Pre-Contact Farming in the Eastern Woodlands Part II: Technologies of Cultivation

 

Introduction

       The first issue of volume 7 focused on soils and methods of cultivation – hills vs garden beds and ridge and furrow systems - for growing crops. In this issue, I will discuss some of the tools used for the creation and cultivation of agricultural fields. My narrative is based on a recent study on early farming in southwest Asia by Chris Scarre. In that article, Scarre (2005:184) described what he calls the “technologies of cultivation.” By technologies he is referring to storage facilities, grinding stones for processing grains and seeds, and tools of cultivation such as hoes. To Scarre’s list I will add axes since these were used for the clearing of the vegetation. I would alter his definition to emphasize the technologies associated with cultivation.

     Cereal grains underly the development of all great civilizations or cultures across the world. Under certain conditions cereal grains can be stored for later consumption in either above ground or within subterranean pit features. On a more local level, within the Midwest and the mid-Atlantic, the early strategy for maize storage utilized below ground facilities. For populations that were semisedentary, i.e., they resided at a locality for multiple months before dispersing to other locations for the remainder of the year, subsurface storage was beneficial because it concealed the grain from pests and others. When populations shifted to nucleated communities and abandoned seasonal dispersion, maize and other consumables could be stored above-ground. For the Monongahela tradition, the strategy or solution for above-ground storage took the form of post constructed appendages that were connected to residential dwellings. While some dwellings possess a single appendage, other structures can possess up to three appendages. Whether these were time successive features, i.e., built over a period of time, or were built at the same time, is difficult to discern. He principal tool used to clear vegetation was the ax or celt.

            In southwestern Pennsylvania and the Ohio valley, most archaeologically recovered celts were made from metamorphic rock such as granite. Given the geographical extent of the Ohio River Valley and the mid-Atlantic regions, surprisingly, large numbers of celts have not been found at habitation sites. While some are whole, others exhibit extensive damage to the bit, while others have been broken. Generally, the parts of a broken celt are not present at the habitation site. This observation might suggest that the broken parts that cannot be transformed into another usable tool was abandoned in the field.

     Once fields were cleared of vegetation, the digging stick and the hoe came into play. The digging stick is self-explanatory. It consists of strong stick that was used to dig holes or to loosen soil that could then be transformed into ether ridge/furrow or hills using a hoe. While digging sticks have not survived, hoe bits do. 

     

Example of an unhafted Native American celt. 

Hoe bits can be made from stone, bone, anther, and shell. Stone hoe bits have been recovered from Late Woodland sites in the northern Panhandle of West Virginia (Graybill, personal communication, 1993). These are manufactured from limestone. 

      The abrasion marks on the surface of the hoe are caused by plowing. Damage to the hoe bit from usage can be seen in the image. Notching towards the back of the hoe bit was used for hafting to a wooden handle. 

     Stone hoe bits from Late Woodland sites in Pennsylvania have not been documented. It is doubtful that these tools are going unreported. rather, there appears to be a real absence of such tools in southwestern Pennsylvania. The only published example of limestone hoes bits found in western Pennsylvania are from the Late pre-contact Fishbasket site cluster in Clarion and Armstrong counties 

Limestone Hoe from Northern West Virginia. Photo by author.

in northwestern Pennsylvania (Burkett 1999). An example of a chipped stone hoe was recently donated to California University. The hoe bit (not shown) was found on the surface along the Monongahela River in Washington County. 

     Chipped stone hoes have been recovered from selected Fort Ancient sites situated in southwestern Ohio (Cook 2008; Nass 1987; Schurr and Schoeninger 1995; Griffin 1967). When present, these consist of Mississippian notched forms (specimen shown in the lower right of image.  No Mississippian hoe bits have been found west of the Scioto River in Ohio. 

     On Late pre-contact Fort Ancient sites in Ohio and Kentucky, shell hoe bits are an ubiquitous artifact form. Dozens of damaged and broken shell hoe bits have been recovered from refuse-filled pit features at village sites that seem to pre-date AD 1250, such as the Drew site (Buker 1970) in Washington County, Redstone Old Fort site in Fayette County (Nass n.d.), the Jones site in Greene County (Nass 2009), and the McKees Rock site (Buker 1968). However, the number of these tools, when present on Monongahela village or habitation sites is less than 1/10 of one percent of the artifact assemblage. 

Examples of Chipped Stone Mississippian Hoes. Source Barrie and Porter 1984.

                                                                          

Shell Hoes from Ohio Fort Ancient Sites.    Example of a Shell Hoe from Pennsylvania.

                                                                      

    The presence of bone hoe bits made from deer, or elk scapula have not been recovered from neither Late Woodland or from late pre-contact sites in western Pennsylvania, even though archaeological excavation has recovered hoe bits made from bison scapula from sites along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers in Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. 

          

   The final component of the technologies associated with agriculture are the grinding tools used to process maize and other edible seeds. The number of recovered specimens is rare given the large number of village site excavations across Ohio, West Virginia, and western Pennsylvania. The specimens shown below were all found in refuse-filled pit features. 

     

 

                                    

Metate-like Grinding Stone from Jones Site, Pennsylvania. Metate Grinding Stone from Jones Site.                          

                                                     

Broken Metate from the Campbell Farm Site, Pennsylvania.                                                                            

                                                            

Mano from Late Woodland Sabre Farm Site, Ohio.

While the metate from Campbell Farm had been broken, the two specimens from the Jones Site were still usable tools, as was the mano from the Sabre Farm site. 

     At some point in time after ca. AD 1300 or so, grinding stones appear to have given way to the use of wooden mortars and manos. This shift in maize processing can be seen in the reduction of wear on the teeth caused from the consumption of micro grains removed from the metate during the grinding of maize (Doug Owsley, personal communication, 2019).    

                     

Discussion   

      

     Of shell stone and bone, certainly stone is the most durable of the three materials and the only raw material that can be resharpened or rejuvenated after the “bits” have experienced dulling or breakage caused from encountering rocks and roots within the soil, as well as the stiffness or texture of the soil being cultivated.

     While shell is certainly more prevalent than large mammal scapula and stone is more prevalent than shell, the latter appears to be the most ubiquitous of the three materials within the upper Ohio River Valley, followed by stone. Mammal scapula which would require the least amount of modification for hafting and usage appear to be the least represented within the upper Ohio River Valley given their representation in faunal assemblages. 

     In the report by Johnson and colleagues (1989), details about settlement patterns, patterns in material culture, and internal chronology were extensive and took center stage. In subsequent papers by Johnson and George, both have drawn correlations between soil productivity and village location using modern soil descriptions.  This is an important point because the prevailing county soil classification is designed more for farming methods not more than 100 years in age and for soil drainage relating to home construction and sanitation systems as well. It may be that village placement and soil association correlate for reasons other than farming, such as soils amenable to feature excavation given the prevailing technology and good drainage to prevent feature flooding.

     While the potential of a soil to yield a reasonable crop of maize was undoubtedly a criterion employed by Late Prehistoric populations, the workability of a soil using either stone, shell, bone, or a simple digging stick for planting and weeding was also an important selection criterion. These facts seem borne out by the actions of the proto-historic and historic Huron Nation in Ontario. According to Heidenreick (1971) and Sykes (1980), soils that warmed early in the spring, were well drained, and soils which have a texture suitable for shell and bone hoes and a digging stick, were selected for by the Huron. 

     It is assumed that soils with modest to high clay content and stiff (a high plasticity) are unsuitable for a hoeing technology other than stone and a digging stick. While the placidity and the workability of such soils increases with wetness, their dry state makes it difficult to create either furrows or mound. Soils with high clay content also tend to have a texture requiring more effort on the part of the attendant which places more stress on the hoe bit and the hafting.  Of the three materials known to be used for the manufacture of hoe bits, shell and bone both have limitations and curtail their usage except to sandy loam soils, loams and silt loams. These soils generally have a crumbly texture and are more easily penetrated by bone, shell and stone. 

     This limitation of gummy soils such as silty clays clay loams becomes obvious when examining Fort Ancient shell hoe bits. A significant percentage of the shell hoes fractured at the hafting hole for the handle. This form of fracture was not caused by encountering rocks or roots, but from being forced into and through a stiff soil matrix. Hafted scapula hoe bits would not have the hafting failure of shell hoe bits, but like shell, the leading edge is easily damaged from rocks, roots and any soil with a modest to high clay content. Stony soils are workable using a stone hoe or a digging stick but are not suited to using shell and bone. 

     While all of the sites are situated upon soils which can be characterized as moderately well to well drained, many of the upland sites are circumscribed by landforms which exceed 15 percent in terms of surface slope and the soils upon which these sites are situated do not provide adequate space for the creation of agricultural fields. Accessible soils are available within 1-2 kilometers of these sites. Surprisingly, no sites were situated on or adjacent to loam soils which are considered to be some of the best for farming and are tillable using either bone or shell tools. 

     While the amount of horizontal exposure at the Fayette County sites varies, bone, shell, and stone gardening tools are absent within the assemblages obtained from each site. Because preservation at the sites within the sample is rather good, the absence of both shell and bone gardening tools cannot be explained by soil acidity.

     What then would account for the absence of such tools? If farming had occurred adjacent to the villages, their recovered within trash-filled pits would seem more likely; this is the case for Fort Ancient Sites in the central Ohio River Valley. However, if fields were distant to the village, then broken hoe bits may well have been discarded there rather than being carried back to the village. And if the hoe bits could be easily replaced, then extras could have been taken to the fields when field preparation and maintenance were required.

     To summarize, the information presented here represents a first step in the examination of Late Woodland and Late Prehistoric farming technologies and tactics. Due to time, the sample of sites was limited to Greene and Fayette Counties. The absence of gardening tools is puzzling. If these types of technology were indeed being employed by village occupants, then where are the worn and broken examples?

     While village sites correlate with soils which can be cultivated with shell, bone or stone tools, the location of these same sites could also be due to the suitability of the soil for feature construction or other as yet unidentified factors. Of course, if digging sticks prove to be the main technology being used for planting areas cleared by burning, then hills and rows/furrows would not be needed.   

References

Barries, Charles J. and James W. Porter, editors

1984  American /bottom Archaeology, A Summary of the FAI-270 Project Contribution to the Cultural History of the Mississippi River Valley. University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago.

 Boszhardt, Robert F., Thomas W. Bailey and James P. Gallagher

1985 Oneota Ridged Fields at the Sand Lake Site (47LC44), La Crosse County, Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Archaeologist 66(1):47-67.

Broida, Mary  O.

1983  Maize in Kentucky Fort Ancient diets: An analysis of carbon isotope ratios in human bone. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Buker, William E.

1970  The  Drew Site (36-AL-62). Pennsylvania Archaeologist 40(3-4):21-67.

 Burkett, Kenneth

1999  Prehistoric Occupations at Fishbasket. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 69(1)1-100.

Conard, Anthony R.

1985  Experimental Duplication of the Fort ancient Shell Hoe. Ohio Archaeologist 34(4):18-19.

 Cook, Robert

2008  Sunwatch: Fort Ancient Development in the Mississippian World. The University of Abama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Fowler, Melvin L.

1969  Middle Mississippian Agricultural Fields. American Antiquity 34( ):365-375.

 Gallagher, James P., Robert F. Boszhardt, Robert F. Sasso, and Katherine Stevenson

1985  Oneota Ridge Field Agriculture in Southwestern Wisconsin. American Antiquity 50(3):605-612.

 Griffin, James B.

 1967  Eastern North American archaeology: A summary. Science 156:175-191.

 Hart, John P. and Nancy Asch Sidell.

1997  Additional Evidence for Early Cucurbit use in the Northern Eastern Woodlands

East of the Allegheny Front. American Antiquity 62: 523-537.

 Hart, John P. and Nancy Asch Sidell.

1996  Prehistoric Agricultural Systems in the West Branch of the Susquehanna River Basin, A.D. 800 to A.D. 1350. Northeast Anthropology 52:1-30.

 Heidenreick, C. E.

1971  Huronia: a History and Geography of the Huron Indians, 1600-1650. McClelland and Stewart, Ltd, Toronto.

Johannessen, Sissel

1993  Farmers of the Late Woodland. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by C. Margaret Scarry, pp. 57-77. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Johnston, William, W. P.Athens, M.T. Fuess, L. G. Jaramillo, K. P.Bastianini, and E. Ramos

1989  Late Prehistoric Period Monongahela Culture Site and Cultural Resource Inventory. Cultural Resource Management Program, Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Kelly, A. R.

1938  A Preliminary Report on Archaeological Explorations at Macon, Georgia. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, Anthropological Papers 119:1-68.

King, Frances

1999  Changing Evidence for Prehistoric Plant Use in Pennsylvania. In Current Northeast Paleoethnobotany, edited by John P. Hart, pp. 11-26. New York State Museum Bulletin No. 494, Albany.

McConaughy, Mark

2004  The Real Late Woodland in Western Pennsylvania. Paper presented at the annual Society for Pennsylvania Meeting, April 23-25, Clarion, Pennsylvania.

Means, Bernard K.

2007  Circular Villages of the Monongahela Tradition. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.  

Mills, William C.

1917 The Feurt Mounds and Village Site. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 26(3):304-449.                                                                     

Moffat, Charles R.

1979 Some Observations on the Distribution and Significance of the Garden Beds of Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Archaeologist 60(3):22-248.

Nass, John P., Jr.

1987 Use-Wear Analysis and Household Archaeology. A Study of the Activity Structure of the Incinerator Site, An Anderson Phase Fort Ancient Community in Southwestern Ohio. Unpublished PhD dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

1988 Fort Ancient Agricultural Systems and Settlement: a View from Southwestern Ohio. North American Archaeologist 9(4):319-347.

 2009 The Jones Site: an early Monongahela Tradition Settlement in Greene County, Pennsylvania. Paper Presented at the 76^th Annual Meeting of the Eastern States Archaeology Federation, Johnstown, Pennsylvania, November 6-8.

Riley, Thomas J. and Glen Freimuth

1979  Field Systems and Frost Drainage in the Prehistoric Agriculture of the Upper Great Lakes American Antiquity 44(2):271-285.

Riley, Thomas J., Charles R. Moffat, and Glen Freimuth

1980  Prehistoric Raised Fields in the Upper Midwestern United States: an Innovation in Response to Marginal Growing Conditions. North American Archaeologist 2(2):101-116.

 Scarre, Chris

2005  The World Transformed: from foragers and farmers to states and enpires. In The Human Past: world prehistory and the development of human societies, edited by Chirs Scarre, pp. 176-199. Thames and Hudson Press, London.

 Schurr, Mark R. and Margaret J. Schoeninger

1995  Associations between Agricultural Intensification and Social Complexity: an Example from the Prehistoric Ohio Valley. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14:315-339.

 Sciulli, Paul W.

1995  Biological Indicators of Diet in Monongahela Populations. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 65(2):1-18.

 Seeman, Mark F.

1992  Woodland Traditions in the Midcontinent: A Comparison of Three Regional Sequences  in  Long Term Subsistence Change in Prehistoric North America. In Research in Economic Anthropology 6. D.R. Croes, R.A. Hawkins, and B.L. Issac, eds. Pp. 3-46: JAI Press, Inc.

 Simon, Mary L.

2000  Regional Variations in Plant Use Strategies in the Midwest During the Late Woodland. In Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation across the Midcontinent, edited by Thomas E. Emerson, Dale L. McElrath and Andrew C. Fortier, pp. 37-75. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

 Smith, Bruce    

1989  Origins of Agriculture in Eastern North America. Science 246:1566-1577.

 Sykes, Clark M.

1980  Swidden Horticulture and Iroquoian  Settlement. Archaeology of Eastern North America 8:45-52.

 Wagner , Gail

1987  Uses of Plants by the Fort Ancient Indians. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis.

Wymer, Dee Anne

1992  Trends and  Disparities: The Woodland Paleoethnobotanical Record of the Mid-Ohio Valley. In Cultural Variability in Context: Woodland Settlements of the Mid-Ohio Valley, edited by Mark Seeman, pp. 65-76. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, Special Report, No. 7.

1993  Cultural Change and Subsistence: the Middle Woodland and Late Woodland Transition in the Mid-Ohio Valley. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by C. Margaret Scarry, pp. 138-156. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.