Foraging, Farming and Coastal Biocultural Adaptation in Late Prehistoric North Carolina (2004)

Foraging, Farming and Coastal Biocultural Adaptation in Late Prehistoric North Carolina. DALE L. HUTCHINSON, with contributions by ANN KAKALIOURAS, LYNETTE NORR, and MARK TEAFORD. University Press of Florida, Ripley P. Bullen Series (JERALD T. MILANICH, series ed.), Florida Museum of Natural History, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, 2002. xxiv + 275 pp., tables, figures, biblio., index. $55.00 (cloth), ISBN 0-8130-2474-9. This volume, a recent addition to the Ripley P. Bullen Series edited by Jerald T. Milanich, another illustration of the exemplary scholarship highlighted in this series. Hutchinson compares dietary and pathological indicators of nutrition and health for inner and outer coastal populations of North Carolina during the Middle and Late Woodland periods. He uses a multilateral approach, one that includes an examination of skeletal and dental pathology as well as maritime and agricultural resources and their uses. Hutchinson begins by describing coasts, estuaries, and biocultural adaptation, noting that this region is where the confluence of several varied aquatic and terrestrial environments provides some of the most abundant subsistence resources and diversified habitats in the world (p. 4). Hutchinson gives a succinct, informative overview of the late prehistory of the region, followed by an interesting account of regional ethnohistoric evidence for subsistence and health. His data are from inner and outer coastal sites, four sites each. Outer coastal populations are primarily the result of salvage excavations and represent only a portion of the total individuals interred (p. 31). Inner coastal sites do not seem as hindered by this fact, although one site was excavated by amateurs and another was disturbed by agricultural activity. For both the inner and outer coastal samples, only two of the four sites (i.e., four of the total eight sites analyzed) have radiocarbon dates; the remaining sites are dated based on artifact type and association. Only one site from each sample contains both Middle and Late Woodland occupations. For both sites, the Middle Woodland burials are few in number as compared to the Late Woodland burials. This distorted sample size may be the biggest flaw in Hutchinson's study. For the outer coastal Middle Woodland populations, there are 15 individuals; this fairly comparable to the inner coastal Middle Woodland population of 10 individuals, although both sample sizes are somewhat small. However, these numbers are only a small proportion of the Late Woodland population: 532 outer coastal individuals and 183 inner coastal individuals. It difficult to compare the Middle and Late Woodland populations when the former accounts for 3 percent of the total sample size. Further, the Late Woodland populations, based on sample size, do not appear comparable to one another, as the inner coast one-third the size of the outer coast population. Although Hutchinson addresses, in detail, the biases associated with partial samples (e.g., secondary burial and taphonomic processes), as well as interpretive biases resulting from faulty age and sex estimates, he does not explicitly address the discrepancy in population size of his sample. Hutchinson tests four hypotheses in this study. His first that subsistence of the Middle Woodland populations of both the inner and outer coasts should not include maize. During the Late Woodland period, the outer coastal populations should have evidence for limited or no maize consumption, while the inner coastal populations would show use of maize and coastal resources. Dental enamel microwear and stable isotope analyses were used to test this. Over 4,000 teeth were examined for carious lesions, dental chipping, and congenital defects. For the Late Woodland populations, Hutchinson and colleagues found statistically significant fewer incidences of carious lesions, dental chipping, and alveolar infection for inner coastal populations. …