label "Northern Iroquoian" is too limi examples), (4) and wild rice collecting. Discussion of the Northern 3 we prefer "Northern Mixed Economy." The New d pattern is split into two topics, Late Woodland 1 and Late Woodland 3' Algonkian mixed-economy groups are discussed in the 1% Middle, and Late). The history of crop husbandry is taken up in a 5 the Northeastern Coastal pattern, which subsumes gr ate section, as is a detailed examination of uldividual crops and anthro- 3 3 varying dependence on crops, including those with non me environments. t& a-t 173 native plant remains. Sites of unspecified cultural affiliation brought the to In the 1960s and 1970s, paleoethnobotany suffered from a lack ofinsti- number of sites with native plant remains to 59 and the total number of tutional support in the Northeast. Eastern Canada lacked proper resources to 21 (Yamell 1964:2 1). Cultigen remains had been recovered from a larg completely. This is no longer entirely the case. In the 1980s and 1990s, field number of Late Woodland sites. Despite the paucity of archaeobotanical da schools and cultural resource management (CRM) work have regularly in the mid-1960s, Yamell succeeded in stimulatingpaleoethnobotanical rese hcluded flot~tion.In addition, two doctoral theses have focused on paleo- in the Northeast, and anyone researching Northeast paleoethnobotany to ethnobotanical data in Ontario (Monckton 1992; Ounjian 1998; Saunders must familiarize him- or herself with Yamell 1964. 2002). Curiously, though, among the 19 contributors to Hart's 1999 volume Two years after his monograph appeared, Yamell produced a separate trea on Northeast paleoethnobotany, the minority were specialists. The demand merit of Wisconsin plant remains, adding reports from three sites and brin for research is outstripping our ability to train paleoethnobotanists. the total number of published reports of identified plant remains in that stat Yarnell (1964) explored a number of lines of research that, in some cases, to 10 (Yarnell 1966). The three sites all postdated A.D. 950. Thirteen taxa w have seen significant progress in the last three and a half decades. These reported, three of them (maize, bean, and cucurbit) cultigens. In the late 196 include cultigen distributions and the correlation of these distributions with the Effigy Mound Project in Wisconsin incorporated extensive flotation as climatic data; seasonality interpretations; anthropogenic change, including of its program (Hurley 1975). This program was the first of its land in the s the creation and use of disclimaxvegetation; plant range modifications; small but, unfortunately, it had little impact on furthering pale~ethnobotan~ seeds as food; the history of crops in the area; and the degree of correspon- Northeast because it fell victim to a common problem, namely, a lac dence between plant remains and ethnobotanical data. resources and expertise to complete the analysis. The samples that were c Research foci today are varied. Studies include examination of the inter- lected were not examined in any detail until the 1980s (Crawford and Hurl action between foragers and farmers (e.g., Algonkian and Huron); the ori- 1982). Flotation subsequently tookplace in Wisconsin at the Armstrong site gins of food production; the nature of local adaptations; the extent to which the early 1970s (Crawford and King 1978) and since then has become a stan- cultigens indigenous to the U.S. Midwest, such as sumpweed (lva annzla ssp. dard data recovery technique (e.g., Arzigian 1987; Arzigian et al. 1990). macrocarpd), rnaygrass (Phdaris cadiniana), chenopod (Chenopodiinn By the mid-1970s, research was still lagging in the Northeast. In fa berlandieri ssp.@nesianu?fi), and sdower (see Table 6.1 for scientific names MacNeish claimed that in the intervening years since the publication of summary), intruded into the Northeast; questions pertaining to Iroquoian in situ theory of Iroquois origins, "environmental, ecological, and other food production and subsistence ecology in general; spatial patterning of sophisticated study in Iroquoia... seems rarely to have been attempted or com- plant remains; site formation processes; detailed examination of specific pleted" (1976:96). Despite this observation, which was for the most part true, plants, for example, the characteristics of local sunflower; the precontact the first flotation sampling had already begun at a few Ontario Late extent of wild rice use; the role of maple (Acer sacchanmz) sap in precontact Woodland sites (Fecteau 1985; King and Crawford 1979). Since 1973, animal subsistence (Munson 1989); and variation in archaeological corn, as well and plant remains analyses have become commonplace on Late Woodland as other topics. sites in the province. That year marked the beginning of extensive flotation One of the more widely studied topics, the beginnings of food production, 2P at the Late Ontario Iroquoian Draper and White sites (Hayden 1979) an is becoming increasingly well documented in the Midwest, but in the g at the Middle Ontario Iroquoian Crawford Lake site (Finlayson and Byrne Northeast the period of early plant husbandry was extremely poorly known 2^ 1975). During the following decade, more than 30 post-A.D900 sites were before the 1990s (Fritz 1990). A research program begun in 1993 at the sampled for detailed plant-related subsistence-ecological data. In addition, University of Toronto has helped clarify many of the issues. A few sites 4 cultigen remains were reported from more than 100 Late Woodland sites in located in the northern extremes of the mixed-forest zone provide insights 9 Ontario. By the late 1970s, collections were being amassed from sites dat- into the paleoethnobotany of the Eastern Collecting pattern. For example, 5 ing to as early as the Archaic period. research that relates specifically to Yamell's Juntunen workwas accomplished 3 ^a. r-t A -- Table 6.1 Commonly Identified Plant Taxa from Northeastern Archaeological Sites Mixed Mixed Early/Middle NE Coastal Economy Economy Common Name Scientific Name Paleoindian Archaic Woodland Northern Tier (Pottery) (South) (North) NEW WORLD CULTIGENS Bean (common) Phaseolw vzilgaris x x x x Bottle gourd Lngenaria siceraria x Chenopod Chempodium berlandiwi x Cordmaize Zea mays x x x x Cucurbit Cuairbita pep0 x x Little barley Hordeziv~pztsillwn x x Sunflower Helianthw annzizts ssp. macrocqvs x x x Tobacco Nicotiana sp., cf. N. nuticn x x x OLD WORLD CULTIGENS Barley Hordezinz vzilgarc Flax Linwn sp. Pea Pisii7/; sativzinz Rhubarb Rheum sp. Rye Secale Wheat Eitimaeati'vzin~ GRAIN~GREENS Aster family Asteraceae Wild sumpweed Iva nn~uii Wild? sunflower Helinnthw sp. Bean family Fabaceae Buckbean Me~zyanthesw!foliata Groundnut (tuber) Apios tiiberosa Hog peanut Ampbicarpa bracteata Bush clover Lespedeza sp. Tick clover Desr~zodiumsp. Vetchling Lathy-iia sp. Chenopodium/Amiiraiitbw sp. Amaranth Amnranthts sp. Chenopod C/~cnopodizinzsp. Chenopod C. berlandieri ssp. jonesianum Maple-leafed C. hybridurn ssp. gigantospenm goosefoot Chickweed Stellaria sp. Grass family Poaceae Barnyard grass Echinochloa critsgal/i Big bluestem Aiidropogon Crabgrass Digitaria sp.