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