No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Early Maize in Northeastern North America: A Comment on Emerson and Colleagues
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 April 2021
Abstract
Emerson and colleagues (2020) provide new isotopic evidence on directly dated human bone from the Greater Cahokia region. They conclude that maize was not adopted in the region prior to AD 900. Placing this result within the larger context of maize histories in northeastern North America, they suggest that evidence from the lower Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River valley for earlier maize is “enigmatic” and “perplexing.” Here, we review that evidence, accumulated over the course of several decades, and question why Emerson and colleagues felt the need to offer opinions on that evidence without providing any new contradictory empirical evidence for the region.
En su publicación reciente, Emerson et al. (2020) proporcionan nueva evidencia isotópica en hueso humano directamente fechado por radiocarbono de la región del Greater Cahokia del oeste de Illinois central. Basado en estos datos, concluyen que el maíz (Zea mays ssp. Mays) no se adoptó en la región antes de 900 dC. Colocando este resultado dentro del contexto más amplio de las historias de maíz en el noreste de América del Norte, aportan evidencia empírica de la parte inferior del los Lagos Grande (Lower Great Lakes) y el valle del St. Lawrence River para el maíz mucho más temprano son “enigmáticos” y “desconcertantes”. Aquí revisamos esa evidencia multiproxi acumulada a lo largo de varias décadas y preguntamos por qué Emerson et al. sintió la necesidad de ofrecer opiniones sobre esa evidencia sin proporcionar ninguna evidencia empírica contradictoria y nueva en esa región.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Comment
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for American Archaeology
References
References Cited
Ambrose, Stanley H., and Norr, Lynette 1993 Experimental Evidence for the Relationship of the Carbon Isotope Ratios of Whole Diet and Dietary Protein to Those of Bone Collagen and Carbonate. In Prehistoric Human Bone: Archaeology at the Molecular Level, edited by Lambert, Joseph B. and Grupe, Gisela, pp. 1–38. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Ball, Terry, Chandler-Ezell, Karol, Dickau, Ruth, Duncan, Neil, Hart, Thomas C., Iriarte, Jose, Lentfer, Carol, Logan, Amanda, Lu, Houyuan, Madella, Marco, Pearsall, Deborah M., Piperno, Dolores R., Rosen, Arlene M., Vrydaghs, Luc, Weisskopf, Alison, and Zhang, Jianping 2016 Phytoliths as a Tool for Investigations of Agricultural Origins and Dispersals around the World. Journal of Archaeological Science 68:32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emerson, Thomas E., Hedman, Kristin M., Simon, Mary L., Fort, Mathew A., and Witt, Kelsey E. 2020 Isotopic Confirmation of the Timing and Intensity of Maize Consumption in Greater Cahokia. American Antiquity 85:241–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, Roman G., and Katzenberg, M. Anne. 2003 Paleodiet Studies Using Stable Carbon Isotopes from Bone Apatite and Collagen: Examples from Southern Ontario and San Nicolas Island, California. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22:227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, John P. 2012 Pottery Wall Thinning as a Consequence of Increased Maize Processing: A Case Study from Central New York. Journal of Archaeological Science 39:3470–3474.Google Scholar
Hart, John P., and Lovis, William A. 2013 Reevaluating What We Know about the Histories of Maize in Northeastern North America: A Review of Current Evidence. Journal of Archaeological Research 21:175–216.Google Scholar
Hart, John P., Anderson, Lisa M., and Feranec, Robert S. 2011 Additional Evidence for cal. Seventh-Century AD Maize Consumption at the Kipp Island Site, New York. In Current Research in New York Archaeology: AD 700–1300, edited by Rieth, Christina B. and Hart, John P., pp. 27–40. New York State Museum Record 2. University of the State of New York, State Education Department, Albany, New York.Google Scholar
Simon, Mary L. 2014 Reevaluating the Introduction of Maize into the American Bottom and Western Illinois. In Reassessing the Timing, Rate, and Adoption Trajectories of Domesticate Use in the Midwest and Great Lakes, edited by Raviele, Maria E. and Lovis, William A., pp. 93–134. Occasional Papers 1. Midwest Archaeological Conference, Champaign, Illinois.Google Scholar
Simon, Mary L. 2017 Reevaluating the Evidence for Middle Woodland Maize from the Holding Site. American Antiquity 82:140–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Merwe, Nikolaas J., Pfeiffer, Susan, Williamson, Ronald F., and Thomas, Stephen C. 2003 The Diet of the Moatfield People. In Bones of the Ancestors: The Archaeology and Osteobiography of the Moatfield Ossuary, edited by Williamson, Ronald F. and Pfeiffer, Susan, pp. 205–222. Mercury Series Paper 163. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Ottawa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, Christopher M., White, Christine D., and Longstaffe, Fred J. 2011 Childhood Diet and Western Basin Tradition Foodways at the Krieger Site, Southwestern Ontario, Canada. American Antiquity 76:446–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart et al. supplementary material
Hart et al. supplementary material
File
27.8 KB
You have
Access
- 10
- Cited by
As Emerson and colleagues (Reference Emerson, Hedman, Simon, Fort and Witt2020) state, Hart and Lovis (Reference Hart and Lovis2013) concluded that the introduction of maize (Zea mays ssp. mays) into northeastern North America had little if any immediate impact on subsistence-settlement systems. Although this conclusion is used by Emerson and colleagues (Reference Emerson, Hedman, Simon, Fort and Witt2020:242) as a foil for their analyses and conclusions about the history of maize consumption in the greater Cahokia region, our review was focused north and east of their region of interest. Based on multiple lines of evidence as reviewed in Hart and Lovis (Reference Hart and Lovis2013) and developed subsequently, we stand by our conclusions about the initial introductions and lack of substantive impact on subsistence-settlement systems. Emerson and colleagues (Reference Emerson, Hedman, Simon, Fort and Witt2020:245) suggest that the evidence is enigmatic and perplexing given the absence of such evidence elsewhere in the Eastern Woodlands. Here, we review that evidence and note discrepancies in Emerson and colleagues’ review of it.
Direct Evidence for Maize
There are presently 11 AMS dates on maize macrobotanical remains from northeastern North America >950 radiocarbon years (rcyr) BP (Supplemental Table 1). Although most were obtained in the first two decades of AMS dating and consequently lack current precision, their calibrations clearly establish an early presence for maize. Recently obtained dates include two from the lower Illinois River valley (Simon Reference Simon, Raviele and Lovis2014) of 1490 ± 20 BP (cal 2σ AD 541–623) and 1315 ± 20 BP (cal 2σ AD 658–766). Emerson and colleagues dismiss the former as “aberrant,” despite its consistency with a wood charcoal date from the same feature, and they ignore the latter. They do not present scientific reasons for dismissing these two dates. In addition to dates on macrobotanical remains, there are 31 AMS dates on charred cooking residues adhering to interior pottery walls from Michigan, New York, and Québec >950 rcyr BP with microbotanical evidence for maize in the form of phytoliths or starch (Supplemental Table 2). The earliest of these establish a presence for maize in the first several cal centuries BC.
Isotopic Evidence
Cooking-residue δ13C values from New York show a positive trend from approximately cal 300 BC, with a trend line that is strongly negatively correlated with a trend line for decreasing pottery-wall thickness beginning at roughly AD 200 (Hart Reference Hart2012). The most probable explanation for this is changing pottery technologies to accommodate increased maize processing.
Bone carbonate evidence from Ontario (Harrison and Katzenberg Reference Harrison and Katzenberg2003) indicated small amounts of maize consumption that would not be detected in collagen. This is questioned by Emerson and colleagues (Reference Emerson, Hedman, Simon, Fort and Witt2020:251) because the data are from bone rather than tooth enamel, suggesting the possibility of diagenesis or other food sources with enrichment in the heavier isotope of carbon. They are correct that bone apatite is more likely to be affected by diagenesis than tooth enamel. Collagen and carbonate δ13C spacing of 9.4‰ references a controlled feeding study with rats (Ambrose and Norr Reference Ambrose, Norr, Lambert and Grupe1993). If the Ontario samples were altered in the burial environment, it is remarkable that they are so consistently spaced with collagen from the entire temporal span, and that the more recent samples are entirely comparable to enamel carbonate data from other Ontario sites (van der Merwe et al. Reference van der Merwe, Pfeiffer, Williamson, Thomas, Williamson and Pfeiffer2003; Watts et al. Reference Watts, White and Longstaffe2011). Evidence for small amounts of maize in the diet directly corresponds with the timing and the place of discovery of early maize in Ontario (Supplemental Table 1). Furthermore, third molars of two individuals from the cal seventh-century AD component at the Kipp Island site, New York—one of which was directly dated—have δ13C enamel carbonate values of –10.5 and dentine collagen values of –17.2‰ and –16.4‰, respectively (Hart et al. Reference Hart, Anderson, Feranec, Rieth and Hart2011), within the range of a mixed C3 and C4 diet (Emerson et al. Reference Emerson, Hedman, Simon, Fort and Witt2020).
Conclusions
To date, no microbotanical analyses have been published for the central and southern Plains, the Ohio Valley, New England, or the Mississippi Valley. The latter is despite Simon's (Reference Simon2017:148) claim that “we plan to initiate parallel analyses of residues from Late Woodland ceramics to determine whether maize phytoliths are present.” We suggest that they also perform microbotanical analyses from earlier times. Given that complete regional histories of crops can no longer be written without the inclusion of microbotanical analyses (Ball et al. Reference Ball, Chandler-Ezell, Dickau, Duncan, Hart, Iriarte, Lentfer, Logan, Lu, Madella, Pearsall, Piperno, Rosen, Vrydaghs, Weisskopf and Zhang2016), we look forward to forthcoming results, whether positive or negative, for early maize and other crops from each of these regions.
Good science always questions established facts through empirical analyses. Emerson and colleagues’ evident dismissal of multiple lines of evidence accumulated over the course of several decades for maize history in the lower Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Valley is not based on contrary empirical evidence. Why they felt a need to question those data in the context of an article on Cahokia without bringing any new empirical evidence from the region to bear is itself perplexing. We look forward to continuing evaluations of maize histories throughout eastern North America and anticipate that subregional histories may differ substantially based on empirical evidence, not opinion.
Supplemental Materials
For supplemental material accompanying this article, visit https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2020.93.
Supplemental Text 1. References cited in supplemental tables.
Supplemental Table 1. Early AMS Dated Maize Macrobotanical Samples in Northeastern North America.
Supplemental Table 2. Early Northeastern North America Microbotanical Remains from Directly AMS Dated Charred Cooking Residues.