Marginal Horticulturalists or Maize Agriculturalists?

AltaMira Press

Marginal Horticulturalists or Maize Agriculturalists? Archaeobotanical, Paleopathological, and Isotopic Evidence Relating to Langford Tradition Maize Consumption Author(s): Thomas E. Emerson, Kristin M. Hedman and Mary L. Simon Source: Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 30, No. 1 (SPRING, 2005), pp. 67-118 Published by: AltaMira Press on behalf of the Midwest Archaeological Conference, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20708222 . Accessed: 25/03/2013 18:28 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Midwest Archaeological Conference, Inc. and AltaMira Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.126.32.13 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:28:29 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MarginalHorticulturists orMaize Agriculturalists? Paleopatho logical, Archaeobotanical, Evidence and Isotopie Relatingto Maize Consumption Tradition Langford Thomas E. EmersonrKristinM. Hedmanr

andMary L. Simon IllinoisTransportationArchaeological Research Program, Universityof Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign, 209 Nuclear Physics Lab (MC-571), 23 East Stadium Drive, Champaign, Illinois61821. [email protected]

abstract

Langford Tradition horticulturewas long viewed as representing a marginalized form of Middle Mississippian agriculture resulting from an adaptation to the less fertile landscapes and marginal climatic conditions of northern Illinois. This adaptation was characterized as involving semi-sedentary maize horticulture combined with an intensive use of wild game and plants. Until recently direct evidence for reconstructing Langford diet and subsistence practices had been limited. In this firstsystematic study of the specific evidence of Langford maize consumption from archaeology we suggest dependent

archaeobotany paleopathology are best that these people

and studies isotopie as maize characterized

agriculturalists.

7/maize was universally available in theMidwest by at least A.D. 900 . . .why did theOneota not practice agriculture with the same flourish as theirnearbyMiddle Mississippian neighbors??John P. Hart

(1990)

The correlation of agriculture,1 especially maize production, with increased sociopolitical complexity has a long history in studies of the evolution and development 1980; Willey Southeastern

of New World

native cultures (e.g., Griffin 1943, 1952; Hall 1966). The observations of early European travelers amongst US and Mesoamerican chiefly and state-level groups

reinforced this perspective. We now know that the large-scale adoption of in eastern North America took place maize agriculture and consumption to slightly predate the Terminal Late about A.D. 900 and appeared Vol. 30,No. 1 (Spring2005), pp.67-118. MidcontinentalJournal ofArchaeology, ? Copyright 2005 MidwestArchaeologicalConference,Inc. All rightsreserved.

This content downloaded from 130.126.32.13 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:28:29 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

67

68

Emerson, Hedman, and Simon

cultural

Woodland-Mississippian American midcontinent

transition

in much

of

the North

(McElrath et al. 2000; Simon 2000). between of correlation The degree complexity, sociopolitical is certain far from and (e.g., population density, agricultural production Brown 1982; Hart 1990). It might have been the adoption of maize agriculture that created the opportunity for the emergence ofMississippian

of maize complexity, or, conversely, the intensification and dominance of that been the have emergence. The product production might relationship of these variables is even less apparent in the case of northern

It is and Oneota). societies (i.e., Upper Mississippian Mississippianized in variations midcontinental that sociopolitical complexity may possible the be related to the intensity of agricultural production. Consequently, is a significant factor in and consumption in the late prehistory of this developments

level of agricultural production interpreting sociopolitical region.

Identifying the agriculture practices of eleventh to fourteenth century societies is not a simple process. Current midcontinental Mississippianized Midwestern taxonomy recognizes a significant cultural divide in the

cultures late prehistory: On one hand are the Mississippian on to the other, are the Cahokia; epitomized by their intimate connection cultures represented by localized Mississippianized Upper Mississippian region's

native groups (see Figure 1). This Upper Mississippian two spatially distinct subdivisions, the Fort Ancient

culture comprised peoples of Ohio, people of Illinois,

Kentucky, and Indiana (Griffin 1943) and the Oneota and points west (Emerson and Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri Wisconsin, The Oneota "Tradition" has been Brown 1992:80-84; Henning 1998a). on geographical subunits based into further divided many generally In northern Illinois two local location (e.g. Henning 1998a, 1998b). are known

manifestations "Traditions".

as

the Fisher-Huber

and

the Langford

It is Langford Tradition horticultural/agricultural and those of Cahokian contrasted with

as

practices, northern

specifically Mississippian people, that are the focus of our research. The relationship, interaction and subsistence practices of Langford people as compared to their Oneota neighbors to the north has been extensively covered by Jeske (various, most Cahokian

recently 2003) and Oneota

divergent. Cahokian

and will not be addressed here.

were widely sociopolitical organization society represents the apex of cultural, social, and in the midcontinent (e.g., Emerson 1997a, 1997b,

political complexity 2002; Fowler 1997; Milner

Its 1990, 1998; Pauketat 1994, 1998, 2004). core contained nearly 200 platform and central political-administrative

This content downloaded from 130.126.32.13 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:28:29 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

69

Marginal Horticulturists orMaize Agriculturists?

Figure 1. Locations of Selected Sites and Regions Discussed

in Text.

Langford

Sites; 1) Cooke,

CK52,

2) Washington

Irving, K52,

3) Reeves, WI555, 4) Valhall, W0354, 5) Keeshin Farm, W023,

6) Zimmerman, LS 13, 7) Robinson's Reserve, CK2, 8) Material Service

Quarry, LS50, 9) Gentleman Farm, LS27, 10) Oak Forest, CK53.

Northern Mississip

pian Sites; 11)Lundy JD140. Central

Illinois River Valley

(CIRV) Sites; 12)TreeRow, F53, 13) Orendorf,

F107,

14) Morton, F2698, 15) Dickson Mounds, FIO. Lower

Illinois River Valley

(LIRV)Sites,16)Hill Creek, PK525, C382, GE20,

17) Worthy Merrigan, 18) Audrey North, 19) Schild, GE15.

American

Bottom

(AB)

region.

mortuary mounds, community plazas and monuments, and elite housing. It covered an area of more than 14.5 km2 in the American Bottom floodplain near St. Louis. Fourteen contemporaneous mound centers were located within 25 km of the administrative core. Interspersed around and between these centers were thousands of scattered households of family farmers as well as the nodal households ofminor elites, rural temples, and

small mortuary sites. The local area controlled by Cahokia probably exceeded 9,300 km2, and was the most densely occupied zone in the upper Mississippi River valley from the tenth to early fourteenth centuries. From

or Bottom sprang, either through migration a series of twelfth century northern chiefly societies in the emulation, central Illinois River valley, the Apple River valley in northwestern Illinois, and, perhaps, even the Red Wing locality inMinnesota (Emerson 1991; the American

also papers in Emerson and Lewis 1991 and Stoltman 1991). Ultimately these northern chiefdoms were more influential in the political, social, and

economic

history of the Upper

Mississippi

River valleys

This content downloaded from 130.126.32.13 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:28:29 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

native

Emerson, Hedman, and Simon

than Cahokia itself (Emerson 1991, 1999a, 2002: Jeske 1999; peoples Pauketat 2004). The people of the Langford Tradition lived primarily in the upper Illinois River valley and itsnortheastern tributaries between the twelfth and 1999a, 1999b; early fourteenth centuries A.D. (Bird 1997; Emerson Emerson and Brown 1992; Jeske 1990, 2000). They were bordered on the south by Mississippian chiefdoms of the Spoon River and LaMoine River cultures (Conrad 1991). Emerson (1999a) has argued that the contentious relationship between these Central Illinois chiefdoms and the indigenous Late Woodland populations was one factor that encouraged the unique development of the settlement, mortuary, political, and material patterns that archaeologists recognize as the Langford Tradition. Jeske (1989, 1990, 1992, 2000, 2003; Hunter 2002) has noted the role that Langford

to a specific niche in the Prairie Peninsula may have played in cohesive cultural forming Langford configuration. agricultural to depend on digging sticks and lacked any form of technology appeared hoes (neither stone nor largemammal scapula hoes have been found, e.g., in lived diverse Jeske 1989). People villages and camps scattered along the adaptation

a

floodplains, terraces, and bluffs of the northern rivers. It is possible that some of the large villages may have been seasonally occupied with the population splitting up into family groups and dispersing across the region in the winter

and Emerson (Jeske 1990), although both Jeske (2000:232) were believe that other large villages occupied year around. (1999b, 1999c) Some of the major villages have associated accretional burial mounds.

suggests a tribal level social and some instances more integrated political political organization although in consolidation 1998; Emerson (perhaps chieftaincies sensu Redmond

Overall,

1999a)

the archaeological

evidence

is indicated.

Models of Late PrehistoricMidwestern Agriculture The perceived dichotomy between Cahokian and Langford agriculture stems structure of the two directly from assumptions about the sociopolitical In large part, this traditional view was groups. generated by an perspective that linked crop production potential and social 1959; Brown 1982; Hart 1990), i.e., Upper complexity (a la White culture appeared less complex than Middle Mississippian, Mississippian ergo, they must have had a less stable and efficient "horticultural" (as archaeological

to "agricultural") system. Simply put, following this line of reasoning, different agricultural productivity and efficiency translate directly

opposed

This content downloaded from 130.126.32.13 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:28:29 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Marginal Horticulturists orMaize

Agriculturists?

71

into different levels of social and political complexity. It isworthwhile these assumptions were based.

to

examine the evidence on which

Cahokia

and the Northern Mississippian

Subsistence

are fortunate

in knowing much about Cahokian farming (e.g., Johannessen 1984a, 1984b, 1993a, 1993b; Lopinot 1992, 1994; Rindos and Johannessen 1991). These studies have shown that Cahokians were

We

their corn production with farmers supplementing principally maize squash and starchy and oily seeds. They often used stone hoes in their fields and may have possessed large communally worked fields as well as house

the studies Isotopie support (Woods 1987). evidence of substantial maize consumption by American inhabitants (e.g., Buikstra and Milner 1991; Buikstra et al. 1994;

gardens archaeobotanical

Bottom

et al. 2002). It seems established that dense populations of Cahokians were engaged in intensive crop production, and likely supplied

Hedman

some of the surplus crops to a centralized elite to supplement their diet and to support large communal celebrations (Ambrose et al. 2003; Pauketat 1998; Pauketat and Emerson 1991, 1997; Pauketat and Lopinot 1997). The

isotopie, and archaeological evidence paleopathological, Cahokian for the importance of agriculture are further supported by the archaeobotanical,

focus of the local iconography on symbols suggestive of renewal and fertility (e.g., Emerson 1989; 1997a, 1997c). Unfortunately our information on the agricultural pursuits of the

considerable

contemporaneous Mississippian people who occupied the central Illinois River and the Apple River valleys is very limited. Subsistence research at the Orendorf village site in Fulton County (e.g., Emerson 1981, pers. comm. 2004; Paloumpis 1981, Speth 1981) recovered extensive evidence for the use squash, as well as for deer and elk, birds, and large fish. The Lundy site on the Apple River possessed a diverse faunal assemblage and extensive evidence ofmaize agriculture (Colburn 1989; Schroeder 1989). Subjectively, our impression is that northern Mississippian populations fully exploited a ofmaize,

rich and varied environment in addition to the active production ofmaize.

Oneota

and Langford Subsistence

practices are not so well known as that of their neighbors. Part of the problem rests in research focused on establishing commonalities among Oneota groups, often at the expense of

Oneota

horticultural

Cahokian

the recognition of local variation

(Hart 1990). This focus on broad patterns

This content downloaded from 130.126.32.13 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:28:29 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Emerson, Hedman, and Simon

stems from the historical

situation

in which

Oneota

subsistence was

defined by reference to climatic factors and Mississippian subsistence at B. in the Cahokia. Griffin southeast, James practices especially forcefully summarized this perspective in a series of articles in the early 1960s (1960a,

1960b,

1961). He characterized Oneota as a form of "northern" culture that subsequently devolved due to deteriorating

Mississippian climatic conditions.

Partially as a result of his views and similar ones (e.g., Baerreis and Bryson 1965; Gibbon 1972; Stoltman and Baerreis 1983) Oneota subsistence has been seen as an adaptation of Mississippian

areas. in marginal conditions agricultural practices to environmental was that this subsistence Michalik proposed adaptation (1982) a and Middle accomplished Mississippian by expanding diversifying economy

through the utilization

of a broader

spectrum of plants and agriculture, and developing a

decreasing dependence on maize settlement system dependent on seasonal residential movements. has pointed out that the areas However, Brown (1982:110-112)

animals,

included easily tilled soils peoples by Upper Mississippian of substantial harvests, and, capable producing consequently, were hardly in this same area were He that historic farmers noted aboriginal marginal. dominated

able to produce

Blair

largemaize

surpluses when so required (e.g., the Sauk in on Brown's hypothesis, Hart (1990) further

1911:11:151). Building analyzed the importance of environmental factors in the intensification of maize investigations production using a cross-cultural approach. His demonstrated that population density levels and the nature of agricultural management were generally more important than climate in determining the intensity of agricultural production. Given such findings, Emerson and Brown observed "it is unlikely that the cultural differences between Middle

were the results of natural constraint on food and Upper Mississippians must to the social organization of production as a One look productivity. source of difference" (1992:81).

societies in the La To date only Gallagher's studies of the Oneota some Oneota that have locality agricultural practices suggested on and intensive also see Gibbon 1994; Arzigian being (Gallagher verged

Crosse

in that 1972 for the importance of "Oneota" maize). Oneota populations a of system of ridged locality practiced the construction and maintenance fields (Gallagher 1989; Gallagher et al. 1985). Gallagher and his colleagues

involved in a program of a wide that promoted range of more was to the resource acquisitions. This tactic in opposition typical that with model "intensification of specialization" anthropological populations suggested that Oneota "intensification with diversification"

were

This content downloaded from 130.126.32.13 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:28:29 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Marginal Horticulturists orMaize Agriculturists?

Jljf

promoted one or two resources at the expense of others. Most researchers would class Cahokian subsistence practices in this latter category. From Gallagher's perspective both Oneota and Cahokians probably would have engaged in "intensive" resource pursuits but would markedly different avenues to attain that goal. been

have

taken

To some degree, studies of Oneota subsistence also have been shaped their perceived similarity to historic period tribal subsistence practices. by The rich historic and ethnographic records for Prairie Peninsula groups have provided detailed documentation of maize horticulture, localized communal and and hunting gathering, hunting of large mammals, especially the bison (e.g., see Brown 1965). There is no doubt that the connection between

some Oneota

archaeological expressions and historic Siouan groups, especially speakers, has done much to push Oneota subsistence models towards these historic analogues (Henning is This reinforced Brown's James perspective argument 1998a:360-364). by the various

that the late prehistoric societies moving into the Prairie Peninsula rapidly assumed a common adaptation of "... mixed agriculture, local hunting and . . ." gathering, and communal hunting (Brown 1965:203). What

do we

know

(or think we

know) about Langford peoples' research contributed additional

farming practices? While continuing it did not substantially details on Langford subsistence, alter the at Griffin least interpretation promoted by fortyyears ago. This perspective was reinforced by Faulkner's determination that Langford was an

adaptation to "localized environments within the prairie-deciduous forest biotic areas of the upper Mississippi valley through simple farming , and the exploitation of the diverse and abundant natural plant and animal foods"

(Faulkner 1972:13). Archaeologists generally believed that the these northern of have been most ecology regions would marginal an societies that utilized efficiently exploited by equal mixture of horticulture, hunting, fishing, and gathering. Such a diversified subsistence

reliance on agricultural produce, was featuring a diminished to create settlement, social, and political patterns thatwere more presumed flexible and less hierarchical than those of theMississippian societies to the south. These perspectives have promoted continuing assumptions that

base,

agriculture, in general, was a "supplemental" rather than primary subsistence resource (e.g., Brown 1982; Jeske 1989, 1990, 1992).

Oneota

Jeske (1989, 1990, 2000, 2003; Hunter 2002) has been one of the few researchers to perceive that theremight have been a noteworthy difference between Langford farming practices and those portrayed as being "typical" of Oneota

peoples. Using a selected sample of Fisher-Huber and Langford

This content downloaded from 130.126.32.13 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:28:29 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

74

Emerson, Hedman, and Simon

site locations from the Chicago

area and the Rock River he observed

that

Langford sites were generally associated with dryer soils, the Fisher-Huber sites with wetter soils. He interprets this as reflecting the use of different agricultural technologies with the Langford peoples using a digging stick while

the Fisher-Huber

these scapula hoes. What employed as to implied differing technologies differing farming and subsistence was not As known. Jeske noted, practices (1989:115) what was needed to address this issue was new data ". . . to determine the importance of maize inUpper Mississippian diets/' peoples

At the same time researchers like Brown (1982) that there were no environmental concluding

and Hart (1990) were reasons why maize

agriculture should not have done well among northern "Oneota" groups. as The older environmentally deterministic model that saw maize zones was in to the Oneota be proven unproductive occupied by people incorrect. As Hart notes

in the epigraph, the absence of evidence for agriculture in the Oneota areas seemed inexplicable. At the researchers time, simply lacked the physical evidence to assess Langford agricultural potential or tomeasure the degree of maize dependence. intensive maize

The Samples The Langford Tradition Sample siteswere some of the earliest archaeological sites to be systematically explored in Illinois. Pioneer work by George Langford and village site salvaged (Christensen 2003) at sites like Fisher mounds

Langford Tradition

hundreds of burials and some habitation materials

in advance of quarrying in the first few decades of the twentieth century. In the following

operations decades dozens

sites were discovered and of Langford village and mound in Emerson Brown tested and Such many (summarized 1992:84-86). were excavations often salvage efforts done with minimal recordation or were performed at a time when subsistence was not a primary research concern. Even today few habitation site excavations have been fully reported (for exceptions see Craig and Galloy 1996; Emerson 1999c; Jeske 2000, 2002). Only two mortuary sites were excavated in a manner providing

adequate contextual data to make them suitable for this project?Material Emerson and Hedman Service Quarry (11LS50) (Bareis 1964-1965; 1999) et Farm (11LS27) al. Willis and Gentleman 1967, 1941). (Brown Fortuitously these two sites are only a few kilometers apart, 11LS50 on a

bluff top location and 11LS27 on the floodplain

across the valley.

This content downloaded from 130.126.32.13 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:28:29 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Marginal Horticulturists orMaize Agriculturists?

75

two mortuary excavations were both salvaged under difficult Farm mound The Gentlemen and village (11LS27) was located on the southern floodplain of the Illinois River 3.2 km to the east These

circumstances.

County. The 1.2+ ha site was scheduled to be channel of the Illinois River in the fall of 1940. modifications destroyed by WPA archaeologists were allowed four weeks to salvage what they could of Ottawa

in LaSalle

from the site. Crews were able to recover the remains of 48 individuals of estimated to be in the single mound. Ceramics with the burials and from the village demonstrated that the sitewas associated the 200-300

bodies

with the Langford Tradition (Brown et al. 1967; Willis 1941). The Material Service Quarry site (11LS50), with a single mound and village, was located on a northern bluff of the Illinois River about 4.8 miles to the east of Ottawa

in LaSalle

County. Charles Bareis, University of 1964 in response to the Illinois, began salvage excavations in December, active quarrying of the site. Previous and ongoing looting had heavily

the mound. information on the site is limited, damaged Although estimates made at the time of its destruction suggest it contained a single cm in height and 21 m in diameter. about 60-90 mortuary mound Ultimately the remains of 35 individuals were recovered from intact and disturbed contexts. We estimate that at least 100+ burials must have been

present in the original mound. An accompanying bluff top village was believed to be .4 to 2 ha in size. All of the artifacts recovered from the burials and village debris can be confidently associated with the Langford Emerson and Hedman 1999). (Bareis 1964-1965; For the purposes of this research itwas important to independently

Tradition

verify the contemporaneity

samples to provide, to the control beyond the phase level.

of the mortuary

greatest degree possible, chronological Emerson (1999a:23-27), in a recent compilation of 46 calibrated Langford Tradition dates, showed that fully 70 percent of the assays7 midpoints fell in the thirteenth century A.D. and that nearly 80 percent of the dates fell in 1100 and 1300. Jeske (2000: 266-268, the period between A.D. 2003: a to different perspective, prefers place Langford 167-169), taking slightly between A.D. 1000-1400. As part of this research we obtained four assays on remains from the Gentleman Material

Farm mound

Service Quarry mound

11LS50 had been

(11LS27) and four from the (Table 1). Two earlier assays from

(11LS50) the auspices of Robert Hall (pers. comm. of the six 11LS50 samples range from cal A.D. 1227

run under

1999). The midpoints to 1280 with a mean of cal A.D. 1162 to 1295. The midpoints 1016 to 1256. The cal A.D.

1257. The one-sigma range is from cal A.D. of the four 11LS27 samples run from cal A.D.

1016 date

is from a flexed premound

This content downloaded from 130.126.32.13 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:28:29 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

burial

Emerson,

and

Hedman,

g o

Simon

g o

cd cd c g Tj

J5?

'u "u 73

y ^? j?? Ji?

?iwwco|T|?T^(0(fl(Otfl

m cN o IN h*

o

h IN

\o h fN rt LO m LT) fT)Ci Ci Ci Ci f