Maple sugaring season got cut short in Wisconsin this year, due to an unseasonably warm spring, but let's face it: any time we humans can think about sweet stuff is a good time.
The maple sugaring process is pretty mundane--tap the sap, boil it until most or all of the water is evaporated away, filter it of impurities and pour it into bottles or press it into maple leaf molds. But the origins of maple sugaring are obscure. It's clear that tapping maples became known to the world at large after Europeans landed on American shores. What isn't clear is whether the original inhabitants of the Americas knew about tapping trees and told the Europeans about it, or the Europeans discovered it and told the Native Americans and First Peoples about it.
Archaeological evidence is pretty slim either way; my best guess would be that it was something the Native Americans/First Peoples knew about, but it was the European demand for sugar and novelties that made the practice really take off.
But read the Maple Sugaring photo essay, and make up your own mind.
- Maple Sugaring: An Archaeological Controversy, photo essay
- Maple Syrup Festivals in the US (Senior Travel)
- Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) (Forestry)
- Maple Sugaring: A Flickr Gallery
- Bibliography (of course!)
Thanks to Vicki and Peter of the Scandinavian Inn for the suggestion.
Comments
What an interesting subject. Thanks for the introduction.I wasn’t aware that it wasn’t known for sure as to its origins, presuming that both Europeans and North Americans had some familiarity with it. I see wikipedia says aboriginals used stone tools to penetrate and groove the tree’s bark for collection. I know that some people are now tapping birch trees for syrup as well. Never the less, the sweet tooth is an powerful drive for humans wherever we go. Cheers.
Unfortunately, I suspect that any contention that there is little evidence for indigenous maple sugaring reflects a desire on the part of prehistorians to stick to one line of evidence and discount ethnography in particular. If prehistory relies on archaeology alone, it will suffer, because archaeological research is still biased when hypothetical questions are formed using the direct historical approach. For example, ‘if X was known to Native Americans, then I would expect X to be visible before their arrival’. Although KH more appropriately asks herself, ‘If X was known, then why does X not look the same over time’? (and arrives at a great hypothesis).
While looking for a internet reference to the use of hemlock, which Europeans don’t report doing themselves, I came across a few interesting arguments. Namely, that Early Eastern Woodland forestry reached an Oak climax due to burning practices (http://www.psu.edu/dept/nkbiology/hike/pdf/TreesEssay.pdf); and that modern suppressed burns have seen a 50 percent increase in Sugar Maples in the Great Lakes region(plants.usda.gov/plantguide/doc/pg_acsa3.doc). Finally putting these thoughts together with K Hirst’s suggestion that sugar was desired by Europeans and led to an increase in Native production, you could see how Maples might have been valued for medicine and sugar, but Oaks (pre-maize agriculture), might have dominated the woodlands, until a change in subsistence and trade items came about. This would explain the understated pre-colonial practices by Native Americans, and why archaeology can’t see it.
Archaeologists: pay attention to what Native Americans tell you, and use this info to reform your hypotheses if you are too cynical or biased to use it as supporting evidence.
After reading this I began looking for primary or secondary ethnohistoric citations that would agree with what I remember seeing as a child. I remember watching a public broadcast of a Native American man from the Great Lakes region sugaring maple the traditional way. He stated that this practice predated Europeans, and that the metal pots introduced by the Europeans were an advantage, but hardly necessary. He went on to show how it was done with expedient tools (not intricately carved paddles), even carving the spout from scratch. When the boiling was taking place (with hot stones in wooden pale, though he qualified that a basket or bladder was used) he mentioned that 1) it can also be done with snow to freeze the sap, rather than boil and 2) that the boiling method required quick turns with a stick and lastly with a branch of hemlock to preserve it.
This is very like the ethnohistoric evidence used as part of this person’s presentation, where hemlock is only mentioned in these historic documents as a native practice:
http://colonialbaker.net/Common%20questions%20about%20maple%20sugaring.pdf
Earlier ethnohistoric references to Native use predating the European are on many park websites, but the earliest secondary reference I found was here:
http://library.uvm.edu/maple/faq/#history
I can’t buy Carol Mason’s career proposition that there is no evidence for these practices, because the tendency of archaeologist to give more weight the material record is utter nonsense. It is a line of evidence like any other, and it has its own problems (differential preservation and the limited modern imagination). I’m glad p-bot will put this idea to rest eventually.
While Native Americans probably knew about Sugar Maple sap, squirrels know to lick the sap, I doubt Native Americans made Maple sugar. The time and effort needed to boil 40 gallons of sap down to 1 gallon would be impractical without metal pots.
Ukrainian HIghlanders are called Hutsuls.
Inter allia their archaic name for the third month of the year (the third the way we know it) was marok or marot cognate of the Proto-Ukrainian deity of death. Our April was called berezen cognate of the birch tree, i.e. the time of tapping birch tree sap.
Hutsulian archaic names of the thirteen months of their lunar calendar indicate climate of about 12,000BP when taiga started to replace Ukrainian tundra.
As I drove from Ivano-Frankivs to Kolomyia in Ukraine one week ago I saw along highway peasants selling birch sap in plastic soda bottles.
Even today it is used straight as a beverage and not evaporated.
I am sure same was done in England 200 years ago and 12,000BP by collecting the sap into sacs made from animal hides and in North America during the same period.
[ content deleted by monitor]
My final comments might appear racist or outrageous or even lies.
interesting about the birch trees – but you’re quite right and it’s just too bad: your last comment was all three, outrageous, racist, and a big fat lie, so I deleted it. call it censorship, if you want, but I’m not having it in my house.