Abstract Charles L. Heath, Jr. A CULTURAL HISTORY OF RIVER HERRING AND SHAD FISHERIES IN EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA: THE PREHISTORIC PERIOD THROUGH THE TWENTIETH CENTURY. (Under the direction of Dr. David C. Griffith) Department of Anthropology, August 1997. This thesis focuses on the cultural exploitation of four anadromous fish species of the Family Clupeidae, in the Genus Alosa: the blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis). the alewife (A. pseudoharengus), the American shad, (A. sapidissima), and the hickory shad. {A. mediocris). in eastern North Carolina. The study assesses anadromous Alosa fisheries in the prehistoric and historic periods from a combined anthropological. archaeological, ethnohistorical and historical perspective. The research combines oral interview data collected by the author with information gathered from previously published sources. The findings are interpreted in the context of adaptive strategies, as originally conceptualized and proposed by John Bennett. Anadromous Alosa fisheries provided an important seasonal subsistence and trade resource to prehistoric (circa 3,000 B.C. to AD. 1650) and historic (circa. AD. 1584 to 1950) period cultures in eastern North Carolina. The significance as a subsistence resource was later paralleled by capital intensive commercial fisheries during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Four natural characteristics of Alosa account for the vitality as a major subsistence and trade resource: (I) predictability {in time and space), (2) availability (in massive spawning runs), (3) accessibility (ease of access and harvest with minimal effort), ( 4) storability (short-term and long-term preservation by smoke-drying or salt-curing). The seasonal exploitation of shad and river herring through time reflects the aggregation of conscious choices by individuals in response to the range of natural resources available in the region. Such choices gradually developed into regional, culture-wide adaptive strategies that evolved from a great fishing tradition of the past century into the last vestiges of shad and river herring fisheries that are seen today. The decline of the subsistence fishery tradition has been paralleled by a dramatic decline in Alosa stocks in North Carolina waters. The reasons for the biological decline relate back to the concept of adaptive strategies, whereby the human population in the region shifted from low­ energy to high-energy production practices (e.g., fisheries, agricultural, industrial) over time. High­ energy cultural processes increase pressure on Alosa stocks through the destruction of spawning habitat and overfishing. The evolution from low-energy to high-energy production has led to both resource degradation and the displacement of segments of the population who traditionally relied on the fishery resources (e.g., commercial and subsistence fishermen). A CULTURAL HISTORY OF RIVER HERRING AND SHAD FISHERIES IN EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA: THE PREHISTORIC PERIOD THROUGH THE TWENTIETH CENTURY A Thesis Presented to The F acuity of the Department of Anthropology East Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Anthropology by Charles L. Heath, Jr. August 1997 Acknowledgments As with any endeavor, few tasks in life are accomplished alone; this thesis project was certainly no exception. Here I wish to acknowledge the many individuals who assisted me in the completion of my research. I would like express my sincerest appreciation to my thesis director, Dr. David C Griffith, who not only guided my research with patience and insight, but also shares my own enthusiasm for the river herring fisheries of North Carolina. I wish to particularly recognize Dr. John E. ByTd, who originally stimulated my interest in anadromous fisheries in the region and encouraged me to study various aspects of the phenomena, well before the topic evolved into a thesis project. His personal interest and knowledge on the subject, as a zooarchaeologist and as an avid fisherman, generated many insightful suggestions and ideas as my research progressed. Dr. David S Phelps is gratefully remembered for his comments on, and critiques of, various drafts of the thesis, as well as for his continual support and council throughout my graduate studies. Dr. Roger A. Rulifson and Dr. Charles R. Ewen contributed many useful suggestions during the research phase and on the final drafts of the thesis. Dr. Rulifson 's perspective as a marine biologist and his thorough editorial comments were certainly appreciated. A special debt of gratitude is expressed to Ms. Kay Evans of the Institute for Coastal and Marine Resources, East Carolina University, who tediously transcribed often lengthy recorded interviews. I am extremely grateful to the numerous individuals from eastern North Carolina, particularly the Albemarle Sound region, who graciously allowed me into their homes and patiently answered my questions about their lives and the shad and river herring fisheries. As their stories have not been well recorded, the infomrntion that was thoughtfully provided undoubtedly made this study possible. It was, in fact, a genuine pleasure to spend time with such hospitable and fascinating people. Further, I would like to thank staff of the Port O' Plymouth Museum (Plymouth, North Carolina), the North Carolina Collection (J. Y. Joyner Library, East Carolina University), the Southern Historical Collection (Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), the North Carolina Folklore Collection (East Carolina University), and the National Marine Fisheries Library (Beaufort, North Carolina) for their capable assistance in my research enterprise. Staff members. Ms. Connie Mason and Mr. Paul Fontenoy, of the North Carolina Maritime Museum in Beaufort, North Carolina, provided unpublished information and interview materials presented in the thesis. A very special debt of gratitude is expressed to Mrs. Patricia Guyette and the staff of Interlibrary Loan Services, J. Y. Joyner Library, East Carolina University, for their tireless and timely efforts to procure a seemingly endless stream source materials needed for the research. I would like to express my deepest appreciation to the many individuals who indirectly contributed to the completion of both this thesis and my graduate studies. Thank you to my wife, Ruth Rennette Heath, who patiently listened to my ramblings on the subject and stood with me through the entire process. I especially wish to thank my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Charles L. Heath, Sr., who have always been there for me and have unflaggingly backed me in all ofmy life endeavors with love, confidence and moral and financial support. Special thanks to my grandparents, Mrs. Margaret J. King and Mr. and Mrs. Vernie Heath, who all encouraged me from the beginning and provided a way for me to complete my graduate studies. Many family members and fiiends, far too many to name individually, provided encouragement and moral support to make the completion of my studies possible. Finally, although first and foremost, I would like to thank the good Lord above, who makes all things in possible with His presence in my life and His never ending providence. Table of Contents List of Figures . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . vi I. Introduction · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Purpose of the Study . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . 7 Methodology . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 0 Theoretical Perspective .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 15 Geographic Setting .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . 20 Biological Aspects of Alosa in North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . 24 II. Prehistoric and Proto-historic Period River Herring and Shad Fisheries 3 1 Evolution of Aquatic Resource Focused Cultures in the Middle Atlantic and the Northeast . . . .. . . . . . .. ... . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 37 Cultural Implications of Anadromous Fish Exploitation . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 40 Evolution of Aquatic Resource Focused Cultures in Eastern North Carolina . . .. . . 46 Ethnohistoric fa.idence of Alosa Exploitation in Eastern North Carolina . . . . . . . .. . . . 50 Ethnohistoric Evidence of Preservation and Storage of Anadromous Fish . . .. . . . . . .. 62 Archaeological Evidence of Alosa Exploitation in Eastern North Carolina . . . . . .. . . 67 The Flynt Site . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . ... . ...... . . . . .... . . . . . . . . .. .. . 67 The Jordans Landing Site . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. .. . .. . . .. . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . 68 The Tillett Site . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . 69 Anadromous Fisheries, Settlement Patterns and the Seasonal Subsistence Cycle . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 III. Historic Period River Herring and Shad Fisheries, circa I 584- 1 9 I 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . 83 Colonial Through Federal Period Fisheries, circa 1584- 1815 . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Antebellum Through Civil War Period Fisheries, circa 18 16- 1865 .. . .. . . ... . . .. . . . . . . .. 92 Postbellum Period Through World War I Era Fisheries, circa I 865-1 9 I 5 . .. . . . . . . . I 00 IV. Early Modem River Herring and Shad Fisheries, circa I 915-1950 ... . .. . .. . .. ......... ..... ... I IO Large-Scale Commercial Fisheries ..... . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . ..... ... .. ... .... . .. ... ... . . ....... 111 Part-Time and Small-Scale Fisher-Farmers .. . .. . . . .. . . .. . .... . . . .. . .. . . . ... . ... .... . . . . .. ........... 114 Non-fishing River Herring and Shad Consumers ... .. . . . .. . . . . . ... . .... .. ...... .... . ...... ... .. . . 125 Hucksters and Commercial Fish Buyers . .. .. . .............. . . ..... .. . . .. . . . .. ...... ...... 128 River Herring and Shad as a Subsistence Resource .. . .... .. . . .. ... . ..... .. . . . ....... . . .. .. . . . .. 129 Cultural Traditions Related to River Herring and Shad Fishing . .. .. . .... ... .. ........ ... 136 V. Post World War II Era River Herring and Shad Fisheries, circa 1950 -1997 .. ..... . ... .. 145 River Herring ............ ..... .... .............. ........ ... ... .................. .............. . .. ....... .............. 145 American and Hickory Shad . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . . . .. .. .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . 14 7 Decline of River Herring and Shad Fisheries ....... ... . .. .. ............... .. ... .. . ... . 149 VI. Theoretical Discussion and Summary . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . 158 Prehistoric and Proto-historic Periods, circa 3,000 B.C.-A.D. 1650 . ... .............. . . 160 Early Modem Period, circa I 880-1950 ....... . .. . .. .. . ...... ....... .. .. . . .. ..... .. ... ..... .. ....... . . .. 163 The Last Vestiges of the River Herring and Shad Fishing Tradition ... . ........... . .... 174 References Cited .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . .. .. 178 Appendix A: Material Culture and Methods of the Historic Period River Herring and Shad Fisheries 210 Appendix B: The Shad Boat ... . . .... ..... ........ ........ ...................... . 240 Appendix C: Commercial and Domestic Preservation River Herring and Shad, circa 1880-1950 248 List of Figures I. Four Members of Genus Alosa Found in North Carolina Waters ................................. 2 2. Map of Coastal North Carolina with Major Rivers, Sounds, and Towns ..................... 21 3. The Cultural Sequence of Eastern North Carolina ......................................................... 36 4. John White Painting of Algonkian Fishing Methods . .................................................... 53 5. Theodore De Bry Engraving of Algonkian Fishing Methods ......................................... 54 6. John White Painting of Algonkian Fish Smoking Methods .. ........ . ... .. .......... ........ .. ... .. . . 64 7. Schedule of Subsistence Resource Availability .............................................................. 78 8. Late Woodland Subsistence Exploitation Patterns on the Inner Coastal Plain . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. .. . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . 79 Chapter I Introduction From the time oft he earliest historical observations by the first English explorers, North Carolina has long been noted for its abundance ofm arine resources (e.g., Barlowe 1957 [1584]; Harriot 1972 [1590]; Lawson 1967 [1709]). Doz.ens of species of fish and shellfish, fit for human consumption, continue to abound in the salt, fresh, and brackish waters that fill North Carolina's sounds, rivers and lakes. Several anadromous fish species have played an important role in the subsistence mix and economic livelihood ofN orth Carolina's culturally diverse inhabitants for thousands of years. Anadromous fish are those species that naturally inhabit salt water environments during mature phases oflife, but return to fresh or mildly brackish bodies of water to spawn. Species oft he family Clupeidae in the genus Alosa -- blueback herring, Alosa aestivalis (Mitchell), alewife, A. pseudoharengus (Wilson), American shad, A. sapidissima (Wilson), and hickory shad, A. mediocris (Mitchell) -- have contributed greatly to the cultural and economic development ofN orth Carolina societies from the remote prehistoric past through the twentieth century (Figure I.). From some obscure time in the remote prehistoric past, through the colonial period and into the twentieth century, Coastal Plain inhabitants of North Carolina depended upon anadromous, particularly Alosa, fisheries for subsistence and trade. Proto-historic period Native-American groups in the region exploited abundant shad and river herring runs during the spring spawning season as a major element oft heir diversified seasonal subsistence cycle (Binford 1964; Byrd 1997b). European colonists utiliz.ed the same resources to complement their subsistence cycle from the seventeenth through the eighteenth century (Brickell 1969 [1737]; Gregg 1968; Leary 1915; Taylor 1990, 1992). These anadromous finfish, however, became a significant trade commodity by the end of the 2 Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) Blueback Herring (Alosa aestival is) American Shad (Alosa sapidissima) Hickory Shad (Alosa mediocris) Figure 1. Four Members of Genus Alosa Found in North Carolina Waters (From Smith 1907: 121-126 [Figures: 41-43]). 3 eighteenth centmy. The market potential of the Alosa fisheries continued to grow in importance through the early twentieth century (Cobb 1906; Earll 1887; Gregg 1968; Leary 1915; Taylor 1990, 1992). Even though anadromous fisheries contributed to the economic growth of North Carolina through the antebellum period, the local population of yeoman farmers, lower-to-middle class urban whites, and plantation slaves continued to rely heavily on the resource for their basic subsistence needs (Boyce 1968 [1917]; Heath 1994; Pearson 1972). With the exception of technological advancements related to fishing gear and the addition of refrigerated shipping, the parallel pattern of subsistence fishing and commercial fishing for shad and river herring remained largely unchanged through the pre-World War II era. By the mid-to-late-twentieth century, local overfishing, foreign offshore trawling, flood control measures, water pollution, and changes in consumer demand, all combined to take a severe toll on the once thriving shad and river herring fisheries ( Godwin, Street and Rickman 1971; North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries 1993; Roelofs 1951; Rulifson 1994; Rulifson et al. 1982a, 1982b; Stanley 1992; Winslow 1994; Woodward 1956 ). ln a review of the eclectic range of literature on the subject of anadromous Alosa species, in relation to North Carolina, one can find a number of descriptive overviews of the shad and river herring fisheries, particularly those of the mid-to-late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (e.g., Crayon 1861, 1959 [l 857], Department of Conservation and Development [NCDCD] 1963; Earll 1887; Gregg i 968; Griffith 1997; Leary 1915; Olmstead 1904 [ l8 56], 1953 [ 186 1 ]; Parramore 1980: Ruffin 1861; Taylor 1951; Taylor 1990, 1992; Winslow 1994) . A master's thesis by Mark Taylor (1990) and a subsequent, excellent publication, Seiners and Tongers: North Carolina Fisheries in the Old and New South (Taylor 1992), provided a relatively thorough historical account of North Carolina's fishery industry in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Other works have focused on the biological life histories of shad and river herring, as well as the problem of declining 4 stocks in the twentieth century (e.g. , Cooper, Eades, Klauda and Loesch 1 994; Hightower, Wicker and Endres 1 996; Rulifson 1 994; Rulifson, Huish and Thoesen 1 982a, 1 982b; Winslow 1 990, 1 994; Winslow, Mozley and Rulifson 1 985). Other studies have focused on, or included in broader studies, statistical and economic data related to large-scale anadromous fishing operations in eastern North Carolina during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (e.g. , Boyce 1 968 [1 9 17] ; Cobb 1 906; Earll 1 887; Gregg 1 968; Pratt 1 908, 1 91 1 a, 1 91 1 b; Smith 1 907; Taylor 1 95 1 ; Woodward 1 956). Despite the relative abundance of eclectic literature on the anadromous Alosa fisheries in North Carolina, no in-depth study has specifically addressed the broader cultural history of shad and river herring fisheries from an anthropological perspective. With the exception of early dissertation research by Lewis Binford ( 1 964), Byrd ( 199 1 , 1 997b) has been the only archaeologist to specifically attempt to assess the role of Alosa fish species in the subsistence mix of Native American cultures in prehistoric eastern North Carolina. Byrd ( 1 99 1 , 1 997 a, 1 997b) is the only published researcher that has prominently discussed the potential for, and the possible implications of, anadromous fisheries to aboriginal North Carolinians. It is suggested by the author of the present study that the cultural response to the seasonal availability of shad and river herring in the prehistoric period can be seen as a positive adaptive response to a range of environmental options available to Native-American cultures in the Coastal Plain region. The present study will assess such an adaptation that may have existed as early as the Middle Archaic (5,000-3,000 B.C . ) period, and certainly existed from the Woodland period (1 ,000 B .C.-A.D. 1650) through the the era of permanent European settlement ( circa 1650-171 5). Investigations of the exploitation of shad and river herring in the historic period have largely focused on the economic aspects or the greater national market importance of the anadromous 5 fisheries in North Carolina (e.g. , Earll 1 887; Gregg 1 968; Leary 1 9 1 5 ; Taylor 1 990, 1 992 ; Woodward 1 956). As such, previous research endeavors, with the exception of studies by Boyce ( I 968 [ 1 9 1 7] ) and Watson ( 1 996), have typically not addressed the significant place of anadromous Alosa fisheries in the local subsistence economies of rural, plantation, and urban Euro-American or African-American populations in the Coastal Plain region in the early modem period. Alternately, few studies, except those undertaken by marine biologists (e.g. Rulifson 1 994; Rulifson et al . 1 982a, 1 982b; Stanley 1 992 ; Taylor 1 95 1 ; Winslow 1 990, 1 994; Winslow et al . 1 985), have addressed the impact of cultural processes on Alosa species in North Carolina waters. There are, however, a small number of popular literature presentations that touch on the i ssues, but not in any significant detail (e.g. , Booker 1 974; Hart 1 990; Manooch 1 979; Stephenson 1 995). Although both prehistoric (Binford 1 964) and early historic (Brickell 1 968 [ 1 737] ; Lawson 1 967 [ 1 709] ) cultures are suspected to have heavily exploited Alosa for seasonal subsistence needs, cultural practices beginning in the late nineteenth century exerted the greatest negative pressure on shad and river herring populations. Pressures resulted from dramatic shifts in agricultural production practices, the rate of industrialization and the evolution of mechanical fi sh harvesting technologies in the post-Civi l War era. Such processes accelerated through the post-World War II era and eventually led to the destruction of spawning habitats and commercial overfishing. These combined pressures have contributed to the apparent demise of shad and river herring stocks in the late twentieth century. The biological consequences of cultural development in the region are readily apparent in ti le declining catch statistics of river herring and shad since the late nineteenth century. It may be noted that catch statistics can reflect both declines in fish stocks as well as declines in consumer demand. Consumer demand is reflected in the ex-vessel price, or "dockside value", records for the species. Decline in stocks may be evident if annual landings decline, but 6 market value remains steady or increases. Unfortunately, the fishing effort invested to harvest a particular species is not recorded, so the catch effort cannot be directly determined. It is the catch per effort (CPE) value that is used to estimate the stock status of a species (Roger Rulifson, East Carolina University, personal communication 1 997). Although the overall catch per effort by commercial and subsistence level fishermen for river herring and shad has declined, as the market price and consumer demand for the species have both dwindled in recent decades (Layton 1 997 ; Spruill 1 997), it is readily apparent that Alosa stocks have dramatically declined through time, due to negative cultural pressures on spawning and nursery habitats and from commercial overfishing (Godwin, Street and Rickman 1 97 1 ; North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries 1993 ; Roelofs 1 95 1 ; Rulifson 1 994; Rulifson et al 1 982b; Stanley 1 992 ; Winslow 1 994; Woodward 1 956 ) . Rulifson ( 1 994) indicated that river herring runs were either "declining" or "threatened" in eleven of twenty North Carolina rivers studied in 1 992. The status in the remaining nine rivers of the study were classified as "unknown'' (Rulifson 1994). Commercial river herring fishermen who still work many of the same rivers evaluated by Rulifson ( 1 994), have noted that the river herring have been all, but exterminated from several rivers and major tributary streams (Layton 1 997). The decline is to the point that it is no longer cost efficient to fish certain tributaries for river herring or shad in the spring fishing season (Layton 1997). Rulifson ( I 994) concluded that American shad runs in North Carolina waters somewhat improved over the last decade. Stocks moved from "declining" or "threatened" status in 1 980 to "stable" status in 1 992 on eleven of seventeen major r . vers studied by Rulifson ( 1 994 ). American shad status on the other six rivers studied was "unknown". Commercial fishermen, however, consider the American and hickory shad to be severely depleted in North Carolina waters, particularly when compared to their perceived abundance fifty years ago (Layton 1 997; Spruill 1 997). The impact of the apparent decimation of 7 Alosa stocks on the human population in eastern North Carolina is much more ephemeral than the cultural impacts on Alosa species. Prehistoric and historic subsistence economies through the World War II era would certainly have suffered intensely from such an ecological disaster. While industrialization and agricultural development (e.g. , mechanization and chemical enhancement) may be seen, in general, as a positive adaptive response by our modem culture, it can equally be seen as maladaptive in terms of the negative impacts on the environment, fishermen, fisher-farmers, and those who have traditionally relied upon shad and river herring runs over the years. Purpose of the Study The cultural significance of the anadromous fish runs in the evolution of North Carolina's prehistoric and historic period cultures, with the exception of the historical studies by Watson ( 1996) and Taylor ( 1992, 1990), has generally been presented in much of the popular literature as an interesting historical aspect of regional history or simply ignored and glossed over in the scientific / academic literature. The study presented in this thesis was undertaken to document the importance of Alosa fisheries in both the prehistoric and historic periods from a combined anthropological, archaeological, ethnohistorical, and historical perspective. In light of patterns observed as a result of limited preliminary research by the author (Heath 1994), the present study focused on two key areas of exposition I . Assessment of the evidence for, and the implications of, anadromous Alosa fisheries in prehistoric eastern North Carolina. 2. Assessment of the evidence for, and the results of, anadromous Alosa fisheries in the late nineteenth and early-to-mid twentieth century in northeastern North Carolina. 8 Through the assessment of these general thematic issues, sufficient information was generated to address four primazy research questions: 1. When did Alosa fisheries become a significant resource to prehistoric cultures in eastern North Carolina, and what were the potential effects on native cultures as a result of such exploitation? 2. In what ways did historic period human populations exploit Alosa fish stocks in northeastern North Carolina, and how did the spawning runs contribute to the local subsistence economy and cultural lifeways during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? 3. Why has the significance of the anadromous Alosa fish runs, as a subsistence resource, declined in the last half-century and, in general, how have modern cultural practices contributed to the demise of shad and river herring stocks? 4. How do the historic period shad and river herring fishing traditions continue to manifest themselves in northeastern North Carolina today? The present study is an effort to trace the evolution of the river herring and shad fisheries in eastern North Carolina from a major subsistence resource of prehistoric Coastal Plain populations to a valuable commercial product in the early modem period. The parallel and continued subsistence role of these species is the focus of the later historic period presentation. The geographical region of study is primarily restricted to the northeastern Coastal Plain, specifically the geographic area that includes the Albemarle Sound and its tributazy rivers. Information from the Pamlico Sound and its related tributaries is presented where appropriate. Historical, ethnohistorical, archaeological and ethnographic information is introduced, where possible, for each period surveyed. The general theme or working hypothesis of the present study is that anadromous fisheries, particularly those that focused on the exploitation of shad and river herring, provided an important seasonal food resource to both prehistoric and historic cultures of eastern North Carolina. The importance of the Alosa spawning runs was derived from four specific characteristics inherent in the 9 resource: ( 1 ) p redictability in space and time, (2) availability of massive quantities, (3 ) accessibility or ease of harvest with a minimal investment of time, energy and gear technology, and (4) storability as a short-to-long-term food resource, depending upon the preservation technology employed. Anadromous Alosa fisheries and the resulting consumer products (fresh, salted or smoke­ dried river herring and fresh or salted shad) were a significant element of the local subsistence economy until the post-World War II era. After World War II the general availability of electric refrigeration and improved intrastate / interstate transportation systems, brought about by the post­ war economic boom, stimulated greater diversity and accessability to a broader range of economical and nutritional food sources . As such, the need or desire for Alosa fi sheries, except for monetary profit or the desire to continue with cultural tradition, was greatly reduced by 1 950. The historical dependancy on anadromous fisheries had notable impacts on the cultures in eastern North Carolina, vestiges of which can still be seen in various forms today. The cultural contribution of shad and river herring over the broad span of time was of considerable importance. As such, a research focus on any particular time period would certainly be significant. The significance of anadromous fisheries to any specific cultural group at any particular point in time on the North Carolina Coastal Plain could be demonstrated and assessed. However, a comparative study, with the broadest temporal perspective is in order to better appreciate the overall cultural significance of the seasonal dependability of annual Alosa runs in the region . Further, a thorough assessment of the exploitation patterns through time would demand a book-length study. Taylor ( 1 990, 1 992) presented a reasonably thorough overview of commercial fisheries during the early historic period from 1 700 to 1 900 . As such, the present study will primarily focus on two key temporal and cultural periods : the prehistoric period fisheries through the time of permanent European settlement (circa 1 650- 1 7 1 5) , and local exploitation practices by descendants of European I O and African populations of the early modem era (circa 1 880- 1 950). Although the varied cultural groups of the two primary periods of study were widely divergent, in terms of social structure, economy and technology, certain parallels are evident. The rural, agrarian nature of eastern North Carolina during the post-Civi l War era was, in some respects, comparable to the later part of the prehistoric period in the realm of localized subsistence strategies: the rational for anadromous fisheries was largely synonymous between the two time periods considered in the study. As such, a parallel examination of Alosa fisheries in each of the broader time periods will be the general theme of the present study. Methodology The general methodology employed to explore the four thematic foci of the research consisted of library and archival research, fieldwork to collect oral histories, and a qualitative data assessment. To set the stage for the primary research areas, it was necessary to research the biological life histories of the four Alosa species discussed in the study. The inherent nature of the seasonal spawning patterns and the geographic distribution of the Alosa species were keys to understanding the cultural exploitation of the resource in the past. Library research was conducted at the National Marine Fi sheries Library, Morehead City, North Carolina, and the North Carolina Collection, Joyner Library, East Carolina University, to gather pertinent biological data and catch st:::iristics that were applicable to the present study. The prehistoric period of study relied on publi shed archaeological data from sites in eastern North Carolina (e.g. , Byrd 1 99 1 , 1 997b; Mikell 1 986 ; Phelps 1 983, 1 984), as well as synthesized site data from neighboring geographic regions that were home to aboriginal cultures inhabiting similar environmental niches (e.g. , Barber 1 980; Custer 1 984, 1 988, 1 989; Dent 1 995 ; Hummer and 1 1 Custer 1986; Kraft 1986a, 1986b; Larson 1980; Scarry and Scarry 1997). One eastern North Carolina prehistoric site on the Roanoke River, the Jordan's Landing site (3 1 BR7 ), whose long-term occupation ended with the Cashie phase (AD. 800-1715), yielded the most significant zooarchaeological data that contributed to the present research (Byrd 1991, 1997b; Phelps 1983 ). Cultural Resource Management (CRM) reports and other research on Coastal Plain sites, in the library of the David S. Phelps Archaeology Laboratory, East Carolina University, were consulted for relevant data (e.g., Loftfield 1987; Mikell 1986). Unfortunately, few such studies presented any zooarchaeological data or analyses ofrecovered faunal materials, particularly in the case of fish remams. The North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (NCOSA), located in Raleigh, North Carolina, was consulted for related published or unpublished materials, but no additional Coastal Plain site reports were located that contained pertinent prehistoric or historic period data (Mark Mathis, NCOSA, personal communication 1997; Scarry and Scarry 1997) Due to the dearth of archaeological sources, early ethnohistoric accounts by colonial explorers and settlers were utilized. The direct-historical approach was undertaken to make reasonable inferences about late prehistoric and proto-historic period anadromous fisheries in the Coastal Plain region. The available archaeological (e.g., Byrd 1997b; Mikell 1986) and ethnohistoric (e.g ., Harriot 1972 ( 1590]; Lawson 1967 [1709] ; Smith 1895 ( 16 1 2] ; Strachey I 953 ( 16 12]) data were synthesized to dvnonstrate the potential importance of shad and river herring fisheries to Native American populations in eastern North Carolina. Information for the historic colonial era through the late nineteenth century period was gathered from primary sources (e.g., Boyce 1968 [ I ? 17], Brickell 1969 ( 1737]; Crayon 1959 [1857] ; Lawson 1967 ( 1709], Olmstead 1904 [1856], 1953 ( 1861] ; Ruffin 1861; Saunders 1993; 1 2 Southern Historical Collection, n .d . ) and secondary source syntheses (e.g. , Boyce 1 968 [ 1 9 1 7] ) ; Gregg 1 968; Leary 1 9 1 5 ; Taylor 1 990, 1 992). Official documentary sources, publi shed by the United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries (e.g. , Baird 1 873 ; Earll 1 887 ; Goode 1 887) and related state (e.g. , Cobb 1 906) and other Federal government publications (e.g. , Sabine 1 853) were also incorporated in the study. The twentieth century period research uti l ized simi lar state and Federal government publications, such as those publi shed by the North Carolina Fish Commission / North Carolina Geological and Economic Survey (e.g. , Cobb 1 906; Pratt 1 908. 1 9 1 1 a. 1 9 1 1 b ). as well as a number ofrelated secondary sources (e.g. , Barfield 1 995; Booker 1 974; Boyce 1 968 [ 1 9 1 7] ; Gregg 1 968; Hart 1 990 ; Manooch 1 979; Winslow I 994) . The early-to-mid-twentieth century period of study, however, relied primarily upon ethnographic accounts collected by the author in 1 995 and 1 997 (e.g. , Heath 1 995b; Fenner 1 995 ; T. Gardner 1 997; Lane 1 997; Layton 1 997; Hampton 1 997; Mizzell 1 995 ; Ormond 1 997 ; Smithwyck 1 997; Spruill 1 995 ; Spruill 1 997; Taylor 1 997). Where applicable, additional oral history or ethnographic data, collected by researchers at the Institute for Coastal and Marine Resources, East Carolina University (e.g. , Ashley 1 996; Byrum 1 996; Hollowell 1 996). the Institute for Historical and Cultural Research, East Carolina University (e.g. , Heath 1 995a; Jones 1 994; Rountree 1 978), and the North Carolina Maritime Museum (Capehart 1 988) were incorporated into the study. The ethnographic data collected by the author provided unique and heretofore unpublished information on the local exploitation of shad and river herring from both the late nineteenth and early-to-mid-twentieth centuries. The oral histories were collected from a range of informants in northeastern North Carolina. Informants were not randomly chosen, but selected specifically for their knowledge and experiences related to shad and herring fisheries in the region during the pre-World 1 3 War II era. Informants were selected in consultation with local historical societies and regional museums, as well as by "word of mouth" consultation with the informants contacted in the initial phase of the study. Informants included persons associated directly or indirectly with both commercial and non-commercial :fisheries on the Albemarle Sound and its major tributary rivers. Although the original study plan was to include informants from the Pamlico Sound region, its tributary drainages, and the Cape Fear River drainage system, time constraints did not allow for such informants to be located, contacted or interviewed. The present study incorporated interview data from twenty-one informants, sixteen of whom were specifically selected and interviewed by the author. The remainder of the informants were previously interviewed by other researchers. Of the twenty-one interviewees included in the study. there were seventeen white males, one black male and three black females. There were no white females. The majority of the study 's informants were born between the years 1903 and 1930. Most were life-time residents of the Albemarle Sound vicinity or regions surrounding its tributary drainages. The representativeness of the informant sample may be somewhat questionable, in that certain demographic classes were not well represented or included. The perspectives presented by the majority of the interviewees, white males, are likely to be unintentionally, but nevertheless biased. Observations by white males about female fishery workers, black fishery workers, black fishery­ dependent farmers and their families are from an etic perspective and may not reflect the most complete portrayal of the early twentieth century commercial and non-commercial shad and river herring :fisheries. Accordingly, statements made by white males about the cultural behaviors of other white males, black males and females or white females may be potentially misrepresentative, not just in terms of gender or ethnic issues, but in terms of social class differences as well. 1 4 Such potential biases, along with the limited geographical scope of the informant sample, suggest that the post-1880 period chapter may not be completely indicative of cultural practices over the entire Coastal Plain during the early-to-mid-twentieth century. Despite these observations, the author considers the information presented in the early modern period chapter to be generally representative of the region studied. A body ofliterature exists in the anthropological and historical disciplines related to the concept of shared cultural knowledge. Studies have indicated that the majority of oral history informants tend to remember normative behaviors in a society. Recall is not j us, the individual 's own normative behaviors. but the behavioral patterns of people outside of their own gender group, ethnic group or social class as well. A number of studies have indicated that oral histories are typically reliable in their information and generally no worse than written documents (see papers in Dunaway and Baum 1996). As one researcher observed: "Archives are replete with self-serving documents, with edited and doctored diaries and memoranda written 'for the record'. In fact, when undertaken in the most professional way, oral histories may be superior to many written records" (Hoffinan 1996:92). Further, oral interviews are not written documents and quite " . . .o ften contain the freshness and candor which is more typical of direct conversation" (Hoffinan 1996:92). It is with these caveats that the early modern period study is presented. Unfortunately, time and financial constraints did not allow for a more diverse range of informants to be located or consulted for the present study. As such, the oral history synthesis presented in this thesis should be considered as a tentative, preliminary study for the period of concern. 1 5 Theoretical Perspective In the not so distant past, the research focus on maritime adapted cultures in anthropology was portrayed as a neglected topical area (Smith 1977) or as an unfocused thematic undertaking that contributed little significant data to the greater body of anthropological knowledge (Acheson 198 1 ). Despite such negative conclusions, the general level of interest in maritime adaptation and the concurrent publication of a large body of literature on maritime related studies, at that time, already had begun to expand rapidly and has grown dramatically ever since (see bibliographic review : Kerber 1991) . Acheson ( 1981) believed that the purview of maritime anthropologists was the specific focus on communities that relied primarily on fishing for subsistence or economic viability. Smith (1977) and Casteel and Quimby ( 1975) were more inclusive, however, and observed that any community that depended upon mixed marine, agriculture / horticulture, and gathering subsistence patterns should be equally considered in the realm of maritime anthropology. In regards to the present state of maritime anthropology, the author of this study considers the views expressed by Casteel and Quimby (1975) and Smith ( 1977) to be more tenable than those expressed by Acheson ( 1981 ). Accordingly, the present study, dealing with multiple-livelihood, fisher-farmer, cultural groups of northeastern North Carolina, will contribute to the greater body of research in maritime anthropology. As observed by McCay ( 1978), studies of fishing dependent societies are most often set in the context of cultural ecology, due to the inherent research focus on cultural interactions with, and as a result of, the marine environment. Due to the basic nature of Culture in general, and the specific nature of shad and river herring fisheries in eastern North Carolina through time, the concept of adaptive strategies (Bennett 1971, 1976, 1 993) , from the processual cultural ecology orientation (Orlove 1980), was utilized as the interpretive framework for the present study. The theoretical 1 6 perspective of adaptive strategies provides a viable, yet simple and elegant solution in the interpretation of a complex cultural phenomena. This conclusion is certainly tenable in view of the concept of "Culture" as defined by Carneiro ( 1968). He stated : "Culture is essentially an adaptive mechanism, making possible the satisfaction of human needs, both biological and social" (Carneiro 1968 :551) . Further, culture " . . . is something which man interposes between himself and his environment in order to ensure his security and survival. As such, culture is adaptive" (Carneiro 1968:551). Accordingly, one might consider cultural adaptation, rather than a system of energy input and output ratios (e.g. , General Systems Theory or Systems Ecology), to be the heart of all cultural ecological approaches (Bennett 1971, 1976, 1993; Moran 1982). Further, as food procurement strategies clearly relate to human interaction with the environment, subsistence behaviors and strategies are typically the focus of ecological studies of human adaptation (Halperin 1994; Jochim 198 1 ). Cultural ecology or ecological anthropology has generally been defined as " . . . t he study of the relations among the population dynamics, social organization, and culture of human population and the environments in which they live. It includes comparative research as well as analyses of specific populations (e.g., particularistic) from both synchronic and diachronic perspectives" (Orlove 1980 :235). Another researcher defined cultural ecology as " .. . the interrelationship of environment, subsistence, and society" (Heider 1972 :207). In his review of the ecological anthropology, Orlove ( 1980) noted that the development of ecological anthropology could be characterized as having evolved in three stages, with each successive stage having been a natural intellectual outgrowth of its predecessor. The first stage, from 1930 to 1960, revolved around the theories of Julian Steward and Leslie White. The second stage was defined by the emergence of the neofunctional and neoevolutionary schools between 1960 and the early 1970s. The third stage emerged in the late 1 7 1960s and early 1970s and was termed the "processual" stage (for a detailed review see Orlove 1980). In response to perceived shortcomings of the neofunctional and neoevolutionary schools of thought in ecological anthropology, the processual approach developed in the 1970s. Neofunctionalists in particular were criticized for focusing on specific or synchronic events, cultural traits and rituals that served to maintain cultural homeostasis, while ignoring diachronic processes or dysfunctional attributes in societies, such as conflict or power relations that can lead to structural changes in a culture (Kaplan and Manners 1972; Orlove 1980). Although concerns with the interaction between environment and culture were shared by neofunctionalists, neoevolutionists and processualists, an increased emphasis on diachronic studies and analyses of mechanisms of cultural change characterize the processual approach. Orlove ( 19 80:245) considered the third stage as "processual" due to the florescence of studies that examined --. . . shifts and changes in individual and group activities . . .'' and the focus " . . .o n the mechanisms by which behavior and external constraints influence each other." Important trends of the 1970s included systematic application of biological concepts to culture, concern with demographic variables and production systems (e.g. , E. Boserup), response to environmental stress, formation of adaptive strategies (e.g., J. W. Bennett), interest in political economies (e.g. M. Godelier), and examination of environmental problems (e .g., A. Vayda and B. McCay) (for detailed review see Orlove 1980). In the 1980s, the "new" ecological anthropology began to rely more on the utilization of models as heuristic devices (e.g. , decision making models and Optimal Foraging models) and the borrowing of concepts from evolutionary biology and animal ecology (Halperin 1994; Orlove 1980). Out of the myriad of approaches developed by theorists of the cultural ecology school in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the concept of cultural adaptation, as related to adaptive strategies, emerged. Bennett and Kane! (1983:236) defined adaptation as the way people respond to either 1 8 opportunities or constraints in order to survive in a specific cultural and natural environment. The general concept of adaptive strategies is somewhat synonymous to decision or choice making models, whereby " . . .a ctors operating under a set of constraints allocate scarce resources to a hierarchical series of ends or goals" (Orlove 1980:247). Accordingly, Orlove ( 1980 :251) noted : "The idea of adaptive strategy suggests that individuals, by repeatedly opting for certain activities rather than others, construct alternatives which others may then chose to imitate. " Bennett ( 1971: 14- 16) defined adaptive strategies as : The patterns formed by the many separate adjustments that people devise in order to obtain and use resources and to solve the immediate problems confronting them . . .a daptive strategies are generally at the conscious level in behavior of the people involved. . . ( the actions taken can be analyzed in terms of) adaptive processes, or the changes introduced over relatively long periods of time by the repeated use of such strategies or the making of many adjustments . . . t he many separate adjustments that have become patterned as strategies can also enter into culture: that is, as repetitive patterns of action they can be viewed by the people as traditions . . . According to Bennett, his concept of adaptation transcended Roy Rappaport's conception of adaptation which was simply the "search for homeostasis" (Bennett 1 976); the assumption that human populations, like many other animal species ( e.g. lemmings), seek homeostatic equilibrium (a viewpoint that is synchronic and static) has been criticized by other researchers, as well (e.g., Ellen 1982 : Orlove 1980; Vayda and McCay 1 975). In Bennett 's ( 1976) view, adaptation is an open ended, diachronic process, since adaptive behaviors do not necessarily result in the maintenance of equilibrium. In a number of studies, the focus on adaptive strategies has led to the assessment of how choices made by individuals, or groups, have influenced the greater cultural community or environment (see review in Orlove 1980). Adaptive strategies can more simply be defined as ''. .. short-range choices of individuals as adjustments to their environments", while adaptive 1 9 processes can be defined as " .. . long-range changes that result from these choices" (Barlett 1 980:548). Human adaptive strategies revolve around the innate ability to make conscious choices related to resource exploitation, seasonal scheduling, and particular spatial arrangements chosen to accomplish a certain adaptive strategy (Bennett 1 976; Jochim 1 976). The term "adaptation" does not automatically imply that a particular adaptive response is the only option. Nor does the concept imply that the cultural solution to a particular environmental situation is the best response (e.g . , optimal or positively adaptive), rather the concept implies that an adaptation " . . . has sufficient positive features for the complex traits to be perpetuated, while there may also be negative features" related to the cultural response (Barlett 1 980 :548). In their adaptive responses, Jochim ( 1 976, 198 1) noted that human populations must contend with three constraints : ( 1 ) seasonality or scheduling, (2) site location, and (3) demographic organization (size of group, division of labor). The paramount goal of any resource exploitation is to reduce costs, risks, and energy use associated with the procurement of desired food products or other materials (Jochim 1 976, 1 98 1 ; Larson 1 980). In terms of subsistence strategies, populations develop schedules that emphasize reliable resources, particularly those that provide a high yield at a minimum cost (Larson 1 980; Reitz 1 979). In relation to subsistence resource extraction as an adaptive process, Bennett ( 1 993) observed that there are significant differences between low-energy and high-energy adaptations. Low-energy cultures use human or animal energy in the extractive process, whereas high-energy cultures utilize machine generated energy to enhance the exploitation of resources. As such, the production foci in high-energy societies relate to market economies and the support of larger populations beyond those members immediately engaged in the production. High-energy uses of natural resources tend to result in resource abuse, since " . . . t heir extractive processes are extensive 20 and exhaustive and the external demands for such resources are so high" (Bennett 1993 :258). These concepts are particularly important to understanding how shifts in resource exploitation lead to resource degradation or displacement of segments oft he population that rely on a specific resource due to economic competition. As subsistence behaviors are a major focus ofe cological oriented studies ofh uman adaptation (Halperin 1994; Jochim 1981) , the study oft he shad and river herring fisheries can naturally be contextualized within the theoretical framework ofa daptive strategies (Bennett 1971, 1976). The present study is particularly relevant in light ofh istorical assumptions related to the availabi lity ofd omesticated plants and animals to both prehistoric and historic cultures. It has been commonly assumed that the presence ofp lant and animal domesticates have " ...p rotected the human population from the need to adjust to the natural environment in any but the most superficial sense" (Reitz 1 979) . A number of studies have demonstrated, however, that the presence ofd omestic food sources, particularly in the early modern historic period, have not always relieved human populations of the need to util ize wild resource components of their natural environment (see review in Reitz 1979 ) . The persistent exploitation ofs had and river herring for local subsistence purposes in eastern North Carolina during the both the later prehistoric and early modern historic periods was likely a reflection of the same phenomena. Geographic Setting In North Carolina, the tributary rivers of the Albemarle and Pamlico sounds are the primary spawning habitats ofs had and river herring and have served as prime fishing grounds for those species for hundreds, if not thousands, ofy ears. The waters of the Albemarle-Pamlico drainage system (Figure 2.) combine to form a vast fresh-terbrackish water system that provides a suitable 2 1 z 0 • I M I L ( .. w- ..... S U O A L .:, 0 ? ? C) I \ I ' ... -F ., .. , . . . (.., 01=.{fi:'i?C?: .. .N. ?t , ? V :; / [" (lr 0 ? ? I 7::; ./.? / ' \ \ +? \, NOllntLU'l'DlN' NOrnt CAAOUNA I N D E X M A P ' ' .. A H A I Figure 2. Map of Coastal North Carol i na With Major Rivers, Sounds and Towns in Eastern North Caro l ina (Adapted from Haag 1 956 :7 [Figure 1 . 1 ) . 22 habitat for spawning anadromous fish species from late February through early-to-mid May (Marshall 1 95 1 ; Taylor 1 95 1 ). The spawning area is primarily the Chowan and Roanoke Rivers of the Albemarle Sound drainage, and the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico Rivers of the Pamlico Sound drainage. The salty waters of Pamlico Sound serve as a migratory route for spawning anadromous species that seek the fresh or mildly brackish waters of inland rivers during the spawning season (Smith 1907). Most of the fresh water for the two sounds comes from a total of seventeen main trunk rivers. There are, however, four major river systems that provide the bulk of the fresh water discharge into the Albemarle-Pamlico system. The Albemarle is primarily fed by the Chowan and Roanoke Rivers and the Pamlico is primarily fed by the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico Rivers. ln addition to the primary trunk rivers, a number of smaller tributaries and sounds drain into the two main sound bodies. The Currituck Sound feeds the Albemarle Sound along with the discharge of the Cashie. Alligator, Scuppernong, Perquimans, Pasquotank, Yeopim, Little and North Rivers, as well as a host of lesser streams and creeks. The Pamlico Sound is additionally influenced by Croatan and Roanoke Sounds and a number of smaller rivers such as the Pungo, Bay and South Rivers, along with numerous tributary creeks. Numerous inlets, primarily Oregon Inlet, along the northern coastline, and a connection with the more southerly Core Sound, couple the Pamlico and Albemarle sounds with the Atlantic Ocean. The connection allows tidal exchange which provides circulation and flushing action, as well as access to inland waters for various marine species, including the spawning anadromous varieties (Marshall 1 95 1 ; Smith 1 907; Taylor 1 95 1 ). Due to natural inlet closings and migrations over the last few centuries, the Albemarle Sound is no longer directly connected to the ocean by inlets (Figure 2. ) . As such, it is primarily influenced by wind and its fresh water tributaries rather than the ocean tides (Copeland and Gray 23 1 989; Marshall I 95 1 ; Taylor 1 95 1 ). Spawning anadromous fish, seeking the waters of the Albemarle Sound drainage, now enter primarily through the Oregon and Hatteras Inlets, while those seeking the tributaries of the Pamlico Sound drainage enter primarily through Ocracoke and Hatteras Inlets ( Smith 1 907) (Figure 2 . ). The Albemarle Sound i s one of the largest coastal bodies of fresh water in the world ( 450- 500 square miles), while the Pamlico Sound i s noted to be one of the l argest sal t water sounds in the United States ( 1 ,700- 1 ,800 square miles) (Smith 1 907; Marshall 1 95 1 ; Taylor 1 95 1 ) . Under normal environmental conditions, the water of the Albemarle Sound i s fresh, but turns brackish, particularly on the eastern end, during periods of extreme drought (Smith 1 907; Taylor 1 95 1 ) . Due to heavy winter runoff from the interior, salinity levels are greatly reduced in both sounds during the spring months (Epperly 1 984; Marshall 1 95 1 ) . The primary estuarine waters of North Carolina, including Albemarle, Pamlico, Roanoke, Croatan, Core and Currituck sounds, cover an area of approximately 2 ,900 square miles ; second in size in the United States only to the Chesapeake Bay (Copeland and Gray 1 989 :4-5). Combined, the Albemarle-Pamlico watershed drains a total of 30,000 square miles of surface area (Copeland and Gray 1 989 :4-5 ) . In the Albemarle-Pamlico estuarine system, an extensive complex of swamps, sounds, rivers and streams provide freshwater nutrients that combine with oceanic tidal action and moderate-to-warm seasonal conditions to generate plankton growth, which supports a vast and complex estuarine and anadromous fish community (Marshall 1 95 1 ; Stanley 1 992; Taylor 1 95 1 ) . Due to the inherent freshness of the waters of the Albemarle Sound, the rivers and tributaries of i ts drainage system tend to attract more spawning river herring as compared to the rivers of the saltier Pamlico Sound drainage and the more southerly rivers such as the White Oak, New and Cape Fear rivers and their associated tributaries. The more saline tolerant shad has been equally prolific on the 24 majority of North Carolina's major Coastal Plain rivers, from the Albemarle Sound drainage down to the Cape Fear River (Winslow 1990, 1994; Rulifson 1994). Historically, the Neuse River served as the spawning habitat for the largest population of American shad south of the Chesapeake Bay. That population was dramatically reduced over the last century and continues to be severely threatened by damming and pollution today (Rulifson et al. 1982b; Winslow 1994). Biological Aspects of Alosa in North Carolina The genus Alosa of the family Clupidae (shads and herrings) includes four species considered in the present study: the alewife, Alosa psuedoharengus ["goggle-eye", "wall-eyed", "spring" or "branch" herring (Smith 1907); "greyback" herring, "kyak" (Rulifson et al. l 982a)], the blueback herring, A. aestivalis ["school", "glut" or "May" herring (Smith 1907); "blackbelly", "sawbelly", "summer" herring (Rulifson et al. I 982a)], the American shad, A. sapidissima ["shad", "white" shad (Smith 1907); "roe" shad (Rulifson et al. l 982a)], and the hickory shad. A. mediocris ["jack", "skip jack", "hick" (Smith 1907); "bone jack", "tailor herring", "shad herring" (Rulifson et al. l 982a)]. Due to the physical similarities between the blueback herring and the alewife, as well as parallels in the spawning habits and geographical range, the two species are commonly lumped together and referred to as "river herring" in the United States. In Canada, river herring are collectively referred to as gapereau or alewives (Loesch 1987; Rulifson et al. 1982a). Historically, the alewife and blueback herring have been grouped together for commercial fishery statistical purposes under the terms "river herring", "herring" or "alewife" (Bozeman and Van Den Avyle 1 989; North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries [NCDMF] 1993; Loesch 1987; Rulifson et al. 1 982a), as opposed to their more commonly known and biologically related cousins; the sea or 25 Atlantic herring, C/upea harengus (Linnaeus), which do not spawn in or enter freshwater environments (Smith 1 907). Adult river herring generally range between six (age II) and eleven (age YID) inches in length (Rulifson et al . 1 982a), but are known reach a maximum length of fifteen inches (Robins, Ray, Douglass , and Freund 1 986). Depending upon age, sex and length, adult ri_ver herring average between one-half pound and one pound in weight (King 1 947; Robins et al . 1 986 ; Smith 1 907) . The larger adult American shad generally range from seven (age I) to twenty-one (age VI) inches in length (Rulifson et al . 1 982a), but are known to reach a maximum length of thirty inches (Robins et al . 1 986) . Hickory shad are somewhat smaller than American shad, with a total length that ranges between eight (age I) and seventeen (age VII) inches (Rulifson et al . 1 982a), with a maximum length of twenty-four inches (Robins et al. 1 986). Shad generally weigh, depending upon age, sex and length, average between three and five pounds (King 1 947 ; Smith 1 907), but older American shad have been recorded in the twelve-to-thirteen pound range (Robins et al . 1 986 ; Smith 1 907) . Among all Alosa, females (roes) are generally longer and heavier, particularly during the spawning season, than the males (bucks) (King 1 947; Rulifson et al . 1 982a). The alewife proper ranges the Atlantic coast from Labrador and Newfoundland, Canada down to northern South Carolina, while the blueback herring ranges from Nova Scoti a and New Brunswick, Canada down to central, east Florida (Bozeman and Van Den Avyle 1 989; Loesch 1 987; NCDMF 1 993 ; Rulifson 1 994 ; Rulifson et al . 1 982a). The American shad, the largest member of the herring family Clupeidae, ranges from Labrador, Canada to northeastern Florida, while the hickory shad has a more limited range, primarily from Connecticut to central , east Florida (Rulifson 1 994 ; Rulifson et al . 1 982a). The hickory shad proper does not spawn northward beyond the inland waters 26 of New England (Batsavage 1997). In North Carolina, the alewife and the blueback herring are the most abundant of all anadromous species that inhabit the waters of the state (Rulifson et al. 1982a). River herring and shad, as anadromous fish, spend much of the adult life in salt water as schooling pelagic species, but migrate back to freshwater rivers and streams to spawn each spring (Bozeman and Van Den Avyle 1989; NCDMF 1993; Roelofs 1951; Rulifson 1994 ; Rulifson et al. 1 982a; Talbot and Sykes 1958). Although studies indicate that American shad generally return to the natal rivers and streams to spawn as adults (Melvin, Dadswell and Martin 1986), scientific research, to date, does not support the conclusion that other Alosa (e.g., blueback herring, alewife and hickory shad) exhibit such behavior in North Carolina waters (Roger Rulifson, East Carolina University, personal communication 1997). Tagging studies in Canadian waters, however, indicate that the blueback herring and alewife not only accurately return to home rivers for spawning, but also return to specific natal areas within the rivers (Jessop 1994). Alosa enter the North Carolina sounds in early-to-mid February and linger in the estuaries until water conditions in the rivers and tributaries are sufficient for spawning. Natural triggering mechanisms, primarily water temperature, initiate shad and river herring migrations up streams and rivers. The timing of the upstream migration varies latitudinally from river to river, but within a locality, will generally be consistent from year-to-year (Bozeman and Van Den Avyle 1989; Loesch 1987 ; NCDMF 1993; Roelofs 195 1: Rulifson 1994 ; Talbot and Sykes 1958). Alosa are known to enter the sounds and ascend the rivers when the water temperature reaches 50 to 55 degrees Fahrenheit (Roelofs 195 1), but not actually spawn until the water reaches an approximate temperature between 50 and 70 degrees Fahrenheit (Rulifson et al. 1982a, 1982b ). The specific range of spawning temperatures varies greatly among the four species (see Rulifson et al. 1982a, 1 982b ). In the Albemarle-Pamlico region, surface water temperatures generally approximate the air 27 temperature, or are slightly lower, during most months of the year, except during the summer months when waters can reach surface temperatures in excess of80 degrees Fahrenheit (Epperly 1984; Marshall 1951; United States Department of the Interior 1970). Local fisherman in eastern North Carolina say that the river herring begin to run when the dogwood blossoms (T. Gardner 1997; Smithwyck 1997; Spruill l 997). The alewives run first in early March and April, followed approximately three-to-four weeks later by the blueback herring in early April and May (Loesch 1987; Roelofs 1951; Smith 1907). As observed by Smith ( 1907 : I 24) , "The glut herring (blueback) comes later than the branch herring (alewife), usually appearing suddenly, in enormous schools, about the middle of shad season." Although a large quantity of shad ascend the rivers in mid-to-late February, particularly hickory shad, the presence of the alewife in the creeks and rivers is considered by fishermen to be the forbearer of the larger, more economically productive, American shad runs (Layton 1997 ; Roelofs I 951: Smith 1907). Accordingly, the primary schools of American shad arrive in the rivers at approximately the same time as the blueback herring (Layton 1997 ; Roelofs 1951; Smith 1907). The hickory shad, however, spawns earlier than the American shad and enter the rivers by early-to-mid-February. Hickory shad are, in fact, the first A losa to spawn in North Carolina waters during the Alosa spawning season ( Batsavage 1997). With the exception of a particularly large influx of"May herring" and "May shad", the spawning runs generally begin to taper off significantly by the end of April or early May. Although there is no apparent biological taxonomic distinction, May shad are also known locally as "golden­ backed" or "short-tailed" shad and are somewhat thicker in body than the early season American shad (Layton 1997; Smith 1907). The May runs of shad and herring usually arrive before mid­ month and spawning continues until the end of May (Layton 1997). Based on observed spawning 28 habits, it is readily apparent that Alosa species in North Carolina waters were an extremely reliable and predictable food resource for the purposes of seasonal subsistence scheduling among human populations in a given locality. Once river herring and shad enter sounds, rivers and streams to breed, they tend to seek the freshest water in which to spawn. In the past, river herring were generally found along the shallow shoreline of the Albemarle Sound and up most of North Carolina 's Coastal Plain rivers and tributary creeks. In North Carolina waters, river herring generally tend to spawn in abundance in shallow slow moving waters of heavily vegetated creeks, tributary communicable swamps, lakes, ponds, drainage ditches and canals (Loesch 1987; Rulifson 1994; Rulifson et al. 1982a; Rulifson et al. l 982a, 1982b; Spruill 1997). Although there is no scientific evidence of river herring spawning in the relatively fresh waters of Albemarle Sound (Roger Rulifson, East Carolina University, personal communication 1997), many local fishermen claim to have observed alewife and blueback herring spawning in the inshore waters, among the cypress trees, of the Albemarle Sound (Layton 1997; Spruill 1997). Alewives have been observed by biologists spawning in more saline brackish waters near the mouths of the sounds outside of North Carolina waters (Bozeman and Van Den Avyle 1989). As noted by Smith ( 1907: 123 ), "this species ascends the small streams to spawn, often pushing its way far to the headwaters of brooks and branches only a few feet wide and not more than six inches deep." The American shad tend to prefer the main channels of streams and rivers or the mouths of tributary creeks, as its eggs need to be suspended and dispersed by subsurface currents (NCDMF 1993; Rulifson 1994 ; Rulifson et al. 1982a, 1982b). Alosa species broadcast eggs and gametes pelagically in the water column. Female river herring and hickory shad have slightly adhesive eggs that tend to sink to the bottom, particularly in still or sluggish water, after fertilization is complete 29 (Rulifson I 994). Alternately, female American shad have non-adhesive eggs that develop as they drift back downstream with the currents (Rulifson 1 994). On average, Alosa eggs hatch within six­ to-ten days (Roelofs 1 95 1 ). The specific period of incubation for fertilized eggs is greatly dependent upon water temperature (Rulifson et al . 1 982a). The larvae generally develop into the juvenile stage within two-to-three weeks (Bozeman and Van Den Avyle 1 989). Juveniles (fiy) develop rapidly and feed on plankton, crustacean eggs, mosquito larvae and small insects . Depending upon the specific species, the maturing Alosa fiy spend the summer in black water swamps, fresh or brackish water river or sound environments, feeding on plankton and growing in preparation for migration through the sounds and into the oceans (Rulifson 1 994; Ru!ifson et al . 1 982a, 1 982b ) . During the summer, river herring fiy tend to congregate in the freshwater streams, while American shad tend to congregate in the lower estuaries . The specific nursery grounds utilized by hickory shad are unknown . As few young hickory shad are found with other species of juvenile Alosa in the sound environment during the spring and summer, Batsavage ( 1 997) believes that the juveniles exit the sounds early in the spring and spend the summer in near shore waters . With the fall season and the cooling of the inland waters, the young river herring and American shad fiy head downstream to feed in the sound or estuary environments before entering the warmer ocean waters to grow into maturity (Bozeman and Van Den Avyle 1 989 ; Marshall 1 95 1 ; Rulifson 1 994 ; Rulifson et al . 1 982a, 1 982b; Winslow 1 990). After spawning, most adult Alosa quickly return to the sounds and estuaries to recover and feed before returning to offshore waters in the winter ( Loesch 1 987) . Generally, a four-to-five year period elapses before the sexually mature American shad returns to its natal steam to spawn . Hickory shad generally return after three-to-four years and river herring usually return after three-to­ five years (Bozeman and Van Den Avyle 1 989; Loesch 1 987; Rulifson 1 994; Rulifson et al. 1 982a, 3( 1982b; Winslow 1990). For unknown reasons, many Arndcan shad, particularly those populations found south of the Albemarle Sound (Roger Rulifson, East Carolina University, personal communication 1997), rarely spawn more than once, as many apparently die after spawning (Winslow 1990; Rulifson et al. 1982a; Talbot and Sykes 1958). Alternately, hickory shad (Batsavage 1997) and river herring (Rulifson et al. 1982a) may spawn two or three times during a lifetime. Chapter II Prehistoric and Proto-historic Period River Herring and Shad Fisheries Archaeologists who have studied the prehistoric cultures of eastern North America have perennially debated both the significance of anadromous fish runs in the prehistoric diet and the general time period in which they were first, if ever, extensively exploited for subsistence purposes (e.g., Barber 1980; Binford 1979[1964]; Byrd 1997b; Carlson 1988, 1996; Cleland 1982; Custer 1984, 1988, 1989; Kraft 1986a, 1986b; Larson 1980; Schalk 1977; Stewart, Hummer and Custer 1986). Ethnohistoric sources from the time of European contact and colonization have provided vignette accounts of native shad and river herring fisheries along the Atlantic seaboard. The archaeological and ethnohistorical evidence of prehistoric shad and river herring exploitation on the North Carolina Coastal Plain, however, is not considerable. It is, in fact, minimal at best. Despite the limited present archaeological support, it is probable, given the historical ubiquity and significance of anadromous Alosa fisheries to European and African descent cultures of eastern North Carolina over the last three hundred years, that alosid fish exploitation contributed significantly to the aboriginal diet in prehistoric times. This hypothesis, if true, should be supported by regional archaeological and ethnohistoric evidence, as well as data from neighboring regions of the Northeast and Middle Atlantic. Although no analyz.ed and published alosid fish remains have been recovered from Coastal Plain archaeological sites that date before the Late Woodland (AD. 800-1650) period (Scarry and Scarry 1997), the absence of shad and river herring bones from such sites cannot be construed as an absence of the species from the prehistoric diet. Site sampling strategies, as well as various taphonomic processes and the general lack of appropriate recovery techniques (e.g . , large-scale fine screening and floatation sampling of features and deposits), more likely explain the dearth of A losa 32 remains on Coastal Plain sites. Further, depending upon the specific cooking process, the bones of alosids can be, and are often consumed with the flesh (Byrd 1 997b; Singer 1 987; Smithwyck 1997; Spruill 1997). Consequently, an absence ofa losid fish remains would result on many archaeological sites. Unintentional chronological bias has resulted from specific research that has concentrated primarily on sites and faunal assemblages from Late Woodland contexts in both the Coastal Plain and Piedmont regions oft he state (Scarry and Scarry 1 997). A general review ofs ite reports compiled in the Anthropological Bibliography of North Carolina (Phelps 1 974), demonstrated that few prehistoric archaeological sites were extensively investigated on the North Carolina Coastal Plain before the mid- l 970s. Oft he Coastal Plain sites excavated before that era, little effort was spent by researchers on faunal recovery or appropriate fauna! analysis techniques. With the advent ofC ultural Resource Management (CRM) legislation in the late 1960s and mid- l 970s, particularly the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA ) of1 966 and the Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act (AHPA) of1 974, archaeological sites on the North Carolina Coastal Plain were investigated at a much higher frequency. Further, the institution of a regional research facility, the Archaeology Laboratory, at East Carolina University ushered in a new era of archaeological research that focused specifically on eastern North Carolina (Phelps 1 983 ) . Through the efforts ofp rojects sponsored by East Carolina University, as well as private sector CRM projects and a small number of projects by the Research Laboratories of Anthropology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, after the mid- l 970s, Coastal Plain sites were located and investigated at an increasing rate (see bibliographic guides : e.g . , Bollinger 1982 ; Hargrove 1 980, 1981; Meyers 1 984, 1985] [see also regional/drainage survey reports: e.g., Phelps 1 978, 1980, 1981, 1 982a; Tippitt 1988; Wesler 1978; Wilson 1977] [see also regional syntheses : e.g., Phelps 1982b; 1983 ; 1984a). 33 During the ensuing period, many riverine and estuarine sites in eastern North Carolina were located and tested, particularly as part of CRM compliance survey and mitigation. Due to the inherent nature of CRM research, however, time and financial restrictions have generally not allowed investigators to employ large-scale fine-screening or extensive floatation sampling strategies on sites that may have potentially yielded Alosa vertebrae or other related skeletal remains. CRM research, as a rule, primarily focuses on site identification and data recovery, not data analysis (Phelps 1983). On the few sites where more rigorous field methodologies were employed, the "grey literature" reports, generated from CRM investigations, included little in-depth or sophisticated analyses offish remains. Such remains have not been thoroughly analyzed by qualified specialists due to economic constraints, or were simply too fragmented for positive identification. In some instances, site reports simply inventoried fish remains under the blanket classification of "Pices" or "Osteichthyes" (note examples compiled in Scarry and Scarry 1997). Although there are certainly a small number of exceptions, a large portion of the faunal data recovered by CRM projects has not been presented in the most useful format. Further compounding the general lack of site specific data on Alosa exploitation, is the issue of differential faunal preservation. Cultural and natural transformation processes often destroy the delicate bone remains of river herring and shad, leaving precious little for the researcher to recover or analyze (Byrd 1991, 1997b; Lyman 1994). While fish, in general, " . . . are subject to the same processes of taphonomy as other faunal remains" (fish bones are) " . . .m ore vulnerable to the effects of differential preservation than mammal bones due to the former's relative fragility" (Lyman 1994:435). Soils in many areas of the Coastal Plain are moderate to highly acidic and fish bones preserve poorly in acidic sediments (Byrd 1997b; Lyman 1994; Wheeler and Jones 1989). Acidic soils (pH of 6.5 or lower) dissolve calcium, the primary constituent of bones (Wing and Brown 34 1 979). In shell midden contexts, however, calcium carbonate precipitate from massive quantities of shell enhances bone preservation via ground-water percolation (Byrd 1 997b ) . Further complicating the chances of archaeological recovery i s the fact that river herring and shad have been particularly noted for delicate cranial and rib bones (Byrd 1 997b: Wheeler and Jones 1 989) . Taphonomic studies, reviewed by Byrd ( 1 997b) and Lyman ( 1 994), indicated a greater tendency for the more massive post-cranial bones (e.g. , vertebrae) to survive in the archaeological record. Many human consumers in the recent histonc past have, however, prepared and cooked river herring in such a manner that the entire post-cranial skeleton is consumed along with the meat and fins (Byrd 1 997b ; T. Gardner 1 997; Singer 1 987; Smithwyck l Q97). Shad can also be baked, broiled or stewed to the point that rib bones actually dissolve (anonymous 1 976b: Smithwyck 1 997) . Human cooking and mastication processes, as well as those of natural deterioration, over time, have li terally resulted in few Alosa bones, save the vertebrae, to be found in the archaeological record ( Byrd 1 99 1 , 1 997b; Wheeler and Jones 1 989) . Domesticated dogs that once lived on both historic and prehi storic period si tes have further lead to the complete destruction of faunal remains in open midden contexts (Byrd I 997b; Wing and Brown 1 979). The thorough retrieval offish bone is extremely difficult because many of the bones are relatively small (Lyman 1 994 ). Accordingly, the presence of fish remains in a faunal assemblage can be greatly affected by si te sampling techniques and excavation and recovery biases (Singer 1 987) . This factor i s particularly true of Alosa bone remains. The comparatively more massive vertebrae are the only Alosa bones that typically survive in the archaeological record (Byrd 1 997b) . Alosa vertebrae are generally small in size and only range from 3 .0-5 .0 mm in both length and diameter. Many Alosa vertebrae have undoubtedly been lost on many archaeological sites since most archaeologi st utilize sifting screens that incorporate one-quarter inch (6 . 3 5 mm) hardware cloth for 35 general artifact recovery. It has been suggested that floatation or dry-screening with screen si.zes ranging between 0.50 and 2.0 mm must be used to facilitate the extraction of small fish remains, such as Alosa vertebrae, from archaeological features (Byrd 1997b; Lyman 1994: Wheeler and Jones I 989). The need for small mesh screens has been clearly demonstrated through experimental studies in faunal recovery techniques (Carlson 1988; Singer 1987) that have demonstrated " . . .a minimum of seventy-five percent of all herring-sized bones were lost using one-quarter inch mesh screen" ( Singer 1987:85; emphasis added). In a discussion of his analyses offaunal assemblages from three coastal North Carolina sites, Swift ( 1981) concluded: "Finer screening or analysis of column samples would probably disclose use of many smaller, more abundant edible shore fish such as Menidia ( silverside), Fundulus (killifish), herrings (Alosa sps. ), and anchovies (Anchoa sps.). " Numerous factors, such as those summarized in the preceding section, provide reasonable explanations for the presently limited amount of hard archaeological data that can be utilized to demonstrate the degree and significance of Alosa exploitation in the prehistoric past. The taphonomic biases against alosid bone survivalship in the archaeological record has totally shaped our present perception of the archaeological record on anadromous fishing practices in the North Carolina Coastal Plain region. While direct faunal evidence is limited, site data from other comparable environments of the Atlantic seaboard, particularly in the Northeast, and theoretical models, in fact, suggest that the extensive development of anadromous fishery practices were undertaken during the mid-to-late Holocene period in eastern North Carolina. 3 6 C U L T U R A L S E Q U E N C E F T H EO R N O RT H COAS T A L R EG O N O F N O R T H I A R O LI N A C I I O AN L H AS E S I DAT P ERI R E G PE S O D S u s- P E I O D T R SUB NREGION I NER COASTA PLAIN Sue-REGION R IDEWATE - L 1 7 5 I :::: 4.R O L ! N A A LG ONK I M ) ( TU SCAR ORA, / Mf: H0 E: R G I N u M A TTA M U S K E ET I N D I A N W O O DS 7 0 C O I--- L N L 1 1 5 O AI i N D I AN T OW N 1 6 5 0 C AS H I E LA. TE C O LI N G TO N 80 0 M O C K L YE A D ,' B C :5 /v/ O Dl0 !... E M O U N T P L EAS A N T 0 3 0 0 0 :'; ŁA R L Y D E E P C R E E K 1 0 0 0 2 C i; o A" E R 0 0 LA N D I N G 0 ..A TE SAV AN NAH RIVER 3 0 ,:) 0 ? G U I L F O R D H A LI F AX u M DD L E I er: M O RRO W M O U TN A I N < S T A N L EY 6 0 0 0 Ł A . R L K I R K 8 000 z V , . P A L M E R 0 TE - HARDAWAY- DALTON 1 0000 Q ŁA RL Y C L O V I S 1 2 000 ( M d i f i d f P h o e a t e r l 8 e p s 3 1 9 ) Figu re 3 . The Cu ltu ral Seque nce o f E as te rn No rth Car ol i n a ( P he l p s 1 9 9 7 ) 37 Evolution of Aquatic Resource Focused Cultures in the Middle Atlantic and the Northeast Anderesen ( 1979) proposed that Native-American inhabitants of the North American Atlantic seaboard were regularly exploiting aquatic resources (e.g. ,estuarine, lacustrine, riverine, marine) as early as 8,000 B.C. A number of researchers have discussed archaeological evidence that suggests the intensive prehistoric development of aquatically-based subsistence systems, including the presence of anadromous fisheries, in the Eastern Woodlands, as early as 6,000-3 ,000 B.C., from Virginia to Maine (Barber 1980; Brennan 1974; Dincauze 1976; Lavin 1988; Petersen and Putnam 1992; Petersen, Robinson, Belknap; Stark, and Kaplan 1994; Speiss 1992; Stevens 1981; Thomas 1980 ; Yesner, Hamilton and Doyle 1983) . Archaeological research has indicated that the earliest known large-scale general exploitation of coastal resources in the South and Middle Atlantic regions, including North Carolina, date to 4,000 to 3 ,000 B.C. (Custer 1988, 1989; Phelps 1983; Reitz 1988: Stevens 1991) . This approximate date coincides with the beginning of the Late Archaic (3 ,000- 1.000 B.C .) period in the cultural sequence of the North Carolina Coastal Plain (Phelps 1997). Much of this subsistence regime may have specifically revolved around organized, seasonal anadromous fisheries as early as the Middle Archaic (5,000-3,000 B.C.) period (Figure 3 ). A number of researchers have suggested that major sea level and climatic changes after 8,000-7,000 B. C. had significant effects on the subsistence mix of coastal and coastal plain populations of the Middle and South Atlantic regions of North America (e.g., Blanton and Sassaman 1989; Custer 1986, 1988, 1989; Dent 1995 ; Joyce 1988; Thomas, Griffith, Wise and Artusy 1 975) . At present there is much debate over the precise timing and exact nature of early-to-mid-Holocene climatic changes, as well as the impact of such changes on the floral and fauna! communities of the Atlantic seaboard (see review in Joyce 1988). Due to a general lack of data, as well as disagreements among disparate researchers on the interpretation of the presently available data, paleoenvironmental 38 reconstructions oft he early and middle Holocene are certainly problematic (see papers in Nicholas 1 988) and well outside the scope of this study. It is sufficient to note, however, that between 8,000-7,000 B.C. on the Middle and South Atlantic seaboard (Joyce 1988), climactic changes and a series of sea level fluctuations generated flooding and dismemberment episodes that greatly altered the region's Pleistocene drainage system. Between 5,500-4,000 B.C., interior riverine flooding from increased precipitation and subsequent runoff (Blanton and Sassaman 1989) combined with rapidly rising sea level (Brooks, Stone, Colquhoun and Brown 1989) to maximize the upstream penetration of alosids and other anadromous fish species (Custer 1984, 1988) . Although minor sea level fluctuations continued through the present time, the general estuarine, riverine and topographic transformation to the South and Middle Atlantic coastal plain region was generally complete between 2,500- 1,000 B.C. (Dent 1995; Brooks et al. 1989). Custer ( 1984, 1988) suggested that the reduction or leveling of the annual rate of sea level rise resulted in the increased stability of estuarine environments in the Middle Atlantic 3,000 B.C. South Carolina data, recently collected and synthesized by Brooks et al. ( 1989), indicated that estuarine environments in the South Atlantic region were stabilized and well developed by 2,500 B.C., if not before that time. The stabilization of temperature and salinity in the estuaries and rivers by 3,000 B.C. produced extensive habitat areas that were conducive to the spawning habits of anadromous fish species (Custer 1988), such as shad and river herring. Anadromous Alosa were likely exploited well before the period of climatic stabilization after 3,000 B.C. (e.g. , circa 6,000 B.C. shad remains [Petersen and Putnam 1992 ; Spiess 1992] and circa 3,200 B.C. fish weir sites [Petersen et al. 1994]), but the full subsistence potential of river herring, shad and other anadromous species greatly increased with the onset of such major environmental changes after that time. 39 Due to Archaic period climatic shifts that :fluctuated between warm and city and warm and wet conditions (Blanton and Sassaman 1989; Brooks et al. 1989), vegetation changes along the South and Middle Atlantic seaboard after 8,000-7,000 B.C. (Blanton and Sassaman 1989; Joyce 1988) combined with related changes in fauna to produce an environment with an extremely rich and diverse resource base (Custer 1989, 1988; Catlin, Custer and Stewart 1982) . Over time, climactic conditions enhanced the growth potential and development of nut bearing trees (Joyce 1988), and produced a forest environment conducive to the large-scale evolution of wild turkey and deer populations (Custer 1989). The floral and faunal developments coalesced with increased anadromous fish stocks to provide a much more favorable subsistence mix on the Atlantic seaboard after 3 ,000 B.C. than what had existed during the Early-to-Middle Archaic (8,000-3,000 B.C.) or Paleo-Indian (12,000-8,000 B.C.) periods. As a result, native populations were able to shift from mobile hunter-gatherer societies to those of a more semi-sedentary or sedentary nature ( Custer 1989, 1988; Catlin et al. 1982). Archaeological evidence indicates a shift from numerous temporary collecting and hunting camps that covered broad exploitation areas to more concentrated semi-permanent riverine and estuarine focused settlements along the Atlantic seaboard (Catlin et al. 1982), including eastern North Carolina (Phelps 1983 ). Seasonal anadromous fish populations in North Carolina waters during the early prehistoric period contributed to the presence of an extremely productive freshwater environment, equal to or greater than that of the Pacific northwest coast of the United States (Rostlund 1968 [1952]) . Shad and river herring resources, combined with a rich variety of other mammalian and reptilian species, as well as wild botanical resources (e.g. ,nuts, grains and fruits), provided a high level of nutrient flow to the human population. Accordingly, the carrying capacity along the North Carolina Coastal Plain would have been extremely high. The carrying capacity of the region certainly rivaled that of 40 the Pacific Northwest, which was observed by Wing and Brown (1979) as having been one of the richest nutrient environments in the prehistoric Americas. Cultural Implications of Anadromous Fish Exploitation In other regions of the Northeast and Atlantic seaboard, prehistoric anadromous fish exploitation has been interpreted as one of the major contributing factors in the development of increased regional populations and the evolution of sedentism during the Late Archaic (3,000- 1,000 B.C.) and Early Woodland ( 1,000-300 B.C.) periods, particularly in the vicinity of drainage systems that were important seasonal spawning grounds (Custer 1988; Yesner et al. 1983; Cleland 1982; Schalk 1977). Schalk ( 1977: 231) concluded: "In the more southerly areas (middle and South Atlantic states), increasing dependence upon anadromous fish should involve a gradual process of decreasing mobility associated with population growth. . .In these environments, anadromous fish would tend to increase the carrying capacity for human populations." In a global comparative study of contemporary, fishery dependent populations, Palsson ( 1988:202) demonstrated: "The importance of fishing correlates positively with permanence of settlement, group size, levels of hierarchy, degree of stratification. .. and domestic organization." Due to year-round availability of other fish species that could be consumed fresh, Schalk ( 1977) stated that Southeastern native groups had no need to cure and store anadromous fish catches. The author of this study suggests, however, that it is more probable that the cultures of the North Carolina Coastal Plain who had access to anadromous fish runs regularly depended upon the storable nature of the resource. Inherent biological qualities that lend themselves to preservation and storage, make shad and river herring a potentially significant resource for subsistence as well as trade. Further, the biological nature of the Alosa species ensured seasonally predictable spawning 4 1 runs in massive abundance on all of the regions sounds, rivers and tributaries. This fact was certainly deduced and capitalized upon by historic period populations in eastern North Carolina from the time of European exploration through the mid-twentieth century (see Chapters ill and IV). As such it is not unreasonable to expect that aboriginal populations on the Coastal Plain were exploiting Alosa resources for similar reasons (e.g. , accessibility, availability, predictability, storability). This assumption must, however, be demonstrated. Schalk ( 1977) and Cleland ( 1982) have proposed that certain characteristics would develop among cultures who systematically exploited anadromous fish runs in the prehistoric past. Schalk ( I 977) observed that anadromous fish exploitation is a form of subsistence specialization that has a logical bridge to the development of food storage. He concluded that resource specialization, as such, is directly related to the ease in which many anadromous fish can be stored in different environments ( Schalk 1977). Byrd ( 1997a) suggested advanced fishing technology developed when a culture sought to support larger populations with aquatic resources. He noted: "The larger quantities of fish captured also promote food storage since capture rates can often exceed immediate consumption rates, sometimes greatly so" (Byrd l 997a:53). The development of a storage strategy represents an evolutionary threshold by allowing populations to achieve a degree of independence from the natural environment's inherent propensity for cyclical productivity. Storage creates an artificial means of increasing the carrying capacity of the environment to carry populations through natural low periods of resource productivity (Schalk 1977). As such, food s torage " . . . reinforces sedentism itself by enabling lean periods to be managed without moving the entire camp" (Renouf 1991 :99). Byrd ( l 9 97a:53) further concluded: "Food storage makes permanent occupation of a location possible in the face of seasonal shortfalls of resource availability and raises the carrying capacity of the local 42 environment where storable resources are available in great abundance in certain seasons, as is often the case with fish runs." Once populations increase through dependency upon food storage ( domesticated or wild flora and fauna), mobility is decreased, which, in turn, leads to further sedentary habits and an increased dependency on stored foods. As a result, both seasonal and permanent settlement patterns shift. In the case of cultures that exploit anadromous fish, temporary or permanent settlement is most likely to occur in areas where spawning fish concentrate in a particular season (Schalk 1977). Schalk ( 1 977 :232) proposed that " ... greater and more dependable quantities of (anadromous) fish. . . (can only be taken at). . . exploitation points on larger streams or further downstream." Accordingly, he implied that the greatest concentration of settlement sites would be found at such geographic locations (e.g. , specifically on large streams and near the mouths of large rivers and streams). Historical observations by North Carolina shad and river herring fishermen indicate that Schalk 's basic assumption was not totally correct, because anadromous fish biomass will be variable from microenvironment to microenvironment. Modern period, small-scale commercial and subsistence level fishermen, in fact, often harvested both shad and river herring in tributary connected swamps, ponds, ditches, canals and at the greatest upstream locations on creeks and steams (Smithwyck 1 997: T. Gardner 1997; Fenner 1 995: Spruill 1995), as well as major waterways and sounds ( Layton 1997; Spruill 1997). The accessibility to spawning Alosa runs relates directly to the specific spawning habits of the four major Alosa species in North Carolina waters (see Chapter I ). As such, seasonal movements (foraging bands) and settlement patterns (semi-sedentary hunter-gatherers or sedentary horticulturalists) for groups that focused on the exploitation of shad and river herring would only be restricted in a general sense, due to the need to access spawning grounds. The 43 settlement pattern would, however, be highly variable in relation to specific types of waterways on which they were located. According to Schalk (1977), technological changes, to maximize the extraction quantity in a shorter period of time, would develop with the progressive evolution of seasonal anadromous fisheries in a culture. Schalk (1977) and Cleland ( 1982) have implied that populations with seasonal anadromous fish exploitation foci, would only employ gear technology that included a limited range of large-scale capture devices, particularly weirs, traps and seine nets . Historic period fisheries data, however, demonstrate that family level fisheries in eastern North Carolina were quite capable of harvesting thousands of pounds of shad and river herring in a short period of time utilizing the simplest of home-made dip nets, basket nets and gill (set or drift) nets (Smithwyck 1997; Gardner 1997; Smith 1997; Fenner 1995; Spruill 1995). While weirs and seines were more efficient in terms of labor expenditure during the fishing season (Byrd 1997a), they were certainly less labor efficient, as compared to dip or gill nets, in terms of construction and general maintenance from season to season (Cohen 1977). Ethnohistoric accounts from the early contact and proto-historic periods in eastern North Carolina and Virginia have indicated that the weir was the most popular gear among native cultures for the harvesting of fish (e.g., Beverly 1947 ( 1705]); Harriot 1972 ( 1590] ; Lawson 1967 ( 1709]; Strachey 1953 ( 1612]). Based on such observations, it may be assumed that the weir was the most prevalent, but not the only gear utilized to capture spawning shad and river herring in the remote prehistoric past. Schalk ( 1977) and Cleland ( l 982) further suggested that the processing and storing of the catch would lead to technological innovation in the areas of drying or smoking racks, storage baskets and storage pits. Parallel to technological changes related to the exploitation and storage of anadromous fish catches, social or labor organization changes would naturally follow (Cleland I 982; 44 Cohen 1977; Schalk 1977). Such social changes would result from the need for organiz.ed labor in the pre-fishing season to construct and maintain large-scale fishing gear (e.g. ,weirs and seines) and to construct processing and storage facilities. Further, organiz.ed labor would be required during the fishing season to harvest the fish with large-scale capture devices and to process the fish once they were taken from the water (Byrd 1997 a; Cleland 1982; Cohen 1977; Schalk 1977). Cleland ( 1982 :775) noted that a seasonal anadromous " . . .fi shery was a labor intensive-operation and undoubtedly community enterprise. This work not only involved the setting and tending of nets (or weirs), but the manufacture, care, and repair of nets (or weirs) and the processing of the catch." One researcher, in a study of the Tanana Athabaskan Indians, studying observed that " . . . the fish weirs required considerable collective effort in their construction and use, and so, they served as nucleating centers . . . . Most of the fish were dried and stored in underground caches for later consumption" (McKennan 1981; quoted in Petersen et al. 1994 : 197). The demands for coordinated, organiz.ed labor for anadromous fish exploitation and long-term storage would potentially contribute to the development of a more complex, less egalitarian, social structure (Schalk 1977) through the organization and implementation of a large-scale community enterprise each spawning season (Cleland ( 1982). Arnold ( 1996) has suggested that a strong the correlation exists between the fundamental reorganization of labor and increased cultural complexity. Byrd ( l 997a :52), citing Larson ( 1980), hypothesiz.ed that communal weirs facilitated ". . . an environment in which elites are able to rise to power. The effort involved in the construction of fish weirs encourages sedentism and even territorialism where they have been constructed. " In a similar vein, another researcher, citing research by Ames ( 1985) stated : "Hierarchical leadership may have evolved in such regions in order to coordinate the complex scheduling required for catching, processing, and storing spatiotemporally aggregated anadromous fish resources" 45 (Yesner 1987: 302). Although Cleland ( 1982:778) concluded that the cooperative nature of large­ scale fisheries would not necessarily lead to " . . .t he presence of some political mechanism for the (re)distribution offood obtained through cooperative effort (a hallmark of complex prehistoric cultures)," it is not outside the realm of possibilities of the ramifications of such fishery enterprises. Palsson's ( 1988) global ethnographic survey indicated that any large-scale, seasonal dependence upon fisheries would tend to lead to cultural complexity in the form of levels of political hierarchy, a degree of social stratification and domestic organization or gender roles. In another global comparative study, Keeley (1988) found that there was a strong positive relationship between a culture 's food storage capability, population density, and social stratification. It has been suggested that advanced fishing gear technology (e.g., large weirs, tidal traps, seines) can support greater population density in smaller areas, leading to greater stress on local terrestrial food sources, which will lead to population pressure, a suggested causal factor of increased cultural complexity (Byrd 1997a; Keeley 1988). Keeley ( 1988) further noted that cultures, such as those found in prehistoric eastern North Carolina, particularly those that lack domesticated animals, are forced to exploit more aquatic resources and fewer terrestrial animals for food as their populations increase. Schalk ( 1977) stated that cultural and technological changes concomitant to a specific focus on anadromous fish exploitation are naturally most apparent in the prehistoric populations of the Pacific Northwest, where the general lack of agriculture and other wild resources was more severe in the prehistoric past. Accordingly, the degree of subsistence specialization, related to anadromous fisheries, was more acute in that region, as compared to the Middle and South Atlantic regions. Unlike the Pacific Northwest, the Middle and South Atlantic regions exhibited a greater diversity and richness of wild plant and animal species, as well as flourishing agriculture in the later prehistoric period (Schalk 1977). In addition to such observations by Schalk ( 1 977), Cleland ( 1 982) 46 questioned the storable nature of smoked fish through the late spring and summer months. Cleland (1982) concluded that the cultural ramifications, related to anadromous fish storage, were nullified among Eastern Woodland cultures that harvested spring spawning runs in the more southerly latitudes, as the catch could not be protected from rapid spoilage due to the onset of late spring and summer heat. In light of the conclusions drawn by Schalk (1977) and Cleland ( 1982), the expected impact of anadromous fisheries on the development of social structure, technology, and settlement patterns in regions such as eastern North Carolina or the coastal plain region of southeastern North America would not be expected to be as far-reaching as the impact upon the cultures of the Pacific Northwest. The author of this study suggests, however, that these particular conclusions by Schalk ( 1977) and Cleland ( 1982) were not wholly correct. Given the present, albeit limited, archaeological and ethnohistoric data regarding prehistoric anadromous fisheries in eastern North Carolina, the author suggests that such fisheries were equally significant to, and resulted in equally similar impacts on, the prehistoric peoples of eastern North Carolina. The author further suggests that modified models of anadromous fish exploitation, as presented by Schalk (1977) and Cleland ( 1 982), can certainly be applied to prehistoric eastern North Carolina. As will be demonstrated in the forthcoming section, these hypotheses can be supported by presently available specific and regional comparative data. Evolution of Aquatic Resource Focused Cultures in Eastern North Carolina Some researchers have concluded that intensive fishing practices in North America were largely abandoned for a more intensive combination of horticultural and foraging strategies during the Middle (300 B.C.-A.D. 800) and Late Woodland (AD. 800- 1 650) periods (see Stewart 1 990). Theoretically oriented subsistence studies (e.g. , Byrd 1 997a; Keeley 1 988) and the present 47 archaeological and ethnohistoric data from the North Carolina Coastal Plain does not support such conclusions (Byrd 1 997b; Phelps 1 983; Larson 1 980; Rostlund 1 968 [ 1 952]). Archaeological surveys have indicated a significant increase in the number of seasonally occupied sites in eastern North Carolina, from 1 ,000 B.C. onward, along the major trunk streams, tributaries and estuaries (Phelps 1 983). By 3,000 B. C., artifact assemblages from North Carolina Coastal Plain sites typically include stone net-sinkers (Phelps 1 983), which have been interpreted in other Middle Atlantic or Northeast regions as having been developed explicitly to exploit schooling anadromous fish varieties such as shad and river herring (Kraft 1 986a, 1 986b; Stewart et al. 1 986; Catlin et al. 1 982 ; Barber 1 980). In a similar vein, other tools, such as bifacial blades, heavy stone blades, adzes, axes and chisels, have been interpreted as either tools for processing massive fish catches or for preparing and maintaining a range of fishing gears that included wooden or fibrous gear, such as dugout canoes, weirs, leisters, seine nets, cast nets, gill nets and scoop nets (Barber 1 980; Catlin et al. 1 982 ; Kraft 1986a, 1 986b; Petersen et al. 1 994; Stewart et al. 1986 ). Although similar type hearth features have not been encountered in eastern North Carolina, a number of large platform hearth features have been excavated on Late Archaic (3,000- 1 ,000 B.C.) and Woodland ( 1 ,000 B.C.-A.D. 1 650) sites in the Chesapeake Bay area of Virginia (Dent 1 995; Catlin et al. 1 982). The Chesapeake Bay drainage system, like Coastal Plain North Carolina, has long been known for its extensive spawning runs of shad and river herring (Strachey 1 953 [ 1 6 1 2] ; Smith 1 895 [ 1 6 1 2]; United States Department of the Interior 1 970). It has been suggested that such platform hearths were specifically built for the processing (e.g. ,smoke drying) of massive anadromous fish catches (Dent 1 995; Catlin et al. 1 982 ); ten meter diameter hearths have been recorded in the region (Dent 1 995). 48 On the Coastal Plain of North Carolina, Late Archaic (3,000-1,000 B.C.) sites are most commonly located on major trunk streams and their entire tributary systems, as well as floodplain swamps and estuary shores (Phelps 1983). Large-scale anadromous fisheries may have developed during this period when the combination of "gardening and fishing" became increasingly significant by 2,000 B. C. The subsistence foci of gardening and fishing further encouraged greater selectivity in site locations than was previously exhibited by highly mobile foraging cultures of the Early and Middle Archaic period (8,000 to 3.000 B.C.) (Byrd 1997b). Sites situated along the tributary systems and swamps connected to the major rivers, by tributary streams, would have been ideal locations for small groups to exploit shad and river herring with portable, small-scale fishing gear such as dip nets, basket traps and short seine nets. Unfortunately, "The specific foods utilized during the Archaic Period must await data from excavated sites with sufficient preservation. At the moment, the subsistence patterns may be implied from site locations in relation to potential resources within their presumed catchment areas" (Phelps 1983 :24) . There was little change in settlement patterns between the Late Archaic and the Early Woodland periods (3,000-300 B.C. ). There was, however, a greater tendency for Early Woodland (l ,000-300 B.C.) peoples to position their habitation sites along major trunk streams and smaller tributary streams (Byrd 1 997b). Presently, little is known about Early Woodland subsistence or settlement pattern in eastern North Carolina (Phelps 1 983 ). The author suggests that both Late Archaic (3 ,000-1,000 B.C.) and Early Woodland (1 ,000-300 B.C. ) period peoples on the Coastal Plain were adapting to a semi-sedentary lifestyle that Yesner ( 1 987:299) described as communities whose members shift from one to another fixed settlement at different seasons, or who occupy more or less permanently a single settlement from which a substantial portion of the population departs seasonally to occupy shifting camps." The evolution to sedentary behavior in this period can be 49 inferred by the ubiquity of steatite vessel forms in the Late Archaic, Savannah River phase (3.000- 1,000 B.C.) artifact assemblage, as well as the presence of decorative bone pin designs and complex burial behavior (Phelps 1983) . Later in the same period an explosion of ceramic vessel technology began with the introduction of Croaker Landing series, clay tempered, ceramics to the northern Coastal Plain by 2,000 B.C. (Phelps 1997). The apparent trend towards sedentism and subsistence specialization that developed in the Late Archaic (3,000-1,000 B.C.) period (Phelps 1983), was perhaps stimulated by the specific utilization of anadromous fish species and the development of early forms of plant domesticates (e.g., sunflower, sumpweed, goosefoot) in combination with existing hunting and foraging activities. Phelps ( 1983) considered the shifts in settlement patterns during the Archaic to Early / Middle Woodland periods to be specifically indicative of subsistence specialization foci. Middle Woodland (300 B.C.-A.D. 800) sites are most commonly found along major trunk steams and estuaries with a dramatic reduction in site frequency on the lesser tributary streams in the interior (Phelps 1983). As Cleland (1982) observed for the Great Lakes region, habitation sites located on large bodies of water (e.g. ,major trunk streams and estuaries), may be further indicative of the development of large-scale fishing gear technologies, such as weirs or haul seines that more effectively exploited the same species that were harvested with portable. low complexity gear in the preceding periods. Seasonal camps for the exploitation of aquatic species were common in both the coastal areas and in the interior riverine and estuarine areas during the period (Phelps 1983). The best evidence of native exploitation of alosids, however, comes from the Late Woodland (AD. 800- 1650) period. There are three primary reasons for this observation : ( l ) fauna! preservation from later sites tends to be better; (2) there is a somewhat larger sample of excavated and analyz.ed fauna! collections from the period; and (3) ethnohistorical accounts from late in the 50 period provide some insight into the centuries just before European contact. By the later Middle Woodland period, circa AD. 400 (Byrd 1997b) , and perhaps as early as AD. 100, in North Carolina (Phelps 1983), maize agriculture had been introduced to most areas along the South and Middle Atlantic (Custer 1988). Late Woodland (AD. 800-1650) sites in the coastal plain regions of the Middle Atlantic were typically of either sedentary or semi-sedentary nature and were all, at least partially, supported by agriculture (Custer 1988). In North Carolina, Late Woodland (AD. 800- 1650) sites on the Coastal Plain were primarily concentrated along sounds, estuaries. major rivers and major tributaries, particularly near the confluences of rivers and tributary streams (Phelps 1983). Sites were selected for multiple adaptations, including agriculture, fishing, hunting and gathering (Byrd 1997b; Phelps 1983). As supported by limited archaeological and ethnohistorical inference, such site selections were certainly conducive to the continued exploitation of anadromous fish. Ethnohistoric Evidence of Alosa Exploitation in Eastern North Carolina Early historical accounts by Thomas Harriot ( 1972 [1590]), William Strachey ( 1953 [ 1612]), John Lawson ( 1 967 [ 1709]) and others provide some evidence of Alosa exploitation by Coastal Plain natives at the time of European contact. Their observations greatly supplement the archaeological record as a rich source of information on native fishing practices. In his Briefe and Tnie Report of the New Found Land of Virginia, Thomas Harriot (1972 [ I 590] :20) described the river herring that he encountered in the Roanoke Island area, as well as the Carolina Algonkians' utilization of the species during the late sixteenth century. He observed: For foure monethes of the yeere, February, March, Aprill and May, there are plentie of Sturgeons: And also in the same monethes of Herrings, some of the ordinary bignesse as ours in England, but the most part farre greater, of eighteene, twentie inches, and some two foote in length and better; both these kin des of fish in those 5 1 monethes are most plentifull, and best in season, which wee founde to bee most delicate and pleasaunt meate. Harriot ( 1972 [ 1590] :20) further noted that "the inhabitants use to take them (fish). . . by a kinde of wear made of reedes which in that country are very strong. '' An early seventeenth century observer, William Strachey, provided more detail on Alosa exploitation by Algonkian groups in southeastern Virginia. In the estuarine and riverine waters of the Chesapeake Bay region, Strachey ( 1953 [1612) : 127) observed both "Shadds great store of a Yard long . . . " and " . . .g reat Shoells of Herrings." He further noted of the Algonkians: "In March and April they live much upon their Weeres, and feed on fish . .. " In "May they plant their fields and sett their Corne, and live after those Monthes most of Acrons, Wallnuts, Chesnutts. . .an d Fish .. . In June, July, and August they feed upon the rootes of Tockohow-berryes, Ground-nuts, Fish and greene Wheat. . . " (Strachey 1953 [16 12 ] : 80) (see also Smith 1895 [16 12]). Although Strachey 's early seventeenth century observations did not elaborate upon the specific fish species taken in the weirs in the months of March and April, it is likely that river herring and shad were the principle species harvested, along with significantly lesser quantities of white perch, Morone americana (Gmelin), or striped bass ("rock", "rockfish"), M. saxatilis (Walbaum), all of which are taken in modern pound nets during the present day spring fishing season. Further, it is probable that a portion of the fish consumed after the month May were dried river herring or shad, since the four locally available species are presently known to "cure out" better than most other species harvested in the spring fishing season, due to a relatively higher fat content and low flesh to bone ratio (Smithwyck 1997; Spruill 1997). The potential significance of the shad and river herring as a long-term storable resource was further implied by Strachey ( l 9 53 [ 1 612] :80) 52 when he noted that the Algonkians smoked their catch over hurdles unti l they were cooked or dried in a fashion similar to jerked beef cured in the West Indies. According to Strachey ( 1 953 [ 1 6 1 2] : 80) , the natives stored smoked fish to be utilized over the period of several months . As such, A losa species harvested in late April or May were likely utilized at least until the end of summer harvests , if not well into the fall oft he year. Sun-dried fish generally last for at least two months if properly stored in moderate climates, while smoked fish tend to preserve longer, due to the antimicrobial action of smoke compounds that are absorbed by the meat (Sikorski , Gildberg and Ruiter 1 995 ) . A century after Thomas Harriot's observations among the Coastal Algonkians, North Carolina 's first Surveyor General , John Lawson, observed the Tuscarora Indians of the Inner Coastal Plain uti lizing weirs to procure shad and river herring. He described the prolific spring river herring runs and noted : "They (river herring) spawn there in March and April. running up the fresh Rivers and small fresh Runs of Water in great Shoals, where they are taken " (Lawson 1 967 [ 1 709] : 1 6 1 ). Just as the Algonkian peoples on the Outer Coastal Plain of Virginia and North Carolina, the Tuscarora peoples, who lived along the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico and Roanoke River drainages during the Late Woodland (AD. 800- 1 650) period, likely relied on river herring and shad as an important element in their annual subsistence mix . In the successful capture of spawning anadromous fish, Lawson ( 1 967 [l 709] :2 1 7-2 1 8) observed that the Tuscarora Indians were " . . . v ery expert in taking the Fish of the Rivers and Waters near which they inhabit. . .where the Savages make great Wares, with Hedges that hinder their ( river herring) Passage only in the Middle, where an artificial Pound is made to take them in; so that they cannot return . This method is used all over the fresh Streams ." John White 's paintings (Figures 4 and 5) from the late sixteenth century period lend credence to the observations made by Harriot and Strachey. His i l lustration of Algonkian fi shermen 53 Figure 4 . John White Painting of Algonkian Fishing Methods (From Hu lton 1 984: 73 [Plate 43 . ] ) . 54 ? - ? ?· ? ?:!"7:? ???:???:.7?:; - . . _. . ..., . - ? ·;}?,i;]it t .;;.;i/t::?? F igure 5 . Theodore De Bry Engrav ing of A lgonkian F ish i ng Methods. Made After John White's Paint ing (From Lorant 1 946 : 25 1 [Plate I 3 . ] ) . 5 5 on the Carolina coast demonstrated the varied range of fishing technologies available to native cultures of the sixteenth century. White's painting (Figure 4) indicated the use of complex fish weirs. scoops, nets, fishing spears, and dugout canoes. Quinn ( 1991 [1955] : 359n) has suggested that the fish in the Algonkian canoe, illustrated in the White painting (Figure 4), appear to be shad. Nets and weirs were no doubt used to catch river herring and shad, but spears. as with the case of the extensive number of bone fishhooks that have been found on various Coastal Plain sites (Phelps 1 983), were used only to capture larger species of fish. As, Rostlund ( 1968 [ 1952] : 1 13 ) observed: "A baited hook is rarely taken by salmon and shad while ascending rivers. " It is probable that the gear or capture technology used to harvest spawning river herring and shad varied from microenvironment to microenvironment. In the sounds (e.g. , Albemarle or Croatan Sound) or mouths of broad rivers with slower moving currents ( e .g. , Chowan River, Middle River, Cashie River), weirs or traps would have been employed, just as pound nets have been employed in the present century. In faster moving bodies of water (e.g., Roanoke River), seines or drift gill nets were probably used, since fixed nets or traps typically do not survive the strain offast moving currents, particularly during the high water floods during in the spring fishing season. Small set gill nets. dip nets and weirs were most utilized in swampy waters or small tributary creeks and streams, just as European and African descent peoples have employed in North Carolina waters since the colonial era (see Chapter ill and IV). Rostlund ( 1968 [ 1952]) noted that while nets were important to native anadromous fisheries, weirs and traps were the most common and important methods of capture . "From Florida to the St. Lawrence the weir appears to have been the most commonly employed device for the taking of shad and the alewife (river herring) in aboriginal time" (Rostlund 1968 [ 1952] : 15 ). He further indicated that while seine nets and gill nets were " . . . t he most advanced and efficient fishing 56 implements known to the American Indians," " . . . t here is no doubt that the weir and trap fishery was economically by far the most important" (Rostlund 1 968 [ 1 952] : I 02). Even with an aggregated labor force, weirs were more economical to maintain and repair than large seine or gill nets, which require continual maintenance before, during and after the fishing season Byrd 1 997a; Cohen 1 977) . Dent ( 1 995) concluded that traps and weirs were necessary to catch significant quantities of spawning anadromous fish such as shad and river herring. Modem informants, however, have indicated, in the recent historic past, gill nets and bow nets (e.g. ,dip nets) were more than sufficient to provide a large family unit with enough river herring to last an entire year (Fenner 1 995 ; Spruill 1995 : Smithwyck 1 997). Even though archaeological remnants of aboriginal fish weirs have not been encountered on North Carolina's Coastal Plain, they undoubtedly exist in the muddy sediments of the rivers and tributaries of the Pamlico and Albemarle Sound drainages. Archaeological remains ofnative weirs have been recovered in other areas of the Atlantic seaboard, such as Virginia (Dent 1995 ; Binford 1 964 ), Massachusetts (Barber 1 980; Cohen 1 977), Maine (Petersen et al. 1 994) and Delaware ( Custer 1 984 ), as well as in Piedmont region of North Carolina (Binford 1 964). The majority of the known fish weirs are. however, made of stone, as were those found in the Piedmont region of North Carolina. North Carolina Coastal Plain weirs were constructed in various fashions. but rather than stone. were probably constructed of plant materials (e.g. , fibrous cordage, reeds. grass mats, wooden splints and posts, etc . ). John White illustrated various Algonkian fishing techniques and showed a weir in his painting (Figure 4) . The weir shown is probably a highly styl ized version, as i t appears not to incorporate the labyrinth of crooks. turns, and traps, later described by Strachey ( 1 953 [ 1 6 1 2] ) and Beverly ( 1 947 [ 1705]), necessary for a functioning fish trap. The De Bry woodcut version (Figure 57 5 ) , though highly stylized, may be somewhat more accurate in that i t shows the actual "cods" or "chambers" as described below by Strachey and Beverly. The chambers are reminiscent of the "hearts" found on contemporary pound nets in the Albemarle-Pamlico region today (see description of pound nets in Appendix A). Unlike the weirs depicted in the White painting (Figure 4) or the De Bry engraving (Figure 5 ), modern pound nets have "leads" that run perpendicular to the heart and pound openings, rather than horizontal to the openings, as shown in the sixteenth century illustrations. painting. Whether or not White and De Bry were correct is largely irrelevant, since the principle was essentially the san1e either way. Weirs were undoubtedly effective enough that European settlers in North Carolina adopted them for both local subsistence (Lawson 1967 [l 709]) and export commercial (Leary 1 9 1 5 ) fisheries in the eighteenth century . The author suspects that there were many variations on the san1e theme in North Carolina waters alone. A review of Goode ( 1887) is particularly illustrative of the great di versity of hand crafted weirs and pound net designs that were employed in North America during the last century. Although Old World European influences cannot be discounted, many of the brush and slat weirs used in the New England and Middle Atlantic sardine fisheries during the 1 880s ( Goode 1 887) likely borrowed extensively from age-old Native-American fishing gear technology. Thomas Harriot (1972 [1590] :23) indicated that the coastal Algonkian 's " . . . u se onely reedes. which because they are so strong as also flexible . . . ( for) . . . t he making of weares and weeles / basket traps) to take fish . " It is likely, however, that other styles of weirs were constructed in a much simpler fashion by using saplings and brush in a manner similar to those employed by sardine and river herring fishermen of the nineteenth century North Atlantic coast (Goode 1887). The range of raw materials utilized to construct weirs undoubtedly varied with the local environment . On Inner 58 Coastal Plain sites where wood and brush were more readily available than out on the coastal islands, materials other than reeds were utilized in the construction of the weirs. Strachey (1953 [ 1 6 1 2] :75) further described the native weirs as " ... certayne inclosures made of Reedes and framed in the fashion of a Labourinth or Maze, sett a fathome deepe in the water, with diverse Chambers or bedds, out of which the entangled Fish cannot retourne or get out being once in . . . " where " .. . he remaynes a pray to the Fisher-man the next low water, which they fish with a nett tyed at the end of a pole ." In the early eighteenth century, Robert Beverly (1947 [1705] :1 48) described the typical Virginia or Carolina Algonkian weir as : A Hedge of small riv'd Sticks, or Reeds, of the Thickness of a Man's Finger, these they wove together in a Row, with Straps of Green Oak, or other tough Wood, so close that the small Fish cou'd not pass through Upon High Water Mark, they pitched one End of this Hedge, and the other they extended into the River, to the Depth of Eight or Ten Foot, fastening it with Stakes, making Cods (e.g., inner pockets) out from the Hedge on one side, almost at the End, and leaving a Gap for the Fish to go into them, which were contrived so that the Fish could easily find their Passage into those Cods. . . but could not see Their way out again, when they were m . Recent investigations of a fish weir in Maine have shed new l ight on the timing oft he development of weirs and construction techniques in the Eastern Woodlands. Petersen et al. ( 1 994) studied the remains of and extensive weir complex that is located approximately 1 20 kilometers inland on the Sebasticook River . A sample of radiocarbon dates from weir stakes, organic materials from core samples and diagnostic artifacts indicated that the weir complex was initially constructed around 3,100 B.C . (Late Archaic period) and continually maintained, expanded and rebuilt unti l about A D. 170 (Middle Woodland period) (Petersen et al . 1 994 :213-215). The remaining remnants of the weir consist of the central vertical posts that were originally driven into the mud bottom of the river. Only fragmentary evidence of the weir's horizontal elements have been recovered to date . The 59 exposed post tops rotted away over time, leaving the lower sections ofth e posts intact below the waterline. Portions of the weir were completely buried by mud and sediments as the river channel migrated northward. Archaic period posts were more refined and well trimmed with carefully sharpened. axe cut bases. The later Woodland period posts were crudely trimmed with bases that indicated small trees were girdled or notched and then snapped off to form a blunted tip. The weir was constructed of locally available wood types that included eastern hemlock, birch, ash and elm. all wet environment species. There was no evidence of differential wood selection over time, a species were equally represented in the various time periods (Petersen et al. 1994). Robert Beverly (194 7 [1 705]) noted the use of stone weirs in the rapids areas of Virginia with cone-shaped reed baskets placed at tunnels or openings in the weir to catch fish, such as spawning river herring or shad, that moved up or down river. The utilization of stone weirs by either Algonkian or Tuscarora fishermen on North Carolina 's Coastal Plain. however, was not likely since rocks, large enough to construct such weirs, are not found in sufficient quantity to construct weirs. The Tuscarora and Siouan groups that inhabited the western part of the Coastal Plain, along the fall line, may have constructed stone weirs to trap herring or shad, but the archaeological evidence of stone fish weirs in the region, to date, has been negative (David Phelps, East Carolina University, personal communication 1997) . Thomas Harriot further recorded the aboriginal deployment of "weeles" or basket-like traps for fishing (Quinn 1991 [ 1955 ] : 365). Unfortunately, Harriot did not elaborate upon the design. The basket-traps may have, however, resembled the conical Iroquoian "basket fish nets ' described by ethnographers in the late nineteenth century (Morgan l 966 [ 190 I ]). Such relatively small basket­ traps were probably not used for shad or river herring fisheries, unless in narrow tributary streams or swampy areas where modern subsistence fishermen were known to have used vegetable baskets to 60 harvest river herring (Spruill 1 995). It is most probable that a combination of nets and weirs were the primary apparatuses utilized to harvest shad and river herring. Even though shad will bite a baited hook, river herring do not (Taylor 1 95 1 ). Further, complex gear technology, seine and gill nets or weirs and traps, is more economical in terms of calo1ic and energy expenditure in relation to pounds of energy harvested. Seine and gill nets or traps and weirs can so dramatically increase the pounds harvested, over hand cast and dip nets or hook-and-line technology. that the reli ability of fishing is greatly increased (Byrd 1997a) . Rostlund ( 1 968 [ 195 1 ] : 8 1) stated : "a fish net captures fish in mass. . .w herever nets can be used, more fish can be taken with them and with less effort than by any other method . . . e xcept perhaps by the complete blocking of a major salmon or shad river with a weir . " Although the earliest remnants of purported fishing nets on the Atlanti c seaboard dates back to at least 7,000 B.C . (Cleland 1982), definitive net evidence in North Carolina, to date, is much more recent in time. To date, actual net samples have not been recovered from prehistoric sites in North Carolina. Since the cordage was made from of organic materials, it quickly rotted within a few decades after its use. Nets capable capturing shad and river herring were likely produced in eastern North Carolina well before 1 ,000 B. C . , due to the observed proliferation of net impressed surfaces on Deep Creek (Early Woodland [ l , 000-300 B .C . ] ), Mount Pleasant (Middle Woodland [300 B .C . ­ A.D. 800] ), and Mockley (late Middle Woodland [A D. 600-800] ) ceranlic series vessels (see Phelps [ 1983] for further elaboration on ceramic characteristics). As is the case with Chesapeake Bay sites in Virginia, "The existence of nets is verified by surface impressions on pottery sherds, although use of the same nets for fishing cannot be demonstrated" (Whyte 1988 : 1 1 5) . Ethnohistoric observations indicate the general net construction techniques, but not specific uses ofnets by the Coastal Algonkians or the Tuscarora peoples of the Inner Coastal Plain. Nets 6 1 from the prehistoric period, as inferred by the ceramic surface treatments, were likely constructed in a similar fashion. In the early seventeenth century, Strachey ( 1953 ( 16 12] :75) noted that the coastal Algonkians used nets " . . .w hich they make of their naturall hemp and flax togither with their Cunning dressing of that and preserving the whole yeare great Litches or bundlles of the same to be vsed vpon any occasion." He described the native nets " . . .a s formally brayed and mashed as ours, and these are made of barkes of certayne trees, deere synewes, for a kynd of grasse, which they call Pemmenaw. of which their women betweene their handes and thighes spin a threed very even and readely, and this threed serveth for many vses" (Strachey 1953 [16 12] :82) (see also Smith 1 895 [ 1 6 1 2 ]) . Although Strachey did not further elaborate on net construction among the Southern A.lgonkians that he observed, among Northern Algonkian groups, there is evidence that the women procured the fibers and produced the cordage, while the men actually tied the nets (Cleland 1982). Among other cultures in the Southeast, women both made the cordage and tied the nets (Hudson 1976). In his descriptive work on early North Carolina, John Lawson did not specifically describe the manufacture or use of nets among the Tuscarora Indians. Nets, however, were undoubtedly utilized and possibly made from a type of cordage that Lawson described as being made from the bark of an " . .. Elm that grows in low Ground . . ." (Lawson 1967 [1709] : I 00). Lawson further observed that both the English and the Indians made ropes from bark stripped from the low ground Elm. Rostlund ( 1 968 [ 1 952] : 15) concluded that there was no evidence that " . . . Indians on the Atlantic coast south of Pennsylvania ever made use of large nets deserving the name of seine or gill nets." It is unlikely that native nets, made from plant fibers, would be comparable to the great haul seine nets of the nineteenth century river herring fisheries, but would have been of the small hand seine, cast, gill (set or drift) or dip net varieties, which complemented the other available fishing 62 technologies utilized by North Carolina 's various native groups. Although large nets are highly efficient they are much more difficult to construct, maintain, set and recover. Large nets are more labor demanding when compared to the near equally efficient weir which works well in shallow waters (Cleland 1982; Rostlund 1968 [195 1 ]), such as those found in the sounds and rivers of eastern North Carolina. Hand or dip nets were undoubtedly used to capture both shad and river herring in small streams and swamps. John White 's painting (Figure 4) illustrated at least one variety of dip net. circular in form, with a long handle. There were probably a broad range of variations on the general form. From southwest Florida sites, " ...fi ne meshed, square dip nets ... " (Swanton 1987 [ 1946] : 337) were recovered by archaeologists in the late nineteenth century. Unfortunately, these nets did not survive in museum collections to the present time (Walker 1992). Similarly configured dip nets were likely to have been utilized in North Carolina waters to scoop up spawning river herring and shad from creek banks or weir impoundments. Robert Beverley ( 1947 [ 1705) : 149) of Virginia observed that the Southern Algonkians used dtp nets ". .. made of Silk Grass, which they used in Fishing their Weirs. " In general, the gear selected would have been determined by prevailing water and bottom conditions. as well as the target species. Ethnohistoric Evidence for Preservation and Storage of Anadromous Fish Preservation of river herring and shad catches by smoke drying over fire seems to have been the usual method employed by native Carolinians (e.g.,Beverly 1947 [ l 7 05]); Harriot 1972 [ l 590] ; Lawson 1967 [ I 709]; Strachey 1953 [ 16 12]), as well as around North America in general (Hudson 1976: Schalk 1977; Swanton 1987 [ I 946]). Rostlund's ( 1968 [ l 9 52] : 137- 138) survey of Native­ American fish preservation techniques indicate: "The drying process was the most widely and 63 commonly used method of preserving fish in aboriginal North America, (while). . . s moking had nearly as wide a distribution as drying. " In the manner of most other native peoples of North America, North Carolina 's Indian cultures likely utilized the method that best suited the prevailing conditions (Whyte l 988). Whyte ( 1988) suggested that aboriginal fish preparation techniques were likely both species and size-specific. As observed by Stewart ( 1977: 135), "Improperly dried fish turned moldy and spoiled. . . the preservation of the catch was as important as the quantity . " Yesner ( 1987) mdicated that oily fish species, such as shad and river herring, were most commonly smoke-dried, and even cold stored in storage pits in the northern temperate zones. Fish can be cured to last several months in tropical climates by smoke drying. Heavy smoking causes a substantial loss of moisture in the fish and introduces smoke compounds, such as formic and acetic acid, carbonyl, and phenols, all of which inhibit microbial growth. The preservative effects of smoking are further enhanced by the addition of salts (Sikorski et al. 1995). While evaporated sea salt was produced and used for trade and food seasoning by a number of cultures in the Southeast (Hudson 1976), there is no evidence, however, of Native American groups using salt to preserve fish or other meats before the time of European colonization (Brown 1980; Early 1 993; Rostlund 1968 [1952]) . The use of salt substitutes, for the enhancement of preservation may, however, have been utilized by aboriginal populations in North Carolina . Robert Beverly ( 1947 [1705] : 180) indicated that Coastal Algonkians on the Chesapeake Bay ". . . have no Salt among them, but for seasoning, use the Ashes of Hiccory, Stickweed, or some other Wood or Plant, affording a Salt ash. " During the American Revolution, North Carolina commercial fishermen ran critically short of salt needed to cure river herring, mullet and other shipping fish. Due to the salt shortage, hickory ash, although not a perfect substitute, was used as a replacement for salt in the curing process (Hilldrup 1945). The author suggests that eastern North 64 '-JŁe Figure 6 . John White Pai nt ing of Algonkian F i s h Smoking Methods (From Hu lton 1 984 : 7 5 [P late 45 . ] ) . 65 Carolina 's native cultures may have very well utiliz.ed hickory ash to enhance the preservation of fish. Observations by Lawson (1967 [1709]), White (Hulton 1984), Smith (1895 [1612]) and others provided further information on aboriginal preservation techniques. Even without the use of added salt in the preservation process, Yesner (1987) noted that saltwater habitat species, such as shad and river herring, naturally have a high salt content that facilitates preservation and storage. Lawson (1967 [1709] : 218) recorded that the "Indians . . . t ake (an) abundance of Fish . . .w hich to preserve .. . they first barbakue. then pull the Fish to Pieces. so dry it in the Sun, whereby it keeps for Transportation. " Thomas Harriot ( 1972 [1590] ) noted that many varieties of fish were roasted on hurdles over fires, but that they reserved none of the catch for storage (Figure 6). This perplexing comment leads one to speculate that neither river herring nor shad were preserved in quantity for the summer months, but rather consumed only in season. Harriot, however, was not likely privy to all of the natives' practices, particularly related to food storage techniques, given the English colonial 's propensity for taking whatever they needed from the natives (e.g. , Ralph Lane's 1585- 1586 account reprinted in Quinn and Quinn 1973) . John Smith ( 1895 [16 12] :63) observed that the neighboring Virginia Algonkians smoked or roasted fish " . . . ti! it be as drie as their jerkin beefe in the west Indies, that they may keep it a month or more without putrifying. " Strachey ( 1953 [16 12] ) made observations similar to those of John Smith. The allusion to 'jerkin beefe" implied that the fish were completely dried and smoked. a method that would only be utiliz.ed for fish that needed to be stored for a lengthy period of time. Since other native cultures in both the northeast (Heidenreich 1971, 1978; Petersen 1994 ) and southeast (Hudson 1976 ; Lorant 1946; Swanton 1987 [ 1946]) were known to have dried or smoked fish for long-term storage, it is certainly probable that the Indian cultures of eastern North Carolina Indians were undertaking essentially the same practice. Lawson (1967 [1709]) recorded 66 that he traded a deerskin for two dozen smoked shad during his journey through the Pamlico River region. The author suggests that smoked shad and river herring were stored at least through the early-to-mid summer months in pits, dug into the earth and lined with grass or reed mats or animal skins. As humidity and extreme heat promote decay of smoked or dried fish by enhancing bacterial growth (Sikorski et al. 1995), the preserved fish were potentially layered on racks of wood or reeds to promote air circulation in the pits or suspended from the roof support posts in the houses. During the eighteenth century, it was observed that the house interiors of northern Iroquoian groups were "unsavory" when they smoke-dried their fish with warming and cooking fires inside the long houses (William Bartram 1743; quoted in Morgan 1966 [ 1 901] :292). In Maine, an early eighteenth century observer noted that the Abenaki Indians harvested " . . .a sort of large herring ( American shad), very agreeable to the taste when they are fresh, they crowd upon each other to the depth of a foot, and are drawn up as you would draw water. The [Abenaki] put them to dry for eight or ten days, and they live upon them during the whole time they are planting their fields" (Sebastien Rasle 1723; quoted in Petersen et al. 1994). It is apparent from the historical sources that native groups of the Carolina Coastal Plain depended upon anadromous fishes as an important element of their subsistence mix. While there seems to be no specific ethnohistoric record, other than Lawson 's ( 1967 [ 1709]), of Coastal Plain peoples trading preserved river herring and shad to inland groups, the product cannot be ruled out as a possible trade item. In Quinn 's ( 199 1 [ l 9 55] :436; 1985 :7 1) exhaustive analyses of documents related to early English exploration and settlement in North Carolina, he concluded that there was sufficient documentary evidence that the Algonkians traded dried fish to inland groups and stored dried fish for the winter months. In the neighboring Chesapeake region, John Smith ( 1895 [ 1 6 12] :74) recorded that the Coastal Algonkians traded for copper with " . .. such commodities as they 67 have, as skins, fowle, fish. . .an d their country come." Given the general propensity for various Northeastern and Southeastern coastal groups to dry fish for inland trade, throughout proterhistoric North America (Hudson 1976; Rostlund 1968 [1952]), North Carolina cultures undoubtedly took advantage of the same economic resources. Even though trade in smoked fish was undertaken, it is most probable that shad and river herring were primarily extracted by both the Algonkian and Tuscarora peoples for local consumption. This practice was not only adopted by the early European colonists (Brickell 1969 [1737] ), but continued well into the early-termid-twentieth century in many areas (Lane 1997; Smithwyck 1997; Spruill 1997). In view of the ethnohistorical observations, comparable site data from the Northeast and general theoretical models related to anadromous fish exploitation, it is expected that archaeological sites on the North Carolina Coastal Plain should yield positive archaeological data to support the assumption that native groups relied extensively on Alosa stocks in the prehistoric period. Archaeological Evidence of Alosa Exploitation in Eastern North Carolina The present archaeological evidence for anadromous fisheries is limited in eastern North Carolina. The author argues, however, that two particular sites on the Coastal Plain, the Flynt site ( 3 1 ON305) and the Jordan's Landing site (3 1 BR7), are representative of anadromous fishery practices in the region, at least as far back as the beginning of the Late Woodland period. Other sites in the region, such as the Tillett site (31D R35), have not yielded the expected A losa remains. The Flynt Site. The faunal remains from the Flynt site (3 1O N305) in Onslow County, North Carolina have been analyzed by Mikell ( 1986). The site is a small village on Chadwick Bay near the town of Sneads Ferry (Loftfield 1987). Features on the site radiocarbon dated between AD. 68 893 and 1379 (calibrated) and fall into the Late Woodland period (A.O. 800- 1650) (Eastman 1994). Bony fish remains accounted for approximately seventy-four percent of the recovered faunal assemblage analyzed. Shad and river herring made up approximately thirty-nine percent of the minimum number of individuals (MNI) of the fish species specifically identified in the analysis (Mikell 1986) and likely contributed to a large portion of the fish remains that could not be identified. Loftfield ( 1987) observed that much of the small bone from the site could not be economically removed from the vast quantities of shell fragments that were mixed in the various feature fills. As such, Loftfield ( 1987) estimated that only ten percent of the total amount of faunal remains recovered from the site were actually analyzed. It is probable that most of the shad and river herring vertebrae that the site contained were not recovered. The bulk of the fill from the site's various features were sifted with either one-half or quarter-inch screen. Only small samples of the feature fills were screened with one-sixteenth-inch screen (Loftfield 1987). Since vertebrae are the only bones from shad and river herring that tend to survive in the archaeological record, the fine screen samples likely account for the only recovery of Alosa bones on the site, as alosid vertebrae are normally be lost through one-quarter inch screens ( Carlson 1988; Singer 1987). The Jordan 's Landing Site . Alosa remains have been recovered from the Jordan's Landing site (31 BR7), a Cashie phase (A.O. 800- 1650) site located on the Roanoke River in the northeastern region of the state. The Cashie phase, as defined and described by Phelps ( 1983), is the prehistoric manifestation of the native culture. historically recognized as the "Tuscarora." The Cashie phase peoples inhabited the territory between the Neuse and Roanoke Rivers and from the western estuarine edge of the tidewater zone to the fall line (Phelps 1983). Phelps ( 1983) considered the 69 palisaded village site at Jordan's Landing to be typical of other Cashie phase sites in eastern North Carolina, in terms of site location and content. Radio carbon dates indicate that the Jordan's Landing site was occupied as late as A.O. 1418 ( calibrated) (Eastman 1994) . Eighty-two percent of the faun al remains recovered from four selected features at Jordan's Landing, are those offish. Alosa remains, as well as the anadromous striped bass, were well represented in the mix (Byrd 199 1 , 1997b) . Alosa remains constituted 38% (NISP) of the fish remains identified in one pit feature ( Feature 2 1 ) and 34% (NISP) of the fish remains identified in a second feature (Feature 4 1 , all levels and sections). Alosid bones were not recovered from either the third pit feature (Feature 43) or the analyzed sample taken from the village ditch (Feature 1) where the bulk of the site 's faunal materials were recovered (Byrd 1997b) . Feature 43 was apparently a fall season storage/trash pit that contained hickory nuts and beans, along with related faunal materials (David Phelps, East Carolina University, personal communication 1997). Byrd ( 1997b) concluded, however, that the absence of Alosa remains from the ditch 's (Feature 1) faunal assemblage was most likely the result of taphonomic processes and recovery techniques utilized in the sampling of the ditch (Feature I ) fill. Although fine screen samples were taken from the ditch, one-quarter inch mesh screens were most commonly used for data recovery on the site (Byrd 1997b). The fine screen samples from the ditch have yet to be analyzed and are suspected to contain Alosa bones. Alosa bone remains were strongly represented in the faunal assemblages from other Jordan 's Landing features that were not formally analyzed in the initial study (Byrd 1997b ). The Tillett Site. Given the historic period ubiquity of shad in Croatan and Roanoke Sounds (Cobb 1906; Dunbar 1 958), it was expected that Alosa remains, particularly American and hickory shad vertebrae, should have been recovered from the Tillett site (31 DR35), "the first fishing 70 community at Wanchese" (Phelps 1 984). The Tillett site i s a Colington phase (AD. 800- 1 650) village site located on the southeast comer of Roanoke Island. The Colington phase, as defined and described by Phelps ( 1 982b, 1 983), i s the prehistoric manifestation oft he native culture, historically recognized as the "Carolina Algonkians." The Colington phase peoples inhabited the tidewater region of the Coastal Plain from the present Virginia border, down to the south side of the Neuse River, and west to the eastern edge of the Inner Coastal Plain (Phelps 1 982b, 1 983 ). Although alosid vertebrae were expected in the Tillett site assemblage, such remains were not, in fact. represented, in any quantity, in the site ' s faunal assemblages. Despite the fact that significant quanti ties of turtle were recovered, seasonality studies of both the site ' s Middle (AD. 460-800) and Late Woodland ( A.O. 800- 1 650) component mammalian , avian and fish remains, however, generally indicated that the site was only occupied in the warm season of late spring through early fall (Phelps 1 984 :Appendices D and E); periods when neither shad nor river herring run in the surrounding sounds . Further. the fish remains from the Ti l lett site, contrasted with those from the Jordan ' s Landing site, contain a high frequency of salt water species . This pattern suggests an adaptation to ocean/sound saltwater oriented subsistence complex, rather than a freshwater riverine/estuarine complex . It may be noted that a small number of Late Woodland sites in the western Piedmont of North Carolina have yielded alosid bones. The Donnaha site (3 1 YD009) on the Yadkin River ( Scany and Scany 1 997; Woodall 1 984), and the Lower Saratown site (3 l RK.00 1 ) on the Dan River ( Scany and Scany 1 997; Ward and Davis 1 993) both produced small quantities of Alosa remains. The Despite the general inferences that can be made from the Flynt and Jordan 's Landing sites ' faun al assemblages, and the implications of Late Archaic ( 3 ,000- 1 ,000 B . C . ) through Woodland 7 1 (1,000 B.C.-A.D. 1650) period riverine and estuarine focused settlement patterns, additional direct archaeological evidence of prehistoric shad and river herring fisheries is certainly needed. At present, there are several unanalyzed faunal collections from Coastal Plain sites in eastern North Carolina in the collections of the David S. Phelps Archaeology Laboratory at East Carolina University. These collections were recovered during various research oriented projects, field schools and CRM related projects during the 1970s and 1980s. Unfortunately, as has been the case with most CRM projects, the research funding available for major excavations and subsequent data analyses of these recovered materials has been so limited that much of the collection offaunal materials remains unanalyzed. For example, uninventoried faunal assemblages from sites such as the Robert 's Wharf site (31G A 1 ), located on Bennetts Creek, and the Chowanoke site (3 1HF30), located on the Chowan River (Phelps 1 982c, I 984a), are expected to yield Alosa remains when analyzed (David Phelps, East Carolina University, personal communication 1 997). Anadromous Fisheries , Settlement Patterns and the Seasonal Subsistence Cycle The timing and extent to which anadromous runs were exploited in various regions of the Atlantic seaboard, during the prehistoric period has been proposed and debated in recent literature ( e .g. , Byrd 1 997b; Carlson 1988, 1 996; Cleland 1982; Custer 1 988, 1 989; Kraft 1 986a, 1 986b; Yesner et al. 1983; Barber 1 980; Larson 1 980; Binford 1 964; Schalk 1 977; Stewart et al. 1986). The question will not be definitively settled for eastern North Carolina until more archaeological data from a diverse range of Coastal Plain sites can be acquired and analyzed. The present sample of sites with Alosa remains, in conjunction with ethnohistoric observations and Middle Atlantic region site data, supports the conclusion that anadromous fisheries were viable components of the prehistoric subsistence cycle in eastern North Carolina. Even though there is only direct evidence of Alosa 72 exploitation in the Late Woodland (AD. 800-1650) period, anadromous fisheries likely existed as far back as the Middle Archaic (5,000-3,000 B.C.) period, given the conducive environmental conditions present in the region by 3,000 B.C. Settlement patterns in the region lend some further credence to this observation. The North Carolina Coastal Plain settlement pattern is similar to that proposed by Cleland ( 1 982) and Schalk (1977), who both indicated that settlement patterns for anadromous fishery dependent populations would be restricted to those environments where the fisheries would be the most productive. Settlement patterns for such groups would be restricted in a general sense, due to the need to access spawning grounds, but highly variable in relation to specific types of waterways on which they were located, due to the biological and geographical nature of Alosa spawning habits in North Carolina. The general Late Archaic and Woodland period settlement patterns in eastern North Carolina, along both small tributaries and major trunk steams and sounds, depending upon the specific period considered (Byrd 1997b; Phelps 1983 ), were certainly all conducive to the development of anadromous fisheries. As observed by Byrd ( 1997b ), settlement patterns after 2,000 B . C. reflect a shift in subsistence practices, whereby a combination of gardening and fishing became increasingly important. As such, the settlement patterns, for both permanent and seasonal habitation sites, of the period may have been a reflection of the seasonal choice to exploit anadromous fish runs. This is not to suggest that anadromous fisheries were the only resources exploited in the spring season, but that spring fisheries were a major component of the spring subsistence cycle. As observed by Leap ( 1977:253) " . . .fi shing constitutes only one of the possibilities toward which the total focus of a people's subsistence economy may be directed . . .n o single subsistence effort exists in complete isolation from the other components of the subsistence economy." 73 Schalk (1977) and Cleland ( 1982) suggested that the exploitation of anadromous fish would stimulate preservation and storage techniques among fishery dependent cultures. Both researchers agree that storage would be unlikely in the Southeast, either because of the availability of alternate resources, or the impossibility of lengthy storage periods in humid southern climates (Cleland 1982 ; Schalk 1977). In terms of alternate resources, there were certainly subsistence alternatives in eastern North Carolina during the early spring. The other resources, however were not super abundant, nor so easily harvested. It has been noted that "The importance of anadromous fishes to aboriginal societies lies in their concentration in a confined space, even if only for a short season, thus making them highly accessible" (Wheeler and Jones 1989 :5). Further, the spring season has been noted as a period of farnine, in terms of floral and mammalian resources, for prehistoric populations on the coastal plain region of the Southeast (Larson 1980). Increasing population pressure likely forced a more estuarine or riverine focused subsistence strategy during the Late Archaic (3 ,000-1,000 B.C. ) and Woodland (1,000 B.C .-A.D. 1650) periods that would have depended more heavily upon anadromous fish runs, as well as the eventual development of agricultural domesticates. As populations must increase their energy capture in order to support social and economic growth, increasing energy capture comes from taking resources from the environment or becoming more efficient in the use of resources (Smith 1977). Spawning river herring and shad were a readily accessible resource that could have been easily exploited, through the employment of nets and weirs, with relative ease and minimal energy loss from the exertions of capture (Whyte 1988; Cleland 1982 ; Larson 1980). Marine resources, including shad and river herring, were a major dietary resource that provided high levels of proteins and other nutrients. "As a food resource the herring family must be placed in a veiy high rank, perhaps even alongside the Pacific salmon . . . or at least not much below 74 them" (Rostlund 1968 [1952]). River herring and shad have a higher ratio of edible meat weight to total body weight when compared with most terrestrial species, such as white-tailed deer or other small mammals (Taylor and Smith 1978). Anadromous fishes were an excellent source of protein and nutrients for native populations and provided important vitamins and minerals to the diet ; an excellent compliment to the overall subsistence mix. Although alosids are somewhat lower in total protein value than either white-tailed deer or black bear, shad and river herring slightly exceed the two mammalian species in terms of calories per ounce/gram (Taylor and Smith 1978; Turner 1976). Compared to mammalian and reptilian resources, shad and river herring contribute significantly higher levels of fat per ounce/gram, particularly during spawning season (Rostlund 1968 [1952]; Yesner 1987), to the diet. Alosids contribute relatively high levels of vitamins A B, D and E, as well as calcium, when compared to venison or bear flesh (Taylor and Smith 1978: Yesner 1987). Even though cooking and curing processes, such as smoke drying (Sikorski et al. 1995; Yesner 1987), reduce the consumable quantity of vitamins and minerals necessary for a balanced diet, river herring provide generous levels of phosphorus, magnesium, sodium, selenium, iodine and potassium to the diet, especially when the skeleton is consumed along with the flesh ( Lall 1995 ). The major nutritional value of spawning alosids is more apparent when one compares the net caloric returns between deer hunting and fishing. On average, deer and other large mammals provide a caloric return of 5,000 kilocalories per hour of hunting, while the netting or trapping of seasonal fish runs, such as shad and river herring runs, will yield more than 18,000 kilocalories per hour ( Yesner 1987). Prehistoric fish yields are impossible to verify today, but Rostlund ( 1968 [1951] :64) estimated that the Middle Atlantic region could produce some 900 pounds of anadromous fish per square mile of riverine/estuarine environment. This figure was calculated after the great decimation 75 of shad and river herring populations during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Binford ( 1964) speculated that the " . . .c atch of anadromous fish over a/our month fishing season for an aboriginal fish weir is roughly 1 , 500 pounds" (Binford 1964; emphasis added). However, a historic account of early seventeenth century fisheries in New England noted: " . . . a little below the fall in Charles River the inhabitants of Watertown had built a wear to catch fish, wherein they took great store of Shads and Alewives. In two tides they have gotten 200,000 of these fishes" (William Wood 1634 ; quoted in McDonald 1884 :584; emphasis in original). The observer did not indicate the size of, or the number of, traps in the weir, but the minimum weight of the tow "tidal" hauls would have been 100,000 pounds (@ one half pound per fish). The estimate made by Binford (1964) is undoubtedly much too low and the 1634 observation by William Wood (McDonald 1884) was probably grossly exaggerated. Modern pound nets, essentially adaptations of ancient fish weirs, have, however, regularly yielded between 1 0, 000 and 12. 000 pounds (10,000-25,000 fish) of river herring per day during the peak spring runs season (Fisherman and Farmer [anonymous] 1895b:4; Layton 1997; Byrum 1996. Pound nets harvests generally produced 2,000 fish (Fisherman and Farmer [anonymous] l 895b :4) per day (1,000-2,000 fish) throughout the three-to-four month season. The size of the haul would, of course, be directly related to the size of the impoundment area or trap section of the weir and location of the weir in relation to the shore. Weirs set in the mouths of tributary steams, or along the shallow shore of the sounds would have been the most efficient . For later Archaic and Woodland period peoples, shad and river herring runs would have been exploitable during a lull season for hunting and gathering, foraging, and agricultural societies. Although a variety terrestrial and aquatic resources were continuously available to prehistoric groups in the Middle and South Atlantic region, the majority of the edible species, floral or faunal , 76 were most exploitable in particular seasons. The availability of wild food resources changes from microenvironment to microenvironment and from season to season (Larson 1980). In eastern North Carolina. during the WoodJand period, large mammal (e.g . , black bear and white-tailed deer) hunting normally occurred in the late fall or winter months when alternative hunting and fishing strategies were less lucrative (Byrd 1997b ). Byrd ( 1997b) further suggested that the animals ' furs were of better quality and more appropriate for making clothing during the colder period of the year. White­ tailed deer reached a maximum abundance in the fall and early winter months, due to inherent peculiarities in feeding and mating habits (Thomas et al . 1975; Brooks and Canouts 1984). Waterfowl (e.g., ducks and geese) are typically available in large numbers in the migratory seasons during the fall and spring (Thomas et al. 1975; Brooks and Canouts 1984), but were difficult to capture with primitive weapons (Byrd 1997b ). Reptiles, fish and shell fish, like other mammalian and avian species are often available year round. but like their counterparts. these other species are typically more easily harvested during certam optimum periods each year. The seasonal variability between species is broad. As such, general statements about peak season availability or accessibility cannot fully address the complexity of the individual variations. Plant resources (e.g., nuts, fruits/berries, roots, seeds/grains, leafy greens) are also available for gathering on a seasonal basis. The general abundance and nutritional value of floral resources fluctuates from season to season as well (Thomas et al. 1975; Brooks and Canouts 1984). In the resource rich environment of eastern North Carolina. however, many diverse species of flora and fauna were readily available on a year round basis. Specific exploitation of individual species was likely based on subsistence scheduling, whereby seasonally abundant resources were most often chosen over other resources more uniformly available year round. 77 Seasonally abundant resources ( wild or domesticated, gathered or harvested) were generally selected over hunted resources (Thomas et al. 1975:57). Based on assumptions of seasonal variability between different species, Thomas et al . ( 1975) proposed a schedule of subsistence activities for both horticultural and non-horticultural societies in the Middle Atlantic region. Although there are variations in the timing of seasons for the species listed, and glaring omissions of turtle and wild turkey exploitation (see Byrd 1997b; Phelps 1984), Thomas et al. 's ( 1975) schedule is generally applicable, with adjustments, to the prehistoric cultures of eastern North Carolina in the Woodland period ( 1,000 B.C.-A.D. 1650) . The exploitation of anadromous fish is included within the seasonal subsistence round. During the summer, fall and winter seasons there are a number of abundant resources each season, while the early spring is somewhat more limited on the Coastal Plain (e.g. , starving time [Larson 1980]) . During the spring, anadromous fish are the only high protein resources available in any significant abundance to either horticultural or non-horticultural societies. Cleland ( 1982) observed of prehistoric cultures in the Great Lakes region : " . . . t he greatest exploitation offish took place during the spring spawning season. . .t he development of a fishing capability is sign ificant because spawning runs come at a time of year when hunting .. . is most difficult and least productive because of the absence of cover and the poor condition of game." Figure 7 shows a potential resource availability schedule while Figure 8 shows the Late Woodland period exploitation pattern on the Inner Coastal Plain of North Carolina based on a study by Byrd (1997b). Unfortunately, the present lack of subsistence data from the region precludes the generalized development of subsistence activity schedules any earlier than the Late Woodland period. As the Figures 7 and 8 indicate, the presence of potential food sources in an environment do not automatically ensure that they were heavily exploited by prehistoric peoples (see Figures 7 and 8 [e.g., waterfowl, turkey, small / wild leafy greu1s d,m1L?. crops some varieties available if sto100 wild seeds some \·arietit!S available if slored nuts available if stored roots sru1 I mL-d mammals deer ?ellfi? A losa available if stored ?cd bas.5 . ? W.@..@'Nd.cief:l 0f.ft)1@f,-}'Ł sturge,n ®.illJl?W. . · .: OOfillWJwtwm•? YJl!&mttwttittľttttt cther fi&i turtle turkey waterfowl J F M A M J J A s 0 N D optimal seasms of a,·ailabilitY tf•x-:-:?§#M?;.,j seasms of aYailability Figure 7. Schedule of Subsistence Resource Availabi lity (Adapted and revised from Thomas et al . 1 975 ) --.I 00 wild kal\ greens dome&. LTops wild seeds nuts roots sml / rued mammals deer / hear shellfish Alosa ? strip cd hass ?urgem