Immovable food storage facilities, knowledge, and landscape in non-sedentary societies: Perspectives from northern Michigan

Howey, Meghan; Frederick, Kathryn

doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2016.03.001

Cited by 33 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, are these evidences pointing at the emergence of individual agents or groups with the capacity to hoard and centralize some social surpluses? As demonstrated by multiple studies, storage is not some kind of prelude to complexity (Howey & Frederick, 2016;Sanger, 2017) but an extended and variable practice which has important informative potentials on social, economic, and even ideological realms (Rothman, 2016). Different interpretations proposed the existence of public storage systems as a consequence of the competitive strategies emergent authorities with the capacity to hoard and redistribute surpluses (Laguens, 2014;Smith 2002;Smyth, 1991;Wesson, 1999).…”

Section: Discussion: Early Village Household Vegetable Storagementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Storing means setting aside material things (food, tools, water, seeds for plants) for some future use (Halperin, 1994). Food storage includes three main types: physical storage, biological storage (as fat on one"s body), and social storage (through exchange relationships) (Howey & Frederick, 2016). Throughout this paper, we will focus on the first type considering that it is the most trackable in the archaeological record.…”

Section: Storage Surplus and Archaeological Interpretationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This does not imply the denial of storage practices in hunter gatherer groups but rather the recognition of the increased need to foresee future events or seasons when food and other items would be needed. Indeed, the relevance and diversity of storage practices within non-sedentary hunter-gatherers and low-level horticulturalist societies has largely been recognized (Howey & Frederick, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Vegetable Storage Practices and the Reproduction of Household Autonomy in Early Village Contexts from Northwest Argentina

Molar¹,

Salazar²

2018

JAA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Storage is an extended and variable practice which constitutes a key aspect for understanding economic strategies, social structures, and political negotiations in different cultural and temporal settings, but especially in the context of early village societies. Despite the fact that it was traditionally addressed as an evidence of the emergence of elites with the power to hoard and redistribute social surpluses, we herein address the role of storage where this social consequence was not recorded. We present new archaeological data on Tafí valley early village vegetable storage practices and ethnoarchaeological information on household storage originated in the nearby Anfama valley. Domestic and productive architectural features, pottery assemblages, stored products and botanical microremains were analyzed in order to discuss surplus generation, vegetable products control and household autonomy in the context of South Andean early villagers.

show abstract

Section: Discussion: Early Village Household Vegetable Storagementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Storage Surplus and Archaeological Interpretationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Vegetable Storage Practices and the Reproduction of Household Autonomy in Early Village Contexts from Northwest Argentina

Molar¹,

Salazar²

2018

JAA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Assuming a function based on lack of evidence ignores the possibility that pit features served a range of functions. Over the past twenty-five years, researchers such as Dunham 2000, Fredrick 2015, Hambacher and Homan 1995, Holman and Krist, 2011, Howey and Fredrick 2016, Howey and Parker 2008, and Skibo et al 2007, have proven the importance of investigating pit feature function and have shown how these storage and processing pits can inform our understanding of Upper Great Lakes hunter-gatherer life. With this study I hope contribute to the ongoing discussion of pit feature use in the Upper Great Lakes and I have sought to provide a functional interpretation of pit function using a performance based approach.…”

Section: Concluding Thoughtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pit feature tend to be found near bodies of water but also occur up to a mile away from a water source (Hambacher and Holman 1995). Pits not found near rivers or lakes are commonly found near occupation sites (Howey and Fredrick 2016).…”

Section: Introduction and Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pit Features: A View From Grand Island, Michigan

Bartz¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PagesServing a multitude of functions from subterrestrial cavities of storage, basins for cooking, to vessels that securely hold pounds of rice allowing the grains to be danced upon to thresh, pit features are one of North Americas most common archaeological feature. These constructions are dug to fit a diversity of needs based on the people who manufacture them. By understanding the distinct function(s) a pit or group of pit features played at a site-level, the needs of the people who inhabited that landscape are better understood. The nature of a pit feature is to store or process something that is of value, by virtue of the objects pits once contained, those materials are predominantly reclaimed from the pit when it was in use. This lack of associated material remains found in the archaeological record make it difficult to understand the activates associated with these features. Recorded pit features of the lower peninsula of Michigan have contained varying floral remains, charred wood, burned soils, fire-cracked rocks, and limited amounts of ceramics and lithics. A considerable amount of regional ethnohistoric accounts demonstrates the importance of pit features in the subsistence and settlement patterns of native Upper Great Lakes groups. Despite these accounts, and high frequencies in which these features manifest throughout the region, there have been no formal archaeological investigations into pit feature use in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.To address this regional gap in research, archaeological investigations into selected pit features at the Muskrat Point site (03-910) were conducted under the direction of the Grand Island Archaeological Project in the summer of 2017. Field survey identified 24 surface depressions, likely to be pit features along the southern end of Grand Islands eastern lobe.Fifteen of these are located in the area of the Muskrat Point site, four of these surface depressions were excavated, each confirmed to be pit features. A performance-based approach is used to consider pit stratigraphy, macrobotanical remains, radiocarbon dating, and other contextual evidence in order to investigate pit feature function at this coastal Lake Superior site. This research acts as an initial step towards understanding the roles pit features played in Native American lifeways of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

show abstract

From foraging to farming: Domesticating landscapes in the Midsouth three thousand years ago

Hollenbach

Carmody

2022

Economic Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peoples living in the Eastern Woodlands of North America domesticated a suite of small-seeded crops between five thousand and two thousand years ago, making this region one of roughly ten independent centers of domestication across the globe. In the Southern Appalachian region, foraging peoples began cultivating these native crops around thirty-five hundred years ago (during the Late Archaic period [3000-800 BCE]); by the start of the Early Woodland period (800-200 BCE), they had significantly altered their lifeways and surrounding landscape. This included a change in the physical landscape, as demonstrated by paleoethnobotanical data, with an increase in weedy plants at the expense of bottomland forests. Groups also significantly shifted their lifeways, becoming more sedentary, as evidenced by an increase in storage pits, more substantial structures, and the adoption of ceramic vessels. Storage pits also tend to be smaller, indicating a shift from community-based food procurement and storage to the household level. This may reflect the development of private property and distinctions among households with differential access. Community-based rituals, as evidenced in several caves and rock-shelters in the region, may have been established to strengthen group ties in the face of the broader changing social and physical landscape.

show abstract

Immovable food storage facilities, knowledge, and landscape in non-sedentary societies: Perspectives from northern Michigan

Cited by 33 publications

References 39 publications

Vegetable Storage Practices and the Reproduction of Household Autonomy in Early Village Contexts from Northwest Argentina

Vegetable Storage Practices and the Reproduction of Household Autonomy in Early Village Contexts from Northwest Argentina

Pit Features: A View From Grand Island, Michigan

From foraging to farming: Domesticating landscapes in the Midsouth three thousand years ago

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About