short answer: there was

long answer: the iriquois, the ojibwe, the eastern cree, the missipian cultures (just a conoe ride down the missisipi to the great lakes culture area) were all permanently settled cultures covering most of the eastern continent from the hudson bay, to the maritimes to florida and the gulf.

They had what the french called "castles" but were more akin the trading and fur forts later adopted by the colonists. These unlike forts were larger and more akin to cities. with hundreds of "long houses" which in turn held multiple families like apartments buildings rather than a single housing unit.

Some of these cities, were so large and vast that french fur traders reccount getting lost in them. Theyre described as clean, well governed and peaceful, the people rarely went hungry or without neccessity. The only threat was the wars of neighbouring tribes, which ofcourse is why these structures were built for.

a quote from "Native North American Armour, shields and Fortifications" a book i highly recommend btw;

" For the erection of these castles, or strongholds, they usually select a situa- tion on the side of a steep high hill, near a stream or river, which is difficult of access, except from the water, and inaccessible on every other side, with a level plain on the crown of a hill, which they enclose with a strong stock- ade work in a singular manner. First they lay along on the ground large logs of wood, and frequently smaller logs upon the lower logs, which serve for the foundation of the work. Then they place strong oak palisades in the ground on both sides of the foundation, the upper ends of which cross each other and are joined together. In the upper cross of the palisades they then place the bodies of trees, which makes the work strong and firm. . . . Besides their strongholds, they have villages and towns which are enclosed. Their castles and large towns they seldom leave altogether. (Bushnell 1919, 49) "

if you ever wondered why metal isnt incorporated its basically because unlike eurasian metals, the copper and metals of the americas were extremely pure, thus the need for metallurgy in the first place was limited so cold forging became the default. The crystal structure is also quite different. where as eurasian alloys are made of millions of millions of fine crystals mm's to nm's in diameter all stacked nicely after being heated in a forge vs the pure, massive, often messy formation of the pure copper. meaning even if you did forge a metal blade, it wasnt extremely more durable, sharp or efficient than shale and stone tools. as the large crystals broke just as easy from stress as shale. So why would you as hunter gatherers and horticulturalists (as agricultural socieities often just used copper anyways, like the greatlakes societirs) would you waste exponentially more effort mining, gathering, proessing and finishing copper/metal tools if a shale tool was just as good and only 1/64th the effort and calory expense? Just something to get you thinking about how you should revise your conception of the pre columbian first nations. Even the most well intended people can bring up wildly backwards points sometimes because its just so engrained

This is just the north east greatlakes region as well, theres fantastic structures in ghe north west (Oregon, Washington, BC, Yukon, Alska) Which in one famous battle held out against russian naval artillery fire woth nothing more than cedar fortifications. They also down american ships in their war canoes and often forced trading and war ships to flee as opposed to the common story in the east.