Archaeological Investigations in the Upper Susquehanna Valley [1]

Table of contents :
Cover......Page 1
Title......Page 0
Copyright......Page 6
Table of Contents......Page 7
List of Figures......Page 11
List of Plates......Page 13
List of Tables......Page 15
Foreword......Page 17
Preface......Page 19
Part I. The Project......Page 21
Introduction......Page 23
1. Research Philosophy......Page 31
2. Field and Laboratory Methods......Page 37
Part II. The Environment......Page 45
3. General Geography and Geology......Page 47
4. Floral and Faunal Resource Potential......Page 55
5. Environmental Zones and Local Habitats......Page 69
Part III. The Cultures in Conflict......Page 87
6. Europeans Come to the Upper Susquehanna......Page 89
Part IV. The Interpretations......Page 97
7. Fluvial Geomorphology......Page 99
8. Prehistoric Vegetation Change......Page 119
9. Writing Cultural History......Page 129
10. The Upper Susquehanna Sequence & Chronology......Page 145
11. Continuity, Stability and Change......Page 219
12. Functions and Activities......Page 233
13. Subsistence, Settlement and Seasonality......Page 249
14. Summary, Conclusions and Synthesis......Page 317
References Cited......Page 333
Authors and Investigators Index......Page 363
Sites and Localities Index......Page 370
General Subject Index......Page 377
Foldout Figures......Page 395
Figure 39......Page 397
Figure 40......Page 399

Citation preview

Front cover: Copied from the painting, "View of Binghamton from the Inebriate Asylum," by Henry Wolcott Boss, 1862. Courtesy of the Roberson Center for the Arts and Sciences, 30 Front Street, Binghamton, New York.

Robert E. Funk at the Fortin Site, July 1972. Photo by Bruce E. Rippeteau.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN THE UPPER SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY, NEW YORK STATE

by Robert E. Funk Anthropological Survey New York State Museum

With contributions by: Robert J. Dineen Charles E. Gillette Franklin}. Hesse James T. Kirkland Donald M. Lewis Bruce E. Rippeteau William A. Starna Beth Wellman David R. Wilcox

Persimmon Press Monographs in Archaeology, 1993

To William A. Ritchie, to amateur archaeology, and to all field workers who have nourished the spirit of science.

© Robert E. Funk. No portion of this work may be reproduced in any form without permission of the author and the publisher. Persimmon Press, 118 Tillinghast Place, Buffalo, New York 14216.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Funk, Robert E. Archaeological investigations in the upper Susquehanna Valley, New York State/ by Robert E. Funk; with contributions by Robert I . Dineen ... [et al.]. p[. cm. - (Persimmon Press monographs in archaeology) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 0 -9615462-9-8 : $60.00 (est.) 1 . Indians of North America - Susquehanna River Watershed - Antiquities. 2 . Excavations (Archaeology) - Susquehanna River Watershed - History. 3 . Plant remains (Archaeology) - Susquehanna River Watershed. 4. Animal remains (Archaeology) - Susquehanna River Watershed . 5 . Susquehanna River Watershed - Antiquities. 6 . New York (State)- Antiquities. I. Dineen , Robert J. (Robert James), 194211. Title. III. Series. E78 .S9F88 1993 974.7'7-dc20

Printed by Partners' Press, Kenmore Avenue, Buffalo, N .Y. 14217.

93-25158 CIP

TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I List of Figures ............ .................. ........ ........ ... ...... .. ............... ... ... .... .. ....... .............. ................ ... ...... ....... ......... ... 7 List of Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . .. ......... .. .. ... .. .. 9 List of Tables ...... ..... ..... ................................ .. ...... .................... ..... .... .. .... .............. ............. ... ....... ........ ........ ...... 11 ... 13 Foreword . Preface .. ..... ...... .... .. .............. .. .15 The Project Part I: ....................................... ... .......... .. ........ .......... .. ....... .. . 19 Introduction Chapter 1: Research Philosophy: Objectives, Approaches, and Results .... ..... ... ..... .... .... 27 Chapter 2 : Field and Laboratory Methods ......... ... .... .. . .. ....... .......... .. ..... 33 Part II: The Environment Chapter 3 : General Geology and Geography ........... .. .... .... .. .. .. .............. . .... .. ............. .. .. .... ... .. .. . ..43 Chapter 4: Faunal and Floral Resource Potential ....................... .. ............ .... .... ............ 51 Chapter 5 : Environmental Zones and Local Habitats .. ........... ................ .............. ..... ..... ......... .. ... .......... 65 Part III: The Cultures in Conflict Chapter6: Europeans Come to the Upper Susquehanna .... .... .. ................ ......... ... ... ........ .. .................... 85 Part IV: The Interpretations Chapter 7 : Fluvial Geomorphology of the Upper Susquehanna Study Area .. .... .. ........... ...... .. ............. ..... 95 Chapter8: Prehistoric Vegetation Change in the Upper Susquehanna Drainage ..... ........... ...... ............. 115 Chapter9: Writing Culture History ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. ............ .... . 125 Chapter 10: The Upper Susquehanna Sequence and Chronology ..... ...... ..... ... .. ... .... ... .... ... 141 Chapter 11 : Continuity, Stability an'd Change ............ .............. .... ...... :.......... .... ... .. ..... ... .. .... ....... ..... .... 215 Chapter 12: Functions and Activities .......................... .. ............. .... ........ ......... ..... ..... .. ... ..... ...... ... ......... .. . 229 Chapter 13: Subsistence, Settlement, and Seasonality .. ........ .... ...... .............. ...... .... .... .... .. .. ...... .. ....... .... 245 Chapter 14: Summary, Conclusions, and Synthesis .......... ...... ........ ......................... ........ .......... .. ....... ..... 313 References Cited ....... .... .... ...................... ... ..... ............ . . Indices to Volume 1 .. .................... ...... .... .. ................ .......... ........... ....... .

VOLUME II List of Figures List of Plates List of Tables Appendix 1: A Checklist of Edible Higher Plants Native to the Upper Susquehanna Valley, New York State Appendix 2 : Preliminary Descriptions of New Projectile Point Types Appendix 3 : Archaeological Site Reports The Fortin Site The Street Site The Messina Site The Shearer Site The Mattice No. 2 Site The Munson Site

3

.. .. 329 .. ...... .... .... .. .. 359

The Camelot No. 1 Site The Camelot No. 2 Site The Crandall-Wells Site The Rose Site The Enck No. 1 Site The Enck No. 2 Site The Kuhr No. 1 Site The Kuhr No . 2 Site The Otego Rockshelters The Sternberg Site The Gardepe Site The Russ Site The Johnsen No. 1 Site The Johnsen No. 2 Site The Egli Site The Wessels Site The Bemis Site The Castle Gardens Site The Cottage Site Appendix 4: Palynological and Radiometric Analyses of Organic Samples from Archaeological and NonArchaeological Localities: Mud Lake East VlyBog Oneonta Bypass Bog The Organic Zone at the Munson Site Pollen samples from the Mattice No. 2 Site The Camelot Pond Locality The Organic Zone at the Crandall-Wells Site The Mill Creek Junction Locality The Chamberlain Hill Road Locality The Organic Zone at the Enck No. 1 Site Pollen Samples from the Enck No. 2 Site The Organic Sample from the Backhoe Trench at the Kuhr No. 1 Site Pollen Samples from the Gardepe Site Russell Beach Swamp Lake Misery References Cited Indices to Volume 2

4

VOLUME 1

5

6

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Figure2 . Figure3. Figure4. Figure5. Figure6. Figure?. Figures. Figure9. Figure 10. Figure 11 . Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

Figure 19.

Figure20 . Figure 21. Figure22 . Figure23. Figure24. Figure25. Figure26. Figure27 . Figure28. Figure29. Figure30. Figure31 . Figure32.

Figure33.

Locations of archaeological sites in the Upper Susquehanna Valley, New York State .. .. .. ......... .. ... ... ....... ...... 25 Seasonal variability in animal species available to prehistoric hunters in the Upper Susquehanna Valley............. ... .... .. ..... ... ............ ... .... ... .................... ............. .. ...... .. . ·· ················· ...... 55 Seasonal availability of wild plants known or suspected to have been collected or consumed by prehistoric groups in the Upper Susquehanna Valley . .......... . . ......... .. ....... ........ .. 63 Schematic diagram showing the topographic relationships of the major environmental zones used in this study. ..... .. ... . ...... ... ... ....... .. ......... ....... .. . ........... .......... .......... .. .......... ..... 66 Map showing distribution of Indian village sites along the Upper Susquehanna 1750-1779 ................. ······· ·············· · ..... .......... ....... ... ...... ....... ............... .... ....... ... ..... ..... ............. 89 Grain size analysis of sediment samples from archaeological sites in the Upper Susquehanna Valley, New York. ..... ......... ... ........................... . .... ........... ...... . 96 Computer- generated sediment rate curves for a variety of sediment increments. . . . . . .. . .. . . .. .. . . . . . .. . 96 Graph presenting sediment concentration data for the Susquehanna River at Sayre, Pennsylvania. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. .. . . .. . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... ........ .......... .... ... ....... .... 98 Sedimentation rate curves for seven sites along the Susquehanna River between Emmons and Otego. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . ........... ................... .. 99 Glacial and fluvial geomorphology of the Upper Susquehanna study reach .... ..... ... .. in pocket, see inside back cover River gradient, floodplain width, floodplain thickness, and correlation of terraces with radiocarbon dates in the Upper Susquehanna study area .... .... ... .......... .......... ...... ... ....... .... ............. ... 102 Morphology and evolution of channel bars and meanders. . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... 104 Summary of geomorphic events, inferred climate, and terrace deposition........ .. ..... . ........... 113 Pollen diagram forthe Vly Bog, Otsego County, New York. . .. .................. .... ..... ....... ......... ....... .. .. .......... 116 Pollen diagram for Mud Lake East, Delaware County, New York. ............. .... .. 117 Pollen diagram for Lake Misery, Otsego County, New York .... .. ..... .. ............ ...... .... ... ........ .................. ...... 118 . Pollen diagrams for Oneonta Bypass Bog and Russell Beach Swamp. . . . . .. . . . . ................ ... .......... ...... 119 Correlative pollen horizons on five sites in the Upper Susquehanna Valley, New York State . . ................ ............. ..... ............ ... .. ........ ... ..... ............ ... ... . ·· ···· ··· ···· ··· ···· ··· ..... .... ..... 123 Graph showing relationship of total number of strata to total number of occupation zones containing one point type or two closely related types, on floodplain sites in the Upper Susquehanna Valley. ········································· ······ -· ··· ··············· ... ..... .. ..... ... ... ............... 128 Examples of possible alternate temporal models for the Northeast ... .. ................ ...... ..... ... ........ ... ...... ...... ..... 136 The use of periods in American archaeology before and after the advent of radiocarbon dating ... .. ................. ....................... ............................................ .......... . ... .... ...... .. ........... ..... 137 Vertical distribution of components representing identified phases on stratified sites in the Upper Susquehanna Valley. ...... .. ..... ............. ............. ......... ........ ........... ............... ...... 154 Incidence of projectile point types in key components on stratified sites in the Upper Susquehanna Valley ................ ........... ......... .... ...... ....... ...... ........ ... ... ... ...... ....... ......... ......... ..... ... ... 155 Temporal distribution of some radiocarbon-dated artifact traits in New York State . .... ...... ... ....... ............. .... 156 Some horizons and horizon styles in northeastern prehistory; west to east distribution . ........ ......... .. .. :... ..... .. . 157 Some horizons and horizon styles in northeastern prehistory; south to north distribution .... ..... ..... .... ........ .... 172 Graph showing mean weights of projectile points assigned to certain types in samples from components in the Hudson Valley, Susquehanna Valley and some adjoining areas .... ..... .............. ....... .. .... 233 Graph comparing the number of sites with the number of components recorded in the Upper Susquehanna Valley (larger study area) . ............................ .......... ...... ...... ............. ... .. .... .. ....... ... ...... 257 Relative importance of subsistence practices in Upper Susquehanna prehistory as inferred from the frequencies of lithic artifacts in selected assemblages .......... ... ... .... ...... ... ........ ...... ........... 260 Hypothesized settlement system of the Lamoka phase in the Upper Susquehanna Valley ........ ... ..... ..... ... .. ... 286 Hypothesized settlement system of the Owasco tradition in the Upper Susquehanna Valley....................... .. 292 Graph comparing relative frequencies of all components assigned to specific phases with those in a selected sample of systematically investigated components, measured in number of components per century ........ .. .... ....... ....... ... .... .... ... ................... .... ..... ........ .. ......... .... ....... ..... 299 Graph comparing the frequencies of projectile points assigned to specific types with the frequencies of components on which they occur, measured in numbers per century (Hudson Valley) .... .......... ..... ...................... ..... .......... ... ................. ... ...... ..... .... ............ ............................. 300

7

Figure34 . Figure35 . Figure36. Figure37 . Figure 38. Figure39. Figure40.

Graph comparing frequencies of components assigned to phases in the Upper Susquehanna .. .. 305 Valley with frequencies of projectile points assigned to types, measured in numbers per century ... . Graph comparing the frequencies of components assigned to phases in the Hudson .306 and Susquehanna Valleys, measured in components per century. .. ........ .. .. .. .... .. .. .. Graph comparing relative frequencies of projectile point types in samples from .. ... 307 the Hudson and Susquehanna Valleys, measured in numbers per century ...... Graph showing frequencies of components assigned to phases in the Upper .. .. 311 Susquehanna Valley, measured in numbers per square mile per century x 100. Graph showing frequencies of components assigned to phases in the Genesee Valley, measured in numbers per square mile per centuryx 10. .. ..... 311 . .... in pocket, see inside back cover Environmental and cultural synthesis for the Upper Susquehanna Valley .. Time-space framework for comparison of the Upper Susquehanna cultural sequence with regional sequences in other parts of the Northeast. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . in pocket, see inside back cover

8

LIST OF PIATES Plate 1. Plate2. Plate3. Plate4. Plate5 . Plate6. Plate7 . Plate8. Plate9. Plate 10. Plate 11. Plate 12 .

An upland bog on Franklin Mountain near Oneonta, New York viewed from the outlet. ...... ...... .. .. .. .. ..... 65 The headwaters of a small upland stream on Franklin Mountain near Oneonta, New York. .. 67 Summit knolls and saddle in the uplands near Oneonta, New York ..... .. .. ............ ... ........ 67 Schenevus Creek, a large tributary of the Susquehanna River near Colliersville, New York...... ... ........... ............. .. .. .. ................ .. .. ............... .......... ........ ....... .. ... 68 View of Ninemile Swamp in the Chenango Valley lowlands. ....... .. ....... .. ..... ... ... ... ....... ......... .... ... ...... 69 A large lake (Canadarago Lake) containing an island (Deowongo Island). ....... .... ...... ............ ....... .. ... .. 69 Viewof PleasantBrooksite. ... ................................................ .. ..... ....... .. ............... ................ 180 A selected group of projectile points from the Jesse Benton collection ...... .................... .... ......... ......... .. ..... .. 183 Artifacts from the McCulley No. 1 site. ......... .... ............. ... ... 189 Artifacts from strata lAand lB, Davenport Creamery site. ........ .... ....... . .. ............. ...... .. ... ......... ......... .. ... .. 201 Artifacts from the Fredenburg site...... ........ . ....... .. ...... ...... .. ........ ... .... ... ... .... ..... ....... .. .. ...... ... ... 202 Artifacts from the Afton site. .. ............ ..... ..... .... .......... .. .... .. .. ... ... .. .. ..... .... ... .. .. .......... ....... .. .... ......... . 203

9

10

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Table 2 . Table3 . Table4. Table 5 . Table6. Table?. Table 8 . Table 9 . Table 10. Table 11. Table 12. Table 13.

Table 14.

Table 15. Table Table Table Table

16. 17. 18. 19.

Table20. Table21 . Table22 . Table23 . Table24. Table25 . Table26. Table 27 . Table28 . Table29. Table30. Table 31 . Table32 .

Rank order of mammalian utilization from 13 New York archaeofaunas . . ...... 54 Ranking of bird species according to numbers of occurrences on archaeological sites in New York State (north of Long Island) . ... . ..... ........................................... .. ............ .. ........ .. .. ....... ... ....... . 59 Fish families present in the Upper Susquehanna River, its tributaries, lakes, and ponds within the watershed .... ......... ...... ............................. .... ... ................ .. .. ... .......... . ····· ······ ·········· ····· · . 60 Ranking of the most frequently collected fishes by habitat in the Susquehanna watershed of New York State .......................... .... ..... .. ..... .. ........ .... ..... ................ ....... ........ .. ... ...... .. ... ... .... .. ... ... ..... ..... 60 Ranking of fish species according to numbers of occurrences on archaeological sites in New York State (north of Long Island). ....... ....... .................... .... ................ . ....... .. ...... ... . .61 Ranking of shellfish species according to number of occurrences on archaeological sites in New York State (north of Long Island) . .. .. ....................... .... ............. .. ..... .... . ... 62 Characterizations of local habitats within the valley wall and upland environmental zones in the Upper Susquehanna study area .. ... .......... ... ................. .. ... ... ............... ......... ............ ... ..... ...... ......... ..... ...... .... 72 Characterizations of local habitats within the valley floor environmental zone in the Upper Susquehanna study area. . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... .. .. .... ... .............. ........ .... ................... ......... 73 Habitability scores for local habitats within the valley floor environmental zone . ....... ........ .... ..... .. .... ...... ........ 76 Habitability scores for local habitats within the upland environmental zone ... .. .... ..... ........ ........ ..... ..... ...:... .. .. 78 Habitability scores for local habitats within the valley wall environmental zone. . . . . . .... .. . 79 Analyzed pollen samples from five Upper Susquehanna sites. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. ... ." .. .. .. 115 Relationships between number of components, number of stratigraphic zones, number of intact occupation zones, and number of projectile point types on stratified sites in the Upper Susquehanna Valley. .......... .......... ..................................... .. .. .. ............... ... ........... ... ....... .... ........ . 130 Relationships between total number of strata (including plow zone) and total number of occupation zones containing one projectile point type on floodplain sites in the Upper Susquehanna Valley .. .............. ......... .... .. .. ........ ..... ............ .... ... .... ..... .... .. ..... .... .. ... ... .. .. ... .. ......... ...... ....... 131 Proposed temporal model for northeastern prehistory compared to standard McKern-GriffinRitchie model. .... ................ ... .. .... .... .. .. ............ ....... ... ......... ..... ... ... ........... ..... .. ..... ... ... ......... .. .. ... ... .... ......... 139 Cultural sequence and chronology of the Upper Susquehanna Valley . ..... .... .... .. ....... •........ .... .. .... ......... 142-53 Radiocarbon dates for the Upper Susquehanna Valley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .... ..... .. .. .. .. ...... . 158-71 Paleo-hunter projectile points from the Upper Susquehanna Valley, New York State ... ............. .... ..... ... .. 176-79 Areal comparison in square miles of systematically surveyed portions of environmental zones in the Upper Susquehanna Valley . ................ .... ..... .. .. .... .... .. ..................... .. ....... ..... ....... .... ............. ............. ........ 247 Frequency and distribution among environmental zones of all identified components and all aboriginal sites . ................. ...... ... ........................ ... .... .................. ....... ... ....... ........... ... .... ...... ........ .. .. ..... ... 247 Frequency and distribution of aboriginal sites on the Susquehanna River and its major tributaries .............. . 249 Areal comparison of environmental zones in square miles ................ ..... .... .............. .......... . .......... ... ...... ... .. 249 Frequencies of components identified by phase or tradition within the environmental zones in the Upper Susquehanna Valley. ..... . ... ...... ... ........ ...... ...... ... ........ ......... ......... ...... ... .. ... .. 250 Frequency and distribution of aboriginal sites among local habitats within the environmental zones ........... 251 Frequency and distribution of identified components among local habitats within the environmental zones....... ........ .. .. .... ....... .... ........ ..... . ..... ................ ... ... ... .. .... ..... .... ... ..... ..... .. ...... ..... ..... ... ..... .... ..... .. . 252 Frequency and distribution of components assigned to phases among local habitats on the valley floors ................... .... .............. ......................... .... ...................... ... ..... ............. ... .. ... .... ... ... ..... ... ... ..... .... ... .... 254 Frequency and distribution of components assigned to phases among local habitats on the valley walls ................................................ .................. ........ .. ..................... ..... ............. .. .......... ........ ......... ... ........ 253 Frequency and distribution of components assigned to phases among local habitats in the uplands . .. ... .. ..... 256 Areal comparisons (in square miles) of local habitats on the Susquehanna Valley floor between Emmons and Wells Bridge. ... ... ... . .... . .. . . . . . . .. .... . ............................ ... ... ...... ..... . ............. . ...... .... .. ... .. 257 Comparison of habitability scores proposed for valley floor local habitats with the actual distribution of sites and components in the local habitats and their ranking in size . ...... .... ....... ..... ... ..... ... .... ....... ........... . 258 Subsistence and settlement data for selected components in the Upper Susquehanna Valley. . .. .. .. ..... ... . 261-63 Occurrence of non-local lithic materials in assemblages from the Upper Susquehanna Valley . ........ ... ........ 276

11

Table33 . Table34. Table35 . Table 36. Table 37. Table38. Table 39. Table40. Table41.

Frequencies of lithic materials other than eastern Onondaga chert employed in the manufacture .. .277 of projectile points. . .. ......................... ... ........ .. Data used to calculate the number of components per phase per century in the Upper Susquehanna Valley. . .......... ...... ...... .. .. ........... .. ...... .. .............. .. . . 296 Data used to calculate the number of components per phase per century based on a selected sample of Upper Susquehanna sites. .. .. ..................... . ....... ...... .......... .. .... 297 Data used to calculate the number of projectile points per phase per century based on a large sample of projectile poi11ts from the Hudson Valley. ...... .. ................ ... .............. .. .. .... 301 Data used to compare the number of projectile points vs. the number of components per phase per century in the Hudson Valley. ...... .... . ........ .. ...... ...... .. .. 302 Data used to calculate the number of projectile points per phase per century based on the Hill and Taylor collections from the Upper Susquehanna Valley. ......... . .................. . .. 303 Data used to calculate the number of components per phase per century based on a selected sample of Hudson Valley sites........... . .. ........ .. ....... .. .. ... 304 Data used to calculate numbers of components per phase per square mile per century, Upper Susquehanna Valley, as shown in Figure 37. .. .... .. .. .. ............. . .. ... ....... 310 Data used to calculate numbers of components per phase per square mile per century in the I-390 .. ....... ....... 312 survey area, Genesee Valley ....

12

FOREWORD by Robert E. Funk

The Upper Susquehanna Prehistory Project owes its inspiration to a suggestion, ca. 1968, by William A. Ritchie, then New York State Archaeologist. He believed that the valley ranked high in priority as a region in which solutions might be found to research problems of importance to New York archaeology. He stressed such desirable factors as the relatively undisturbed, rural character of the valley; the abundance and productivity of its archaeological sites; its critical geographic position between archaeologically better-known drainage systems to the east and west; and its status as a natural corridor for travel and communication between the Indians of the Mid-Atlantic coastal province and interior upstate New York. The writer's experiences with the embryonic state highway salvage program on various sites along the Susquehanna River near Binghamton between 1962 and 1968 tended to support Ritchie's views. Not only were a number of village sites of the Owasco tradition, Late Woodland stage, on record, but many sites were located on the floodplain and some contained undisturbed, stratified occupational sequences going back to Archaic times. Stratified sites can yield crucial information on the identity, relative temporal order, and radiocarbon chronology of prehistoric groups, thus permitting the construction of a reasonably detailed time-space framework . They also preserve data on the intrasite patterning of remains that may provide clues to the functional positions of sites in regional subsistence-settlement systems. Other sites near Oneonta briefly investigated in 1969 and 1970 bythewriter and his associates were also buried in floodplain sediments and provided useful data on Archaic and Middle Woodland occupations. In view of the promising results of prior surveys and excavations, the writer decided in 1971 to undertake a 10-year program of research on aboriginal occupations of the Susquehanna Valley. Initially, the geographic scope of the project was conceived as reaching from the headwaters of the Susquehanna River in New York to its mouth on Chesapeake Bay. As work progressed, this expectation proved to be unrealistic. For one reason, the drainage is so large that available time and resources would permit only the most superficial sampling of cultural resources, no matter what research objectives were chosen. Even a relatively narrow and "old-fashioned" culture-history approach relying on the limited excavation of sites by means of strata-cuts could not be properly implemented for the whole valley within the proposed ten-year period. In addition, we were kept very busy with the sites discovered within the relatively small area between Oneonta and Sidney. Finally, we worked in collaboration with field schools from the State University of New York at Albany and SUC Oneonta, and logistical constraints required that we stay within a convenient distance of both institutions. A beneficial result of the need to operate close to Oneonta (our field station) was that we acquired a comprehensive sample of a restricted stretch of the river. Eight sequential summer field seasons were completed ( 1971 through 1978), instead of the ten originally envisioned. This was due in part to the effects of budgetary constraints imposed on New York State government agencies during that period and to changing priorities within those agencies. Also, after 1978 we shifted our emphasis from field work to laboratory processing of the accumulated data and materials. Despite the reduced field program, we acquired data on numerous previously unrecorded prehistoric sites, shovel-tested dozens of sites, and extensively tested or excavated some 25 sites or loci thereon. These volumes present certain aspects of our researches, including detailed site reports, geological and palynological analyses, a study of regional biotic potential, a reconstruction of culture history and chronology, including radiocarbon dates, intra-site functional inferences, and settlement system interpretations. They also incorporate summaries of additional data gathered during sporadic field work in the valley from 1979 through 1984.

13

14

PREFACE by Robert E. Funk

Several educational and scientific institutions substantially contributed to the Upper Susquehanna project. Basic support a nd facilities were provided by the New York State Museum. Most of the radiocarbon dates resulting from field work were paid for by the State Museum. Several dates were funded by a grant from the American Philosophical Society in 1972 (No. 6983, Penrose Fund) . Ten additional dates were funded by a grant from the Research Foundation of the State University of New York, awarded in 1973 to Bruce E. Rippeteau, then at the State University College at Oneonta. Archaeological field schools from SUNY at Albany (1971-1974) and SUC Oneonta (1972-1977, 1981) provided indispensable "person-power" for the project. In combination with State Museum field assistants the student groups moved vast quantities of soil. During the l 960's, SUNY Binghamton archaeologists collaborated with the writer in surveys along the Susquehanna River west of Binghamton. Highway salvage teams from that university also gathered considerable information on cultural resources along 1-88 between Binghamton and Richmondville from 1971 through 1978. We are indebted to numerous individuals who contributed to the Upper Susquehanna Prehistory Project in various ways. These persons chiefly represent the above-mentioned institutions,. the New York State Archeological Association, and diverse academic departments. Beth Wellman, Scientist (Archaeology), New York State Museum, acted as a site supervisor and instructor on field projects and was also responsible for organizing collected materials for transport back to the State Museum. During some sessions she made use of SUC Oneonta laboratory space for student training purposes and the cataloguing of collections. She directed major excavations at the Street site in 1973 and 1977 and at the Johnsen No. 3 site in 1981. The writer expresses his particular appreciation to Charles E. Gillette, former Curator of Anthropology, New York State Museum, and to Beth Wellman for painstakingly cataloguing the considerable volume of materials acquired during our investigations. State Museum crew chiefs for one or more seasons included Ralph M. Houck, Garrett W. Cook, and Franklin J. Hesse. At other times Cook and Hesse were regularfield assistants, in addition to Bruce E. Rippeteau, Craig Herrick, John Bleh, Roy Larick, and Clark Rogers. Laboratory analyses of data and artifacts from the excavated sites were carried out by the following Science Research Aides: John Bleh, Carolyn Chetney, Rene Descartes, Karen Hartgen, Edith Higgins, Tom Nattel, Clark Rogers, Betsy Rovegno and Debbie Schwartz. Edgar M. Reilly, Jr., former Curator of Zoology, New York State Museum, examined and, where possible, identified animal refuse bones found on some sites. Charles Sheviak, Curator of Botany, and his predecessor, the late Stanley S. Smith, inspected and analyzed numerous samples of charred vegetal matter at our request. Palynologist Donald M. Lewis, also of the State Museum, processed many pollen samples from bogs and archaeological sites and also demonstrated the use of sampling devices in the field (see Chapter 8 and Appendix 4) . Robert J. Dineen of the New York State Geological Survey visited and sampled several of our alluvial sites, and developed a model of postglacial river regimens, summarized in Chapter 7. The maps, charts, and other drawings used in this report were produced by five able illustrators employed at various times by the State Muse um: Gwyneth Gillette, Martha Costello, Linda Anderson, Lisa Anderson, and Keith Pryor. I am grateful to John Skiba and Chris Supkis oftheGeological Survey for their help with the production of photographs and the duplication of graphics. This volume would not exist without the la bars of our secretarial staff over nearly a decade. I owe a particular debt of gratitude to Donna Momrow, Michelle Lanz, and Christine Williams for typing and retyping the manuscript through a seemingly endless series of revisions. The SUNY Albany field school was directed by Dwight Wallace in 1971, by Karen S. Hartgen in 1972, and by Hetty Jo Brumbach in 1973-74. Bruce E. Rippeteau organized the SUC Oneonta field school and directed it from 1972-1975. William A. Starna was in charge from 1977-1980. (The writer was director in 1976 and 1981) . Administrative operation of the SUNY Albany course was facilitated by Dean R. Snow while Robert Nicholas and James Preston provided efficient support for the Oneonta field school. From 1972-1977 Helen Gutierrez and Jeff Walshe served as graduate assistants for the Oneonta field school. Gratitude is also expressed to the volunteer archaeologists who labored alongside paid and student crews, in particular Theodore Whitney, Stanford Gibson, Charles Lieuw, R. Arthur Johnson, Janice Pynchot, Mark Dye, Floyd Brewer, Dan and Joan DeMicco, Dave Thurheimer, Stefan Belinski and Rebecca Elliott. Peter R. Miller and his students from Kutztown State University in Pennsylvania also provided valuable assistance on two sites. Several individuals familiar with the study area provided useful information on site locations. We would have been far less successful without the sites reported to us by F.J. Hesse and Howard Hoagland between 1968 and 1972. Additional data were gathered during surveys by Ralph Houck in 1971 and by Hesse in 1973.

15

Many properly owners cooperated by giving us permission to dig on their land. They are individually mentioned in the site reports. Franklin Hesse provided fence posts and barbed wire to enclose the excavations at one site. Calvin Behnke arranged for us to study the Roland B. Hill collection, stored in the museum of the Upper Susquehanna chapter, New York State Archeological Association in Otego. Scholars from other institutions have contributed valuable expertise to the project. Our interpretations of geological phenomena have benefitted greatly from the input of P. Jay Fleisher (SUC Oneonta), David R. Weide (University of Nevada Reno), Donald Cadwell (New York State Geological Survey) and James T. Kirkland (formerly at SUNY Binghamton). Kirkland visited several of our alluvial sites, took sediment samples later studied in his laboratory, and developed a model of postglacial sedimentation in the Upper Susquehanna drainage that is presented in Chapter 7 . Paul Huey, Associate Scientist (Archaeology), Bureau of Historic Site Services, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation very kindly identified objects of historic age recovered from several sites. We are also indebted to Karl L. Brooks who very graciously provided us with his yet unpublished checklist of higher plants from Delaware county (see Chapter 4 and Appendix 1 ) . The contributing authors in chapters to follow include Robert J. Dineen, Charles E. Gillette, Franklin J. Hesse, James T. Kirkland, Donald M. Lewis, Bruce E.Rippeteau, William A. Starna, Beth Wellman, and David R. Wilcox (University of Arizona). The writer is grateful to George R. Hamell, Senior Exhibit Planner (Anthropology) at the State Museum, Herbert C. Kraft, Professor of Anthropology, Seton Hall University, and William A. Starna, Professor of Anthropology, SUC Oneonta, for reading this monograph in manuscript and offering constructive suggestions for improvement. Norton G . Miller, Director of the Biological Survey at the Museum, and James S. Clark, Senior Scientist (Botany), kindly read and suggested revisions to Chapter 8. We also wish to thank Richard Mitchell, State Botanist, and Ken Dean, Laboratory Technician (Botany), both of the New York State Museum, Currie D. Ma!r of SUC Oneonta's Biology Department, and John G . New, also of that department, for reading early drafts of Chapter 4. We have incorporated some of the suggestions from all of these individuals. Finally, the writer finds it difficult to adequately express his feeling of indebtedness to William A. Ritchie, former New York State Archaeologist. Not only was the Susquehanna project suggested by him, he thoroughly and critically read the present work in manuscript. The project's theoretical and methodological underpinnings were profoundly influenced by Ritchie, and his work in other parts of New York and the Northeast has provided a detailed framework with which to compare the Susquehanna data. Ritchie continues to act as friend and adviser to individuals sincerely interested in the advancement of northeastern archaeology. In a very real sense he is the intellectual father of the Upper Susquehanna project.

16

PARTl THE PROJECT

17

18

INTRODUCTION by Robert E. Funk

Siqnificance of the Study Area The choice of the Upper Susquehanna drainage as locus of a major research project was in keeping with the long-term interest of the author and his predecessor, William A. Ritchie, in the prehistory of large natural geographic units in New York State and adjoining areas. Previous regionally focused investigations have included those in the Finger Lakes and Seneca drainage (Ritchie 1938a, 1944, 1951, 1965a), Martha's Vineyard (Ritchie 1969b), the Hudson Valley(Ritchie 1958; Funk 1976), the Mohawk Valley (Ritchie, et al. 1953; Ritchie and Funk 1973), and the Schoharie Valley (Funk 1968; Ritchie and Funk 1973). Other archaeologistshaveconcentratedonsimilarlyrestrictedareassuchasthe NiagaraFrontier (White 1961, 1963, 1976), the Upper Allegheny Valley (Dragoo 1977), Lake George (Snow 1977), the Schoharie Valley (Wellman and Hartgen 1975; Wellman 1974, 1979; Hartgen 1974), the MohawkValley(Starna 1976, 1977a; Snow 1985) and the Bristol Hills (Hayes 1962, 1963, 1965). In historical perspective, despite the examples given above, northeastern research programs have usually been concerned with objectives relating to specific sites, cultures, or technical problems rather than with the intensive systematic, multi-season investigation of a particular drainage system; an example being the area-wide (as contrasted with regional) settlement pattern project of Ritchie and Funk ( 1973). Together with regionally or locally centered programs, such explorations have contributed greatly to knowledge of the culture history of specific regions as well as of northeastern prehistory in general (cf. Ritchie l 965a, l 969a; Funk 1983) . Criticism of these studies by some contemporary archaeologists concerns ini!dequate sampling, in consequence of which information is lacking on the full functional range of sites and on their frequency and geographic distribution (Brose 1975; Weide 1975; Curtin 1978). These objections have some validity. The present study makes no claim to resolving the problem of regional sampling in the northeastern Woodlands. The current trend toward regional surveys in American archaeology relies heavily on quantitatively oriented sampling methods. In the past these methods have been used infrequently and with varying success throughout the Northeast, but are now rapidly gaining acceptance as a routine aspect of archaeological practice. Both random and systematic sampling procedures were employed by the SUNY Binghamton highway salvage crews along Interstate 88 in the Susquehanna drainage (Weber 1973; Weide, et al.1975, 1976, 1977; Dekin, et al. 1978) . Another major study with quantitative controls was carried out in the Genesee Valley along the route of Interstate 390 (Trubowitz 1977). River basins, or the basins of smaller streams, are logical and commonly used units of archaeological survey. As easily defined and delimited geographic features, they enable archaeologists to deal with one such unit at a time instead of confronting impractically large areas such as a whole state, or a major physiographic province. Also, ethnographic data show that human band territories often coincide with stream basins (Damas., et al. 1969). It would be a mistake, however, to view the boundaries of drainages as more than conveniences for archaeologists. Rarely are they defined by true barriers, such as high mountain ranges, that effectively block the movement of people, ideas, goods, and traits. Archaeological traits, phases, or traditions frequently transgress such boundaries, overlapping from one drainage into another. As noted in the Foreword, the Upper Susquehanna was selected as a study area for a variety of reasons. The valley was essentially rural and only moderately disturbed by the destructive agents of modern civilization, hence there had been relatively little loss of archaeological sites. Many prehistoric sites were already on record when we started our project. All indications were that the valley was a very favorable environment for hunter-gatherers and swidden horticulturists. Although much was known about the Owasco occupation, Late Woodland stage (Ritchie l 938a, 1944, 1951, l 965a), there was little information on older periods of occupation. Those periods were better known in other regions such as the Delaware Valley (Kinsey, et al. 1972), the Hudson Valley, and central New York, but the prospects for finding numerous pre-Owasco sites in the study area were good. Geographically intermediate between the Hudson Valley and Finger Lakes regions, the Susquehanna Valley extends southward through Pennsylvania and Maryland to Chesapeake Bay. As in historic times, the valley doubtless served throughout prehistory as an important conduit fortraveland communication between the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic province. Therefore it provided an ideal setting in which to study the distribution, interaction, and ecology of native cultures from the tidewater areas to the interior of the Allegheny Plateau. There were also large expanses of postglacial alluvial terraces of differing ages that often contained buried, stratified occupation sites. Such sites are ideal for the investigation of relative and absolute cultural chronologies. All things considered, we believed that much could be learned about the chronology, distribution, spatial variability and interrelationships of various Middle Woodland manifestations, the Lamoka and Laurentian traditions, and Early to Middle Archaic occupations, the latter hitherto generally missing from sequences in upstate New York.

19

History of Archaeological Research in the Valley Collectors and avocational archaeologists have been active in the Upper Susquehanna Valley for generations. During his expedition to upstate New York around 1743 the English traveler and writer John Bartram ( 1 751) acquired some potsherds and projectile points somewhere in the Upper Susquehanna drainage. These artifacts were sent to Sir Hans Sloane, an English collector and physician (G. Hamell, personal communication 1985) . Additional references to the recognition and collection of Indian artifacts by local residents go back to the 1830's. E.G. Squier ( 1851) referred to reports of mounds and earthworks in the drainage and, by the turn of the century a considerable number of sites and collections had been recorded by Rev. William M. Beauchamp ( 1900). By the 1920'sseverallargecollectionshad been amassed, includingthoseofWillard Yager (now at the Yager Museum, Hartwick College, in Oneonta) and Roland B. Hill (now at the Roland B. Hill Museum in Otego). In 1916 Warr en King Moorehead, under the aegis of the Heye Foundation, Muse um of the American Indian, directed the "Susquehanna River Expedition," consisting of a journey in several canoes from the river's headwaters at Otsego Lake to its mouth in Chesapeake Bay. Moorehead was accompanied by Alanson B. Skinner, a professional archaeologist, several amateurs, and some laborers. A briefreportwas published by Moorehead in 1918. Additional reports on their investigations, and some articles not derived from the original expedition, were published much later in a single volume (Moorehead and Parker 1938). Arthur C. Parker published his famous compilation and synthesis of New York prehistory in 1922. This influenced both Moorehead and Roland B. Hill to summarize their findings in terms of Parker's cultural classification, with a bow to modifications by William A. Ritchie (1938a) . A considerable number of sites was visited by the canoeists, primarily sites already well-known to amateurs and professionals. Little of substance was discovered or reported for New York State; much more information was available from Pennsylvania and Maryland. Hill's summary presented few data specific to the Susquehanna, but he appended short lists of well-known sites and representative artifacts from surface collections. These added to the framework used at that time. An important component consisted of references to Ritchie's work on Owasco sites. It is of some interest to read about Moorehead' s excavation of pits at Upper Onaquaga, the supposed location ofone of the 18th century villages mentioned in historic accounts (Halsey 1906; Elliott 1977). These pits contained mussel shells, ash, animal refuse bone, and potsherds, but very few glass beads or other items of historic age. Another area at Lower Onaquaga was tested and yielded glass trade beads, hammerstones, netsinkers, and other items. Moorehead' s very brief concluding statement was devoted mainly to generalizations about the geographic distribution of certain artifact traits in the river basin. Among items of interest from New York were several carved stone human heads, Lamoka projectile points and beveled adzes, a tubular pipe of slate, an elongate two-holed polished stone gorget, a bipennate bannerstone and a fine 1unate bannerstone, ridged slate ulus, grooved axes, and polished stone gouges. A group of rolled cylindrical copper beads and a copper awl were also reported from a grave. Many of these items were shown in photographs (Moorehead and Parker 1938: platesl-IX) . Parker ( 1922) made heavy use of Beauchamp's ( 1900) lists of archaeological sites by county, adding information obtained from his own sources. For the Upper Susquehanna he reported 23 sites from Broome county, 29 or more from Chenango county, 8 from Delaware county, over 43 from Otsego county, and 62 plus from Tioga county. The great majority of these were described simply as "village," "camp," or "burial" sites. Artifact descriptions were terse, often vague and not couched in terms useful to modern typological analysis. Site descriptions were equally scanty, lacking in quantitative data. However, some of the descriptions are of unusual interest. One example is an "earthwork" near Unadilla, also mentioned in Squier ( 1851), and another was noted near Gilbertsville. A "burial mound" in Chenango county, described by Parker (1922) as opened (and destroyed?) in 1829, appears to have been a Hopewellian site. These sites have not been confirmed by recent research. Parker also referred to several colonial period sites such as Conihunto, Unadilla, Onaquaga, Otsiningo, and Chugnutts, all mentioned in 18th century accounts. Except for Unadilla (Hesse 1975) and Otsiningo (Elliott 1977) the reported archaeological evidence remains meager. Ritchie turned his attention to the Susquehanna Valley several times. He began work at the Castle Creek site, a Late Owasco village (Ritchie 1934), proceeding to the Hilltop Workshop site, an Early Owasco station (Ritchie 1938b), then a large Late Owasco village site at Bainbridge (Ritchie 1939), and to a Chance horizon camp at Deowongo Island in Canadarago Lake (Ritchie 1952). Later, he excavated the Roundtop site, an Early Owasco village site near Endicott (Ritchie 1969a: xxiiv-xxv; Ritchie and Funk 1973). Through the years he also visited and tested numerous other sites and examined many private collections. Data from the Upper Susquehanna Valleythus figured prominently in his syntheses of New York prehistory, especially with regard to Late Woodland manifestations (Ritchie 1938a, 1944, 1951, 1965a, 1969a) . In the early 1950' s a dedicated group of avocational archaeologists in the Chenango Chapter, New York State Archeological Association, became active in recording and excavating archaeological sites. Since their headquarters was at Norwich, they concentrated their efforts on the Chenango and Unadilla Rivers. Most of the investigated sites were multicomponent, but a few were characterized byonemajoroccupation(Bennett 1958; Stillman 1963; Whitney 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970a, 1970b, 1971a, 1971 b, 1972, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977; Whitney and Gibson 1972, 1977; Whitney and Wilcox 1971; Taylor 1972; Taylor, etal.1969, 1970; Hosbach 1973; Verdeza 1979; Boyd, etal.1981; Ballard and Whitney 1973). In a survey report by

20

Whitney (197 4), the great majority of sites produced either Late Archaic, Owasco, or "mixed" (Archaic through Late Woodland) materials. There were occasional discoveries of Paleo-Indian artifacts (Whitney 1977). Very few prehistoric Iroquois or possible 16th century Contact period sites were represented. This accords well with Hill's ( 1938) observation concerning the meager traces of Iroquoian occupation in the valley north of Waverly. Whitney and other members ofthe Chenango chapter also reported on a number of Iroquoian sites located north of the Susquehanna's headwaters, chiefly in Oneida and Madison counties. The Upper Susquehanna chapter of the New York State Archeological Association was founded in the 1960' sand centered at Otego. This group concentrated on the archaeology of the area from Sidney to Oneonta. They occasionally conducted organized excavations and lent considerable assistance to State Museum crews during the course of our project. Negotiations with the Unatego School District enabled them to acquire a building which was designated the Roland B. Hill Museum. This now houses the extensive collection of Roland B. Hill, donated to the chapter by his widow. Important salvage excavations were undertaken by the Upper Susquehanna chapter at the Egli site (Old Unadilla) near Sidney (Hesse 1975) . An encampment of the Lamoka cultural phase was investigated in 1968-1970 atthe Mattice No. 1 site. Also excavated were the Middle Woodland component at the Fredenburg site (Hesse 1968) and a Meadowood camp at the Maple Terrace locality. The Triple Cities Chapter of the New York State Archeological Association, headquartered at Binghamton, was also organized in the 1960's and has been of great assistance to professional and student archaeologists working along the Southern Tier. Members of this chapter have contributed data on numerous sites that proved useful in settlement pattern analyses (Chapter 13). In 1964 Bruce E. Raemsch, of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Hartwick College, began his own archaeological research in the Upper Susquehanna Valley. His major interest centered on the discovery of evidence of very early, "Paleolithic" cultures preceding the advent of the fluted point-using Paleo-Indians (Raemsch 1968, 1969, 1977) . This search was later extended to the Schoharie Valley (Timlin and Raemsch 1971 ; Stagg , Vernon and Raemsch 197 3; Raemsch and Vernon 1977; Raemsch, et al. 1978). Although reliable evidence for pre-fluted point horizons is still lacking in these and other regions (Ritchie and Funk 1969; Funk 1977b, 1983; Kirkland 1977; Coates 1977; Starna 1977b; Cole and Godfrey, eds. 1977a; l 977b; Cole, et al. 1978) several sites excavated by Hartwick's crews produced data on Late Archaic through Late Woodland occupations. The most important of Raemsch's sites was probably the deeply stratified Adequentaga site near Oneonta (Raemsch 1970) . Here the sequence apparently began with the Late Archaic Brewerton and Lamoka complexes. Radiocarbon dates from this site accord with those from similar levels of our own sites. My personal involvement with Upper Susquehanna prehistory began shortly after I joined the archaeological staff of the New York State Museum. In the fall of 1962, prior to the expansion of the state highway salvage program, which is coordinated by the Museum's Anthropological Survey, I was accompanied by Frank F. Schambach in a three-day survey of the proposed route of Interstate 81 from Syracuse to Binghamton. Much of the route followed the course of the Tioughnioga River. Although brief and superficial, this survey resulted in the discovery of several prehistoric sites not previously recorded, including Lamoka and Owasco campsites. In 1964 and 1965, I also surveyed sections of the proposed Southern Tier Expressway between Binghamton and Nichols, in collaboration with local amateurs, with Prof. William D. Lipe of the SUNY Binghamton Department of Anthropology, and graduate student Dolores Elliott . Many Archaic sites were examined. The cooperative relationship between these two institutions has continued to the present. Lipe conducted two seasons of excavations at the Roundtop site following Ritchie's explorations there. In 1967 Frank Schambach led a small State Museum crew in the partial excavation of the stratified Cottage and Castle Gardens sites (See Vol. 2) . Later a large multicomponent site was accidentally discovered on the Engelbert property near Nichols during the removal of gravel for highway construction. Highway salvage crews from SUNY Buffalo and SUNY Binghamton plus members of the Triple Cities chapter began work there in 1968. Most of this work was directed from 1968-1970 by Dolores Elliott with some funds provided by the State Museum and the Tioga County Historical Society (Elliott and Lipe 1970) . The Engelbert site consisted of hundreds of large storage pits, smaller numbers of hearths, and rich midden deposits or "dumps." Some pits contained burials. There was a substantial Lamoka component, but the bulk of the remains belonged to the Owasco tradition. Some materials were also assigned to the historic period Susquehannock (Elliott and Lipe 1970; Stewart 1973; Dunbar and Ruhl 1974). In 1969 the writer worked briefly at the Davenport Creamery site near Oneonta, aided by Archaeology Office staff and students from SUNY Albany; however, most of the digging was done by amateur archaeologist Howard Hoagland and some volunteers (Funk and Hoagland 1972b). This site contained minor Archaic components and a primary Middle Woodland component. A similar collaboration in 1970 at the McCulley No. 1 site, also neat Davenport, produced important data on an "Early Laurentian" component (Funk and Hoagland 1972a). From 1972-1978 highway salvage teams from SUNY Binghamton, under contract with the New York State Museum, continued to locate sites along various state highways, principally the Susquehanna Expressway (l-88). The pace of discovery accelerated after federal funds became available to the program in 1973. Numerous sites ranging in age from Archaic through Late Woodland were reported. Among the highlights were several informative sites of the Lamoka phase and others of Owasco 21

affiliation. These surveys were significant because of the quantitative sampling methods employed (Weber 1973; Weide, et al. 1975, 1976; Dekin, etal. 1978). Field schools from the Department of Anthropology, SUNY Bing hamton, continue to work on survey and excavation projects, while the University's Public Archaeology Facility (PAF) has become involved with non-highway cultural resource management projects such as sewage plants (Versaggi, et al. 1982). Highway salvage and other contract archaeology projects have also been carried out in the valley since 1975 by archaeologists from SUC Oneonta and the State Museum. The Roberson Center for the Arts and Sciences in Binghamton has also played a role in local archaeology for over 30 years. Several large collections are in their possession, including those of avocational archaeologists Foster Disinger and Jesse Benton. In the l 980's the center supported major excavations on a stratified prehistoric camp site located on its property near the Susquehanna River, and installed a major exhibit on Susquehanna archaeology (Versaggi, et al. 1986) . Further investigations by the writer and his colleagues in connection with the Upper Susquehanna Prehistory Project are detailed in this report.

Organization of This Report Following this Introduction is a chapter on Research Philosophy. Funk and Rippeteau discuss cultural materialism as the underlying philosophy of the research described in this book, and express the view that cultural phenomena are the result of an evolutionary process in which behavioral traits are subjected to selective pressure from the natural and cultural environment. Archaeological residues are viewed as surviving results of this process. Their utility in reconstructing past events depends on the generating and testing of productive hypotheses and the application of appropriate investigative techniques. Research objectives on both the general and specific levels are presented, followed by a synopsis of results. Chapter 2 by Robert E. Funk and Beth Wellman details the methodological approaches used to achieve the objectives. It is divided into sections on survey methods, excavation methods, and laboratory analyses. Chapter 3 by Robert E. Funk and James T. Kirkland presents data concerning the general geography and geology of the Upper Susquehanna Valley. Included are discussions of physiography, glaciation and deglaciation, climate, soils, vegetation and fauna . In Chapter 4 William A. Starna and Robert E. Funk discuss the environmental potential of the region from the standpoint of biotic resources available to the Indians. Postglacial patterns of climatic, floral and faunal change are reviewed. Appendix 1 in Volume 2 includes a long, detailed, and annotated list of plant species probably or potentially useful to prehistoric groups. Chapter 5, "Environmental Zones and Local Habitats," by Funk, analyzes the physiographic, hydrologic, and biotic characteristics of the study area. It attempts to evaluate the potential of major environmental zones and their local habitats as places for human settlement. In Chapter 6 Charles E. Gillette and Robert Funk review the available documentary information concerning Indian occupation of the valley following European contact. Chapters 7 through 14 are the interpretive sections of this report. Chapter 7 synthesizes the data of flu vial geomorphology in the project area. In the first part, James T. Kirkland offers a model of sedimentation in relation to postglacial river regimens based largely on C-14 dated alluvial occupation sites. In the second part Robert J. Dineen presents a model that partly complements and partly differs from Kirkland's, but develops a picture of postglacial terrace formation that serves as a framework for the analysis of prehistoric site locations in the valley bottom. In Cha pt er 8 Donald M. Lewis and Robert Funk delineate postglacial vegetation change using pollen data from sites sampled by our crews and other workers. This work provides a paleoenvironmental backdrop against which changing cultural patterns can be silhouetted. In Chapter 9, "Writing Cultural History," Robert E. Funk reviews some aspects of culture-historical reconstruction. Terms used for archaeological units are defined and aspects of classification and description are discussed. The commonly used terms, "phase" and "component," are reevaluated in light of basic problems of archaeological data recovery and interpretation. Framework building, the establishment of chronologies, and the classification of cultural entities are considered in the context of recurrent interpretive problems. Finally, there is a discussion of the basis for and utility of temporal models in areal syntheses. The relative terminological merits of periods and stages are analyzed and the currently used McKern-Griffin classification is reviewed in terms of its advantages and disadvantages. Possible alternate schemes are presented . Chapter 10 by Robert E. Funk delineates the culture history and chronology of Upper Susquehanna Indians as inferred from available data. Chapter 11 by Robert E. Funk and Bruce E. Rippeateau considers the difficultissues ofcontinuity and change. Archaeological criteria for inferences concerning migration, conquest, in situ development, and the coexistence of disparate cultural traditions are discussed. Chapter 12 by Robert E. Funk and Beth Wellman offers some preliminary observations about the functions of features and artifacts in prehistoric cultural systems in terms of types and frequencies of use-wear patterns observed on stone tools.

22

In Chapter 13, the current evidence for subsistence, settlement, and seasonality is presented. Included is an analysis of 430 sites distributed throughout the Upper Susquehanna drainage in varied environmental settings. A conceptual framework is offered as the basis for settlement system inferences concerning the various cultural phases recorded in the larger study area. This includes a functional typology of sites. Also discussed is a quantitative method for determining the relative site densities (relative population size?) of the phases. Liti1ic utilization patterns are summarized. Finally, Chapter 14 by Robert E. Funk summarizes and synthesizes the findings of the Upper Susquehanna Project and suggests possible causal correlations between natural and cultural phenomena. Some "models" of northeastern prehistory are outlined and the prospects for further research in the valley are assessed. This chapter is followed by a section on References Cited and three indices. Volume 2 has four appendices. Appendix 1 is a checklist of edible higher plants native to the Upper Susquehanna Valley (see Chapter 4). Appendix 2 contains preliminary descriptions of two recently identified projectile points. Appendix 3 consists of reports on the archaeological sites investigated for the Upper Susquehanna project. A basic format is followed in most reports. Each begins with an introduction describing the site's location and the circumstances under which it was discovered or reported. Succeeding pages present local geology and topography, acknowledgments, survey and excavation methods, physical stratigraphy, cultural stratigraphy, cultural history and chronology, and subsistence, settlement, and seasonality. Sections on cultural stratigraphy are elaborated for each level or locus on a site. The organization in each case is in the following sequence: artifacts (subdivided into basic categories such as projectile points, other bifaces, unifaces, and rough stone tools, giving the number of each and sometimes a description); debitage (where analyzed); features (subdivided into formal classes such as basin-shaped, saucer-shaped, or amorphous, giving quantities as well as descriptions of contents and other attributes); radiocarbon dates, subsistence remains, and spatial patterns (horizontal variations in the distribution and density of remains) . Site reports differing from this format were either written some years ago and subsequently only slightly revised (Castle Gardens, Cottage), deal with small sites of limited productivity (Messina, Otego Rockshetters) or constitute preliminary efforts (Street, Shearer, Wessels, Crandall-Wells) . Appendix 4 consists of short reports by Donald M. Lewis and Robert E. Funk on bogs or other non-archaeological localities sampled to obtain paleoenvironmental data. Projectile point and pottery types used in this report are based largely on type descriptions by Ritchie (1952, 1961 b, 1971 b); Ritchie and MacNeish (1949); and MacN.e ish (1952a). Other important references include Ritchie and Funk (1973), Funk (1976), Kinsey, etal. (1972), Kraft (1975a, 1975b), Coe (1964), Broyles (1971), and Chapman (1977, 1979) . Further explanation of artifact classes and terms is required in certain instances. "Projectile points" include all chipped stone objects commonly regarded as such, i.e., items with pointed ends for penetrating animal flesh, and possessing recognizable hafting elements at the base. It is noted that many such items had alternative functions as knives, scrapers, or drills (see Chapter 12). Where possible points are assigned to known types. In cases of similarity but notidentitythe suffix" -like" is added to the type name, e.g., "Levanna-like." A contour descriptor such as "side-notched," is used where typological affinities are vague or uncertain. The category" other bifaces" comprises all chipped stone objects not usually regarded as projectile points. As explicitly noted in some site reports, certain fragmentary bifaces may represent specific point types. Although it is sometimes possible to distinguish between point fragments and pieces of biface knives, this is often not the case, so that all fragments of stage 3 bifaces not assigned to specific types are included in the category "knives or points, fragmentary." Some knives can be typed, such as "Susquehanna knives." All stage 1 or stage 2 bifaces not identified as typed forms are listed under "bifaces in process." Again, some type designations are possible as in the case of "Lamoka point preforms." Drills and a few other bifacially flaked items are listed under "other bifaces." "Unidentifiable bifaces" represent small or irregular biface fragments not attributable to any particular stage, type, or form . "Unifaces" include retouched flake tools such as end scrapers, side scrapers, spokeshaves, and gravers, and relatively amorphous tools such as pieces esquillees. Utilized flakes are also included under this heading but counts are incomplete for the excavated sites. The category "rough stone" tools comprises objects not generally fashioned of cryptocrystalline stones, but rather of sedimentary rocks and occasionally igneous or metamorphic rocks. These are separated into two basic subdivisions: deliberately shaped tools such as netsinkers, and those modified by use, such as anvilstones. Familiar categories including hammerstones, anvilstones, abrading stones, pitted stones and millingstones are listed as such . Pitted stones are distinguished from anvilstones by the depth and conical shape of the pits, some of which appear to have been intentionally shaped by drilling or gouging. These are sometimes identified as" nutting" stones. Certain items overlap with chipped stone in terms of manufacturing techniques; these are bifaciallyflaked on part or all ofthe periphery as in the case ofthe so-called" choppers." Items not clearly assignable to specific classes are noted under the category of "worked stone." There are also varieties of combination tools such as anvil-hammerstones, hammer-pitted stones, netsinker-abradingstones, etc.

23

Polished or ground stone items were, self-evidently, produced in whole or part by abrasion. Most ofthem, such as ground slate implements, celts, gouges, pendants, and gorgets, were initially roughed out by pecking or flaking before the final grinding and polishing. Ceramics are described where possible under defined types, giving their diagnostic attributes, rim sherd and body sherd counts, thickness, and other measurements, temper size and type, interior and exterior surface color according to the Munsell system, and other relevant data. Untyped sherds are simply described in detail. In most cases an attempt was made to estimate the maximum number of whole vessels represented by the fragments in each assemblage. Historic Euroamerican materials were found in late contexts on several sites. These are listed after the prehistoric Indian artifacts in the site reports. In many instances specific types and calendrical date assignments could be made.

Figure l. Location of archaeological sites in the Upper Susquehanna Valley, New York State ..... Map of the Upper Susquehanna drainage showing sites and localities mentioned in the text. 1 , Pleasant Brook site; 2, Hudson Lake sites; 3, Mud Lake East; 4, McCulley No. 1site;5, McCulley No. 2 site; 6, Davenport Creamery site; 7, Brown Knoll site; 8, Goodyear Lake site; 9 , Weaver Lakesite; 10, Deowongolslandsite; 11, Osterhoudt site; 12, Lookout site; 13, Hilltop site; 14, Fortin site locus 1; 15, Fortin site locus 2; 16, Street site; 1 7, Oneonta Bypass Bog; 18, Adequentaga site; 19, Messina site; 20, Vly Bog; 21, Shearer site; 22, Winnie Hill site; 23, Munson site; 24, Fredenburg site; 25, Mattice No. 1 site; 26, Deer Blind Rockshelter; 27, Hendrick No. 3 site; 28, Crandall-Wells site; 29, Camelot No. 2 site; 30, Camelot No. 1 site; 31, Maple Terrace site; 32, Mill Creek Mouth; 33, Chamberlain Hill Road; 34, Rose Meander sites; 35, Enck No. 2site; 36, Enck No. 1site;37, Rose site loci 1, 2, 3; 38, Gillingham Rockshelter No. 2; 39, Mattice No. 2 site; 40, Calder Hill Ravine Rockshelter; 41, Gillingham Rockshelter No. 1; 42, South Shelter No. 1; 43, South Shelter No. 2; 44, West Shelter No . 1; 45, South Shelter No. 3; 46, Corn (Veen-Conner) site; 47, Van Smith sites; 48, Kuhr No. 1site;49, Kuhr No. 2 site; 50, Bemis site; 51, Lake Misery; 52, Otsdawa site; 53, Outpost site; 54, Sternberg site; 55, Russ site; 56, Johnsen No. 2 site; 57, Gardepe site; 58, Johnsen No. 3 site; 59, Johnsen No. 1 site; 60, Russell Beach Swamp; 61, Davis site; 62, Gravesen site; 63, Wells site; 64, Harrington Rockshelter; 65, Egli site; 66, Wessels site; 67, Clum site; 68, Bainbridge site; 69, Green site; 70, White site; 71, Ninemile Swamp sites; 72, Stewart-Fuller site; 73,Jambasite; 74, Miner site; 75, Nineveh Crossing site; 76, Onaquagasite; 77, Van Ness site; 78, Bates site; 79, Castle Creek site; 80, Broome Tech site (Otsiningo?); 81, Roberson site; 82 , Temple Concord site; 83, Palmer (Willow Point) site; 84, Roundtop site; 85, Castle Gardens site; 86, Cottage site; 87, Apl 6 site; 88, Owego Sewage Plant site; 89, Engelbert site; 90, Upper Little York Lake site.

24

I

Upper Susque hanna Valley Sites

I

\ i_ __ __ _\

IN NEW YORK ST ATE

\ "-. MA DISON

~KA~OTELES

O NEIDA

HERKIMER

i I ,,. ____ ______________ J__i

, ...____

!

_

'-L=~- ~-~-~-~ ---~~0~1000 I

'\'

, \

, I

f--- --- -

eronch

\

\ \

'

< ! ":::> I'

~

\ ·1 ~\·i ( !

\

s~

CORTLAND

I

u

I

(.}l

NORW I C~-

\

\

tu

c,1ee~

I

CHENANGO 73

1 t \ \ ~ \ , r_ J_ ___ __ T____ -- __ _,\I

74

\

~') ,

- 1_ __ L

\'

j

'

1?

I

'

_j

bec

I

Novomboc I Decem bec

REMARKS

Win1er·yards·

(O docoileus vlr tJlnlanusJ

Peak popula1ion in Augusl BLACK BEAR

(Ursus amerlcanus )

- - - --- ------- CHIPMUNK

-- --- ---

(Tam/as striatusJ

SOUTHERN FL YING SQUIRREL RIVER O TTER

MEADOW VOLE GRAY FOX

(Glaucomys volansJ

( Lutra canadensls)

(M lcro l us pennsylvarilcus)

{Urocyon clnereoargen t eus)

RED SQUIRREL

(Tamiasciurus hudso nicus)

(jJ (jJ

FISHER

( Ma rtespennanti)

SNOWSHOE HA RE

(Lepus americ11nDJ

WHITE·FOOTED MOUSE BOBCAT

(Pe1 omyscus, sµ. J

(Lynx rufusJ

Less active in very cold weather RABBIT

(Syl vilagus , sp .J

STRIPE D SKUNK

FOX SQUI RREL DE ER MOUSE

l Mephills mephitisl fSclurusnigerJ ( Peromyscus manicula tu s}

C:=J ,.,,,,.,,.,;,,.,,,,.,o, "";,,

Figure 2. Seasonal variability in animal species available to prehistoric hunters in the Upper Susquehanna Valley.

The following are brief discussions of the first 10 mammals on Grayson's list (Table 1). Information is presented on each mammal's habitat, density per square kilometer, and availability as a game animal. This summary is derived principally from the survey by Steponaitis and Mitchell ( 1978), who relied heavily on a report prepared by Severing haus (1978) that applies directly to the region. It is supplemented by comparative studies from other areas (e.g., Williams 1936; Shelford 1963; Grayson 197 4 ; Smith 1975) as well as general sources (e.g., Palmer 1954) . Data on seasonal variation in the availability of 31 mammal species are presented in Figure 2.

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). This ubiquitous, browsing, ruminant was the mammal most sought-after by prehistoric hunters throughout the Eastern Woodlands. This was not only because of its value as a major food resource, but also because it provided a large part of the raw material for clothing (Gramly l 977a) as well as a variety of tools, weapons and ornaments. Adult individuals weigh 50-300 lbs. (22-136 kg). A deer's diet consists primarily of mast, shoots, Iv.rigs, leaves, and herbaceous materials. Consequently, deer populations are small in climax vegetation, while highest population densities occur in areas without a closed canopy but with a great variety of vegetation. These favorable areas are the so-called "edges," or "edge-areas" (cf. Rhoades 1978; Davy 1980; Rhoades and Phillips 1980). In the Upper Susquehanna Valley, density figures representing an annual mean, range from a low of 3 .8 animals per km 2 , toa high of 10.9/km2 . The low density value probably applies to the hemlock maximum forests, denoted by the C-1 and C-3 zones. Such forests may not have been capable of supporting the relatively high biomass of the beech-oak maximum forests inferred for the C-2 zone. The mean of both the low and high density figures is 7.4 deer per km 2 . By comparison Shelford (1963: 26) notes a density of l 5.4/km2 in an undisturbed Eastern deciduous forest, and Smith (1975) l 6.9/km 2 . White-tailed deer are available to hunters throughout the year, although there are periods of aggregation, the so-called "yarding-up" phenomenon of winter (Severing haus and Cheatum 1956) . There are also optimal times when deer could be taken by human hunters, for example, during times of aggregation, rutting, when hides would be prime, and so on (Smith 1975). Seasonal hunting behavior may have been dictated by such factors. Raccoon (Procyon lotor) This animal (weight 12-16 lbs. or 5.4-7 .3 kg) is a very generalized, wide-niche species that favors a variety of habitats. For the most part, raccoons frequent streams, ponds, rivers, marshes, and forest openings, typical bottomland environs. These habitats offer sufficient cover and denning trees while at the same time providing abundant and varied food resources. Density figures suggested for the prehistoric period are 13. 5 animals per km 2 (Smith 1975), 4 2 .2/km 2 (Grayson 197 4), and 42. 5/km2 (Williams 1936) . Steponaitis and Mitchell ( 1978) list a low density figure of 4. 6/km 2 , and a high density of 9. 5/km 2 , providing a mean of 7 raccoons per km 2 . These animals are available to hunters throughout the year, although part of the population sleeps through the coldest periods. Raccoon pelts reach their prime and the animals are at their peak weight during the fall and winter. These factors may have affected hunting seasons and scheduling. Gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) This common animal (weight .75-1 .5 lbs. or . 3-. 7 kg) is a deep forest species preferring large stands of mature hardwood trees and heavily forested bottomlands. Populations vary directly with cycles in mast production, their main source of food. During peak mast years, squirrel populations are at their highest and vice versa. These animals are available year round, although it is often assumed that they were most intensively hunted during the fall and early winter when vegetation was down. Smith (1975) lists a density figure of 123 animals per km 2 , also noting that estimates from other sources range from 59.1 to 1230/km2 . In Grayson (1974), density is given as 577 / km 2 , and in Williams (1936), 137.8/km 2 . The mean from Steponaitis and Mitchell (1978) is 61.7/ km 2 , derived from a low density figure of 30.8/km 2 and a high density of 92 .6 / km 2 .

Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) This mammal's habitat is the margins of marshes, swamps, bogs, streams and rivers, where aquatic and terrestrial food resources and cover are most abundant. Adults weigh between 1.5 and 4 lbs. (.7-1.8 kg). They are least accessible during winter months. Although trapping is possible, populations of these animals vary seasonally, approaching a peakduringthe late summer, and reaching a low during the late winter and early spring (Severing haus 1978) . Grayson ( 197 4) quotes a "conservative" density figure of 38.5 muskrats per km 2 , while Steponaitis and Mitchell list a figure of 2/km 2 . Black bear (Ursus americanus) Bears prefer habitats offering a wide variety of food resources. This reflects the essentially omnivorous food habitats of the species. The adult weight ranges from about 200-500 lbs. (90-227 kg) . The distribution of this animal's most sought-after food, berries, fruits, and mast, would most likely affect their movements and the localization of populations. This animal's availability is lessened during periods of inactivity or dormancy from November to April.

56

Density figures from Shelford (1963) note .19 bears per km 2 . A low density of .04/km 2 , and a high density of .16/km 2 are cited by Steponaitis and Mitchell ( 1978), resulting in a mean of .1 animals per km 2 •

Woodchuck (Marmota monax) Woodchucks frequent wooded and field habitats. Their weight ranges from 4-10 lbs. (1.8-4.5 kg) or higher. Food resources consist primarily of grasses, supplemented by other plants. These animals hibernate for approximately five months, making them inaccessible to human populations during the winter. Even so, they rank high in terms of their appearance in the archaeofaunas studied by Grayson (1974) . Densityfiguresshow22.2 woodchucks per km 2 (Williams 1936), and38.5 / km 2 (Grayson 1974). SteponaitisandMitchell's (1978) low density is 30.7 / km 2 , the high, 122.9/ km 2 . Themean is 76.8animals per km 2 . Beaver (Castor canadensis) This largest of rodents (weight 12-20 lbs. or 5 .5-9 kg) is semi-aquatic, occupying habitats where low gradient streams and ponds are present. These animals are available the year round. The most successful techniques for their capture include spearing them in their houses or catching them in submerged traps. Grayson (1974) provides a density of 3.1 beaver per km 2 , while Smith (1975), citing Schwartz (1941), lists 19.2/km 2 . Steponaitis and Mitchell ( 1978) show a low density of .38/km 2 , and a high density of 3 .9/km 2 , the mean being 2.1 animals per km 2 • Eastern Chipmunk (Tamias striatus) The little ground squirrel (weight about 2 .5-5 ounces or .07-. 14 kg) is ubiquitous. Williams (1936) notes a density of 2400 animals per km 2 • They occur frequently in archaeofa unas, but rather than being part of the aboriginal diet, they may often have lived and died in burrows on archaeological sites. Although many are active all year, others hibernate through the colder months. Dog (Canis familiaris) Data eqivalent to that provided for other mammalian species cannot be included for the dog. It is listed here simply because of its relatively common occurrence in the archaeofaunas examined by Grayson (1974) . This animal was highly regarded by prehistoric groups and its significance as resource, that is, the history of the species and its association with humans in North America, is dealt with at length in Smith (1975). Southern Flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans) These little mammals (weight about 1.75-4 oz. or .06-.11 kg) and their cousins, the Northern Flying Squirrels, would have provided little meat for a hungry hunter. Relevant information on gray squirrels is presented above. The significant difference between the gray squirrel and the flying squirrel is density. Grayson ( 1974) repeats the density of 577 animals per km 2 , using it for both species. Williams ( 1936), however, gives a figure of 45 .5 / km 2 for the flying squirrel. Rabbits (Hares, Lepus, and Cottontails, Sylvilagus). Although Grayson (197 4) does not list rabbits among the top ten in his ordering of mammals, they are included here because of their ubiquity and assumed importance as a food resource for human groups. Free (n.d.) lists four species of rabbits in the Catskill region. These arethe Varying hare (Lepusamericanus), European hare (Lepuseuropaeus), Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and the New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis). The latter species is found east of the Susquehanna Valley proper, and the European hare was only recently introduced. Rabbits are cosmopolitan animals occurring nearly everywhere. Some overlapping of habitats occurs among the different species. For the most part, cottontails are found at forest openings, edges, grasslands, ·and in areas of succession, being most abundant some ten to twelve years following clearing (Smith 1975, citing Halls and Stransky 1971). The hares prefer early succession coniferous forests. All species are active throughout the year. Although small creatures (overall range in weight 2-4.5 lbs. or .9-2 kg), they would have provided far more meat per individual than chipmunks, flying squirrels, woodrats, shrews and other very small mammals. Smith ( 1975) provides a cottontail density estimate of 54.6 animals per km 2 . Williams ( 1936) also using cottontail data notes 71 .4/km 2 . For the Upper Susquehanna Valley, SteponaitisandMitchell (1978) givealowdensityfigureof 23.9/km 2 , andahigh density number of l 20.6/km 2 . The mean is 72 .3/km2 . The last-mentioned numbers were derived by combining estimates for both cottontails and hares. Neither this list nor Grayson's "top 36" necessarily present the true order of importance of mammals in terms of their contribution to the aboriginal diet. Many factors are involved. As the largest mammals in the deciduous forest the deer, bear, and elk provided the most meat, hence the most nourishment, per individual. Thus for example it would require several raccoons (second on Grayson's list) to equal the contribution of one deer, and many more gray squirrels to provide the same amount of calories. This is shown clearly on Table 1 borrowed from Grayson 1974.

57

The largest mammal on the list is the moose. It is near the bottom, i.e., infrequently appears in faunal assemblages, because it is more at home in coniferous or mixed forests, such as those in the Adirondacks, than it is in deciduous forests. Abundant creatures such as rabbit and hare might be expected to be higher on the list than shown. Nevertheless, except for bear the next five mammals below deer are not only very abundant in New York, but are relatively large with a high caloric value per individual. The bear, though far less numerous, is second only to elk in total caloric content. Clearly, on the principle of maximizing return with the least possible effort, the deer heads the list of desirable game animals. The raccoon is second because it is both abundant and rich in food value. Bear and elk rank as low as they do because despite their large individual contribution they are (or were) relatively infrequent in the pre-Colonial forests. Of course, the Indians probably harvested all of the edible animals they could find, hence the presence on the list of relatively elusive species such as gray and red fox, gray wolf, lynx, bobcat, and mink (some of which may have been taken primarily fortheir pelts). Ta boos may also have influenced the aboriginal use of some animals. This discussion ignores differences in the accessibility of some species, as well as differences in techniques required to kill or trap them, that may have influenced their frequency in archaeofaunas. We have no information on possible variations in the frequency and distribution of mammalian species over the last 7000 years or so. Birds. A total of 275 species of birds are listed for the Catskill region (Free n.d.). At the State University College at Oneonta Biological Field Station on Otsego Lake, 107 species of birds have been observed (New 1976) . The following details regarding avian fauna are derived from Free (n.d.). Of the 275 listed species, 45 are considered residents of the region; 107 species are summer residentshnigrants; 28 species are winter residentshnigrants; 75 species are migratory; 20 species are unclassified . Approximately 4 species were introduced. In an examination of the archaeological record, it does not appear that most of the birds in the region were considered an important or significant food resource for prehistoric populations. Some species may not have been collected for food, but for feathers, bone tools, and ornaments. Others rarely represented in the archaeological record may have been tabooed. Brown, et al. (1973) note 19 species of birds and waterfowl recovered from the Cole Quarry site in western New York, the most abundant being the migratory passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) and the turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). Similar findings are reported in Ritchie ( l 969a) and Ritchie and Funk (1973). Table 2, compiled by the writers, lists species of birds ranked according to their frequency of occurrence in archaeological deposits (i.e., the number of sites for which they were reported). Published data on minimum number of individuals are highly variable, thus precluding use of that unit for ranking in this table. As might be expected, turkey, ruffed grouse, and passenger pigeon are first, second, and third on the list. Where minimum numbers of individuals have been computed, these birds are usually at the top of the list. Passenger pigeons were relatively easy prey, because they were very gregarious birds. Their prodigious numbers were noted by Megapolensis (1909: 169) in his description ofthe Mohawk Valley in 1644. Now extinct, this species was available during the spring months of March and April. Turkeys are resident birds. Smith ( 1975) provides an excellent summary of their habits and range. For the most part, these large birds prefer mature deciduous forests with some secondary growth. Ridges and bottomlands are also important habitats. Turkeys feed on seed heads from grasses and sedges, browsing for fruits and scratching for a variety of insects and mast. Therefore, their numbers would probably fluctuate somewhat with the known cycles of mast production including that of oaks (McCabe 1975) . Smith (197 5) provides a density figure of 36 turkeys per square kilometer, while Steponaitis and Mitchell ( 1978) give a low estimate of 3.4/km 2 and a high estimate of 6 .7 / km 2 . The mean is 5 /km 2 . Amphibians and Reptiles. In the Catskill region, 27 species of amphibians and 22 reptiles have been recorded (Free n.d.). Amphibian families include the Proteidae, mud puppies ( 1 species); the Salamandridae, newts ( 1 species); the Ambystomidae, salamanders (4 species); the Plethodontidae, 1ung less salamanders (9 species); the Scaphiopodidae, spadefoot toads ( 1 species); the Bufonidae, toads (2 species); the Hylidae, tree frogs (3 species); and the Ranidae, true frogs (5 species). Frogs and toads, especially, appearratherfrequentlyin the archaeological record (cf. Ritchie l 969a; Ritchieand Funk 1973; Brown, et al. 1973). Reptilian families include the Chelydridae, snapping turtles (1 species); the Kinosternidae, mud and musk turtles (1 species); the Emydidae, fresh water and marsh turtles (5 species); the Scincidae, skinks (1 species); the Colubridae, common harmless snakes (12 species), and the Crotalidae, pit vipers (2 species). Turtles are most often evidenced in the archaeological record (Ritchie l 969a; Ritchie and Funk 1973; Brown, et al. 1973).

58

Table 2. Ranking of bird species according to numbers of occurrences on archaeological sites in New York State {north of Long Island).

Species

Number of occurrences on sites

Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) Passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) Unidentified bird Canada goose (Branta canadensis) Unidentified duck Teal (Anassp.) Great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) Barred owl (Strix varia) Quail (Colinus virginianus) Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) Merganser duck (Mergus sp.) Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) Blue-winged teal (Anas discors) Gadwall (Anas strepera) Snow goose (Chen hyperborea) Redhead (Aythya americana) Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos canadensis) Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus)

Species

25 14 11 11 6 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2

Number of occurrences on sites

Hawk (Buteosp.) Unidentified hawk Goshawk (Accipeter gentilis atricapillus) Horned grebe ( Colymbus auritus) Whistling swan (Cygnus columbianus) Bufflehead duck (Glaucionetta albeola) Screech owl ( Otus asio) Owl (Otussp.) Mourning Dove (Zenaidura macroura) Robin (Turdus migratorius) Wood duck (Aix sponsa) Common loon (Gavia immer) Pochard (Aythya sp.) Common Goldeneve (Bucephala clangula) Red-breasted merganser (Mergus cf. serrator) Common merganser (Mergus merganser) Canvasback (Aythya valisinera) Shoveller or pintail (Anas sp.) Goose (Branta sp.) Duck (Antidae gen.) Bald eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus)

It is probable that many of the above amphibian and reptilian species were seasonally exploited, primarily because of their individual hibernation and estivation habits. Otherwise, little is known of the prehistoric abundance and distribution of any of these species. They probably did not constitute significant additions to the prehistoric diet. Fish. Presently the Upper Susquehanna region is outstanding for river, stream, and lake fishing (Greene 1936; Anon. n .d .). A study of the Catskill region (Anon. n. d.) lists 97 species of fish. A number of these, however, are native to the Hudson River, and are not found in the Susquehanna. Greeley's (1936) survey of the Susquehanna watershed identifies 61 species, of which 3 are introduced. An additional three species are not indigenous to the region although they are native to some parts of New York State. Atthe State University of New York College at Oneonta Biological Field Station, located on Otsego Lake, 30 fish species have been recorded. Of these, two were introduced, and nine ofthe 30 were not mentioned in Greeley's (1936) study (Harman and Sohacki 1976). The species total for the Upper Susquehanna River watershed from all sources is approximately 70 (see Table 4). One species is anadromous, the herring (shad). This fish, representing an attractive, abundant, and predictable food resource, is either rare or absent in the Upper Susquehanna drainage today. This is due primarily to two factors; first, a natural decrease in this fish, and, second, the establishment of obstacles to migration, e.g., dams and weirs. It is impossible to estimate its abundance and distribution during prehistory. Other migratory species such as herring and alewives may have been abundant, as they were in the Hudson Valley (Brumbach 1978, 1986). The same is true ofthe one catadromous fish, the eel, and those which are resident spawners. Table 3 contains collection data on fishes presently within the watershed (cf. Anon. n.d.; Greeley 1936). The spawning behavior of many fish is seasonal, tending to localize fish populations. Great numbers of some species congregate each spring into dense schools for annual migratory runs up streams. It is assumed that fishing activities by prehistoric human populations would be, to a considerable extent, correlated with these habits. That is, in terms of the desire of hunting and gathering groups to limit effort, while at the same time maximizing return, fishing procurement activities would have been timed to coincide with the migrations of spawning fish . In this way, large quantities of fish could be taken in a relatively short time, with limited expenditure of energy. Previous archaeological work supports the prevalence of such resource scheduling (cf. Ritchie l 969a; Ritchie and Funk 1973; Brumbach 1978, 1986).

59

Table 3. Fish families present today in the Upper Susquehanna River, its tributaries, and lakes and ponds within the watershed (from Greeley 1936). Family

Common Name

Petromyzonidae Clupeidae Coregonidae Salmonidae Catostamidae Cyprinidae lctaluridae Esocidae Anguillidae Cyprinodontidae Percidae Centrarchidae Cottidae Gasterosteidae Gadidae

Lampreys Herrings Whitefishes Trouts Suckers Minnows Catfishes Pickerels Eels Killifishes Perches, Darters Sunfishes Sculpins Sticklebacks Cods, Burbots

Species

4 (2 introduced)

5 27 (1 introduced) 3 2

4 8 (3 not indigenous) 2

Table 4. Ranking of the most frequently collected fishes (common names) by habitat in the Susquehanna Watershed of New York State (Anon. n.d. l: 113) . Rank 1

2 3 4 5

Tributaries

Main Stream White sucker Yellow perch Rock bass Pumpkinseed Largemouth bass

Blacknose dace Brook trout Creek chub Unidentified sculpin Longnose dace White sucker Common shiner Cutlips minnow Brown trout (I) Fallfish Margined madtom Northern hogsucker Johnny darter Brown bullhead River chub Stoneroller Redside dace Mottled sculpin Pumpkinseed Slimy sculpin Chain pickerel Smallmouth bass (NI) Rock bass Yellow perch Comely shiner Shield darter

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22

23 24

25 26 (I) Introduced (NI) Not indigenous

60

Lakes & Ponds Brown bullhead Pumpkinseed Yellow perch Chain pickerel Golden shiner Smallmouth bass (NI)

It is assumed thatthe great majority of fish species on Table 4 were considered palatable by the prehistoric Indians. However, as noted in Chapter 3, certain species seem to have been far more popular than others, occurring repeatedly in middens. Although figures for minimum numbers of individuals are not available for most sites, the writers have tallied the simple occurrences of species on the faunal lists of 58 sites in New York state, north of Long Island and the metropolitan area (Table 5). Only 21 species or genera are represented. We do not claim thatthe list is exhaustive, but it does include nearly all the important sites with faunal remains excavated since 1925 (Ritchie 1928, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1952, 1958, 1965a, 1968; Ritchie, Lenig,andMiller 1953; Ritchie and Funk 1973; Funk 1976; Funk, Weinman and Weinman 1967; Brown, etal.1973; Grayson 1974; Tuck 1971; Weinman and Weinman 1969; Gibson 1968). Manyofthesitesarein the Hudson Valley or major tributaries, and these account for all the instances of sturgeon. In sheer numbers of individuals, as well as mass and caloric contribution, there is no doubt the bullhead outdistances all other species found in archaeofaunas in upstate New York, outside the Hudson drainage. For example, a minimum of 411 individuals were identified in the middens at Kipp Island, in the Seneca drainage (Ritchie 1969a: 243).

Table 5. Ranking of fish species according to numbers of occurrences on archaeological sites in New York State {north of Long Island) Number of occurences on sites

Fish species or genera

13 12 9 6

Sturgeon (Acipenser sp.) Unidentified fish Bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus) Walleyed pike (Stizostedion vitreum) Northern pike (Esox lucius) Catfish (lctalurus sp.) Common sucker (Catostomus commersoni) Sucker (Moxostoma sp.) Fresh-water sheepshead (Aplodinotus grunniens) Large-mouth bass (Micropterus sp.) Pike or pickerel (Esoxsp.) Sunfish (Lepomis sp.) Lake catfish (Villari us lacustris) Trout (Salvelinussp.) Perch (Perea sp.) Shad (Alosa sapidissima) Eel (Anguilla bostoniensis) Creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) Bowfin (Amia calva) Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) Small-mouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) Bullhead or catfish (lctalurus sp.) ~ Teleostomi family

6 5 4 4

3 3 2 2 2

Mollusks. In the Susquehanna basin and in other northeastern drainages, many species of Pelecypoda were available as food to the early inhabitants. Extensive middens composed of fresh water clam shells once existed in some river valleys including the middle Hudson Valley, and shells often occur in pits or lenses on other sites (Ritchie 1958; Ritchie and Funk 1973; Funk 1976). They have rarely been documented for the Upper Susquehanna, and no mussel shells were found in our excavations, although pits filled with such shells were reported for the Onaquaga district by Moorehead and Parker ( 1938). Edward Curtin (personal communication 1983) reported an Owasco midden filled with fresh water clams near Owego. In the recent past, many archaeologists have rather casually characterized the fresh water mussel shells on their sites as either Unio sp. or Elliptio sp. This considerable oversimplification is revealed by perusal ofthe literature; there are many species of large mollusks that the Indians could have collected throughout New York, the Great Lakes, and the St. Lawrence Valley (Clench 1966). Among those available were the following genera: Margaritifera, Crenodonta, Elliptio, Alasmidonta, La.smigona, Anodonta, Strophitus, Proptera, Leptodea, Ligumia, etc. The range in shell length is about 6 to 21 cm. The Virginia oyster, Crassostrea virginica, was an important food resource in the saline waters of the lower Hudson Valley (Brennan 1974) . Though not relevant to subsistence in the Upper Susquehanna Valley, it is shown below in Table 6, ranked with other shellfish in terms of site occurrences north of Long Island. The hard clam and ribbed mussel are also marine species. This list is taken from the same 58 sites used in the survey of fishes in archaeofaunas. 61

Table 6. Ranking of shellfish according to number of occurrences on archaeological sites in New York State (north of Long Island). Shellfish

Number of occurrences on sites

Fresh water clams (Margaritifera, Anodonta, etc.) Oysters ( Crassostrea virginica) Hard clam (Venus mercenaria) Ribbed mussel (Volsella plicatulus)

33 10 2

Only the fresh water pelecypods are native to the Upper Susquehanna region. Flora : The mixed deciduous-coniferous forests and open meadows of the Upper Susquehanna Valley provided prehistoric Indian populations with a considerable variety and abundance of foodstuffs and raw materials. The native, edible floral elements from the region are detailed in Appendix 1, Vol. 2. The seasonal availability of important species is illustrated in Figure 3. Non-food uses of plants will not be considered in detail. Lists of species utilized for medicines, charms, smoking, dyes, or technological items were provided for the Upper Great Lakes and Iroquois areas by Yarnell (1964) . Many of the listed plants are also found in our study area. Appendix 1 , compiled by Starna represents a conservative list of approximately 550 edible native plants found in Otsego and Delaware counties of New York State . These counties circumscribe, for the most part, the Upper Susquehanna Valley as defined in this volume. Fernald and Kinsey (1958) was used as the primary source for identifying edible wild plants. If a plant species was not found in this text it was not counted or placed on the list developed here, even though other species in the same genus might be considered edible. For example, within the gen us Ran uncul us (Buttercup) several edible species are found in the study area. However, Fernald and Kinsey (1958) list only two of these. In this case, only the two mentioned in their text are on the list. Also, within Bidens ("Stick-tights") there are five species found in the Upper Susquehanna Valley. Only one species is mentioned as edible in Fernald and Kinsey (1958) although all species probably are. The list in Appendix 1 contains just this one species. Consequently, numbers of edible species as detailed in Appendix 1 are regarded as a minimum estimate. The plants listed in Appendix 1 are derived from several sources. The most extensive and up-to-date is that of Brooks ( 1978). This is a check list of the flora of Delaware County, containing only higher plants. 1 Stanley S. Smith's (n.d.) list, also of higher plants, is of the flora of Otsego County. In addition there is an addendum to Brooks's (1978) list that is compiled from Smith and Rabeler (1976) . These plant lists are combined to form Appendix 1. Initially, all three lists, totalling well over 1300 species of higher plants, were checked for introduced species. These were identified and selected out based upon descriptions in Gray's Manual of Botany (Fernald 1950). Following this, Fernald and Kinsey's (1958) work served as a key to narrowing the list to edible species. The final compilation includes approximately 550 edible species native to the region. Consult Appendix 1 forthesetaxa, their use, season of availability, and habitat characteristics. The 550 listed plants are not equal in food value. The most nutritious, in terms of protein and fat content, are nuts and acorns (Ritchie l 965c) and some seeds, roots and tubers. Other plants are high in carbohydrate and fiber, but little else. Maple sugar, wild plums, cherries, and berries are major seasonal sources of carbohydrates. Yet other plants have little nutritive value but are useful for seasoning, for herbal teas, or for emergency foods. The standards of palatability of the wild plants are quite variable. They range from so-called"emergency foods" like the bark of trees, to the more succulent varieties of berries and greens such as, wild lettuce (Lactuca), groundnut (Apios americana), black currant (Pi bes americanum), and others. Some of the edible plants require little or no preparation. Others, however, need special and sometimes involved preparation. For example, the roots of the buttercup (Panunculus), contain a strongly acrid juice that can ca use skin blistering. Nevertheless, when boiled, they are quite edible (Fernald and Kinsey 1958: 202). An umber of plants are not totally edible and it would certainly be critical for the user to be aware of this. An example is the May-Apple (Podophyllum peltatum). Although the fruit is flavorful and agreeable to most, the foliage and roots of the plant are poisonous (Fernald and Kinsey 1958: 206) . Food plant use and preparation by historically known Indian populations is well represented in the literature (cf. Waugh 1916; Parker 1968) . Plants also served as sources of raw material for the manufacture of various items. Dwellings, at the broadest level, and implements of a number of classes, can be fashioned from plant materials. Scores of plants from the Upper Susquehanna Valley could have provided raw material not only for dwellings, weapons, and watercraft, but also basketry, cordage, and other utilitarian items (Beauchamp 1905; Brasser 1971; Fenton and Dodge 1949; Morgan 1962). In addition, the use of various plants for ceremonial and medicinal purposes is well known from historic times (Fenton 1942; Yarnell 1964; Herrick 1977). The extent to which prehistoric populations utilized plants, for whatever reasons, will probably never be fully known.

Footnote 1

Higher plants are defined as vascular plants, including ferns, cone-producing species and flowering plants.

62

PLANTS

RESOURCE

January I February I Macc h

I

April

May

I

June

I

I

July

I

August

lseptembe rl October INovc mber \ December

(Co rylus,ap. J

CHESTNUT

NUTS

(Castanea dentata)

BEECH

NUTS

Fagus grandifolla}

ACORNS

(Ouercus,sp, )

h •....:•:::,.::•·•., .•:•:,.·. .••••,.,•1

(Carva, sp. J

BUTTERNUT

(Juglans cinarea )

cz==:::::J

NUTS

i:::==:::J

( Jugfan snlgra)

WILD CALLA

1.••••,................................. ,.,

(Calla palus tlhsJ

GOLDEN CLUB

ROOTS, SEEDS

( Otontium uquatlc um }

SKUNK CABBAGE

{Symplocarpus foetldusJ

ROOTS.POTHERB

(Arlsaema dracontlum }

JACK-IN-THE-PULPIT SPIKENARD

( Trlphyllum,sp.J

w

s.eos=====--1

I

I ':•:•·RoorslTJ

c::::::===J

:....::!

ROOTS

l ······:•:••:•::::•:•••:•'·:•.:.•··•·1

ROOTS

I ·'' ' "' "'' ' "' "'

i===:J c::::==:::J

/•:!

!•: •:::::::::::•:•:::. •/::::•:• !

{Cyp e rus, sp. J

BULRUSHES

(E!rlophorum, sp. J {Sclrpus, sp,

ROOTS

J

(,::::::: : ,,

c::=:::s:=J

...... ""

h : ·: :••• !

ROOTS

(Gentians c/auuJ

ROOTS

( Typha angus tifoliaJ

QUACK GRASS

( .:}•:•:::•::::::::•

I ·:•:::::•::':'•:'•'•:,,,::•:\\)

:I

ROOTS

NUT-GRASS

CA TTAIL

O'l

.: ROOTS •...

ROOTS

{Aral/a hlspida,etc.J

(Panax, sp. J

GENTIAN

I

(Agropyron repens)

SASSAFRAS ROOTS

( Aplos a merlcana)

(Poten tilla, sp. J

CINQUE FOIL

ROOTS SEEDS

( Helianthus,sp. J (Che n opodfum, sp. J

GOOSEFOOT WILD LETTUCE

C : :PCitHERB

POTHERB.SEEDS

---=:J

l37IT?F eo7· I

( L ac tu ca, sp. J (Efymus , sp. J

STRAND-WHEATS

1?7lf37JBT~~l

ROOTS.SEEDS

( Nupha r,:;p.J

CB?ITSTCF I

SEEDS

(Panlcum, sp.)

SYRUP ,SUGAR

(Acer, sp.J

I

c=== BUNCHBERRY {DOGWOOD)

(Cornus ca n adensisJ

BERRIES

i vacc inium, sp. J

HAWTHORN

J

.

BERRIES

(Cr a ta egu s, sp. J

-

BLACK CHERRY.CHOKE CHERRY.ETC STRAWBERRY

( Prunus, 5p. J

(Fraga r ia, sp. J

BERRIES BERRIES

c::===:J

WILD CRABAPPLE

c=:J

Fully ava ilable a nd ac tiv e

Figure 3. Seasonal availability of wild plants known or suspected to have been collected or consumed by prehistoric groups in the Upper Susquehanna Valley.

64

CHAPTERS ENVIRONMENTAL ZONES AND LOCAL HABITATS by Robert E. Funk Settlement analyses generally attempt to provide a conceptual framework that relates the distribution of archaeological sites to ecologically significant aspects of the environment. This chapter represents an effort to advance beyond the usual relatively simplistic placement of sites on obvious landforms, or in relation to water courses, or at elevations measured above sea level. It is recognized that the observed distribution of sites results from the complex interplay of numerous cultural and environmental variables. Prehistoric peoples were regularly confronted with the need to make decisions leading to actions that affected their survival in response to often changing and sometimes threatening environmental conditions. Many such decisions would result from the drive to maximize recovery of, or access to, critical resources such as water, food, firewood, and industrial raw materials. Such resources were often not available in close proximity to each other but were irregularly distributed across the landscape, some clumped together, others separated by a kilometer or more. Other factors directly related to human biophysical and sociocultural needs such as well-drained surfaces, horizontal living floors, and good agricultural soils also acted as determinants in site selection. The following analysis begins with a consideration and classification of the purely physical and non-biological aspects of the Upper Susquehanna environment-physiography, topography, distinguishable landforms, drainage features-that comprised the backdrop for human occupation. It then proceeds to delineation of biological factors in that milieu. The classification represents an effort to be unbiased with regard to the potential of any one part of the region for human settlement and utilization, though recognizing that some situations are clearly less suitable than others. The classification into environmental zones and local habitats is offered with the conviction that the size, strength, agility, endurance, versatility, perceptual talents, caloric requirements, and other qualities and abilities ofthe human animal are the only real measure of environmental potential or utility. As one example, in postulating" convenient" or" optimal" ranges between habitation sites and resources, many writers underestimate the

Plate 1. An upland bog on Franklin Mountain near Oneonta, New York, viewed from the outlet.

65

CJ) CJ)

Figure 4. Schematic diagram showing the topographic relationships of the major environmental zones used in this study.

Plate 2 . The headwaters of a small upland stream on Franklin Mountain near Oneonta, New York.

Plate 3. An upland saddle between summit knolls near West Davenport, New York. This view is of the Hilltop Workshop site {Early Owasco period).

67

ability of physically fit humans to move over considerable distances in relatively short times. The fitness and endurance of Archaic hunters and gatherers must have been considerably above the average for 20th century Americans. Their fitness level was probably similar to that of the modern Tarahumara of Mexico, who regularly indulge in foot races over 25 miles in length. From the foregoing chapters it should be obvious thatthe Upper Susquehanna basin, and the study area in particular, offered a tremendous variety and diversity of potential resources and habitats for human occupation. Some locations may have been more favorable than others, but in few situations was occupancy completely pr eel uded; as for example, on near1y vertical rock cliffs or underwater. It is possible to postulate a seemingly infinite number of habitats on the basis of combinations of topographic, hydrologic, floral and faunal characteristics. Nevertheless, for all practical purposes, three basic environmental zones or major habitats are proposed; the valley floor, valley walls, and interfl uves (uplands). These are briefly characterized as follows (See Figure 4 and Plates 1-6). Valley floors are at relatively low elevations (about 1000-1100 feet or 300-330 min the smaller study area) and tend to be generally flat, with few sharp contrasts in relief. Most associated landforms have gentle slopes and are largely the products of glacial action, modified postglacially by stream meandering and floodplain development. Average temperatures are higher than in the uplands and winters are less severe. Valley walls range in elevation from 1100 to 1500 feet (330-450 m). They vary in slope from gentle to steep. Since they are principally underlain by bedrock, their junction with valley floors is often abrupt. Glacial deposits and postglacial colluvium mantle the slopes but the lower reaches of tributary creeks may consist of broad alluvial fans and narrow floodplains. The valley wall zone is ambiguous because it not only consists of steeply rising rocky slopes, but also the more gently ascending small stream valleys that cut through the slopes. Some valley wall topography is gently rolling, in other cases it is rugged. In general, slopes in this habitat are more severe than those on valley floors, while soils are thinner and less suitable forthe growth of vegetation. Average temperatures tend to drop with increasing altitudes. The interfluves or uplands reach elevations of from 1500 to almost 3000 feet (450-900 m) in the smaller study area. These elevations are often reached within a mile or less of the valley floor. Uplands are considerably more rugged than valley floors or even valley walls, displaying many abrupt changes in elevation, largely due to the alternation of erosion-resistant bedrock knolls and hills, the narrow and at times deeply incised headwater gullies of small streams, the basins of bogs and ponds, and even sheer rock walls. Average temperatures are well below those in the valley bottom, and where soils cover the rock, they are thin and acidic and derived chiefly from a veneer of lodgement till.

Plate 4. Schenevus Creek, a large tributary of the Susquehanna River near Colliersville, New York.

68

Plate 5. View of Ninemile Swamp in the Chenango Valley lowlands.

Plate 6. A large lake (Canadarago Lake) containing an island (Deowongo Island). The environmental zones can be subdivided into smaller land areas as suggested below, but it is believed that each possesses an overall ecological uniformity or set of distinguishing characteristics. These major habitats contrast with each other in terms of implications for prehistoric site selection and resource exploitation . Not only do they contrast as landforms-in slope, elevation, relief, and hydrology, but also in the frequency and distribution of some biological phenomena such as trees, mammals, and fishes. Significant contrasts may have existed since the close of the glacial period, but the proposed scheme is probably valid for the last 7500 years, or since the appearance of climatic, floral, and faunal conditions much like those of today.

69

The major zones are not internally homogeneous, since they are composites of numerous physiographic, topographic, and hydrologic phenomena. This heterogeneity and its biological correlates can be expressed in the classification of local habitats. Within the smaller study area, the tripartite model is also probably useful for major tributary streams as well as the Susquehanna River itself. The valley floor-valley wall-interfluve contrasts are doubtless valid for at least the lower reaches of Charlotte Creek and Otego Creek, as well as other large tributaries such as the Ouleout and Schenevus. The breaching of the valley walls by these and other creeks results in tongue-like extensions of the oak-chestnut forests up the creeks, resulting in mixture with the northern type forests at the Allegheny Plateau's higher elevations. Preliminary to the extended discussion of subsistence-settlement systems in Chapter 13, the classificatory framework presented below includes local habitats defined by physiographic and hydrologic characteristics observed in present terrain. Distances from a site or local habitatto the river, a major or minor tributary, a lake or a pond are indicated by the word "near" (less than 100 meters) or by the words "back from" (more than 100 meters) . In this classification the variable of distance signifies that nearness to water and associated resources are important qualities of a habitat. The 100 meter criterion for distinguishing "near" from "back from" is partly arbitrary but also reflects the fact that the great majority of archaeological sites are located within 100 meters of water.

Environmental Zone: Valley Floor Local habitats 1. Outwash plains and terraces a. Near (overlooking) river or major tributary b. Back from river or major tributary 2.

Kame terraces and deltas a . Near (overlooking) river or major tributary b. Back from river or major tributary

3.

Lower bedrock slopes near margin of river or major tributary

4.

Floodplain terraces a. Near the river (or major tributary), at present or formerly b. Back from the river or major tributary, at present or formerly (on oxbows, higher terraces, etc.)

5.

Moraines a . Near the river or major tributary b . Back from the river or major tributary

6.

Gravel bars in river or major tributary

7.

Islands a. In river or major tributaries b . In lakes .

8.

Isolated knolls and ridges (kames, drumlins, eskers, moraines, bedrock rises) on outwash plains or fluvial terraces a. Near (overlooking) river or major tributary b. Back from river or major tributary

9.

Near swamps and bogs a . On outwash plains and terraces b. On kame terraces and deltas c . On fluvial terraces

10. Near lakes on fluvial and outwash terraces (margins) 11. Tributary alluvial fans a. Near river or major tributary b. Back from river or major tributary

70

12. Colluvial lobes a. Near river or major tributary b . Bac k from river or major tributary 13. Rockshelters a. On lower bedrock slopes near river or major tributary b. On island in river or lake

Environmental Zone: Valley Walls Local habitats 1. Lateral moraines and outwash heads, elevation 1200-1300 feet (360-390 m) above sea level 2 . Higher slopes (above 1300 feet) a . Near small stream banks b . Between streams on sloping ridges, benches, or terraces c. Alluvial fans d . Talus cones e . Near springs (between streams on ridges, terraces, or lobes) f. Rockshelters 1. Near small stream banks 2 . Between streams on ridges, terraces or lobes 3 . Near springs

Environmental Zone: Interfluves (Uplands) Local habitats 1. Summit knolls and ridges (no associated streams) 2 . Saddles between knolls and ridges (no associated streams) 3. Near stream headwaters on banks and benches a. Onknolls b. On saddles 4 . Near bogs, swamps, ponds at stream headwaters on saddles between knolls and ridges 5. Rockshelters a . On knolls and ridges b . On saddles between knolls and ridges c. Near springs d. Near stream headwater banks e . Near swamps or ponds 6 . Near springs on saddles between knolls and ridges

Contrasts certainly existed prehistorically between the three major zones in terms of the frequency and distribution of plants and animals, including those important or useful to the Indians. These varying associations are summarized in Tables 7 and 8. There would not, however, be any important contrasts between uplands and valley floors in terms of the frequencies of the plant species, including nut-bearing trees (Donald M. Lewis and Norton G . Miller, personal communications 1984). Some terrestrial animals including elk, deer, raccoon, and turkey would be somewhat more abundant and concentrated on the valley floors than in the uplands. The smaller, faster streams of the uplands would contain lower total quantities of fish and harbor smaller populations of aquatically oriented small game animals than the larger, broader streams on the valley floors. There would also be differences in the species and frequencies of fish that inhabit different parts of the drainage system. There were doubtless also internal biological differences within each major environmental zone. Swamps contain a distinctive flora (consisting of species such as elm, ash, red maple, yellow birch, alder and winterberry) that contrasts with surrounding flora in any given environmental zone (for example, fluvial terraces in valley floors are covered with assemblages of white oak, chestnut, butternut, walnut, sycamore, cottonwood, beech, tulip tree, and black cherry). Fauna along riverbanks (crayfish, shellfish, frogs, fishes, muskrat, otter) differ from those generally available on terraces and knolls back from the river, even at slight differences in elevation.

71

EN VIRONM EN TAL ZONE: VA LLEY WA LL S LOCA L HABIT ATS

1. Lateral Moraines and Outwash Heads,

elevation 1200· 1300 f eet

2. Higher slopes (generally above 1300 feet) a. Near small stream banks

EXAMPL ES IN THE STUDY AREA

EXAMPLES OF ASSOCIATED

North side Frankl in Mounta in

None on record

North and south sides Franklin Mountain; north side Mt. Zion; etc.

Fredenburg site on Mil! Creek

ARCHEOLOGJCAL SITES

Flora and faLma similar to those listed for

outwash terraces and kame terraces

Anderson site south of Sidney; Hoyt West near Sidney

North and south sides Franklin Mountain,

b . Between streams on sloping ridges. benches.or terraces

CHARACTERIS TIC OR PREDOMINAN T BIOTIC ASSOCIATIONS

Flora and fauna for" a ll slope sites generally simila r to those indicated for valley floor.

None on record

c. Alluvial fans

None on record

::?. Near springs (between streams on sloping

Calder Hill; Franklin Mountain : etc

ridges.benches.or terraces)

I. Rockshelters

None on record

1. Near sma ll stream banks

~:1~i~~l11~asv~~~h s~~f1~~r~~1f~g~~~;

Calder Hill and Glens Br idge Hill near Otego

2. Between streams on ridges,lerraces or lobes

>-.J

shelters no .s 1.2 : Deer Blind shelter

3. Near spr ings between streams

tv

INTERFLUVES (UPLANDS) LOCAL HABIT ATS 1. Summit Kno ll s and Ridges (no streams)

I

Top of Franklin Mounlain; Coe Hill; Gilford Hill; Winnie Hill; Mount Zion; etc

I

2. Saddles- between Knolls and Ridges (no streams)

I

Top of Franklin Mountain; Mount Zion; etc.

I

3. Near stream headwaters on banks and benches

I

T op of Franklin Mountain; Mount Zion; etc

j

M~~nt~?n~ ~~~n~:~o~~:~~~ 1 ~noi~~~~~ta

Winnie Hill site north of Otego Even at highest eleva t ions there is much mixture of plant comWhi te sile near Norwich; Hilllop sile and Lookout site near Oneonta

a. On knolls b. On saddles 4.

~=~~l~~g~~~::~~~·~~17~~·~~ ;:~~~~

munities. But on summi l areas - 1500-2500 feet the dominants include: red oak,hemlock,whi te pine.yellow birch.white elm.red

Winnie Hill site; Cranberry Bog site; Otsdawa site north of Otego; Gifford si te, E. Masonville

maple,beech,basswood,sugar maple.aspen.etc. Summit swamps are dominated by black spruce.northern white cedar,larch,elc .. Red spruce is important at the highest elevations

headwaters on

5. Rockshelters a. On kno ll s' and ridges

Cranberry Bog site Faunal spec ies include : white-tailed deer.black bear.cotton tail, None on record

raccoon,turkey,.etc .. Ouantities of fish,waterbirds.muskrat,etc.are relatively small at head water termini of sma ll streams and in surnmil bogs and ponds

b. On saddles between knolls and ridges c . Near springs d. Near stream headwater banks e. Near swamps and bogs 6. Near springs on saddles between knolls and ridges

Table 7 . Characterizations of local habitats within the valley wall and upland environmental zones in the Upper Susquehanna study area. The va rious categories re present a range of possibilities but archaeological sites are not recorded for some of them. Examples are g iven of specific geographic localities and sites known to be assoc iated . Also shown are faunal and floral assemblages that presently occupy the local habitat types.

Examples of Associa!ed

Examples in lhe Study Area

a. Near(overlooklng)river or major tributary b. Back from river or major tlbutary

Archeological Sites

::o~~::v::·~;:~o~~:::~J~~:::~·~:~~ll:x•I:; b. ~0el!~.e~~d:: a.~! ~:;;;,:.~::,'n o~n~h=~~~~:1~::•:f i~1::1:on;

b.Back from river or majortrlbulary

b. Eas1 of Onoonte,north and south sides of river

3. Lower Bedrock Slopes near river margin or margin ol of major Hlbutary

~~:~~~~~~~k~ 171 .~1;.'ntaln 1

; Calder Hiii ;

East of Oneonta;east of Otego on Enck and Kuhr

beaver,red 1011,raccoon,skunk,wlld turkey.etc. b.Bl shop and Chase sites

I

~~r1f!r~v~i1~becu e slle,Oneonta; Brown Knoll,

I

Hurlbul site on Susquehanna

I

Messina slte;Enck no. 1 andno.2 sites, Sternberg slle;Fortln site locus 1 and 2;

8 1 ;:;:s~:.:~~o~~=ia;t:~ob:r:~.n;:n:;,~:~ ~tego ;::::~ :~ 1~2~ ~~:~h:1:':~;~usnsd s~~~;~:~~e:\1es 1

Fauna:deer,woodchuck,gray squlrrel ,collontail,chlpmunk,bl ack bear,

locus 1,Wells Bridge

1.

a. Near(overlooklng)rlverormajor tributary

Mixed flora : Juglans, whlte oak,chestnut,elm,ash,red maple,hlckorles, blrch es,hemlock,basswood.

a.Egli sl te,Sldney; Corn slte,O t ego;Russ site

Flora and fauna slmllar to above

I

1

:~1~e,,::\: s:~:~~~:i~:~n~~·:,:~~~;:~::;:~:;:: ::;~e~=~~~::.:1c., 11

Flora :

Fauna: deer,muakra t,otter,beaver.wood chuc k,racoon,cottonlaU, chlp munk,

~~:~ :~~'::1;:~:,:~;·~nk~~k~~lack bear,turtles.wlld turkey,grouse,etc.

b. Back from rlv'er or major tributary at present or formerly (on Ollbow s,hlgher terraces.etc.)

a. Near river or mafortributory

Wells Bridge moraine

No altesdlractlyassocla ted

b.Back fromrlverormajortrlbulary

Wells Bridge moraine

No sltHdlre ctlyauoclated

Aquotlc plant s.plus pioneer tr ees-bltche s,willows,co1 1onwoods. Muskrals,otter,lis hos,crayllsh

Riverbank l lora and launa: dominance of wlllow,couonwood,sycamore, while oak,etc.:muskral,olter,beaver,llshes.

8. Isolated Knolls and Rldges ( kame a,drumllns,eskers,moralnes,

o...J

w

·:·~::~.::::.~:~::::::~ :::,:~:·.:::~::·.:·"""

r~~~f.:!~t:;~;,;;~§;;·:~;:;·;~~~~~;:;~:·

I ¥•:;;:~.~~:,:·~:.~~···· .,., '""

Swamp llou: elm.astl,red maple.yellow blrch,alder,wlnterberry, mountain hollow.

10. Near lakes on fluvlal andoutwash terraces(margina)

Pine Lake In Charlotte Creek valley SllverlakeinUnadlllaRlvervalley

Lower Miii Creek and Giiford Creek Lower Miii Creek end Gifford Creek

a.Nearr lverormafortrlbutary b.8ack lromr1veror maiorttibutery 13.RocksheltMs

a.On lower bedrock slop es near river

~: ~~~:1•::: ~:;vo:•or

lake

Table 8. Characterizations of local habitats within the valley floor environmental zone in the Upper Susquehanna study area. The various categories re present a range of possibilities but archaeological sites a re not recorded for some of them. Examples are given of specific ge ographic localities and sites known to be associated. Also shown are faunal and floral assemblages that presently occupy the local habitat types.

It should be noted that within each major zone, for example the valley floor, plant and animal resources were widely distributed and generally not far apart, that is, not separated by more than a few hundred meters. (The valley floors were rarely more than .75 to 1.5 kilometers wide.) Furthermore nut trees, berries, deer, other mammals, birds, reptiles, and fish were all available in each major zone despite some broad quantitative contrasts between zones. Here it is germane to touch on a major factor in the occupation of valley walls or uplands, away from the seemingly more desirable, generally warmer and richer valley floors. That factor is seasonality, orthe profound cyclic alterations in flora and fauna caused by annual climatic changes. Many aquatic creatures (shellfish, crayfish, fishes, turtles and muskrat) would either be sealed below ice or in hibernation during the winter. Some terrestrial mammals such as bear, woodchuck, and raccoon e ither hibernate or become less active in cold months. On the other hand, deertend to "yard up" in heavy snow. During the fall, mast foods are abundant. In the spring, anadromous fish were probably plentiful in the drainage, although early historic accounts are nearly silent on the subject. Taken together, these facts strongly indicate seasonal rounds as an important aspect of hunter-gatherer settlement. During winter months, when major lakes and streams were frozen over, it seems likely that atleast a few hunting groups moved into the uplands in search of deer and other game active at that time of year. They returned to the valley floor when spring floods had receded and anadromous fish had begun their annual migration. The selection of any particular location by prehistoric Indians rested on a number of variables. The 14 listed below are formulated on the basis of common assumptions about human biophysical and sociocultural needs and imperatives. One assumption is that people are generally aware of their basic needs, are quick to learn howto satisfy those needs by seeking out appropriate resources in the environment, and are able to develop methods and procedures for acquiring and processing those resources. Also, they will generally strive to acquire the most value for the least expenditure of effort (the "minimax" principle). Another important assumption is that of fundamental nutritional needs, that is, a regular supply of food and water in order to grow, maintain bodily tissues, and provide energy. High-quality, high-calorie foods such as red meat, fish, nuts, and cultigens would be emphasized over less nourishing foods, on the basis of past experience. It is further assumed that humans strive to avoid physical discomfort of any magnitude, whenever possible. In addition to the requirements offood, water, and comfortable living surfaces, human groups are occasionally called upon to defend themselves against other groups. They need raw materials such as siliceous stones in order to fabricate weapons, as well as tools forthe extraction of goods and resources from the environment, in accordance with their level of technology. In conformity both to custom and sanitary needs , they prefer certain localities for the disposal of their dead. All of these factors would, at certain times and for certain groups, play roles in the selection of sites. Some sites would presumably be chosen for occupation because they were within a convenient distance of multiple resources or met several conditions for comfortable living and working areas; in other words, the principle of least effort in action. Other sites would provide more limited benefits , while yet others might represent one-time, emergency stopover places, and so on, leading to a diversity of settlement types as proposed in Chapter 13. Other factors possibly influencing settlement, but not on the following list, might comprise places of exceptional ritual or spiritual significance, taboos, sources of non-lithic raw materials, or locations having unusual esthetic impact, such as those commanding views of the countryside. The list follows: 1. Slope. Almost any kind of human activity is easier to perform or requires less energy on a level or gently sloping surface as opposed to steeply sloping surfaces. The stability and maintenance of structures, campsites , and workshops is facilitated on such surfaces, where they are less likely to be damaged by downhill movement, runoff from rainfall, or erosional processes than is the case on steeper slopes. Ranking of slopes: Most favorable 0-8% Moderately favorable 8-15% Least favorable 15% and over 2. Soils. These are relevantto site selection by pre-horticultural hunters and gatherers for two reasons: a) fertile valley floor soils support a larger diversity and (for some species) abundance of terrestrial flora and fauna than less fertile upland soils, b) valley floor locations are close to major water courses featuring aquatic food resources, hence the coincidence that valley floor occupations are on Middlebury-Tioga, Unadilla-Scio, or Chenango-Tunkhannock soils rather than on any of the valley wall or upland soils. Theoretically, the character of soil types is far more important to the selection of sites by horticultural peoples than it is to non-horticultural peoples. The exact location of an habitation site will not necessarily coincide with the most fertile soils, but will presumably be within convenient walking distance of such areas. 3 . Accessibility. Relates to relief and slope. Local changes in elevation within a larger area will affect the accessibility and habitability of a topographic feature. Abrupt changes, such as those seen on a high and very steep-sided hill or terrace, are more likely to discourageoccupancythan gradual changes. Sites on islands or in swamps would also be more difficult to reach than most other sites.

74

4 . Drainage. Relates to relief and slope. Areas that are well-drained will present dry occupation surfaces conducive to living and working, and will consistently be preferred over poorly drained sites. Some situations, like knolls, are reasonably dry all year round, others such as flood plain locales on valley floors are alternately wet and dry depending on the season. Sandy soils would be preferred over clay soils. 5. Vantage (view). Relates to relief. Locations elevated even slightly above surrounding terrain on the valley floor provide superior views usefulin spotting game, watching for enemies, or getting bearings. The lush pre-Colonialforestwould usually have blocked or shortened any particular line of sight along the valley floor. Better views are likely from higher up on valley walls. 6 . Defensibility. Also relates, in part, to relief. Some locations are better suited than others for protection against enemies. High, steep-sided knolls or terraces are relatively difficult to attack since hostile forces will be hindered in climbing the slopes, givingthe defenders the advantage in battle. Sites perched on steep valley walls or on islands in the middle of swamps would have similar advantages. 7. Proximity to aquatic food resources. This requires a location within a convenient distance of water supporting fish, the most important aquatic resource. The greatest diversity and abundance of fish would be found in the Susquehanna River, its major tributaries, and lakes. Smaller creeks, mountain brooks, and hilltop swamps and ponds would be far less productive. Besides fish, food animals available along major streams include muskrat, turtle, frogs, and shellfish. All of these would be less common in the uplands. 8. Proximity to terrestrial food resources. Habitation sites would tend to be situated within convenient foraging distance of important plant and animal species. These locations would be partly determined by seasonal changes in the availability and density of food resources such as nuts, berries, deer, woodchuck, migratory birds, turtles, and so on. 9. Proximity to potable water. Prehistorically, instances of water pollution or poisoning were probably extremely rare, and copious supplies of fresh, drinkable water could be obtained from almost any river, stream, lake, or pond. In the Northeast, in contrast to arid environments, such supplies were generally easy to find and sources were closely spaced. Habitation sites would probably be chosen close to any given sources so that water for drinking and cooking could readily be carried in containers from sources to sites. Springs would be the best source of potable water. 10. Proximity to canoe-navigable water. The use of canoes was restricted to water bodies wide and deep enough to accommodate such watercraft. The Susquehanna, large tributaries, and lakes are likely places for such travel. Most upland streams are too steep, too narrow, or too shallow for canoes, so it is unlikely that they were ever used on top of Franklin Mountain, for example. 11. Protection from prevailing winds. Probably an important consideration only during colder times of the year, when prevailing winds blow from the northwest, contributing a "wind chill factor." Thus some sites may have been chosen for their position in the lee of east-or south-facing slopes provided by terraces, hills, and bedrock overhangs. 12. Proximity to sources of chert, elastic rocks, or other techno-economic materials. Almost all of the cryptocrystalline stones used by Susquehanna Valley knappers were obtained from glacially transported cobbles of Onondaga and Kalk berg chert in the stream beds and till exposures. No local bedrock sources exist; hence quarry sites like those known in the Schoharie, Mohawk and Hudson Valleys are lacking. Good-quality cherts were, therefore, available atinnumerable locations in the Susquehanna basin, and probably less readily obtained in the uplands. Doubtless, however, localgroupsoften traveled the 50milesorsotothe bedrock exposures in the belt of carbonate rocks that runs west-east on the northern fringes of the river's headwaters. Sandstone and siltstone were abundantly available in local outcrops or stream beds for use in making rough stone tools; less common were glacially transported cobbles such as gneiss, and quartzite. 13. Proximity to routes of travel. Historically, Indian trails followed low ground along major waterways. This is logical since, in contrast to the uplands, valley floors offer fewer obstacles to people on foot and require lower expenditures of energy. Some journeys were accomplished by combining travel by canoe with travel on foot. Within valley floors, some landforms are more easily negotiated on foot than others. Thus, it was generally easier to traverse the dry, level, and moderately wooded higher alluvial terraces and outwash terraces than the low, moist, thickly overgrown river's edge and low flats, or the high, more irregular and steep-sided kame deltas and moraines. Some campsites may have been selected because they were close to such trails while at the same time within convenient distances of food and water. 14. Proximity to locales suitable for ceremonial and burial activities. This represents an action of non-economic cultural patterns in site selection. Burial sites may or may not be located at or near habitation sites. Some Transitional or Early Woodland burials were at a considerable distance from habitations, as in the Orient phase on Long Island (Ritchie 1959, l 965a) and the Meadowood phase in northern New York (Ritchie l 955b). Satisfactory burial sites, with attendant rituals, would require a level or slightly sloping ground surface and fairly thick soils (sandy soils would be preferred) into which crematories or grave pits could be dug. If burials were placed on scaffolds in trees, the depth of soils would not be a crucial factor. Burial sites are frequently on knolls and other elevations (Ritchie l 955b, 1959).

75

TABLE9

Valley Floor

IOOm

0-!00m

>!OOm

1. Slope

10

10

9

9

2. Soils

815

815

815

3 . Accessibility

8

8

4 . Drainage

10

5 . Vantage

0-I OOm

>IOOm

0- !00m

>IOOm

7

10

10

9

8

8

8/5

5/ 3

10/ 10

10/ 10

8/ 3

813

0

7

5

9

10

8

8

7

7

10

10

10

10

7

7

8

8

5

5

6

6

3

3

3

5

6

6 . Defensibility

3

3

5

5

3

3

3

3

5

7 . Aquatic resources

10

8

9

6

10

10

8

9

6

10

8 . Terrestrial resources

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

8

9. Potable water

10

8

10

8

10

10

8

10

8

10

10. Canoe-navigablewater

10

8

10

6

10

10

7

10

7

10

11 . Protection from winds

3

3

3

3

4

3

3

3

4

12 . Chert, other rocks

10

8

9

5

9

9

7

10

7

10

13. Trails

9

9

9

9

5

6

8

9

8

0

14. Burials

9

9

8

8

5

8

8

9

9

0

115

107

113

98

100

109

100

111

101

67

Total Scores

Table 9. Habitability scores for local habitats within the valley floor environmental zone. 76

ID' ~ .$

.S ~

Q)

8'

"'

0

.$ t;

~

~

l.$ i

"'lil

l

·~

~

.:.=,.

~

5

"' Q) "O ~

Q)

"'

"O

..§ §

~

a "'"' ~ °' .... ..0

e

"'Q)

[l ~

~JS

~

~~

.$

0

....

O·lOOm

>lOOm

On outwash

Onkame On alluvial terraces terraces

8

9

9

10

9

10

10/7

915

915

8/5

815

3

5

5

7

7

10

10

3

8

7

.... "'

ii ltl

ll

E

ll()

u

0 PlOOm

0-lOOm

>lOOm

On lower bedrock slopes

Near lake margins

On islands

10

10

9

7

7

7

10

8

10/10

8/8

10/10

10/ 10

8/6

816

5/3

8/8

10/7

6

8

8

10

7

8

6

9

8

3

8

8

5

8

7

7

7

7

10

8

7

8

3

4

3

5

4

4

4

4

6

5

3

7

7

5

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

7

10

8

5

5

3

5

8

10

5

8

3

10

10

10

7

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

7

10

8

5

7

6

8

10

10

7

7

4

10

10

10

10

9

3

3

2

6

10

8

3

5

2

9

10

10

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

8

8

8

3

8

3

5

3

6

5

5

5

1

1

8

3

2

0

5

5

5

5

3

3

5

8

5

5

5

3

0

5

10

10

8

8

8

9

8

8

3

3

5

9

5

86

109

92

87

78

88

100

103

89

79

66

105

105

90

77

TABLE IO

lnterfluves (Uplands)

Rockshelters

Ul

O>

i::

·~ ....

z"' Q)

Scoring Criteria 1. Slope

10

9

7

8

9

8

8

6

6

9

2. Soils

613

616

616

613

613

616

616

6/5

5/3

616

3. Accessibility

6

9

9

7

6

7

7

7

5

8

4. Drainage

10

7

7

5

10

7

7

7

5

5

5. Vantage

8

5

5

3

8

5

5

5

3

5

6 . Defensibility

5

3

3

5

5

3

3

3

5

3

7 . Aquatic resources

0

3

6

5

0

3

3

6

5

8. Terrestrial resources

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

9. Potable water

5

9

10

10

5

9

10

10

10

10

10. Canoe-navigable water

0

2

3

11 . Protection from winds

2

5

5

5

12. Chert, other rocks

2

5

2

13. Trails

2

2

10

10

10

5

72

80

86

71

14. Burials Total Scores

0

3 9

9

9

9

5

2

2

5

2

2

2

2

2

10

10

10

10

5

10

74

80

81

87

70

73

5

Table 10. Habitability scores for local habitats within the upland environmental zone. 78

0

TABLE 11

Valley Walls Rockshelters

en

Q)

l

0

"'

rtl

>::

()

en

....

;::!

Q)

z

Scoring Criteria

E--
0

~ I-

150 +---.....

LOWEST DATED LEVEL

..,,..."lf-~~~--';;..;...~..;;....;.._.;;..;..;..;...;;;.;;;__;;;..;;;;,..;....;;.;;;_~~~.-.~~~~~~~~~~~~~-1

zw

:l'!

0

w

Cl)

100

50

4000

3000

2000

1000

YEARS B.P.

Figure 9. Sedimentation rate curves for seven sites along the Susquehanna River between Emmons and Otego. Curve portions below the lowest dated level are mathematically projected to the lowest known level of the sediment accumulation. Where known, the level of lateral accretion deposits is shown by a short horizontal line. After Kirkland and Funk ( 1979); more recent dates for the Camelot No. 2 and Kuhr No. 1 sites render this diagram partially obsolete, butthere would be little change in the shape of the curves.

99

0

PARTB POSTGLACIAL TERRACE FORMATION, LATERAL RIVER MIGRATION, AND PREHISTORIC SETTLEMENT PATTERNS by Robert J. Dineen The study area is part of the Susquehanna section of the Glaciated Appalachian Plateau (Coates 1976). The Wisconsinan glacier began to withdraw from the area approximately 16,000 years ago (Fleisher 1983, 1986). During a pause in the glacial retreat, an ice margin was established between the valley walls of this west-southwest trending reach of the Susquehanna River. The margin extended from Wells Bridge to the Charlotte Creek Valley (Ibid.) The Wells Bridge Moraine was deposited along part of that ice margin (Melia 1975). When retreat resumed the ice deposited elongated, streamlined lobes of glacial till down the dipslope comprising the north wall of the valley. The south wall is the strike slope of the valley. Proglacial Lake Otego was formed by meltwater as the ice receded from the Wells Bridge Moraine. The lake was dammed by the moraine (Melia 197 5). The lake extended from Wells Bridge to Oneonta, and lasted until approximately 13, 800 years ago (Fleisher 1983, 1986). The lake might have outlasted the retreat of the glacier from the Susquehanna Drainage Basin, and it drained when its dam was breached (Fleisher 1983, 1986). As the lake drained, or perhaps shortly after, a cobbly gravel terrace was deposited from Wells Bridge to Oneonta byrapidly-flowingwater. The terrace is 20to 30 ft (6 to 9 .1 m) above the present river. The terrace is either an early postglacial braided stream deposit, or represents distal outwash from the Valley Heads Ice Margin and from the contemporaneous receding margin of the Middleburg Readvance at the divide between Schenevus Creek and the Cobleskill (D. Cadwell, personal communication 1983). The carbon-14 date of 13,800 yr B.P. from the Russ site (See Vol. 2) dates the terrace.

Physiography The Susquehanna River flows southwest in this reach (Fig. 10). Here the river is incised 700 ft (213 m) into the Appalachian Plateau. Subsurface data suggest the Susquehanna's preglacial bedrock valley is over 950 ft (290 m) deep (Randall 1972). The Susquehanna's cross-section is asymmetrical; its south side is steeper than its north side. The bedrock is close to surface on the south side, whereas a thick mantle of till underlies the north side. Locally, extensive outwash and numerous kames line the lower valley wall (Melia 1975). Many hanging deltas of glacial Lake Otego occur in this reach of the river. The tributaries of the Susquehanna are strongly controlled by the inclination of the valleywalls. More tributaries enter the river from the south than the north. The southern streams have steeper gradients, smaller drainage areas, and are shorter than tributaries entering from the north (Fig .10). Two large tributaries enter the river in this reach. Charlotte Creek enters from the south side, and Otego Creek enters from the north (Fig. 10). Charlotte Creek has a drainage area of l 78sqmi (456 sq km). The drainage area of Otego Creek is 106 sq mi (271 sq km). Onlytwootherstreamshavedrainageareasgreaterthan lOsquaremiles (25.6sqkm) . Bothenterthevalleyfrom the north side: they are Otsdawa Creek (18. 5 sq mi, 4 7.4 sq km) and Oneonta Creek at the City of Oneonta ( 12 sq mi, 30. 7 sq km).

Controls on the Floodplain Generally, the width of the river's valley floor does not increase downstream (Fig. 10). The valley floor contains both late Pleistocene and Holocene floodplain deposits. The width of the floodplain is controlled, in part, by glacial deposits. Thick masses of moraines and kames constrict floodplain width by impeding lateral erosion (Fig 10). The Susquehanna does not have the capacity to remove these deposits. By contrast, the outwash terraces are relatively thin, wide, and easily eroded. Holocene alluvial fans affect erosion of the floodplain by causing lateral movement of the river. The bank overlain by the alluvial fan is protected from erosion, while the river erodes the opposite bank. Alluvial fans locally contribute large quantities of s~diment to the Susquehanna, flattening the river's gradient, and causing localized deposition of sediment. Rock spurs also control erosion by impending lateral migration of the river channel. Channel deepening by scour is also inhibited by rock. Within the study area, the river exhibits two sharp changes in direction at rock spurs. The channel swings from west to southwest at the Oneonta rock spur ("D" on Fig. 10), and from southwest to west-southwest at the Calder Hill rock spur ("B" onFig.10).

River Gradient The study reach is 16.3 mi (26.1 km) long (Fig.10). Theriverfalls 60 ft (10.3 m) in this reach, from an elevation of 1091 ft near Emmons, to 1031 ft at Wells Bridge. The river's gradient is 3.7 fthni, or 0.0007. This section of the Susquehanna can be divided into four shorter reaches of differing gradient (Fig.11). The downstream section from the position of the Wells Bridge Moraine to Wells Bridge Village, has a rather steep gradientthat amounts to 4 ft (1.2 m) offall in 3000 ft (0.9 km), 7 fthni, or 0.0013. This is twice the average gradient ofthe river. Rapids are very common in this 100

section, and the channel is floored with boulders. The reach from Wells Bridge Village to the railroad bridge east of the Village of Otego exhibits a very gentle gradient, with a fall of 3 ft (1 m) in 35 ,000 ft (10.6 km), 0 .5 ftfui, or 0.0001 . Rapids are very rare in this portion of the river. The section of the stream between the railroad bridge and the Oneonta rock spur has a fall of 32 ft (9.8 m) in 26,000 ft (7 .9 km), a gradient of 3.5 fthni, or 0.0007, and contains abundant gravel contributed by Otego Creek. The upstream section, from the Oneonta rock spur to Emmons, has a gradientorfall of 24 ft (7.3 m) in 21,000 ft (6.4 km), 6.0 fthni, or 0 .0011 .Cobbles and gravel floor the channel, and channel bars are common. Charlotte and Otego creeks deliver abundant sediment to the two upstream sections. The floodplain of the Wells Bridge Moraine to Wells Bridge Village section is underlain by 10 ft (3 m) of Holocene deposits (Fig. 11 ). The stream-eroded notch in the Wells Bridge Moraine is the local base level for the study reach. The base of the river's channel coincides with the base of the Holocene deposits. The channel rapids are paved with 4 to 10 in ( 10 to 25 cm) boulders. The floodplain of the section from Wells Bridge Village to the railroad bridge is underlain by 10 to 18 ft (3 to 5.5. m) of Holocene sediment. This sediment thins to the west (Fig. 11). A paleo-knickpoint lies 0.5 mi (0.8 km) east of the Village of Otego at the large kame delta that marks the upstream edge of this section. The section from the railroad bridge to the Oneonta rock spur contains two sharp changes in direction of river flow. This section contains the confluence of Otego Creek and its associated alluvial fan . It also contains the large, abandoned, Mattice meander, which is preserved on the west side of this southwest-flowing section ("C" on Fig. 10). The section also contains the widest floodplain, and greatest accumulation of Holocene deposits (20 ft, 6.1 m) in the study reach (Figs. 10 and 11). It also is the most sinuous section of the reach, with the most meanders. Another knickpoint lies on the upstream end of the section from the Oneonta rock spur to Emmons. This upper knickpoint is at a large kame moraine. Charlotte Creek enters near the upper end of the section, where it has built a large alluvial fan at its confluence with the Susquehanna . A boulder pavement underlies the rapids at the confluence. Holocene sediment increases in volume downstream from the Charlotte. It is 8 feet thick in this section (Fig. 11) .

Sinuosity Stream sinuosity is the ratio of channel length to down valley distance. The greater the ratio, the more sinuous the stream. Rivers with a sinuosity greater than 1.5 are meandering, less than 1.5 are straight to moderately sinuous (Leopold, et al. 1964). A braided stream is divided into several channels (Ibid.). The study reach of the Susquehanna has a straight channel, with a sinuosity of 1.11. Sections one and two have sinuosities of 1.07, and are dominated by lateral bars. Section three has a sinuosity of 1.19, meanders are most common here. Section four has a sinuosity of 1.01, and the stream is braided.

Terraces Four terraces have been mapped in this reach, using stereo-airphoto interpretation, field examinations, backhoe trenches, and data from archaeological excavations. The terraces can be distinguished using their relative heights above the river, relative relief, carbon-14 and archaeological ages, color, compaction, and depth of leaching. Generally, the higher the terrace above the river, the older the terrace, although height isn'tthe most dependable criterion. The more rugged the surface of a terrace, the younger it is. Soil profiles in older terraces tend to be lighter in color, more compact, and more deeply leached than younger terraces, based on carbon-14 and archaeological ages. The youngest terrace is designated TO and is only partially vegetated. Its height above the river and thickness of associated floodplain deposits ranges from 1 to9.8ft (1 to3.0m) (Fig.11) . TerraceTOisrarelymorethan50ft (15.2 m)wide, and is flooded several times a year. It usually consists of coarse-grained, imbricated cobbles and gravel in distinct bars and ridges. Thicker accumulations of TO deposits are dark reddish-brown in color, highly organic, with basal imbricated cobbles grading upward to medium to fine sand. The deposits are unbedded (massive), except for infrequent lenses of gravel or cross-laminated coarse sand. They are usually draped over cut-banks, and contain cans, bottles, rusted lumps of metal, slag, broken historic ceramics, and coal, all indicating an age of less than 200 years. Tl terrace is 4to 16 ft (1.2 to 4.9 m) above the river (Fig. 11), and is densely vegetated except where cultivated. It floods at least once a year, and its relative relief is less than that of the TO terrace. The Tl terrace is 50to 150ft (15to45 m) wide. !tis best developed near sources of sediment, such as tributary confluences. Its deposits are 3 to 8 ft ( 1 to 2 .4 m) thick, and grade vertically from a lower imbricated cobbly gravel to an upper fine silt. The soils of the terrace are lighter in color than those of the TO terrace, suggesting a decrease in organic matter (Scully 1977), although the soils are loose, like the soils of the TO terrace. Bedding in the Tl terrace is distinct, with 1 to4in (2.5to lOcm)thickalternating bandsofveryfinetofinesandandsilt. The bands of sediment usually dip towards the river or tributary channels, and are draped over buried gravel bars. The gradient of T 1 is parallel to the gradient of the Susquehanna River from Emmons to the Calder Hill rock spur, and is flatter from Calder Hill to the Wells Bridge Moraine. This terrace is especially well developed from the confluence of Otego Creek to the Enck sites. Numerous carbon-14 dates as well as cross-dated artifact types on archaeological sites date this terrace at 500 to 2000 yr B. P. (Fig. 11).

101

WEST

_,. . EAST

GRADIENT

90

SECTI ON 2

SECTION 3

70

Grodient=0.0011 Sinuosity=l.01

'/

Gradient =0.0013

Sinuosity:l.O?

Grodie nt= .0.0001----' ~~

Sinuosity= 1.07 -+-I---.----.---~-+---".----..-----.---~-----.----+ 0 0 80 0 OF FROM WELLS

OISTANc~ 1N THOUS:~os

r:i

FE:~

B~~DGE MORA~ E

I\

I I

"\

'\ I 500 ft.[

FLOODPLAIN WIDTH

5ft. [ Age in C 14 Years 0

CARBON-14 DATES IN THE STUDY REACH

!

!

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,0 00

=tL

T- 1

-

- -

-!tr

T-2

ijii

!

5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

SECTION 2

SECTION 3

SECTION 4

B = Bo so! Dote

Figure 11. Conelations of g:radient, floodplain width, floodplain thickness, carbon-14 dates and tenaces in the four sections of the study reach from Emmons to Wells Bridge. 102

The T2 terraceisthemostcontinuous of the Holocene terraces. It rises 8to 16 ft (2.4to4.9 m) above the river (Fig . 11), and its thickness equals that height. It is 50 to 1500 ft ( 15 to 460 m) wide. It tends to thicken downstream, consequently its surface gradient is slightly less than the gradient of the river. It is thickest between the Village of Otego and the confluence of Mill Creek. The T2 terrace is composed of moderately leached and compact silty very fine sand that is massive to faintly bedded, with infrequent soil zones, prehistoric Indian living floors, and medium to coarse sand beds. Carbon-14 dates and archaeological associations date these deposits at 2800 to 4800 yr B.P., with a few basal dates to 5500 yr B.P. (Fig. 11) . The T3 terrace is the oldest Holocene terrace. So far, it has been radiocarbon-dated only at its downstream end, and grades into either the T2 terrace or into the outwash near the Oneonta rock spur (Fig. 11 ). The terrace is approximately 10 to 22 ft (3 to 6 .7 m) above the river (Fig 11), and its deposits have a like thickness. Exposures reveal deeply leached and very compact, very fine sand with buried cut-banks and steeply-dipping planar layers of fine to medium sand. Lenses of planar, cross-bedded sands and gravel are also present. Datable material has only been found in the T3 terrace near the Wells Bridge Moraine, at the JohnsenRuss-Gardepe site complex. Dates from that area range from 6000to 10,000yr B.P. (Fig. 11) . All the terraces show a tendency to fine-upward from a basal cobble or coarse gravel layer. Frequently, unoxidized, damp, very fine sand rich in organic material immediately overlies the basal cobbles. This sand layer dates from 3200 to 14 ,500 yr B.P., and shows a strong tendency to be younger upstream (Fig. 11). This tendency suggests that a knickpoint has migrated upstream at a rate of 4 . 1 mill ,000 yr (2.46 m/yr) during postglacial time, reaching Emmons 6000 years ago. The TO to T2 terraces are in the meander belt of the Susquehanna River, although the belt has decreased in width through time. Only the youngest, TO and Tl terraces comprise the active meander belt at the present time.

River Bar Types Three types of river bars dominate this reach of the Susquehanna River: channel bars, lateral bars, and meander bars. Channel bars have a lozenge or elliptical shape, with active river channels on both sides (Fig. 12). These bars are common in the present river channel and on alluvial fans. They frequently have a coarse-grained, relatively high triangular-shaped area on their upstream end. Active channel bars are rarely vegetated. Channel bars migrate by erosion of the upstream end, and subsequent deposition at the downstream end. The cobble and gravel lenses underlying many of the terraces are probably buried channel bars. The Camelot No. 1 and Fortin locus 1 sites are on channel bars. La.teral bars consist of two types. One is "D - shaped" with the straight edge against the river bank, and is characterized by arcuate accumulations of sediment. The second type is composed of nearly straight-edged sediment wedges. The first type occurs adjacent to floodplain constrictions, the second occurs upstream from tributary confluences. These bars are usually well vegetated. A levee usually lies along the channel's side; the levee slopes steeply into the channel. It also slopes gently away from it, into an apron thatterminatesinafloodchuteagainsttheriver bank (Fig 12) . Thefloodchutecarriesrapidlyflowingwaterduring floods . A lateral bar builds up during floods, when sediment-laden floodwater overflows the levee and spreads out across the apron. As the water flow diverges, it is slowed by vegetation, its velocity decreases, and the stream capacity falls . Entrained sediment is then deposited in lobate wedges (sandsplays) . Deflected water converges against the river bank, causing a strong current to flow in the floodchute. This current sweeps sediment through the floodchute, thus the floodchute remains a low area. Fine sand and mud that are rich in organic matter accumulate in the floodchute during low water stages. The deposits tend to be coarse-grained and cross-bedded in the sandsplay apron, and fine-grained and highly organic in the floodchute. Lag gravels infrequently occur in the floodchute. The levee-sandsplay apron complex is usually underlain by a thick lens of gravel. This lens is either an incipient channel or lateral bar. The lateral bars develop by a combination of the vertical accretion of sandsplays and the lateral accretion of the levees. The river channel migrates away from the growing lateral bars by eroding the opposite bank. This eroded, frequently undermined bank becomes a cut-bank. Most of the archaeological sites are on or in former lateral bars. Meander bars form in a complex of depositional environments. They are crescent-shaped bars associated with the insides of meander bends, and are composed of gravel and sand that fine upward (Fig .12) . Meander loops are "U" shaped, with accretion dominating their concave sides and erosion dominating their convex sides. Meander bars are composed of ridges of co bbly gravel that grade into floodchutes on the inside ofthe bars. The chutes gather floodwaters that are diverted across the bars. Most meander deposits consist of series of meander bars that have been welded into bar complexes, as the bars increase in size due to channel migration towards the convex sides of meander loops (Fig.12). The bar complexes also migrate within a meander belt (Fig. 12). Receding floodwaters deposit overbank silt- and sandsplays on the distal portions of the bars, and on the cut-banks opposite the bars. Levees continue to form on the abandoned meander bars and the edges of the meander belt. The meanders will frequently change in size, rework adjacent sediments, and become elongated with time (Fig. 12). When the radius of curvature of the meander becomes tight enough that the floodchute takes most of the floodwaters away from the main channel, the flow is diverted into the floodchute which then becomes the main channel. The rest of the meander is cut off, forming an oxbow lake. Oxbow lakes rapidly fill up with fine-grained sediment during floods, and become oxbow swamps (Fig. 12).

103

LEGEND

a. Channel bar

walls or banks

~ cut bank 0 0/

~:((~•, oo

riffles

0000

ooo

b. Lateral bar

cobbles

. ->: ~ -_- :· :·: .. o

HW

0 00°0 0 oO

gravel

LW

.- .. ~-· -

.. ·.·. -~ :

-:-:- -~- -.

sand

- - ---

-

c. Meander bar silt

--==

--===-

organic matter ~

Q)

-acc

Q)

Q)

.0

~J d. Channel migration

-

primary flow

---secondary flow

~ levee with sandsploys rf!ll!!!£8. ~..-

reworked area

e. Oxbow development

Figure 12. Morphology of channel bars, lateral bars, and meander bars and the processes of channel migration and oxbow development. 104

The Archaeological Sites: The archaeological sites in the study reach are 300to 10,000years old. The Johnsen Nos. 1, 2,3, Russ, Kuhr Nos. 1and2, Rose locus 1, Camelot No.2, Fortin locus 2, and Street sites are all located in former lateral bar complexes. The Camelot No. 1 and Fortin locus 2 sites are in former channel bars deposited on the alluvial fans of tributary streams. Locus 1 of the Gardepe site is in a levee that is undermined by cut-banks. The Enck farm and Mattice No. 2 sites are in meander bar complexes. The Rose locus 2 site is against the valley wall, em bedded in coll uvi um. The oldest sites (to date) that are buried in alluvium, are at the downstream end of the reach, in the Wells Bridge Complex (Gardepe, Johnsen, and Russ sites), whereas the youngest sites include the uppermost levels of the Gardepe, Rose locus 1, Street, and Fortin locus 2 sites. Most sites were occupied during T2 time.

Section 1 The Wells Bridge Complex The Wells Bridge Complex of sites lies at the downstream end of the study reach, on the upstream side of the Wells Bridge Moraine (Fig. 10). Here, the Susquehanna River channel is floored with boulders and cobbles, and some clasts are as large as 2.3 ft (0.7 m) in diameter. The gradient of the river in this reach is 0.0013 . Rapids exist throughout this stretch. Outwash terraces rise above both sides of the floodplain. On the north side of the river, the lowest outwash terrace (designated "OW" on Fig. 10) overlooks the Johnsen and Russ sites. It is 18 ft (5.6 m) above the river channel. This terrace is made up of planar cross-bedded sand and gravel. The crossbeds dip 5° to 15° towards the northwest. The grain size and bedding dips decrease upwards. The outwash is correlated with either an ice margin at the divide between the Schenevus and Cobleskill Creeks, or was deposited by early postglacial braided streams. This terrace is paired with the Gardepe locus 1 terrace on the opposite side of the river. The Johnsen and Russ sites lie on the same lateral bar complex. Northeast to southwest growth of this complex has forced the river's channel against the south bank, resulting in erosion atthe Gardepe site. Three Holocene terraces are present in this vicinity (Fig 10). ThelowestistheTOterrace, l .5to3ft (0.5and l .Om) above the channel. Itliesontheeastern(upstream)endofthelateral bar (Fig. 10). The next highest terr ace is 8. 5 to 9. 8 ft (2. 6 to 3. 0 m) above the river. The elevation of this terrace increases from east to west . South of Johnsen No. 3, it consists of very fine sand in two massive beds. The lower bed fines upward, and is overlain by an indistinct soil zone. The upper bed is 5.7 ft (1.6 m) thick, and contains fine-grained carbonized wood and several well-defined soil zones. At least two occupation zones with hearths lie 1.3 to 3.3 ft (0.4 to 1.0 m) below the ground surface. A projectile point from one of these zones is 3000 years old, suggesting that this is the T2 terrace. A floodchute lies at the base of the next highest terrace. The highest Holocene terrace (T3) at this site complex is 10 ft (3 m) above the channel. The Johnsen and Russ sites are on and in this terrace (Fig. 10). A floodch ute lies along the contact between this terrace and the outwash terrace, while a similar floodchute forms the border with the adjacent T2 terrace. The oldest material in this locality is in the outwash terrace and preserved at its eastern end, at locus 1 of the Russ site. Here, it is composed of clay that is overlain by "banded silt and clay" . These fine-grained units might bethe same as the basal "layered silt and sand" atthe Gardepe locus 1 site. The upper portion of the banded silt and clay contained charcoal that was 13, 860 to 10 ,000 years old, indicating that it was deposited during late glacial time. The relationship of the fine sands, silts, and clays to the adjacent outwash terraces is problematical. If the outwash overlies the finer deposits, then those deposits are glacial lake bottom sediment. If the outwash encloses or interfingers with finer materials, then they were deposited in kettle holes that formed as the ice blocks melted in the outwash train. Neither of the two hypotheses can be confirmed with presently available data. The banded silt and clay is cut by a slip-off face (see Fig. 126). The slip-off face is buried undera wedge of cross-bedded sand ("complex sand laminae" in the Russ site stratigraphic sections in Vol. 2). This sand is also truncated by a slip-off face. The crossbedded sand is overlain by atleast 6.6 ft (2 m) of artifact-bearing yellow-brown silt with many layers of sand. This upper unit is 9000 to 4000 years old. It is a lateral bar of T3 age with a veneer of T2 overbank material. Farther west, at Johnsen No. 2, the base of the T3 terrace is represented by a gray gravel and sand and an overlying iron-oxide mottled gray-brown clayey silt. The" complex sand laminae" unit is absent here, although the basal gravel might bethe equivalent of the sand. !twas deposited in the formerriver channel which was located next to the sandy lateral bar. The gravel under lies yellowbrown silt that is remarkably devoid of cultural material and the silt is overlain by a much-younger 2 to 2.5 ft (0.6 to 0.8 m) thick yellow-brown silt deposit. This deposit contains several occupation zones that are 4500 to 3800 years old. It probably correlates with the plow zone of locus 2 at the Russ Site, and represents over bank levee and vertically accreted deposits that were laid down in early T2 time. The Johnsen No. 3 site is on the same terr ace, southwest of Johnsen No. 2 and Russ locus 2. Here, the terrace is comprised of 8.2 ft (2.5 m) of silt to fine sand, underlain by a coarse-grained gravel or cobble bed. The cobble bed consists of a basal coarse and an upperfine-grained facies. The fine facies consists of 2. 6 ft (0. 8 m) of rust-colored silt to the east, and 2. 0 ft (0. 6 m) of crosslaminated very fine sand to the west. This basal zone is similar to the basal gravel and silt at Johnsen No. 2, and is disconformably overlain by 5.9 to 6.6 ft (1.8 to 2.0 m) of fine sand. The fine sand probably correlates with the brown sandy silt at Johnsen No. 2 105

and the lower part of the sand bed bearing yellow-brown silt at Russ. 1 The fine sand is compact, with several buried soil zones, truncation surfaces, living floors, and 2 to 4 in (5 to 10 cm) sand layers. These features occur in fining-upward beds that are 1.3 to 3.3 ft (0.4to1.0 m) thick. The living floors, truncation surfaces, soil zones, and sand layers tend to dip 5° to 10° towards the southwest. Most of the fine to medium sand layers thicken towards the floodchute, to the northeast, and thin (becoming finergrained) towards the presentriver, to the southwest. On the south edge of Johnsen No. 3, some sand layers dip and become finer towards the northwest. A backhoe trench still farther west, at the Johnsen No. l site, revealed a 9.3 ft (2.84 m) section that began with a layered basal cobbly gravel immediately overlain by fining-upward, cross-laminated, fine to coarse sand. These two units, totaling 2.7 ft (0.8 m) in thickness, are probably equivalent to the basal cross-laminated sand at Russ. A truncation surface or slip-off face overlies these units. Above the slip-off faceare6 .7 ft (2.03 m) of very fine sand and silt. The upper 2 ft (0.6m) ofthis unit, undisturbed below plow zone, contains artifacts that range in age from Terminal Archaic or Transitional through Middle Woodland stages, and are up to 3000 years old. The contact between the probable artifact-bearing silts at the top of the section and the lower silt and sand is gradational in this test trench, but was sharper in the original Johnsen No. 2 excavations. The surface elevation of the Johnsen No. 1 site is almost identical to the elevation of the Johnsen No. 3 site. These elevations suggest that they are on the same terrace. The artifact-bearing zones on the top of the terrace at Johnsen No. 1 were probably deposited as overbank silt during T2 time. The yellow-brown silt and sand become younger from northeast to southwest. They were deposited in a lateral bar-sandsplay complex during T3 time that accreted from northeast (Russ) to southwest (Johnsen No. 1). The oldest radiocarbon date, on scattered charcoal from pre-cultural levels at Russ, is approximately 10 ,500 yr B.P. Thus the Russ-Johnsen lateral bar accumulated laterally and vertically from 10 ,500 to 4,000 years ago, as the river channel migrated to the south. Sediment was derived from the floodchute and the river channel during floods. Sand was swept out of the floodchute and over the bar crest. Relatively few sandsplays were derived from the river. The regime of the river then changed, and the T2 terrace was welded onto the T3 terrace. Truncation surfaces and sand layers are far less frequent in the T2 than the T3 terrace. The T3 terrace deposits are more compact than the T2 deposits. These terraces (T2 and T3) are at nearly the same height above the river. These attributes suggest that either the river's flood stages decreased in height or frequency, or that its base level was lowered slightly by erosion between T3 and T2 times. The Gardepe site adjoins the present cut-bank of the river, on its south side, opposite the Johnsen No. 3 site. It lies just north of a kettle hole pond. Locus 1 at the Gardepe site was located along the top of the riverbank. It was discovered by the observation ofoccupation debris and hearths in the eroded bank. Locus 1 is under lain by 11. 5 ft (3. 5 m) oflate glacial and Holocene sediment that overlies morainal sand and gravel. The late glacial sedimentary sequence begins with zone 6, 8.5 ft (2 .5 m) of silt with sand lenses. The top of zone 6 yielded a carbon-14 date of 9400 yr B.P. These deposits tend to become finer, and less well layered, from north to south, bottom to top, and west to east suggesting that zone 6 is a lake silt, sandsplay sequence that accumulated from northeast to southwest. The sand was carried by floodwaters overflowing across the rim of a then larger kettle hole in the outwash during late glacial time. Locus 3 of the Gardepe site is located on the northeastern edge of the kettle hole pond. Here over 7 ft (2 .2 m) of sediment was preserved above the water table. At this place zone 6 is a gravelly silt, and appears to become finer-grained towards the pond. The zone 6 deposits probably interfinger with the morainal deposits that outcrop along the small ridge crest some 30 ft (10 m) from the pond. The finer-grained, deeper-water pond facies is represented by zone 7 . Zones 2 through 5 at locus 3 are thickest (3.5 ft, 1 m) near the pond, and thin (possibly pinching out) near the ridge crest. This sequence fines upward, and probably represents over bank flood deposits of T2 age. The kettle hole had infilled by the time the river's channel established itself in the area of the Johnsen No. 2 and No. 3 sites, during the early Holocene epoch (9400 yr B.P.). The Gardepe site was eroded as the river began to swing back towards the south about 8500 years ago. Zone 5 at Gardepe locus 3 comprises interbedded gray sand and silt, and was an overbank, levee-sandsplaycomplexthatwas deposited as the channel slowly migrated to the southduringT3 and T2 time, while the Russ-Johnsen lateral bar was also deposited. The overlying laminated, olive-brown silt and clay of zone 4 was deposited during infrequent floods. Zone 5 (at locus 1), a reddishbrown silt with humus, and zone 3 (at locus 3), a charcoal-rich brown silt, are probably well-developed, mature "B" soil zones developed on the olive-brown silt during a long hiatus in overbank deposition. The overlying yellow-brown powdery silt of zone 4 at locus 1 might be a relict "A-2" soil zone developed during that "stable" period. Zone 3 at locus 3 was partially colluviated (mixed by soil creep and frost heave) during that period. The plow-ch urned silts of zones 1 and 2, and the disturbed midden of zone 3 at locus 1 were deposited by soil creep and overbank silts during T 1 time. In summary, the Gardepe site deposits were emplaced in two stages. The earlier sediments were deposited by floodwaters washing into a kettle hole lake on the outwash train from 13 ,000 to 10 ,400 years ago. Later, this terrace was stable long enough for a strong soil zone to develop. Beginning about 2000 years ago, the upper silts were deposited by overbank and sheetwash sedimentation. The accumulation rates at the Wells Bridge complex can be calculated from time-depth plots. The car bon-14 and cultural ages for the upper, artifact-bearing zones yield very low accumulation rates of 0.025 m/1000 yr for the Gardepe locus 1 site, whereas the accumulation rates forthe Russ and Johnsen No. 3 sites are much higher, at 0 .36and 0.6 mil OOyr, respectively. These

106

rates reflect the rapid initial accumulation of floodplain deposits at a given site, followed abruptly by a decrease in accumulation rate by a factor of ten. Locus 1 at Gardepe was infrequently covered only by extreme floods . The earliest postglacial paleoenvironment recorded atthe Wells Bridge complex is that of the Spruce-Fir pollen zone, at about 12,000 years ago. The Susquehanna's channel was braided, and covered the outwash (OW) terrace. Floods deposited finegrained silt and sand in the Gardepe kettle hole lake. By 10,400years ago, the river incised 3-5 meters into the outwashand a small, arcuate gravel bar began to accumulate in the area of the Johnsen and Russ sites. The climate grew drier and warmer and the Spruce-Fir forest began to change to a Pine-Oak forest. The river apparently decreased in size, possibly due to a climaticallyinduced decrease in discharge, and the Russ-Johnsen lateral bar began to build. About 9000 years ago, the makers of Kirk-type projectile points occupied the well drained levee-sandsplay complex that made up the "backbone" of the bar. Flood-borne silts were still carried into the Gardepe kettle hole. Hunter-gatherers continued to occupy the locality until ca. 7000 B.P., while further sediment accumulated. A long depositional hiatus ensued, as only limited sediment was carried onto the floodplain . From 5000 to 3000 years ago, another "package" of sediment was welded onto the Russ-Johnsen lateral bar while the climate changed from that indicated by the moist and warm Hemlock pollen zone to the warm and dry Beech-Oak zone. A relatively small quantity of overbank deposits accumulated at the Johnsen No. 1 , No. 2 and Gardepe sites. Subsequently, only a small quantity of sediment has been added to the floodplain until the present day. Erosion has proceeded at the Gardepe site as the river channel migrated south to its present position.

Section 2 The Kuhr Farm Sites The Kuhr Nos. 1 and 2 sites were deposited on a migrating lateral bar complex 2500to 3000 ft (0.5 to 1 km) west-southwest of the village of Otego. The Susquehanna River channel is relatively deep in this portion of Section Two, and the gradient is 0. 0001 (Fig. 11 ). An outwash terrace lies 20 ft (6 .5 m) above the river (Fig. 10). This outwash probably correlates with the outwash at the Wells Bridge Complex of sites. The Kuhr No. 1 site adjoins the Flax Island Creek alluvial fan. Kuhr No. 2 lies 1000 ft . (300 m) to the east. Flax Island Creek has a drainage area of 4 .3 sq mi (11 .9 sq km) . Four Holocene terraces are present in the vicinity of the Kuhr sites (Fig. 10). A very narrow TO terrace is developed along the river bank, and is only 4 ft ( 1 .3 m) above the river. The TO terrace is better developed on the Flax Island Creek alluvial fan. A narrow wedge of Tl deposits lies just north of the TO terrace along the river. It is 400 ft (140 m) wide, and 9 ft (2 .7 m) high near the Flax Island Creek fan, and thins and becomes narrower to the east. Tl consists of 3 ft (1.0 m) of fine sand containing variable but generally small quantities of charcoal fragments. TheT2terraceis 15 ft (4.6m) above the channel, and its surface is underlain by over 12 ft (4m) of Holocene sediment. The northern margin of the terrace at Kuhr No. 1 is underlain by yellow-brown clayey silt (see Fig. 98). This basal siltis an unoxidized, early postglacial overbank deposit associated with the adjacent T3(?) terrace. It is overlain by 2 to 3 .8 ft (0.6 to 1.2 m) of yellowbrown sand that dips down and becomes thinner towards the east and south, where it overlies a slip-off face. The yellow-brown sand interfingers with yellow-brown silt towards the south and west. The sand's upper portion contains Lamoka phase living floors that are4500to 3700yearsold. The sand is overlain bya yellow-brown clayeysiltneartheriver. Two Vestal phase (3800yr B.P.) living floors were observed in this silt (seeprofilesC-D, G-H, 0-P at Kuhr No. 1 in Fig. 98). These sediments represent lateral bar deposits that accreted from north to south. The sand and silt deposits are capped by a distinct gray-brown humus or soil zone several centimeters thick. This humus zone is about 3 ,600 years old. !tis overlain by 2 to 3 ft (0 .6 to 0. 9 m) of silt. Living floors and hearths in the silt are 3600 to 3000 years old. Some of the radiocarbon dates in the silts below the humus zone overlap with the ages of the underlying sand. The living floors and the hum us zone are each laterally continuous. The sand was deposited in sands plays, and the over lying silt was deposited from suspended sediment during floods. The continuous living floors and the humus zone indicate that very little scour occurred during the floods . The silt is overlain by approximately 1 to 3 ft (0.3 to 1 m) of yellow-brown sand that is a drape of the Tl terrace. The sand thickens towards the south. It was probably deposited within the last 2500 years. The Kuhr No. 2 site is on the same set of T2 terraces as the Kuhr No. 1 site. It was excavated to a shallower depth than No. 1, because the cultural remains were confined to the upper 3 ft ( 1 m) of the deposit. The site stratigraphy lacks extensive sand beds, and tests showed that the yellow brown silt extends to a depth of 12 ft (3 .6 m) . The silt contains rather continuous living floors . The ages of the occupation zones are similar to the ages of the cultural levels excavated at Kuhr No. 1 , ranging from 3600 to 5000 years old. Unlike the other site, neither the southern slip-off face nor the older silts to the north were excavated at Kuhr No. 2 . The living floors are nearly horizontal, with only a gentle dip towards the south, although their dip is greater than the slope of the present ground surface. Terrace T3 is northeast of T2. It is composed of 12 ft (4 m) of "sterile" yellow silt that overlies sand and gravel containing fragments of wood and leaves. The wood yielded a carbon-14 date of 9000 yr B.P. T3 is 16 to 20 ft (4.9 to 6.1 m) above the river channel. Its elevations grade into those of T2 . Thus, the deeply leached, compact deposits are the primary means to identifyT3 in this area. 107

The Holocene deposits are relatively thick in the vicinity of the Kuhr sites. The gravels underlying T3 might be over 20 ft (6 m) thick. It so, they imply a long period of high velocity flow in braided streams. That phase ended 9000 to 10,000 years ago, toward the end of the cool-moist Spruce pollen zone. The flow decreased, and the 12 ft (3. 7 m)-thick wedge of T3 silt was deposited as a lateral bar from about 9000 to 5000 years ago, or during the period of the Pine-Oak and Hemlock pollen zones. The thinness of the deposit containing 4500 to 3400 year old living floors overlying T3 indicates that over bank deposition proceeded at a very slow rate during the period of the warm-dry Beech-Oak-Chestnut pollen zone. Sand was then rapidly deposited in sandsplays in the area of Kuhr No. 1, while silt deposition proceeded at Kuhr No. 2. Kuhr No. 1 was dominated by sediment from Flax Island Creek, while Kuhr No. 2 received sediment from the river. Some over bank silt was deposited on the growing lateral bar. The bar grew from northeastto southwest. Over bank deposition eventually dominated sedimentation on T2, until deposition ended some 3400 years ago. The Kuhr No. 1 site accumulated 1.2 m of sedimentin ca. 1100 years, a rate of 1.09 mil 000 yr., while Kuhr No. 2 accumulated less than 1.4 min 1400 years at an accumulation rate of 0 .7 mil 000 yr (Figs. 9 and 11). The lesser thickness of artifact-bearing deposits at Kuhr No. 2, compared to Kuhr No. 1, reflects the greater supply of sediment available at Kuhr No. 1 because of Flax Island Creek. Subsequent to 3000 B.P. the river deposited the thin wedge of sandy Tl material, suggesting that very little excess sediment has been carried by the river since T2 time. The incision into T2, subsequent deposition of the Flax Island Creek alluvial fan, and the small volumes of the Tl and TO terraces suggest that the Susquehanna is in an erosional phase in this Section .

Section 3 The Enck Farm Sites All four Holocene terraces are present atthe Enck farm (Fig. 10). The TO terrace is 3 ft (1.0 m) above the river channel. Tl is approximately 6 ft (2.0 m), T2 is about 9 ft (3 .0 m), and T3 is approximately 20 ft (6 .5 m) above the river. The Holocene deposits are bordered on the south by outwash (Fig 10) . The farm is on the south side of the valley, where the Otego kame delta constrains the channel to the west. Thus the floodplain is protected from erosion, except for the area of Enc k No. 1 where a small northside tributary's alluvial fan is pushing the channel against the south bank. East of the Enck farm, a wide meander (the Rose farm meander) has formed where the river bends around the Calder Hill rock spur. The leading (western) edge of the meander is migrating towards the west, thus forcing the channel into the east edge of the Enck terraces (Fig. 10). The Enck farm is at the western end of Section Three, and the Section'sgradient is 0 .0007 . The river channel is relatively deep. The channel has meandered in this area since the beginning of T2 time. Lateral bars have dominated the channel since T 1 time. According to local farmers, T2 still floods yearly and Tl and TO flood several times a year. A diverse assemblage of deposits representing different facies are preserved on the Enck farm. The T2 environments recorded by the sediments include levee, sandsplay apron, oxbow lake and swamp, point bar, and floodchutes. The T2 terrace is usually underlain by very fine sand. The T3 deposits include channel bar, levee, cut-bank, and overbank facies . The T3 deposits are compact, deeply leached, very fine to fine sand. The Enck farm archaeological sites are in T2 deposits (Fig. 10) . The T3 surface is underlain by 4 in ( 10 cm) thick planar beds of medium sand draped over cut-banks that dip 15 ° to the northwest. These beds are underlain by over 6 ft (2 m) of compact, leached, upward-fining very fine sand to silt. To the southwest, gravel-filled channels are incised into the underlying fine sand. The gravel is cross-bedded, coarse to fine, and dips 15 ° to 25 ° northwest. Several cut-and-fill episodes are recorded in these deposits. The sequence tends to fine-upward into compact, leached, very fine to medium sand lenses with iron oxide blebs. The base of the T2 terrace is underlain by unoxidized medium to fine sand with leaf-mats and wood. The wood was dated at a maximum age of 8400_years. The T2 terrace is composed of fine to very fine sand with varied sedimentary structures, degrees of oxidation, and charcoal content. The levees are under lain by a sequence of fining-upward very fine sand to silt that is interrupted by 2 to 4 in (5 to 10 cm) thick sand drapes over truncation surfaces . The levee sands contain small fragments of charcoal, small iron concretions, and several thin soil zones. Sandsplay aprons are underlain by loose, fine to very fine sand in 5 to 20 in (15 to 50 cm) thick layers that dip gently into adjacent floodchutes . These deposits tend to slightly coarsen upward. The oxbow lake and swamp deposits within the T2 terr ace are peats, organic-rich silts, and silts in horizontal, planar laminae that are 1 to 10 in (3 to 25 cm) thick. These sediments contain many plant fragments . The pointbar facies is represented by medium to coarse sand and fine to coarse gravel in 3 to 12 in (7 .5 to 30 cm) planar crossbeds. The gravel and sand underlie ridges that are 2 to 4 ft (0.6 to 1.3 m) high . The floodch ute deposits are comprised of fining-upward fine sand to very fine sand with lenses of ripple-laminated to massive coarse sand. This sequence is usually overlain by fine to coarse silt with many soil zones and charcoal-rich layers. We did not sample the deposits of the Tl to TO terrace at the Enck farm. The Enck No. 1 site was initially developed as a pointbar, deposited by a meandering channel to its south. The point bar was buried by a sandsplay apron originating from the channel (Fig. 89) . The channel migrated to the southwest, and the sandsplay apron was enlarged on the distal side of a levee. This apron overlies a silt rich in organic matter that was deposited in a floodchute 108

that cut the basal point bar 5650 years ago. Five feet (1.5 m) of apron deposits subsequently accumulated in the floodchute. The composition of these deposits is layered sand and silt with some pebbly lenses near their top. Almost 7 ft (2 .1 m) of overbank silts then accumulated on the sandsplay apron, perhaps beginning about 4000 years ago. 2 Donald Lewis (personal communication 1985) suggests that a period of intense dryness, with infrequent severe storms, occurred 4000 years ago. The forests might have been disrupted by this dry episode, allowing intense erosion during storms. A prominent, laterally continuous humus bed (soil zone) is developed in this sequence, suggesting a long period of little or no deposition or erosion approximately 1, 700 years ago. This soil zone formed during the cool-moist phase indicated by the Oak-Hemlock-Hickory pollen zone. Enck No. 2 site is contained in a T2 terrace apron that is 8 ft (2 .5 m) thick, and began accumulating 8,440 years ago. The apron is made up of very fine sand. Horizontal living floors occurred within the apron's upper 2 ft (0.6 m). The living floors range from 3000 to 4000 years old. The Enck farm's T3 deposits were deposited by a westward-flowing braided stream system. The braided stream primarily carried very fine to fine sand. About 8500 years ago during the warm-dry Pine-Oak pollen period the river entrenched into the T3 terrace, eroding down approximately 20 ft (6.5 m) . When floodplain deposition recommenced, the river had begun a meandering habit. The river's meander belt migrated from south to north, and the meanders migrated downstream, from east to west. The meander belt was on the south side of the valley approximately 5600 years ago, and had reached the north edge of the valley by 3200years ago. Over 1.5 moffloodplain accumulated in 1500 years , at a rate of 1.0 mil OOOyrs (Fig.11). The floodplain then entered a long period of stability and the soil zone formed. Subsequently, a Tl meander migrated south, and eroded away some of the T2 deposits near the railroad embankment east of the Enck farm. By TO time, the eastern channel had "jumped" to its present position, and erosion of the eastern Enck terrace has continued.

The Rose Farm Sites The Rose site locus 1 is on a Tl lateral barthat is 15.7 ft (4.8 m) above the river (Fig. 10). This deposit is tucked up against the eastern edge of Calder Hill . A floodchute lies behind the lateral bar, along the base of the rock spur. Locus 1 is underlain by 10 ft (3 .3 m) of laminated fine to very fine sand and silt that dip towards the southwest. Several truncation surfaces were observed in the sequence. The laminated sand and silt are underlain by brown clayey silt. Locus 2 atthe Rose site is northeast of locus 1, on a narrow (40 ft, 12 m wide) bench atthe foot of the valley wall . Here, two feet (0.6 m) of fine sand overlie a mixture of angular blocks and fine sand. The angular sandstone blocks were derived from the valley walls. An occupation within the upper fine sand was typologically dated at 3200 yr B.P. The upper silt on T 1 at locus 1 thickens to the southwest, and contains cultural material that dates from about 800 years ago. It accumulated at a rate of 0 .75 m/l 000 yr (Fig. 11) . The earliest deposits on the Rose locus 1 site were sandsplays that accumulated across a lateral bar . The elevation of the T 1 sandsplay deposits is quite high, suggesting that a large quantity of sediment was available. Later, silts were deposited in the floodchute. When the river channel incised the Tl terrace at the end of Tl time, colluvial processes came to dominate the site at locus 2 . Slope wash had deposited the lower, talus block-laden silt at locus 2 during late T2 time. The Camelot Farm Sites The Camelotfarm sites are on the central part of Section Three, and on the downstream end of the Mattice meander (Fig. 11). The sites are in T2 terrace deposits that are 3 to 5 ft ( 1 to 1.5 m) lower than the Mattice terrace. Several T2 terraces are developed in this area: the youngest is about 1000 ft (300 m) wide and is 9 to 11 ft (2 .8 to 3.3 m) above the river. The meander occupies the higher, older T3 terrace, and will be discussed in some detail below. A 500 ft ( 150 m) wide wedge of Tl/TO terrace cuts across the western end of the Camelot T2 terrace. This sediment wedge is the alluvial fan of Mill Creek, which has a drainage area of 0.5 sq mi (0 .6 sq km). The T2 terraces are bordered on the north and west by T3 and outwash terrace deposits. These terraces are 3000 ft ( 1.0 km) wide: T3 is 14 ft (4.3 m), and outwash is 22 ft (6.7 m) above the river. The ages of these terraces can be determined by their incorporated diagnostic artifacts, and carbon-14 dated living floors. Such data are available forT2, but no cultural material were observed within T3 deposits. Although the T 1 terrace was not sampled in this study, a highway salvage archaeology crew found artifacts in Tl sediments that were less than 1,000 years old (Funk, personal communication 1983) . The Camelot No. 1 site is on the Mill Creek alluvial fan (Figs. 10 and 11). Several loci of habitation occupy the crests of channel bars of the fan . The bars vary in age; the oldest are on the northwest. The youngest were deposited as the Mill Creek channel migrated from west to east. The creek is presently on the eastern edge of its fan (Fig. 10). The deposits consist of 3 ft ( 1 m) of very fine sand to silt over gravel. The enclosed living floors and soil zones are limited to individual channel bars, and range from 3500 to 1800 years old. They accumulated very slowly, at less than 0 . 1 m/1000 yr (Fig. 11). Like the Kuhr sites, Camelot No. 2 is in a T2 lateral bar complex. The features and living floors are mostly contained in the upper3 ft. (0.9m) of yellow-brown toreddish-brownsandandsilt. These deposits are 10.5 ft (3.2 m) thick at locus 1, and overlie 109

a lag gravel (Figs. 77 and 81 ). The upper silt appears to thicken towards the south (see profile E-F, Fig. 77). The living floors in the upper silts are 4800 to 1200 years old, and the zone of living floors thickens to the west, towards Mill Creek (profile A-B, Fig. 77). A similar situation exists at locus 2, on the riverbank. The carbon-14 dates, geomorphic data, and sedimentary relationships all suggest that the T2 terrace in the vicinity of the Camelot farm sites began accumulating in a lateral bar complex over 5000 years ago, near the beginning of warm-dry Beech-Oak time. The T2 lateral bar grew as the river's channel swept south. Zones A-Gin profile C-D, Fig. 77 are laterally-accreted silts deposited on a cut-bank carved by the west-migrating Mill Creek channel. The basal sand atlocus 1 is probably a channel deposit of Mill Creek. Thus, deposition on the upper Mill Creek alluvial fan in the area of Camelot No. 1 was nearly contemporaneous with accumulation of the river's lateral bar at No. 2 . The Camelot No. 2 bar forced the lower channel of Mill Creek to the west as the bar grew from northeast to southwest. The upper Mill Creek fan developed from west to east. Mill Creek might have contributed sediment to Zones A through G at Camelot No. 2, locus 1 . Mill Creek's lower alluvialfan developed in T 1 though TO time, forcing the creek's channel east, and causing the erosion of the west edge of the Camelot No. 2 site's T2 terrace. Accumulation of the sediment at the confluence of the creek and river has flattened the creek's gradient, therefore the creek has a meandering channel. The Camelot No. 2 deposits accumulated at a rate of 0.375 mil 000 yr until 4000 years ago, when therateslowedtoO. l m/l.OOOyr(Fig 11) . The Mattice meander, known locally as the Mattice Swamp, is a unique feature in this stretch of the Susquehanna. The final channel of the Swamp forms a meander that is three times larger than any of the Enck Farm-Calder Hill meanders (compare Figs. 10 and 11). Also, the channel scars in the Mattice meander are two to three times larger than the present channel. The meander is bounded bya rock spur to the east, and by the bedrock valley wall of the Susquehanna to the north (Fig. 10). An outwash fan or alluvial fan lies along the west edge of the meander. The meander post-dates two ancient channels now visible as elongate, swampy depressions that connect the southwestern corner of Mattice Swamp with the Mill Creek alluvial fan . They may be lateglacial or early postglacial braided river channels, subsequently cut by the large meander during T3 time. Organic sand fills the western channel, which was blocked by the Mill Creek fan at Camelot No. 1. This deposit was radiocarbon-dated at 4355 ± 465 yr BP ( GX - 9313). The meander has not been directly dated. Its age cannot be easily deduced from the relative elevations of terraces - the swamp is only 3 to 5 ft (1 to 1.5 m) higher than the adjacent later terraces. On airphotos, the meander appears remarkably fresh, but the meander is cut by the T2 terrace that contains the Camelot Farm and Mattice No. 2 sites. Thus, the meander is more than 5300 years old, predating the beginning ofthe Beech-Oak pollen zone (see discussion of Mattice No. 2 site below) . The most likely date for the meander can be deduced from the following considerations: a) Plant remains from the sand fill in the old channel at the Camelot No. 1 and Crandall-Wells sites (See Vol. 2) are approximately 4355 years old: b) The Mattice No. 1 site is on a terrace between the east end of the meander and the rock wall; it is at least 4500 years old, based on associated Archaic artifacts (Funk, personal communication 1983): these artifacts were from the plowzone, and were not buried in the terrace, so they provide a minimum age: c) Archaeological materials so far found on the surface ofthe point bars within the meander have a maximum age of 8500 years (R. Funk, personal communication 1984): and d) 10,600year-old wood was dredged up from a depth of 12 ft (3.6 m) atthe eastern edge of the upper Mill Creek alluvial fan (See Camelot Pond Report, Vol. 2) . This wood was probably redeposited from older sediments, since it was associated with C zone pollen. About 10,000 years ago, the Susquehanna River probably flowed through the area of the present Mattice Swamp and the alluvial fan of Mill Creek. Accretion of the fan might have begun 8000 years ago; it deflected the river south by building across the old channel. The Mattice meander began to develop at least 8000 years ago. At that time, the Susquehanna River was substantially larger than the present river; it probably had larger discharge, as is suggested by the width of the meander's channel scars, and carried more sediment, as is suggested by the large pointbars attached to the meander. The meander built up as three meander bar complexes welded together in T3time (see Ml, M2, and M3 on Fig. 10) . By 5300 yr B.P., the river found a new outlet east of the outwash island that contains the Camelot Farm buildings, isolating the meander bar complexes. In doing so it probably enlarged a floodchute that dissected the base of the complexes. Previously, the outlet flowed through the area now occupied by the Mattice No. 2 site. The old western channel still siphoned off some flow from the now-abandoned oxbow (lake?) until 4300yr B.P. Evidence for this includesrelativelyyoung sand deposits thatfill its bed, and the continued utilization of the adjoining rises by Indian hunters and gatherers. Eventually, Mill Creek completely blocked the channel with alluvial deposits.

The Mattice No. 2 Site The Mattice No. 2 archaeological site is near the old outlet at the southwest corner of the Mattice meander (Fig. 10). The site lies on a section of the Camelot No. 2, T2 terrace, and is bounded on the north by the T3 terrace. The south edge of the Mattice No. 2 terrace drops down to a Tl terrace.

110

InthevicinityoftheMatticeNo. 2site, outwashis22ft (6.7m)abovetheriver, andtheT3terraceis20ft(6. l m) above. Terrace T2 is 9to 11ft(3to3.6 m) above the river, while the Tl terrace is 5 ft (1. 6 m) above. The 7 to 12 ft (2.6 to 4 m) of the T2 deposits atthe Mattice No. 2 site are draped over sand, gravel, and mats of leaves that are 5300 years old (Fig. 11). The T2 deposits consist of fining-upward silt and very fine sand, and the silt thickens to the west. Most of the prehistoric Indian living floors are contained in the upper 2 ft (0 .6 m) of the silt. The living floors and associated soil zones are relatively continuous, and are draped over south-dipping cut-banks. The upper 2 ft (0.6 m) of the silt is 4500 to 3600 years old. !twas deposited at a rate of 1.1 mllOOO yr (Fig 11) . After construction of the Mattice meander, the river channel shrank in size as discharges decreased. This presumably occurred at the transition from the climate indicated by the warm-wet Hemlock zone to the climate indicated by the warm-dry Beech-Oak pollen zone. The channel shifted south, probably as major flow was diverted into the now-eroded floodchute of the Mattice meander. Consequently the channel became straighter and developed a more gentle gradient. During T2 time, meandering and lateral migration and erosion dominated the area from the Mattice No. 2 site upstream to the Oneonta rock spur. Lateral bars flanked the river from the Camelot Farm to the Rose site. Subsequently the river incised its bed and widened its meander belt during Tl time. During this period the Otego and Mill creeks built alluvial fans that forced the channel to the south, possibly a result of the dry episode denoted by the end of the BeechOak pollen zone. Meandering continued east of the Otego Creek fan, and lateral bars persisted to the west. The river is presently shallow in the reach from Mill Creek to Otego Creek, with many riffles and small lateral and channel bars . The discharge of the present river is insufficient to remove the sediment flux of Otego Creek. The excess sediment is being stored in the wide TO terraces in this reach.

Section 4 The Fortin Sites The Fortin locus 1 and locus 2 sites are near the upstream end of the study area, at the confluence of the Susquehanna and the Charlotte Creek. Both the river and the creek are braided in this section, with many channel and lateral bars. A large, valleychoker kame terrace cuts across the river valley east of the sites (Fig. 10) . A kame terrace also lies close to the river on the north. The Holocene alluvial fan of Gifford Creek lies to the northeast. The Street site is located on the north side of the river, west of the Creek, and across from locus 1 at the Fortin site. The Tl and T2 terraces are present atthe Fortin site (Fig. 10) . Tl is 7 ft (2.1 m) above the river, and T2 is 8 to 10 ft (2.5 to 3 m) above the channel. Fortin locus 1 is in the T2 terr ace. The terrace deposits are draped over coarse gr ave! beds that gr ad ually rise to the southeast. The basal deposits are composed of fine to medium sand in crossbeds that are 2 ft (0.6 m) thick, and dip northeast. The cross bedded sands thin from north to south. This thinning is caused by the thickening of the underlying gravel. Each sand crossbed begins with a thin lag gravel, the sand fines upward to silt, and ends with an upper, sharp contact that suggests a truncation surface. These surfaces dip to the northwest, and the sand beds are eroded to the west. Living floors with hearths occur in and near the tops of the sand beds, and on the truncation surfaces. The sand is overlain by silt that thins from 6 ft (2 m) thick near the river to 0 .5 ft (0.2 m) to the southeast. The silt contains several living floors. Living floors in the sand beds are about 3700to 4200years old; those in the silt are approximately 3200 to 3700 years old. Fortin locus 2 is in Tl deposits of the Charlotte Creek floodplain . The Tl surface is underlain by 4 to 6 ft (1 .3 to 2 m) of silt, containing five continuous, nearly horizontal living floors. The silt overlies a small ridge of coarse gravel. The silt is 2000 years old at its base, and 100 years old at its top (base of plow zone) . The Fortin locus 1 site began to develop as a lateral bar approximately 4200 years ago. The bar accreted from south to north, until about 3000 years ago as sections were welded onto the river bank. It accumulated at a rate of 1.4 mil 000 yr, later slowing to a rate of 0.5 mllOOO yr (Fig. 11) . The channel of Charlotte creek lay immediately west of the site. As Charlotte Creek migrated to the west, it abandoned a channel bar in the locus 2 area 2000 years ago, during the OakChestnut period. Overbank deposition from both the river and the creek has continued at locus 2 at a rate of 0.5 mil 000 yr (Fig. 11). The Street Site The Street site lies atthe foot of a kame terrace, immediately west of the Gifford Creek alluvial fan (Fig. 10), and is a short distance upstream from Fortin locus 1. North and east of the main area of prehistoric occupation is a T3 or outwash terrace that is 10 ft (3.0 m) above the river. East of the site, the T3 terrace is overlain by the youngest lobe of the Gifford Creek alluvial fan . The archaeological site lies mainly on the Tl terrace, and is 6 to 7 ft (1 .8 to 2.1 m) above the river. An adjacent TO terrace lies 3 ft (1 m) above the river. The T3 surface is underlain by gravel and sand, with planar crossbeds that dip southeast. The sand and gravel are over 12 ft (3. 7 m) thick under T3, and are unconformably overlain by 1.5 ft (0.5 m) of silt. A 4000 year old site of the Late Archaic Lamoka phase lies in the plowzone capping this silt. The top of the T3 terrace dips sharply down to the southwest. 111

The T 1 terrace deposits are draped against the T3 deposits. The T 1 deposits are 5 ft (1.6 m) thick, and are predominantly silt and very fine sand, with subordinate medium to coarse sand and fine gravel. These deposits range from sand, at the levee near the river, to silt in thefloodchuteatthe baseofthe T3terrace. They display many cut-bank scars near the river, as well as discontinuous living floors and soil zones that are cut by vague structures containing fining-upward sequences of gravelly sand to silt. Under the levee is a basal, west-northwest trending, cross-laminated sand ridge that is interbedded with, and grades into organic clayey silt to silty sand in the floodchute. Twigs and leaves from the silty sand in the floodchute range in age from 2600 to 6400 years. 3 The living floors and soil zones are draped over the sand ridge, and dip north-northwest into the flood chute. Car bon-14 dates from the living floors range from 2750 to 800 yr B.P., but some are at variance with the stratigraphy and the known Middle Woodland stage chronology (R. Funk and B. Wellman, personal communications 1984). The basal sand ridge coarsens eastward into a group of small (1.5 ft, 0.5 m high) coarse gravel and cobble ridges that trend west-northwest. The modern, TO terrace is underlain by loose, lenticular sand and silt with some cobbles and organic matter. The cobbles occur in lenses at the base of the TO sequence. The upper fine sand and silt contain some lenses of fine gravel and coarse sand. The TO terrace deposits are draped over cut-banks that truncate the Tl deposits. The T3 gravels at the Street site were deposited in a southwest accreting channel bar. They probably correlate with the basal gravels at Fortin locus 1. These gravels were channel bars in a wide, braided stream until perhaps 6000 years ago. Evidence suggests that approximately 6000 years ago, the Susquehanna River's regime changed, and a shrunken channel developed in the area of the Fortin and Street sites. A lateral bar was deposited at Fortin locus 1. The river migrated southward into the vicinity of the Street site about 3000 years ago, and several small channel bars were welded onto the north bank. These bars deflected the flow of the river, allowing a sandy lateral bar to develop. A floodchute developed next to the T3 terrace, while the lateral bar rapidly built up via a series of sandsplays. The floodchute was quite swampy. Usually only fine sand and silt would be carried over the bar, and be deposited as very fine-grained sandsplays. These sediments accumulated at a rate of 2.1 mil 000 yr (Fig. 11). The developing sandsplay apron migrated across the floodchute by 1200 to 800 years ago. People camped on the emergent sand bar and upper sandsplay apron during the fall, when the river was low, and mast crops were available (See Street site report, Vol. 2). They apparently avoided the site during the spring and early summer, when the site would be wet and floodprone.

Summary and Conclusions The Susquehanna River is an underfit stream; its present floodplain is less than 30 percent the width of the floodplain of 10, 000 years ago. The combined segments of the Holocene floodplain are composed of four terraces that were formed during four episodes of relatively rapid deposition. The higher terraces are older than the lower, suggesting that downcutting preceded the deposition of each terrace. The widespread, though patchy preservation of the oldestterrace in Sections One and Two of the study reach implies that during T2 time the river's meander belt was not as wide as that ofthe ear lier, predominantly braided floodplain. The preservation of the T3 terrace improves downriver; only a small area of T3 was preserved northeast of Oneonta in Section Four. The preservation of the T2 terrace is good in all the Sections. Neither the T 1 or TO terraces are as wide as the T2 terrace. The present active floodplain is smaller than the active floodplain of T2 time. The floodplain of the Susquehanna is underlain by silt and clay that were deposited in glacial Lake Otego (Randall 1972: Fleisher 1984) . These sediments have impeded downcutting, and they forced the early, T3 river into a phase of rapid lateral erosion. The earlyT3 river initially had a braided channel habit. Later in T3 time, the river settled into a single channel. As the channel migrated, the lateral bar at the Wells Bridge Complex began to develop, the fine-sand T3 terrace at Enck Farm was deposited, and the coarse-gravel T3 terrace was built at the Street site. T3 was deposited during the drying climate evidenced by the late Spruce and Pine-Oak 4 pollen zones (Fig. 13). A period of intense lateral erosion occurred when the climate changed from warm and dry as indicated by the late Pine-Oak pollen zone to warm and moist as indicated by the early to middle Hemlock pollen zone. Lateral erosion and deep downcutting scoured the Enck farm area, and downcutting occurred near the Mattice meander and Kuhr sites. Very little sedimentation is recorded in this reach of the Susquehanna from thattime (Fig. 13). The T2 terrace began to accumulate as the climate changed from warm and moist, at the end of the C-1 Hemlock pollen period, to warm and dry, in the early C-2 Beech-Oak pollen period (Fig. 13). Possibly the forest cover was disrupted by storms, or by fires ignited by lighting, becoming less dense, with more clearings, and th us allowing more surface runoff. The larger areas covered by sparse vegetation contributed abundant sediment to the river, to be moved during infrequent storm-generated floods . In any event, the T2 terrace accumulated through all or most of C-2 time (Fig. 13). Remnants of the T2 terrace are present throughout this reach of the river. Most of the archaeological sites are in that terrace. Meandering characterized the two central sections of the river, while braiding typified the end sections. A portion of the Russ site, and all of the Kuhr, Camelot No. 2 , and Fortin locus 1 sites were deposited in lateral bars. The Enck sites and Mattice No. 2 site were next to meandering channels (Fig. 10). Lateral migration was more important than down-cutting during T2 deposition. Deposition of the T2 terrace began around 5000 to 4500 years ago (Fig. 13). The age of the T2 surface decreases from downsteam to upstream. The length of time of terrace deposition increases from downstream to upstream (Fig. 11). The T2 terrace was deposited in approximately 500 years at the Wells Bridge Complex, and in about 1000 years at Fortin locus 1. 112

AGE IN

POLLEN ZONE*

CLIMATE

Cl4 YEARS 0

-

1,000-

w

S'

2,000-

~

3,000-

•

4,000-

-

FREQUENCY 1 • 10

5,000-

6,000-

•t 1

7,ooo- I

e,oooo,ooo-10,000-

•

~

TERRACE

FEATURES AND EVENTS ~odern floodploin; strong flux of sediment due to

C3b cool-moist

forest clearance by European Settlers . Introduction of Maize Agriculture .

C 3a Oak- Hemlock Chestnut

Deposition of lateral bar at Street. Overbank deposition at Gardepe .

pasS'ible-dry ePlscide -

Lateral migration and downcutting.

C2

Large sediment flux . Lateral accumulation at Russ-Johnsen.

Beech Oak warm- dry (very dry)

T2

Enck farm meanders are active. Fortin locus I is deposited upstream of Charlotte Creek fan; and Kuhr lateral bar bui Ids upstream of Flax Island Creek fan. Mattice No. 2 meander is active . Camelot No. 2 is deposited upstream of Mill Creek fan .

Hemlock

Deep downcutting and intense lateral erosion .

warm - moist Abandonment of Mattice Meander.

Cl

Major flux of sediment. Deposition of lateral bar at Russ-Johnsen, and breach of kettle wall at Gardepe. Deposition of T3 at Enck Farm . Deposition of T3 at Street?

B Pine-Oak warm-dry(?)

?

A Spruce

dry- cool

*

From D. Lewis, personal communication, 1985

Figure 13. Summary of geomorphic events, inferred climate, and terrace deposition.

Deposition rates were much slower downstream than upstream, as well. These phenomena suggest that a strong flux of very fine sand and silt was delivered to the river, probably by Charlotte and Otego Creeks. The rocky upland sections of these tributaries might have been especially affected by the frequent and persistent droughts of the late C-2 pollen zone. A short period of non-deposition and/or erosion extended from the upper third of the C-2 pollen period into the first half of the cool-moist Oak-Hemlock-Chestnut or C-3a pollen period. Subsequently, the river began to assume its present configuration during the time of Tl deposition. Its meandering habit was then limited to Section Three in the short stretch between the Enck farm and the Otego Creek floodplain . Lateral bars dominated Sections One and Two and the rest of Section Three, while Section Four remained braided. Overbank deposition characterized the development of T 1. Lateral bars were most common in areas of little sediment supply, meandering (and meander bars) were most common in areas with a large supply of very fine sand to silt, and braided bars and channels predominated in areas with plentiful coarse sand, gravel and cobbles. These trends have persisted throughout the Holocene in this reach of the Susquehanna. Careful study of the geoarchaeological record reveals that two subsets of lateral bars can be defined. In the first subset, the Russ-Johnsen and Rose sites are on arcuate bars upstream from features that constrain the width of the flood plain, the Wells Bridge Moraine in the former case, and the spur of Calder Hill in the latter. The Street site arcuate lateral bar lies between the kameterrace at Emmons, and the confluence of the Charlotte Creek. The second type of lateral bar consists of relatively straight wedges of sediment on the upstream side of alluvial fans, as at the Kuhr, Camelot No. 2, and Fortin locus 1 sites. Other arcuate lateral bars occur across the river channel from tributary alluvial fans. The Street site is opposite and upstream from the alluvial fan of Charlotte Creek. Finally, Fig. 6, from Kirkland and Funk 1977, is a three-axis sediment-size diagram, with data points from four archaeological sites. These data points form five discrete clusters (Fig. 6). The Fortin locus 1 site, on the upstream end of the river's reach, contains the coarsest sediment, and the downstream Russ site contains the finest sediment. Data points from these two sites show the least scatter (although the Russ site has an anomalous-coarse-grained secondary cluster). The lateral bar and cut-bank levee complex at the Gardepe site and the alluvialfan, channel bar and over bank complex at the Fortin locus 2 site show broad scatters of data points. This large scatter probably was caused by the complicated origins of these sites.

Footnotes 1 2

Archaeologists' descriptions of sediment tend to be systematically "finer-grained" than geologists' descriptions. The 4100 yr B.P. date might be erroneous. It is on Floor l ; Floor 2 was dated at 3200 yr B.P. The two floors are closely-spaced, with no sign of an erosional

hiatus 3 4

Some of these woody fragments might have been recycled by erosion and redeposition. Thus, they might not accurately reflect the age of the deposit D . lewis suggests that the Pine-Oak pollen zone was moist (personal communication 1985).

114

CHAPTER 8 PREHISTORIC VEGETATION CHANGE IN THE UPPER SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY by Donald M. Lewis and Robert E. Funk

Introduction In accord with the major objectives of the Upper Susquehanna Project, geological and biological information were gathered in addition to archaeological data in order to reconstruct past environments of the study area. Investigations into the glacial and flu vial geomorphology were summarized in Chapter 7. This chapter interprets and synthesizes the palynological data obtained from the sampling localities described in Volume 2, Appendix 4. Comparisons are made with previous studies in the Susquehanna Valley (Cox 1959; Melia 1975) and also with sequences established outside the valley. Although sediment samples for pollen analysis were collected from most of the archaeological sites described in Appendix 3, the vast majority of samples examined by Lewis either lacked pollen or produced an insufficient number of grains for meaningful analysis. O nly zone 4 at the Gardepe site, locus 1 (See Vol.2) and the organic gravels at the Munson site (See Vol. 2) produced significant amounts of pollen associated with archaeological materials. Precultural deposits on some other sites did produce pollen in abundance. It seems that on floodplain sites pollen were usually degraded during fluvial transport and deposition, or were further damaged by alternate wetting and drying of the sediments after deposition. Pollen survival was enhanced in deposits that remained below the water table over long periods of time. The following discussion relies chiefly on pollen diagrams constructed for five wetland sites (Appendix 4; the Vly Bog and O neonta Bypass Bog near O neonta, Lake Misery near Morris, Mud Lake East near Davenport, and Russell Beach Swamp near Sidney Center) . It was possible to assign pollen assemblages from certain other localities, such as Enck No. 1 (See Vol. 2) and Kuhr No. 1 (See Vol. 2) to corresponding positions on the reference framework provided by the wetland sites. Pollen sequences from the three longest sediment columns (Vly Bog, Lake Misery, Mud Lake East) were rather similar. All of these sites are hilltop depressions ranging in elevations from 1 790 to 2035 feet (545 to 620 m) above sea level. The lowland site (Oneonta Bypass) and Russell Beach Swamp contained only the lower (older) zones and deposition of pollen terminated during the change from spruce to pine pollen dominance. Indeed, all ofthe pollen profiles were truncated with much of the pollen record of the last thousand years missing from even the most complete diagrams. Nevertheless, pollen zones and subzones could be recognized that correspond to zones described in other studies in eastern New York State and western New England (Connally and Sirkin 1970, 197 1; Cox 1959; Dineen 1986; Nicholas 1967; O gden 1965, 1977; Sirkin 1967 , 1986; Whitehead 1979). 1 The numbers of samples analyzed forthe reliable portions of pollen diagrams and the depth of sediment from which they were obtained are presented in Table 12.

Table 12. Analyzed pollen samples from sites of the Upper Susqu ehann a region. Site VlyBog Lake Misery Mud Lake East Oneonta Bypass Bog Russell Beach Swamp

No. of Samples Analyzed 52 35 43 7 16

Depth of Sediment Below the Surface (cm) 239-947 132-828 183-790 13-165 58-175

The Pollen Sequence An herb pollen zone (T), equated with plant communities similar to those in modern tundra, is often found at the base of pollen diagrams from the northeastern United States. Usually there is a high percentage of NAP (pollen from non-aboreal plants excluding aquatic elements), although overall pollen abundance is rather low. Pollen abundance gradually increases, and the percentage of NAP decreases as the plant communities progress from treeless (tundra), to sparsely forested (park-tundra), to conifer-dominated forest (boreal forest), the latter representing the A and B zones of Deevey (1939). The combined total of spruce and pine pollen is usually greater than 70 percent of TP (total pollen) in the lowermost pollen zones of pollen diagrams from the Northeast. In extreme cases these two elements may comprise less than 50 percent of total pollen . Most of the other pollen is from NAP. Because four of the five pollen sites of this study were above elevations of 1 700 feet (520 m), it may be that relatively harsh weather and slow soil development in these circumstances resulted in the rather briefrepresentation of herb- (at Vly Bog, only) and spruce-dominated vegetation compared to other sites in nearby regions (Connally and Sir kin 1971; Nicholas 1967). Given the

115

z ~ .------..----------~--------~--~~-

~~

60&

i

8 ~ 0 co I~ I'.11 0 IJ ~ ~ ~:.N ~-----'------------'----------'----'-~·--'· ~ LJ

891/ti- VJ9

,___ _,_____:_ _ __,___JL_..___,____.,..'-----'----'----'---''--''-----'---'-"-'-'-.....,_~'-'-'-''----"

~Da,,,,6~

8

8

VAjOv

V

~· -~"--"---'---'--~-'----'---'---''--~-'---'----'"-'---'---'----'--''---'--"--'---'-'L.....-'....__,'-!J..'-'-'-"'----L'-=UL_J_ n ..JJ ---=-------'--'----'---'--'---------'---'--------'-'.......-'---'--'-Cl!..!L-c::...:.

. (/J &/.{ • 'fvr)

" 1/8

.D~~

oa0oo 11i8 10

D~~

- - - - - " - - - ' - - ' - - - - ' - - - ' - - - - - ' - - ' -- ' - -- - ' --

---''-'-''--''---'-'--

_......'-"-..l.!.J:CllllL._.___.i

" 'Ji- - - - - - ' ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - < l - ' - - . . . W . l l L J J _ L . . l J &&&o

8

~"a~o ---'----------''---'--------'------'---'---~~'--'-'"~··~·~·~WtrllJ ill.lllL--LC)J.J.J

"""v,0

9" Jlfs. " Jo J"lf10

_ _ _ _ _ __,__,__ _ _ __,__ _..___ _ _ __,___ _ __,__,___

__,.__,_,~L:.L..ll.Ulill.L...JL..J.J

~q"s ~·-------~--'----''--------''-----------'---'-'-'-'-'-'-----1!.!IJ.illl........J.:~

... .

. ,, Dll\... l. rUDJ Q_

89~~

Je

~

" "'

.a Ql

Ol

"'c: "" "a. c:

0

- . - -...............__...............______________________...__..._,_,_._._..,.llti___.. .L_. .

a

""ve,:;o ,_._ _,___ _:__c:=::r:::====:t:===-__._,___,__---==--'---'-_,,..__._,__ _ __,,,____,.__,__ J9 0

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

8"v1~Di- ~~,--..----i-1-:=i

&J~ ~ 8"00 ~·-.i..-=:i::=:::i..___.__

•

C::C---.,

r

_,

• I

c--, .. --,

ctr-1 •

_,__,__-==::c=='--"'-_c:::::::l.~,__..L__,___,___JL_~_...1~_...__=-,_,L_-.___~~--D1llrn

&1,,, ,,&

3"'

c: .c:

"'

~--· ·"·

>-

()

z

w

:::>

a

w a: LL

z

w _J _J

0

Cl..

w

~ I-

-< _J w

a:

ci

0 ro

~o ·::: li!.i!il ::::

>-

5

V'-1

H!d30

116

;

MUD LAKE EAST: RELATIVE POLLEN FREQUENCY

& ,?

Cl)

O..::::!:

w

Cl

f 3~g

"'l'

~

I•

ti"

l

I'\

r---1

2

::>

~

(.)

& ::>

It

~

& n

11

' J ti! ~Ef if ~g~~~N 3' !}' Cl)

Cl)

::i: I-

~

"'

::> Q. ' ~Cl) '-

II

6 5

Q)

c: 0

4

0

3

•

.....

2

0

Q)

•

.0

E

::J

z

0

2

3

4

•

•

• • • • •

• • •

0

• • • •

5

6

7

8

9

10 11

• •

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26

Number of Strata Figure 19. Graph showing relationship of total number of strata (including plow zone) to total number of occupation zones containing one point type or two closely related types, on floodplain sites in the Upper Susquehanna Valley. It suggests that the higher the number of strata, the higher the number of occupation zones containing just one or two projectile point types. There is an inverse relationship between the number of strata and the number of occupation zones containing three or more point types.

128

Surface or plow zone materials that are well-isolated from other scatters, small in area, and produce a limited typological array, are excellent candidates for sing le-components. An element of risk remains, however, because the older such materials are, the more likely they are to have been contaminated by materials from later occupations. Numerous examples of such deceptive situations could be given. The Kings Road site in the middle Hudson Valley (Funk, Weinman, and Weinman 1969) is an excellent case in point. The site is located in a very large field. Here Paleo-Indian artifacts and debitage occurred within the plow zone and on the surface concentrated in an area of about 50 by 80 feet. Nevertheless, one anomalous object, a Snook Kill point dating to about 1500 B.C., was picked up at the eastern fringes of the lithic scatter. Unless it was a stray lost in the hunt, it was the sole identifiable representative of later occupation at the site. Of course, even small well-isolated sites can produce an abundance of typologically diverse materials clearly denoting multiple occ upancy, and these materials may be so thoroughly intermixed as to preclude any statistically meaningful separation of components. This can also happen on sites with shallow deposits that have never been cultivated; but sites of this type may also yield useful information if there is some horizontal separation of intersecting components, because features and organic debris as well as stone artifacts may be preserved. Far superior to the surface or plow zone site in the search for isolated components is the stratified site, whether singlecomponent or multi-component. The conditions propitious for stratification are numerous, and manifested in layered middens , floodplains, colluvial fans , caves, rockshelters, and other types of sites. Sequences of deposition at these sites result from geological and cultural processes or combinations of these. Potential disturbances range from animal burrowing, tree throws, seismic movement, frost-heaving, and water erosion, to cultivation, construction, stump removal, burning over, and so on. In the absence of complete deformation or overturning of stratified deposits such sequential records are of inestimable value for several reasons: 1. Materials from discrete occupations are sealed off (by either physical or metrical stratigraphy) from geological or cultural deposits at higher and lower levels and their temporal order on the site is therefore indisputable. The most "sensitive" or refined stratigraphy is found on sites where multiple occupation zones are physically differentiated, as in layer-cake columns where they may be separated by culturally sterile zones. 2 . Having eliminated or dealt with visible disturbances or intrusions such as pits dug into early levels by the inhabitants of later levels, the investigator is assured that the materials in any given zone were associated, that is, deposited within a time period no greater than the time required for deposition of the stratum, level, or zone as a whole. Again the problem of association at a particular instant or in a single occupation arises; but with certain exceptions, this is another unattainable ideal . The only archaeological remains in a zone or level that can be reasonably attributed to a discrete instant in time, are those relating to a single act or set of serial motor habits (making a burial, knapping a chert object, etc.) . In rare exceptions these acts can be linked together - for example, findmg parts of the same "killed" artifact in two different burials. The possibility that all or part of a cultural zone was redeposited from older contexts can be eliminated if there are features and structures in situ, where there are no signs of water-rolling on artifacts, and no evidence of stratigraphic disturbance or disconformity. Despite these considerations, it is far from certain that all the remains in a given deposit, no matter how thin it may be, were caused by the same group of people at the same pointin time; in other words, even the simplest and most obvious withinsite patterning of artifacts and features may be the product of two or more occupations. Food refuse bone, datable organic substances, pollen, and other environmental data, specific to each zone or level also provide important and useful data for the interpretation of the periods in question. 3. If several occupation zones exist in vertical sequence on the site, the artifact types, associated refuse, features and ecofacts are readily placed in relative chronological order - an order which may have previously been unclear in the region. 4. The excavation of several such sites and the delineation of their respective components will provide sufficient data for the identification, description, and naming of phases, so that from the analysis of intrasite sequences the archaeologist proceeds to the delineation of regional sequences. Some generalizations may be offered concerning the use of stratified sites in isolating and defining traits, industries, assemblages and components. These are derived from analysis of the floodplain sites in our Upper Susquehanna sample (see Tables 13,14andFigs. 19, 22, 23) . 1. The greater the number of physically distinguishable stratigraphic units including occupation zones (the more complex the stratigraphy), the smaller the number of components and/or projectile point types represented within any single occupation zone. To rephrase; the greaterthe number of discrete zones, the smaller the degree of typological diversity per zone, and the closer we are to defining real prehistoric assemblages at discrete intervals in time and space. 2 . Implied as a corollary: the greater the number of both natural and cultural zones (including plow zone), the greater the number of occupation zones characterized by single projectile point types or by two or three closely related types. This same relationship is indicated when only intact occupation zones or floors are considered. Similar observations by Coe (1964) and Broyles (1971) suggested the idea of the "Coe axiom" (Brennan 1967, 1974).

129

Table 13 ~

0

a ;::l 0 0

0

1i

00

] 8

o~

>-< >-< 0 Q)

..0

Kuhr No. 2

z tS 3

KuhrNo. 1 Mattice No. 2 Fortin locus 1

10

Fortin locus 2 Sternberg

7

5

4

9

7

2

2.0

1.75

1.75

12

26

13

7

7

9

0.50

0.92

0.54

5

8

4

4

0.63

1.25

0.25

10

8

7

14

9

3

2.5

1.43

1.29

5

11

5

5

5

4

0.45

1.0

1.0

2?

3

2

McCulley No. 1

3

1?

Enck No. 2 Rose locus 1

4

3

1.0

1.0

1.5

2

21

0.33

1.0

2.0

0.33

1.0

1.0

0.47

1.0

0.14

0.71

1.67

1.67 0 .50

3

Bemis Enck No. 1

VJ

§~

Sites

1?

7

17

7

5

c.7

3

2

5

5

0.60

1.0

2

2

0.67

1.0

2.0

0.46

1.0

0.50

2

3

Rose locus 2

5

14

2

13

6

3

3

4

4

2

13

4

0

1.25

2.0

2.0

4

2

6

6

0

2.0

4.0

6.0

6

9

6

8

8

4

0.67

1.0

0.75 0.75

Street locus 1

6

Davenport Creamery Camelot No. 1, locus 1 Camelot No. 2, locus 1

4

9

4

3

3

3

0.44

1.0

l?

3

c.5

3

3

3

3

0.80

1.0

1.0

c.5

c.8

6

3

c.12

c.7

2 .17

2.67

2.3

Johnsen No. l

c.5

3

8

3

c.11

4

1.0

1.0

1.3

Johnsen No.2

c.4

3

7

3

c.5

4

0

1.0

1.0

1.3

Johnsen No. 3

4

10

c.25

10

13

2+

3+

0 .56

1.0

0.2

Munson

c.5

c.3

3

c.4

3

0

0

2.67

Russ locus 2

c.8

c.9

c.6

c.4

c.2

0

2 .83

Camelot No. 2, locus 2 Egli Gardepe

410 2.25

3.0

Remarks: 1 Two closely related side-notched point types. 2 All intergrading triangles, although some definable as Levanna or Madison. 3 Only floor 3 produced points. 4 No identifiable points in floor 1. 5 In zone 6, points were all closely related variants.

Table 13. Relationships between number of components, number of stratigraphic zones, number of intact occupation zones, and number of projectile point types on stratified sites in the Upper Susquehanna Valley. 130

Table 14

Total Number of Strata (including plow zone) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Total Number of Sites Containing One-Type Zones

Totals

No. of Cases of MultiType Zones

4

1 1

Number of One-Type Zones 1

2

.3

4

5

6

7

8

9

4

Remarks

1

2 1 1 1

1

3 1 1 3 2

1

1

1

1 1

1

1 1

1

1

Street Site: Most levels produced 2 or 3 point types heavily dominated by Levannas; all known to be assodated on Hunter's Home sites.

14 15 16

1

1

17

1

1

Johnsen No. 3 site: Several occupation zones failed to yield points hence there were probably at least 4 one-type zones. Enck No. 1 site: Only one floor produced points but the total number of one-type floors was probably higher.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 TOTALS

10

2

3

3

1

1

1

19

Kuhr No. 1 site 5

Table 14. Relationships between total number of strata (including plow zone) and total number of occupation zones containing one projectile point type on floodplain sites in the Upper Susquehanna Valley. 131

3. Also implied: the greater then umber of natural and cultural zones, the more likely that the rate of sedimentation was equal to, or even exceeded, the frequency of occupation and the rate of regional culture change (i.e., the rate of replacement of one trait by another). 4. When diverse artifact types, including projectile point types, occur together in one undisturbed zone on some sites, but are individually found in separate levels on other (more deeply or complexly stratified) sites, their seeming association on the first group of sites· is probably spurious and the result of relatively slow deposition of sediment during the periods of occupation. 5 . When particular artifact traits, including projectile point or pottery types, occur in a particular temporal order on complexly stratified sites, that order is valid for the locality and region containing the sites, and will not be reversed or invalidated by sensitive stratigraphy on other sites. It is also unlikely to be reversed or invalidated in adjacent regions where the traits occur. 6. Such consistent chronological relationships also signify that the various phases represented did not over lap in time. They did not coexist but occurred in sequence, one replacing the other through evolution, migration, or some other process. This conclusion is strengthened when the same pattern obtains for an entire region. This observation does not exclude the persistence or overlap of particular traits from one temporal level to another. 7. Given such well-established frameworks based on stratified columns, it is possible to judge the accuracy and utility of radiometric dates attributed to the occupations in a region. Some dates may seem to show contemporaneity of certain phases, artifact types, or assemblages but are invalidated when those manifestations consistently occur in a particular order on stratified sites.

Examining The Phase Problems arise when we look more closely at this frequently used word. ltis a basic building-block of the Willey and Phillips scheme and others like it. In their important book they define the phase as, "An archaeological unit possessing traits sufficiently characteristic to distinguish it from all other units similarly conceived, whether of the same or other cultures or civilizations, spatially limited to the order of magnitude of a locality or region and chronologically limited to a relatively brief interval of time" (1958:22) . Evidently, then, individual archaeologists have considerable latitude in setting temporal and spatial limits to phases within their areas of study. At times this has led to the formulation of very different kinds of phases. The confusion introduced by such widely varying usages has provoked some scholars to call for the abandonment of the term. One can argue that in the last analysis the key issue in defining phases is reduced to the question, "Are there such things as consistent clusters of traits confined to relatively narrow time periods and to well-defined geographic boundaries?" Presumably the temporal limits can be narrowed by the application of absolute chronologies (for example, radiometric dating, tree ring dating, and thermoluminescence) or by detailed stratigraphic analysis. Such methods should establish the approximate duration of phases. With regard to the spatial dimension, Snow ( 1980) has proposed that phases be limited arbitrarily to drainage systems or segments thereof. This suggestion is at best cumbersome and probably unworkable because situations can and do arise in which the same trait-complex is found in two or more drainages; it would be assigned an equivalent number of different phase names in Snow's scheme. I propose that the formal (taxonomic) aspect of the phase should take precedence over all other criteria. In other words, wherever the distinguishing traits are found, so is the phase. The "territory" of a phase can range from a small tributary stream basin to a major drainage system or beyond. The phase is primarily a device for distinguishing one regional cultural entity from another, based largely on the presence or absence of diagnostic traits. These distinguishing or defining traits do not in themselves constitute the functionally and adaptively significant aspects of the whole cultural system. We must be wary of equating individual phases with mutually exclusive adaptive systems. That is, each new phase in a regional sequence does not necessarily represent a new form of adaptation to regional conditions, although this is a common archaeological assumption that needs to be tested. There are potentially many cultural responses to particular ecosystemic contexts. Conceivably, several successive phases may result from internal change while external environmental and sociocultural conditions remain stable.

Framework Building Local and regional sequences are constructed by comparing and organizing all that is known of the various sites and components. Correlations or connections are determined in accordance with assemblage similarities and differences, augmented by radiometric, geochronological, typological or other dating methods. Single-component sites can thus be matched with similar components on stratified multi-component sites, and the various stratified columns can be aligned by means of their typological relationships. In this way long prehistoric sequences may be proposed, though they will almost certainly not be complete, in the sense of incorporating components of all phases or transitional episodes ever represented in the region. Of interest is the interpretation of stratified sites displaying differential separation of components. Two contrasting examples inthisreportaretheKuhr No. 1 Site and the Kuhr No. 2 Site (See Vol. 2). TwoArchaicprojectilepointtypes, each found in separate stratigraphic zones at Kuhr No. 1, were found in thesamestratigraphiczoneatKuhr No. 2; thissamezonealsoproduced both older

132

and younger Archaic point types. Hence the alluvial stratigraphy at Kuhr No. 2 was more compressed than that at Kuhr No. 1; considered by itself, Kuhr No. 2 could have falsely suggested the close association of several point types that are actually known to represent at least four discrete phases covering a period of over 1300 years. Though some temporal overlap may be indicated, these types were not all simultaneously produced and used by any single group. How do we go about deciding that two or more components constitute evidence of a phase? Obviously by comparison of similarities and differences vis-a-vis the assemblages (artifact, feature, burial, or structural types) . The nature of these similarities and differences and theirmeaning for" cultural relationships" or "social distance" has never been fully resolved by archaeologists. Presumably agreement can be reached on the definition of artifacts as style groups, through detailed analysis of morphological attribute clusters (less agreement is likely on their functional characteristics) . Here we are confronted with the old problem of how to identify diagnostic traits, and how many such traits are needed to establish cultural "affinity" or "affiliation." Once itis established that a group oftraits is shared by a numberof components, distributed through a region, this relationship automatically becomes the key to definition ofa phase or regional cultural entity. Recognizing that more such traits may eventually be discovered, especially those of perishable materials, the minimal group oftraits defining the phase is here called the complex. This specific usage replaces the usually vague meaning of "complex" applied variously to assemblages, components, phases, foci, and cultures according to archaeological fancy. It must be remembered thatthe phase will not be mechanically manifested or expressed from site to site; the trait-complex may permit identification of the phase throughout a region, but individual components will show some variability due in large part to functional differences between sites. Those differences are a result of differential access of Indian groups to resources by consequence of location or season. Some variability may result from stylistic drift within a region, or from internal evolution of a phase over the period of its duration. Without trait-linkages between sites, the elucidation of settlement systems would be nearly impossible; present dating methods are not refined enough to establish precise contemporaneity of sites, even on an annual, let alone seasonal, scale. Fortunately functional differences between northeastern Indian sites are not so great as to completely obscure their cultural interrelationships, as reflected in shared projectile point types, pottery types, and so forth. In thinking about definitions, we must ask, for example, do point types and other traits persist together, covary or do their frequencies vary independently through time? We may find it difficult to establish phase boundaries if the duration and popularity of major trait sets actually vary with considerable independence. There may be more overlap than has been suspected between some phases which are well entrenched in the literature. Also there was undoubtedly more horizontal, or spatial variability in prehistoric cultures than is generally realized. Archaeologists tend to use artifact types as rigid, immutable entities, leaving no provision for evolution or change; yet there is every reason to believe we are dealing with the preserved material remains of complex and continuously changing cultural processes. The artifact types and phases we have defined are arbitrary slices of temporal and spatial continua. Yet, they are profoundly useful, as should be evident throughout this report.

Larger Cultural Units: Domains Beyond the phase -which often means a horizontal distribution larger than a naturally bounded drainage, part of a drainage, or another region - may be larger cultural entities recognizable from the wide distribution of sets of traits. These genera.Hy have their provenience within geographic areas broader than single river or lake basins. Examples in frequent use include "Owasco culture," "Small stemmed point tradition," "Maritime Archaic," and "Laurentian tradition." All of these have generated controversy over their suitability, but my objection here is to the words" culture" and "tradition." As previously noted, it is not appropriate to refer to a set of archaeological traits as a "culture" even though they were produced by once living cultural groups. The term "tradition" is the wrong choice for widely distributed manifestations that are closely related and that operate within the same general time period. 2 Therefore, I suggest that such hierarchically inclusive units be assigned special terms - above the phase would be a "superphase" or better a "domain." The closest definition of" domain" in Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary ( 1979) to the intended concept is "a sphere of influence or activity." "Pattern" or "Aspect" could also be borrowed from the McKern system for this purpose but it seems desirable to avoid the connotations of that system as much as possible. The term "horizon" is also a possibility but has come to mean an integrative unit linking different regional cultural units. Willey and Phillips ( 1958:33) define horizon as "a primarily spatial continuity represented by cultural traits and assemblages whose nature and mode of occurrence permit the assumption of a broad and rapid spread." These traits and assemblages are visualized as cross-cutting diverse phases, cultures, and civilizations. They are not supposed to symbolize broader cultures on the order of Owasco, Hopewell, and Mississippian. The horizon is merely a somewhat expanded version ofthe horizon style (Ibid.:32). The domain is defined by a trait series that occurs among all of the participant phases (the word series is used to distinguish this particular group of elements from the complex, which has its own specific meaning.) These traits might consist entirely of diagnostic artifact styles. The duration of the domain is relatively brief and no longer than the duration of its constituent phases.

133

Periods and Stages Much debate centers around the most effective means of synthesizing archaeological entities and portraying them in time and space. Some archaeologists prefer to assign phases or groups of phases to periods on the basis of shared traits serving as identifying criteria. The periods are placed in order from earliest to latest and may define a local or regional sequence. Important though not crucial to defining and delimiting periods is absolute time, usually expressed in radiocarbon years. Prior to the advent of radiocarbon dating, periods were chronologically ordered by means of stratigraphy, seriation and other relative dating methods (although dendrochronology was available as an absolute dating method in the American Southwest). Periods are often nonrepetitive across regional sequences and may be conceptually equivalent to phases; however individual periods may incorporate several phases. Stages are also widely used to present archaeological data. Usually stage classifications are meant to be free of absolute temporal implications and any given stage may belong to differenttime periods in different regions, i.e., the expressions of a stage in different regions are truly homotaxial. Some stage schen'ies are tied to historical sequences to varied degrees, for example, the historical-developmental scheme of Griffin ( 1952), based on the Midwestern Taxonomic System (Mc Kern 1939) and subsequently modified by Ritchie ( 1965 a) and others. This system has become thoroughly entrenched in northeastern archaeology

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 0

CJ)

CJ)

"'

0 0

0 0

O>

... "'

CJ)

O>

0 0

0 0

O>

0 0 0

"'"'0 0

... ... ...... ... ... "'"' "' ..."' "'"' "' "' O>

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 0

O>

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

"' ..."' "' "' "'"' "' "'... "'"' "' "' ~ ... "' O>

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 0

O>

0

0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 0

"' 0 0

0 0

... 0 0

'!" 0 0

p

"'' p

"'0 0

... 0 0

O>

0

0

"' ~ "' ... 0 0

0 0

0 0

O>

0

0

~ 7~z

~"""

--i

~

m

- - - MADISON - - - - - - - - LEVANNA JACK 'S REEF(BOTH TYPES)

FOX CREEK (BOTH TYPES)

-----

MEAOOWOOD ORIENT FISHTAIL DRY BROOK FISHTAIL SUSQUEHANNA BROAD

PERKIOMEN BROAD

l:J

JJ

2 m 0

--i

F m l:J

VESTAL

0

z

LA MOK A

--i

BARE ISLAND

(/)

~ BEEKMAN TRIANGLE

·.:> - -------

BREWERTON EARED-TRIANGLE BREWERTON SIDE-NOTCHED

- - ·V

·->-- - - - - - - - ·V ·->-- - - - - - - - ·V

z

< m (/)

BREWERTON EARED-NOTCHED

BREWERTON CORNER-NOTCHED

KANAWHA-LIKE

KIRK STEMMED KIRK CORNER-NOTCHED

- - - - COLLARED INCISED

COLLARED CORD-DECORATED

Uncollated, cortrdec«ated Uncollar9d,c«crm11rked

Uncollared,dentate-stampttd UncollertKJ,rockfll'-stamptd

Uncol/ltfed, scaltop stamptd

1l

0

-i -i

m ll -


< m G)

0 0 0

(/)

GOUGES(ALL TYPES)

-------- ·..)-- - - · - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ·-> - - - - -

GROUND SLATE POINTS/ KNIVES

r

ULUS (SEMJLUNAR KNiVES)

())>

BANNERSTONES (ALL TYPES)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -CELTS AND ADZES

=i

!
C

=icn (/)

CHOPPERS,OVATE

Figure 24. Temporal distribution of some radiocarbon-dated artifact traits in New York State (includes some data from New England and the Delaware Valley). Firm dates shown as solid bars. Allowances are made (dashed lines) for standard deviations and mildly "deviant" dates but a small number of unacceptably aberrant dates are left out, as are dates of questionable association with particular types. However, both the general sequence of elements and their ages in radiocarbon years display a remarkable regularity. In southern New England the primary departure would be in the small stemmed points (Wading River, etc.) which seem to have persisted into Middle or Late Woodland times.

156

SOME HORIZONS AND HORIZON STYLES JN NORTHEASTERN PREHISTORY WEST-EAST DISTRIBUTION

NIAGARA FRONTIER

I

GENES EE VA L LEY

1 D~~~~~~E1 susaue-rCHOHAR'1 & FINGER LAKES

HANNA VA LLE Y

VALLEY

Mad i son points. v illage horticulture, co ll ared inci sed

MOHAWK VALLEY

I u:l~~~E& I USA-1c~~:ee;T--~~~:~:N_ HUDSON VA LLE Y

HO . T ON IC VA LLE Y

ICUT VA LLE Y

AP P ROX. TEMP ORA L RANGE IN C- 14 YEARS

C HU SE TT S MAR TH A'S

VIN EYA RD Leva nn a & Madi so n poi n ts.vi ll age hortic ultur e.co ll ared incised and s hell t em p

~ · 1· ro1a.uo.iamnm"pmomttmemry._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . emrm edmomomtt•e•rv._. . . . . . . . . . . . . .~

A. D.

14 50-1600

A.D.

1100- 1300

Le va nna po in ts.vi llage horticulture .co rded "Owascon potterv(olus variant New En a la nd ceram ics)

Jack's Reef points.Late Point Peninsula cera mi cs,arave aoods (pipes ,o e ndants,etc.)

A.D. 600-900

______ _F?_x_ Creek & Greene points (with net-marked pot_!_e~ jn_N~~ .Y'2..!"~

--

A.D. 350-500

H ooewe llian bur ia l mou_.Q.d~ _& _a~ifac t s

A.D. Adena-Middlesex b uri a l traits(Adena eoints,blocked-e nd tubes.etc.)

?

100-200

600-200

Meadowood p oints & cache blades,V inette 1 pottery,buria l traits (pipes ,go r ~~·~ t£_.] _ _ _ _ _ _

?

Ori ent Fi sht ail ooints,soa ostone vesse ls,Vinette 1 potterv ,etc. Susquehanna Broad points.soapstone vesse ls,V inette 1 potter v,e t c. (include s Wa t e rto wn)

B.C.

1 000-500

B.C.

1100-750

B.C.

1 500- 1 200

Perkiomen Broad eoint s,eoi nt s reworked t o scrapers ,drills,etc. Snook kill( Atlantic)point s,po int s reworked to sc r apers,drill s,etc. Genesee ooints,points r eworked to sc raoers,drill s ,et c . No rma nskil l po int s

4 ===-~~i~o~t~- -- ?~ ? } lilii amiiioiiikii a oipiii oiiiintiiis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~. --~~.·--·~----------------i Squibnocket Tri ang le points

B.C.

1600-1400

B.C.

17 00-1500

B.C.

1800-1700

B.C.

1900-1700

B.C .

2500-1900

B.C.

3000-2500

B.C.

Bare Is land points

Beekman T ri angle points

Vosbu r g Corne r - Notched points Brewerton Side-notched point s

> Bre wer ton Corner-Notc hed points Brewerton Eared- Notched points Brewerton Eared Tri ana le ooints

liiliiili•iliiiiiliiilliiliiiiiiliilliilill-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - Otter Creek points

? Neville/Stanly points

? ? ? mKi.rkmSmtm emmmmemdmomo•intms. . . . . . . . . . . .. Bifurcated - base points (Lecrov,Kanawha S t .A lba ns)

-

-

Kirk Comer-Notche d & Charles ton point s

- - - - LJ

-

4000-3000

B.C.

5500 - 5000

B.C.

6000-5500 B.C .

-

6500-6000

B.C.

7500-7000 B.C.

Fluted p oints.end sc r apers.spurre d · scrapers .side scrapers, limaces,dent iculates,e t c .

9000-8000 B.C.

Figure 25. Some horizons and horizon styles in northeastern prehistory; west to east distribution. The solid bars represent the established prese nce of a trait or horizon (cluster oftraits); dashed lines show its probable presence; question marks mean the data are weak or equivocal at best. Appoximate radiocarbon dated time ranges are given in the right-hand column. There is no intention of obscuring the overall temporal continuity from one horizon to another, but considerable horizontal continuity is evident within restricted blocks of time. Some Archaic through Early Woodland manifestations seem absent, or poorly represented, in the eastern parts of the area.

157

Table 17. RADIOCARBON DATES FOR THE DATE AS REPORTED YEARSB.P. A.DIB.C .

DIAGNOSTIC ARTIFACTS AND OTHER ASSOCIATIONS

LAB.

NUMBER

SITE: Fortin Locus 1 4185 if- 120 2235 BC. if- 120 I-7098

PROVENIENCE

Zone 7, fea. 11 2

Lamoka points in same level

3970-ft'. 100

2020 B.C. if- 100 I-6568

Zone 7 , fea. 29

Lamoka points in same level

3880-ft'. 100

1930B.C.if-100 I-6566

Zone 5, fea.22

Lamoka points just outside fringes of zone; Lamoka preform in zone

3840-ft'.100

1890 B.C. if- 100 I-6567

Zone4, fea.24

Lamoka points in same level

3750-ft'.95

1800 B.C . if-95

I-6369

Zone 4, fea.25

Lamoka points in same level

3820-ft'.95

1870 B.C. if- 95

Dic-207

Zone 3, fea.39

Vestal points nearby in same level

3775-ft'.115

1825 B.C. if-115

I-6351

Zone 3, fea.28

Vestal points in feature & in same level

3685-ft'.100

1735 B.C. if- 100 I-6739

Zone 3, fea.14

Normanskill points in feature & on same level nearby

3610-ft'.95

1660 B.C . if-95

I-6368

Zone 3, fea .7

Normanskill points, etc. on edges of feature

3280-ft'.90

1330 B.C. if- 90

I-7097

Zone 2, fea.92

Susquehanna Broad points near feature in same level

3350-ft'. 95

1400 B.C . if-95

I-6752

Fea. 34, level of origin uncertain, though 1st assigned to zone7

Uncertain

3180 if-95

1230 B.C. if-95

I-6740

Zone lb, !ea. 74

Meadowood points & cache blades in feature

SITE: Fortin Locus 2 1475 if- 90 A.D. 475-ft'. 90

I-6350

Occ. zone 2, fea. 2

Middle Woodland pottery, bifaces in same level

1390-ft'. 55

A.D. 560-ft'.55

Dic- 177

Occ. zone 3 , fea. 48

Pottery, Jack's Reef points in same level Same as Dic-1 77

1120-ft'.90

A.D. 830-ft'.90

I-6565

Occ. zone 3, fea . 1

870-ft'. 75

A.D. 1080-ft'.75

Dic- 166

Occ. zone 4 , fea . 30

Pottery, Levanna points in same level

320-ft'.100

A.D. 1630-ft'. 100 I-6753

Occ. zone4, fea. 16

Same as Dic-166

SITE: Street 6350-ft'. 75

4400 B.C. if- 75

Dic-992

Organic zone 57-70" below surface

None; pre-cultural deposit

2740-ft'.50

790B.C . if-50

Dic-993

Organic zone 72" below surface None; pre-cultural deposit in N-S backhoe trench

1250 if- 60

A.D. 700-ft'.60

Dic-994

Organic zone 85" below surface None; pre-cultural deposit in N-S backhoe trench

2750-ft'.125

800 B.C .if- 125

QC-1002R Locus 1, acc. zone C , fea. 27

Jack's Reef point & rocker-dentate ceramics

1250 if- 150

A.D. 700-ft'.150

QC-1000

Locus 1, acc. zoneB, fea . 49

Wickham Punctate pot

1425-ft'.150

A.D.5 25-ft'.150

QC-1001

Locus 1, acc. zone A, fea . 7

Levanna points

850-ft'. 75

A.D. 1100 if- 75

Dic-209

Locus 1, acc. zone B, fea. 17

Vinette Dentate pottery, Levanna & Jack's Reef points

1130-ft'.85

A.D. 820-ft'.85

Dic-645

Locus 1, acc. zoneB, fea. 12

Same as Dic-209

800-ft'.50

A.D. 1150-ft'.50

Dic-990

Locus 2, acc. zone A, fea. 54

Levanna & Jack's Reef pts., Point Peninsula Corded , Jack's Reef Corded Punctate, Owasco Corded Horizontal pottery

1000 -ft'.45

A.D. 950-ft'.45

Dic-989

Locus 2, acc. zone A, fea. 56

Same as Dic-990

158

UPPER SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY PHASE, COMPLEX

OR TRADITION

REMARKS

REFERENCES

Lamoka

Date compatible with others for phase

Lamoka

Same as I-7098

Buckley 1976

Lamoka

Same as I-7098

Buckley 1976

Lamoka

Same as I-7098

Buckley 1976

Lamoka

Same as I-7098

Buckley 1976

Vestal

Date compatible with others for Vestal at Fortin & Camelot No. 2 sites

Vestal

Same as Dic-207

Buckley 1976

Charlotte

Date compatible with others for Normanskill points

Buckley 1976

Charlotte

Same as I-6739

Buckley 1976

Frost Island

Date compatible with most others for phase

Buckley 1976

Uncertain

Feature in area where zones pinching out, hence maybe intrusive from zone 2 into zone 7

Buckley 1976

Meadowood

Seems too old by ca. 200-300 years in view of other dates for phase

Buckley 1976

Kipp Island?

Date agrees with others for phase

Kipp Island

Same as I-6350

Kipp Island

Same as I-6350

Owasco

Date agrees with others for Early Owasco

Owasco

Too young; irregular shape of feature suggests contamination of sample by rodent activity

Not applicable

Dates initial deposit on top of old gravel bar near chute. On wood.

Not applicable

Dates initial deposit on top of old gravel bar in flood chute. On wood.

Not applicable

Dates initial deposit on top of old gravel bar in this area near river. On wood.

Kipp Island

Date unacceptable: at least 1300 years too old for associated materials

Kipp Island

Date compatible with others for Kipp Island but not with most dates for this level

?

Possibly from Owasco or Hunter's Home component, but date too early in comparison to others for level

Hunter's Home

Date seems too young by 100-200 years by comparison with other dates for phase unless two sigmas subtracted

Hunter's Home

Date acceptable for associated materials

Hunter's Home &'or Same as Dic-209 Carpenter Brook Hunter's Home &'or This date acceptable for a Hunter's Home component CarpenterBrook

159

Table 17. RADIOCARBON DATES FOR THE DATE AS REPORTED A.DJB.C. YEARSB.P.

LAB. NUMBER

900-ff-100

A.D. 1050-ff- 100 Dic-991

970-ff-210

A.D. 980-ff-210

SITE: Mattice No. 2 3330 B.C. 5280-ff-110

-ff-

QC-999

110 Dic-267

DIAGNOSTIC ARTIFACTS AND OTHER ASSOCIATIONS

PROVENIENCE Locus 3, occ. zone B, fea. 36

Levanna points

Locus 5, occ. zone A, fea. C

Small triangular point

Organic sand 2.5m below surface

None: pre-occupation

4490-ff-90

2540 B.C. -ff- 90

Dic-202

Occ. zone 1, fea. 44

Lamoka points in same level

4220-ff-85

2270 B.C. -ff- 85

Dic-280

Occ. zone 2, fea. 37

Lamoka points in same level Lamoka points in same level

3920-ff-100

1970 B.C. -ff- 100 Dic-134

Occ. zone 2, fea. 5

3920-ff-95

1970B.C. -ff-95

Dic-264

Occ. zone 3, midden

Lamoka points in same level

3670-ff-95

1720 B.C.

-ff-

95

Dic-279

Occ. zone 4, fea. 43

Vinette 1 sherds near feature; Lamoka-like pt. in same level

SITE: Munson 7040-ff-120 5090 B.C.

-ff-

120 Dic-248RR Organic sediments 2.2m below surface

SITE: Camelot No. I, Locus l 3425-ff-95 1475 B.C. -ff- 95

Netsinkers, flint chips in same level

I-6641

Zone 2, fea. 1

Susquehanna Broad points, etc.

I-6745

Zone 2, fea. 2

Fishtail-like points in & near feature

SITE: Camelot No. 1, Locus 2 1820-ff-95

A.D. 130-ff-95

SITE: Camelot No. 2, Locus I 2845 B.C . -ff- 230 GX-10460 Zone F, fea. 22 4795-ff-230

Brewerton Eared Triangle points

3240-ff-95

1290 B.C . -ff-95

1-6744

Zone D, fea. 1

Susquehanna Broad points, soapstone in & near feature

SITE: Camelot No. 2, Locus 2 3770-ff-95 1820B.C . -ff-95

Dic-111

Zone 3, lea. 28

Vestal points in & near feature

Organic sediment 3m below surface

None

SITE: Camelot Pond 10, 700-ff- 355 8750 B.C. -ff- 355 Dic-278

SITE: Crandall-Wells No date

No date

4355-ff-465

2405 B.C. -ff- 465 GX-9313 Organics in sand 110-115 cm None below surface

SITE: Rose Meander 1700-ff-165 A.D. 250-ff-165

SITE: Enck No. 1 5650-ff-95 3700 B.C. -ff- 95

GX-9311 Organics at 94-113 cm below surface

None

GX-9314 Organics at base of silts 2.5m below surface

None

Dic-164

None; pre-occupation

Organic sand 3.5m below surface

160

UPPER SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY (Cont'd) PHASE, COMPLEX OR TRADITION

REMARKS

?

Date acceptable for an Owasco or Hunter's Home component

?

Possibly from an Owasco component

Not applicable

Date on wood fragments; pollen study gives placement in C-1 zone

Lamoka

Date compatible with others for phase

Lamoka

Same as Dic-202

Lamoka

Same as Dic-202

Lamoka

Same as Dic-202

?

Date seems too old for sherds; from Late Archaic occupation?

Middle Archaic?

Sand & gravel contained wood, pine cones, butternuts, etc. Date on wood. Pollen indicates C zone position, compatible with date.

Frost Island

Date compatible with others for phase

Orient?

Date seems too young; charcoal from Middle Woodland component?

Brewerton

Date consistent with Laurentian dates in eastern NY & CT

Frost Island

Date compatible with others for phase

Vestal

Date compatible with Vestal dates at Fortin site

Not applicable

Under Mill Creek alluvial fan, across creek from Camelot No. 1 site. Pollen suggest C zone, incongruous with date. On wood.

Not applicable

Insufficient carbon for dating

Not applicable

Date applies to late stage of infilling of old river channel by Mill Creek fan . On leaves & charcoal

Not applicable

Date conforms to estimated age for T1 terrace. On leaves

Not applicable

Date on wood !rags. Deposit contained pine cones, leaves & pollen placed in the C-1 zone.

161

REFERENCES

Table 17. RADIOCARBON DATES FOR THE DATE AS REPORTED A.D.13.C. YEARSB.P.

LAB. NUMBER

4150-lf.170

2200 B.C. -If. 170 QC-1005 Floor 1, fea. 7

3250-lf. l 10

1300B.C. -lf.110 Dic-192

1685-lf. 245

A.D. 265-lf. 245

SITE: Enck No. 2 6490 B.C. -If. 95 8440-lf.95

DIAGNOSTIC ARTIFACTS AND OTHER ASSOCIATIONS

PROVENIENCE

Nothing diagnostic Just below floor 3, which produced a soapstone sherd, Susquehanna Broad points

Floor 2, fea. 6

GX-9310 Humus zone 1m below surface None

Organic sand 2.5m below surface

None; pre-occupation

5655-lf. 215

3705 B.C. -If. 2 15 GX-8675 Organic silt, 2.5m deep in trench 10

None; pre-occupation

5035-lf. 185

3085 B.C. -If. 185 GX-8674 Organic silt, 3m deep in trench 17

None; pre-occupation

Dic-266

3645-lf. 165

1695 B.C. -If. 165 GX-8676 Organic silt, base of trench 13 None; pre-occupation

4270-lf.130

2320B.C.-lf.130 QC-1006 Lfloor, fea. 14

3960-it'- 185

2010 B.C. -If. 185 Dic-110

Lfloor, fea. 12

Lamoka points in feature & same level

3830-lf.80

1880 B.C. -If. 80

Dic-117

S-V floor, fea. 2

Snook Kill points in feature, Vestal occupation at same level

SITE: Kuhr No. 1 7070 B.C. -If. 85 9020-lf.85

Dic-113

Blue grey organic sand 12' below surface

None; pre-occupation

Lamoka points in feature & same level

8970-lf.110

7020 B.C. -If. 110 Dic-120

Same as Dic-113

None; pre-occupation

3670-lf. 125

1720 B.C. -If. 125 Dic-644

L-1, fea. 166

Lamoka points in same level

4520-lf. 165

2570 B.C. -If. 165 Dic- 116

L-3, fea. 155

Lamoka point in hearth, others in same level

3910-lf.190

1960B.C.-lf.190 Dic-640

L-3, fea. 81

Lamoka points in same level

No date

No date

4280-lf. 105

L-3, fea. 148

Lamoka points in same level

2330B.C.-lf.105 I-7095

V-1, fea. 85

Vestal points in same level

Dic-1 12

4180-lf.100

2230B.C.-lf.100 Dic-641

V-2, lea. 153

Vestal points in same level

4130-lf.70

2180 B.C. -If. 70

V-2, fea. 142

Vestal points in same level

3880-lf.155

1930B.C.-lf.155 I-6732

V-2, lea. 14

Vestal points in feature & at same level

3620-lf. 130

1670B.C.-lf.1 30 I-6733

SK, fea. 71

Snook Kill points in same level

3500-lf. 105

1550 B.C. -If. 105 I-6751

S-2 , fea. 15

Susquehanna Broad points in level

3485-lf.90

1535 B.C. -If. 90

S-2, fea. 44

Susquehanna Broad points in level

3545-lf.100

1595 B.C. -If. 100 1-7096

2330-lf.85

380B.C.-lf.85

Dic-201

I-7094

S-2A, fea. 39

Susquehanna Broad points in levels above & below S-2A

W-1,fea.9

Vinette 1 sherds in feature, stemmed point in same level

SITE: Kuhr No. 2 1820 B.C. -If. 125 Dic-88 3770-lf.125

Zone 3, fea. 9

Brewerton Eared-Notched point in feature; nearby in zone were Normanskill, Vestal, Lamoka points & beveled adz

1955 B.C . -If. 125 I-6734

Zone 3, fea. 2

Lamoka points in & near feature

3905-lf. 125

I-7093

162

UPPER SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY (Cont'd) PHASE, COMPLEX OR TRADITION

REMARKS

?

Date seems too old in view of thin sedimentary interval between floor 1 & floors 2 & 3, both dated ca. 3200 B.P.

Frost Island

This would be an excellent date for the phase

Not applicable

Date consistent with the others in site sequence

Not applicable

Date on wood !rags. Sand contained leaves, twigs, pine cones, etc., but insufficient pollen for zonal placement

Not applicable

From south field. On leaves, wood.

Not applicable

From oxbow, north field. On leaves, wood.

Not applicable

From north field . On leaves, wood.

Lamoka

Date compatible with others for phase

Lamoka

Same as QC-1006

?

Though Snook Kill points associated with feature, the age better fits Vestal

Not applicable

Date on wood. Deposit contained wood, leaves, pine cones, etc. Pollen analysis gives B zone position.

Not applicable

Same as Dic-113

Lamoka

Date seems too recent for level

Lamoka

Date compatible with others for the Lamoka phase

Lamoka

Within one sigma, date compares well with those from Fortin, Mattice No. 2 & Enck No. 2 sites

Lamoka

Insufficient C for accurate dating

Vestal

Date seems old for Vestal, compared to dates from Fortin & Camelot No. 2 sites

Vestal

SameasI-7095

Vestal

Same as I-7095

Vestal

Within one sigma, date compares well with those for Vestal at Fortin & Camelot No. 2 sites

Snook Kill

Date compatible with other information on Snook Kill

Frost Island

Date seems 200-300 years too old as compared to those from Fortin, Camelot No. 2, Enck No. 1 sites

Frost Island

Same as I-6751

Frost Island

SameasI-6751

Bushkill

Date compatible with other information on Bushkill

Charlotte or Vestal

A good date for Vestal or Normanskill as compared to Fortin series

Lamoka

Date very compatible with Lamoka dates at other sites in region

163

REFERENCES

Table 17. RADIOCARBON DATES FOR THE DATE AS REPORTED YEARSB.P. A.Dl13.C.

LAB.

NUMBER

DIAGNOSTIC ARTIFACTS AND OTHER ASSOCIATIONS

PROVENIENCE

SITE: Sternberg 360-+/. 160 A.D. 1590-+/. 160 GX-10461 Log frag. 2m below surface

None

SITE: Gardepe Locus l

9380-+/.100

7430 B.C.-+/. 100

Dic-261

Zone 6, fea. 23

Bifurcated-base point in same zone

1820-+/. 55

A.D.130-+/.55

Dic-263

Zone4, lea. 4

Sand Hill Stemmed points, pottery in same zone

1660-+/.100

A.D. 290-+/. 100

Dic-249

Zone 3, fea. 1

Middle Woodland sherds, Sand Hill points, Jack's Reef & Levanna points

1400-+/.55

A.D. 550-+/.55

Dic-262

Zone 3, lea. 30

Lamoka point in fill; Early & Middle Woodland items also in zone

Dic-265

Zone 3, lea. 1

Meager cultural remains

SITE: Gardepe Locus 4 1890-+/. 55 A.D. 60-+/.55

Dic-275

Fea. 1, str. 3

No artifacts in feature. Plow zone produced meager cultural debris

SITE: Russ Locus l 4050-+/.190 2100B.C . -+/.190

QC-177

Fea. 1, base plow zone

Otter Creek point in disturbance near feature; Vestal points in plow zone near it

SITE: Russ Locus 2 13,860±790 11,910 B.C. ± 790 Dic-750

Fea. 84, Horizon 2

None (feature probably of natural origin)

SITE: Gardepe Locus 3

1230-+/.175

A.D. 720-+/. 175

11,710 ± 1330 9760 B.C. ± 1330 Dic-476

Fea. 61, Horizon 1

None (feature probably of natural origin)

9590-+/.980

7640 B.C. -+/. 980 Dic-751

Fea. 61, Horizon 1

None (feature probably of natural origin)

8220-+/.420

6270 B.C. -+/. 420 Dic-475

Fea. 21, 30-40 cm level Kanawha-like points, etc.

7960-+/. 215

6010B.C.-+/.215 Dic-473

Fea. 3, 20-30 cm level

7880-+/.145

5930 B.C.-+/. 145 Dic-474

Fea. 27, 50-60 cm level Side-notched & broad stemmed points

Kanawha-like points, etc.

6960-+/. 215

5010B.C . -+/.215 Dic-752

Fea. 67, 20-30 cm level Large corner notched points, etc.

4350-+/. l 70

2400 B.C.-+/. 170 QC-176

Fea. 30, base plow zone Vestal point in feature

4240-+/.60

2290 B.C.-+/. 60

Dic-478

Fea. 19, base plow zone Brewerton & Vestal points in plow zone near feature

4060-+/.70

2110 B.C.-+/. 70

Dic-477

Fea. 12, baseplowzone Same as Dic-478

4000-+/.80

2050 B.C.-+/. 80

Dic-753

Fea. 75, base plow zone Vestal & other late Archaic points in plow zone near feature

270-+/.70

A.D. 1680-+/. 70 px-11930 Fea. 89, base plow zone Charred corn, no artifacts

No date

No date

QC-175

Fea. 22

Neville-like points, etc.

SITE: Johnsen No. 3

9665-+/.550

7715 B.C.-+/. 550 GX-9311 Occ. zone I, midden

No diagnostics

8385-+/.230

6435 B.C. -+/. 230 GX-8206 Occ. zone I, midden

No diagnostics

9000-+/.230

7050 B.C. -+/. 230 GX-8224 Occ. zone H, lea. 6

No diagnostics

8735-+/. 210

6785 B.C.-+/. 210 GX-8207 Occ. zone H, fea. 14

No diagnostics

164

UPPER SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY (Cont'd) PHASE, COMPLEX OR TRADITION

Not applicable

REMARKS

Wood from youngest alluvial terrace (TO)

Early Archaic

Bifurcated-base point 4m from & deeper than !ea. 23

Middle Woodland?

N ct assigned to a particular phase

Middle Woodland

Not assigned to a particular Middle Woodland phase

Middle Woodland

Date falls within late Middle Woodland period

?

Indicator date only

?

May date a Middle Woodland component

Vestal?

Same as QC-176

Not applicable

Dated charcoal was from Horizon 2 in situ at 75 cm depth, NE backhoe trench. Stratigraphically below fea. 61 (Dic-4 76, 751) . Dates outwash terrace.

Not applicable

Dated charcoal was from Horizon 1 at 1. 7m depth, base of terrace T3

Not applicable

Within one sigma, overlaps with Dic-4 76

Early Archaic

Date compatible with transition from Kanawha to Neville/ Stanly

Early Archaic

Same as Dic-475

Early Archaic Early Archaic

Date consistent with stratigraphic position above lea. 3, 21, 27

Vestal

Date seems too old for Vestal compared with others for phase

Vestal?

Same as QC-1 76

Vestal?

Same as QC-176

Vestal?

Same as QC-176

Colonial? Early Archaic

Insufficient C for accurate reading

?

Date consistent with stratigraphy & other dates except GX-8206

?

Date seems 400-500 years too young for this deep level

Kirk?

Sample from just below Kirk level in occ. zones F, G

Kirk?

Sample from just below Kirk level in occ. zones F, G

165

REFERENCES

Table 17. RADIOCARBON DATES FOR THE DATE AS REPORTED A.D/B.C. YEARSB.P.

DIAGNOSTIC ARTIFACTS AND OTHER ASSOCIATIONS

LAB.

NUMBER

PROVENIENCE No diagnostics

8830-tl-210

6880B.C.-tl-210

GX-8223 Occ. zone E?, fea. 12

9140-tl-260

7190 B.C. -ti- 260

GX-8204 Occ. zone E, fea. 7

No diagnostics

8880-tl-255

6930 B.C. -ti- 255

GX-8205 Occ. zone D, midden

Kirk Stemmed points, etc.

8585-tl-190

6635 B.C. -ti- 190

GX-8225 Occ. zone D, fea. 19

Kirk Stemmed points, etc.

9040-tl-285

7090 B.C. -ti- 285

GX-11074 Occ. zone C, fea. 5

Corner-notched & stemmed points.

SITE:Egli 585-tl- 140

A.D. 1365 -ti- 140

GX-11931 Fea. 1, sec. W40N30

Carpenter Brook Cord on Cord Sherds

1320-tl-150

A.D630-tl-150

GX-11932 Fea. 5, str. 4, sec.WlONlO

Fox Creek point

SITE: Castle Gardens 4090-tl-100 2140B.C.-tl-100

Y-2347

Str. 2, fea. 2

Lamoka & Vestal points in feature

SITE: Cottage 1810-tl-100 A.D. 140 -tl-100

Y-2348

Str. 1, fea. 4

Side-notched & stemmed points, pottery

SITE: Vly Bog 760-tl-70

A.D. 1190-tl-70

Dic-499

50-75 cm depth

None

1640-tl-75

A.D.310-tl-75

Dic-500

.75-1.0 m depth

None

No date

No date

Dic-310

l.O-l.25mdepth

None

1290-tl-90

A.D. 660-tl-90

Dic-311

l. 25- l.5mdepth

None

5250-tl-85

3300 B.C. -ti- 85

Dic-312

4 .06-4.32 m depth

None

4840-tl-75

2890 B.C. -ti- 75

Dic-3 13

5.59-5.84 m depth

None

7180-tl-110

5230B.C.-tl-110

Dic-314

7.11-7.37 mdepth

None

SITE: Lake Misery 1330-tl-65 3280-tl-65

Dic-491

50-60" depth

None

1620-tl- 65

A.D. 330-tl-65

Dic-488

80-90" depth

None

1740-tl-60

A.D.210-tl-60

Dic-489

110-120" depth

None

2800-tl-100

A.D.850-tl- 100

Dic-496

140-150" depth

None

4550-tl-85

2600 B.C. -ti- 85

Dic-497

170-180" depth

None

8460-tl-115

6510B.C. -tl-115

Dic-498

230-240" depth

None

SITE: Mud Lake East 280B.C.-tl-85 2230-tl-85

Dic-490

90-100" depth

None

2510-tl-85

560B.C.-tl-85

Dic-308

130-140" depth

None

No date

No date

Dic-309

180-190" depth

None

Dic-276

Peat in sediments 3-5m below surface

None

SITE: Chamberlain Hill 1180 B.C. -ti- 55 3130-tl-55

166

UPPER SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY (Cont'd) PHASE, COMPLEX OR TRADITION

REMARKS

Kirk?

Between Kirk levels in occ. zones D and F

Kirk?

Same as GX-8204

Kirk?

Possible late Kirk phase component

Kirk?

Same as GX-8205

Kirk?

Same as GX-8205

Carpenter Brook

Date seems too young unless 1 or 2 sigmas added

Fox Creek

Date consistent with other dates for Fox Creek points, especially with one sigma added

Late Archaic

Date similar to others for Lamoka & Vestal in region

Early Middle Woodland

A good date for the Canoe Point phase

Not applicable

On peat

Not applicable

On peat

Not applicable

Insufficient C

Not applicable

On peat. Questionable; water in benzene

Not applicable

On peat

Not applicable

On peat

Not applicable

On peat

Not applicable

Rejected by lab; high H 3 (on peat)

Not applicable

On peat

Not applicable

On peat

Not applicable

On peat

Not applicable

On peat

Not applicable

O n peat

Not applicable

O n peat

Not applicable

On peat

Not applicable

Insufficient C

Not applicable

Date on wood. Pollen suggests C zone, compatible with date. From bed of old meander east of Enck farm

167

REFERENCES

Table 17 . RADIOCARBON DATES FOR THE DATE AS REPORTED YEARSB.P. A.DIB.C.

LAB.

NUMBER

DIAGNOSTIC ARTIFACTS AND OTHER ASSOCIATIONS

PROVENIENCE

SITE: Maple Terrace 2630-if'. 70

680B.C. -if'.70

SITE: Owens-Corning 5290-lf'.190 3340 B.C. -if'. 190

Dic-643

Fea. l

Meadowood points, Vinette l pottery in feature

GX-10459 Log frag. 3m below surface, contact fluvial gravels & lake clays

None

I-5524

Otter Creek points & other items in & near feature

SITE: McCulley No. 1 5730-if'.110

3780 B.C . -if'. 110

Fea. 2 & midden instr. 3

SITE: Engelbert 3850-if'. 140

1900 B.C. 140

Y-2618

Fea. 372A

Lamoka points in deposit

670-if'. 160

A.D. 1280-if'. 160

Y-2616

Fea. 239, burial 28

Oy;-asco pipe in feature

490-if'.100

A.D. 1460-if'.100

Y-2617

Fea. 716, burials82A, B

Shell-tempered pottery & copper items in feature

400-if'.100

A.D. 1550-if'. 100

Y-2615

Fea. 203, burial 8

Collared incised vessel in feature

I-5911

Fea. 1

No directly associated artifacts; Genesee points in plow zone

A.D. 360-if'. 100

I-3442

Fea. 1

Fox Creek points, net-marked pottery

A.D. 1340-if'. 65

Dic-642

Fea. B

Levanna points & corded pottery

I-4838

Str. 2, lea. 3

Fox Creek points, side-notched points, dentate & rocker-stamped pottery

SITE: Gravesen 470-if'.110

A. D.1480-if'.110

SITE: Fredenburg 1590-lf'. 100 SITE: Jarnba 610-if'.65

SITE: Davenport Creamery 1625-if'. 95 A.D. 325-if'.95

SITE: Davis 1195-if'.130

A.D. 755-if'. 130

GX-8226 Feature A, E6S4

Jack's Reef points, pottery, etc.

A.D. 905 -if'. 125

M-176

Burial 1

Levanna & Jack's Reef points, corded pottery on site

Y- 1534

Fea. 30

Levanna points, corded pottery in feature

SITE: White 1045-if'. 125

SITE: Roundtop 880-if'.60

A. D. 1070-if'.60

SITE: Bates 652-if'.100

A.D. 1298-if'. 100

M-672

Fea. 22

Pit contained potsherds, Levanna points

825-if'.100

A.D.1 125-if'. 100

I-425

Fea. 89

Corded pottery, other artifacts in pit

760-if'. 100

A.D. 11 90-if'.100

Y- 11 74

Feas. IA, lB, 80

Corded pottery, other artifacts in pit

168

UPPER SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY {Cont'd) PHASE, COMPLEX OR TRADITION

REMARKS

Meadowood

Date very compatible with others for phase

Not applicable

Indicates T2 age for terrace at Oneonta, believed to be T3 deposit

Proto-Laurentian

Date compatible with others for Otter Creek components in eastern New York

Lamoka

Date compatible with others for phase

Owasco

A good Middle to Late Owasco date

Susquehannock

Date plus one sigma compatible with early protohistoric period

Iroquois

Date compatible with protohistoric period

?

Possibly dates a transient Iroquois occupation

Fox C reek

A good date for the phase

Early to Middle Owasco

Date seems appropriate for Middle Owasco

Early Middle Woodland

Date consistent with transition from Canoe Point to Fox Creek phase

Kipp Island

Date very compatible with others for phase

Hunter's Home

A good date for the phase

Early Owasco

A good date for the phase

Middle Owasco

A good date for the component if one sigma subtracted

Middle O wasco

A good Middle Owasco date

Middle O wasco

Same as I-425

169

REFERENCES

Table 17. RADIOCARBON DATES FOR THE DATE AS REPORTED YEARSB.P. A.DA3.C.

LAB. NUMBER

DIAGNOSTIC ARTIFACTS AND OTHER ASSOCIATIONS

PROVENIENCE

SITE: Owego Southside Sewage Treatment Plant 2890-if- 165

940 B.C. -if- 165

Dic-1743

Fea. 01, sq. 2, 23

2460-if- 140

510B.C. -if-140

Dic-2027

Fea. 03, sq. 201

Soapstone in matrix near feature Meager cultural evidence

2430-if- 105

480B.C.-if-105

Dic-1745

Sq. 55

Soapstone & fishtail-like point in matrix near feature

1860-if-130

A.D.90-if-130

Dic-2026

Sq. 204f77

Meager cultural evidence

730-if-60

A.D. 1220-if-60

Dic-1744

Sq. 7/70

Owasco Corded Horizontal & incised pottery

670-if-55

A.D. 1280-if- 55

Dic-2029

Sq. 205'59

Owasco Corded Horizontal, Levanna Cord on Cord pottery

620-if-75

A.D.1330-if-75

Dic-1746

Sq. 57

Meager cultural evidence

460-if-50

A.D. 1490-if-50

Dic-2025

Fea. 01, sq. 117lower

Owasco Platted, Owasco Corded Horizontal pottery

411-if-55

A.D. 1539-if-55

Dic-2024

Fea. 01, sq. 117 upper

Madison pt., Owasco Platted, Owasco Corded Horizontal pottery

210-if-60

A.D.1740-if-60

Dic-2028

Fea. 01, sq. 195

Madison Point, Owasco Corded Horizontal pottery

SITE: Owego River Crossing (SUBI-677) 550-if-80 A.D. 1400-tf-80 Beta-9108 From shell midden

Mainly Owasco pottery in midden

750-if-70

A.D. -if-1200-tf-70 Beta-9109 Feature under shell layer

1060-if-70

A.D. 890-if-70

Beta-9110 From same feature

1100-if-60

A.D. 850-if-60

Beta-9111

620-tf-80

A.D. 1330-if-80

Beta-9112 Fea. assoc. dark midden

From same feature Corded (Owasco} sherds

SITE: Castle Creek 515-if-100

A.D. 1435-tf- 100

M-179

Fea. 138

Late Owasco sherds in pit

754-if-100

A.D. 1196-if-100

M-493

Fea. (not numbered}

Late Owasco sherds in pit

Meager cultural evidence

SITE: Emmons Bridge PIN 9750.24 3840-if-185

1890 B.C . -if- 185

GX-8820

Level 10, 90 cm deep

)285-if- 125

A.D. 665 -if- 125

GX-9769

Fea. l,El7S43,40-46cm Meager cultural evidence

460-if-125

A.D. 1490-if-125

GX-9770

Floor, W5S2 l, 50-60 cm Meager cultural evidence

1950-if-165

A.D.O-if-165

GX-8819

Level 2, W6S26, 40 cm

Meager cultural evidence

GX-8673

Basal peat 2.5m deep

None

SITE: Otego Creek 1045-if-120 A.D. 905 -if- 120

Table 17. Radiocarbon dates for the Upper Susquehanna Valley_ Includes dates for deposits with and without cultural associations. All dates are on charcoal unless otherwise noted. Dates are in radiocarbon years. 170

UPPER SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY (Cont'd) PHASE, COMPLEX OR TRADITION

REMARKS

REFERENCES

Orient?

Date compatible with Transitional origin

Versaggi, etaJ. 1982

Orient?

Date compatible with Early Woodland origin

Versaggi, etal. 1982

Orient?

Date seems late for Transitional origin

Versaggi, etal. 1982

?

Date compatible with early Middle Woodland origin

Versaggi, etal. 1982

Middle Owasco ?

Versaggi, etal. 1982

Middle Owasco ?

Versaggi, etaJ. 1982

Middle Owasco ?

Versaggi, etal. 1982

?

Pottery appropriate for Middle Owasco, but date seems too late

Versaggi, etaJ. 1982

?

Pottery of Middle Owasco types, but date seems too young

Versaggi, etaJ. 1982

?

Pottery of Middle Owasco affinity, date seems far too young

Versaggi, etal. 1982

Early Owasco

Date seems late for Early Owasco even if two sigmas subtracted

E. Curtin, personal

Owasco?

Date could apply to Early Owasco if one sigma subtracted

E. Curtin, personal

communication, 1985 communication, 1985 ?

E. Curtin, personal communication, 1985

?

E. Curtin, personal communication, 1985

Early Owasco

Date could apply to Early Owasco if two sigmas subtracted

E. Curtin, personal

communication, 1985

Late Owasco

Date seems late even if one sigma subtracted

Late Owasco

Date satisfactory if one sigma added

? ? ? ?

Not applicable

Dates Tl/TO terrace on creek

171

SOME HORIZONS AND HORIZON STYLES IN NORTHEASTERN PREHISTORY SOUTH - NORTH DISTRIBUTION

I

MIDDLE& COASTAL. LOWER DELAWARE NEW YORK VALLEY

I

MIDDLE& UPPER HUDSON VALLEY

I

I

·j

I

CHAMPLAIN ST. NORTHERN APPROX. TEMPORAL UPPER MAINE & BRUNSWICK NEW VALLEY LAWRENCE NEW & NOVA RANGE IN C- 14 YEARS VALLEY HAMPSHIRE SCOTIA

Levanna and Madison ooints,village horticulture.collared incised oottery?

A.D.

1450- 1600

Levanna ooints, villaae horticulture, corded "Owasco" pottery

A.D.

1100-1300

Jack's Reef points, Late Point Peninsula pottery , etc.

A.D.

600-900

Fo x Creek ooints, net- marked pottert_ __ _

A.D. 350-500

/dena-~iddlesex burial traits(Adena points, blocked-end_!~

Meadowood points, cache blades,Vinette 1 ootterv,etc.

--?

Orient Fishtail points, soaostone,Vinette 1 cattery ,etc. Susquehanna Broad points, soapst£_n~'tjn~t.!_e_1_p~~~y,etc.?

Perkiomen Broad ooints, point s reworked to

scraper~e_!c.

Snook Kill ( Koens-Crispin , Atlantic) points , points reworked to sc rapers, etc.

600-200

B.C .

1000-500 B.C . 1100- 750 8.C. 1500- 1200 B.C . 1600-1400 B.C. 1700- 1500 B.C.

Genesee points, points reworked tq,_ ~C~.E..e.rs . drill~ etc .

1800- 1700 B.C .

Normanskill points

1900-1700 B.C.

Bare Island ooints Wadina River points Lamoka ooints

Beekman Triangle point s Vosbura Corner- Notched points Brewerton Side-Notched ooints Brewerton Corner-Notched points Brewerton Eared-Notched points Brewerton Eared Triangle point s Otter Creek points, ground slates, gouge s. etc .

Neville/Stanly points Kirk Stemmed points

4000-3000

B.C .

5500-5000 B.C. ?

6500- 6000 B.C .

Bifurcated-base ooints (Lecrov, Kanawha , St. Albans, etc ..)

6500-6000

B.C.

Kirk Corner- Notched and Charleston _p2.!n~ _

7500- 7000 B.C .

Fluted coints, end scraper s, spurred scrapers, side scrapers , limaces etc.

9000-8000

B.C.

Figure 26. Some horizons and horizon styles in northeastern prehistory; south to north distribution. The solid bars represent the established presence of a trait or horizon (cluster of traits); dashed lines show its probable presence; question marksmeanthedataareweakorequivocalatbest.Approximateradiocarbon-datedtimerangesaregivenintherighthand column. There is no intention of obscuring the overall temporal continuity from one horizon to another, but considerable horizontal continuity is evident within restricted blocks of time. Note the tendency of horizons and horizon styles to fade out in northern fringes of the area.

172

Paleo-Indian (Paleo-hunter) Stage Fluted point sites are commonly elevated above floodplains and lowlands on drumlins, terraces, and hilltops; they are sometimes situated on second terraces that are occasionally covered by flood waters. The writer is not aware of any examples in the Northeast of Paleo-Indian sites incorporated in late-glacial sediments, or directly associated with and contemporaneous with the borders of glacial lakes. The terminal Pleistocene fluctuations in lake levels, apparently associated with many fluted point sites in the Upper Great Lakes (Storck 1979, 1984), were not characteristic of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. In these basins, glacial Lakes Whittlesey and Iroquois, and Lake Albany in the Hudson Valley, were gone before 10, 000 B.C. (Calkin 1970; Calkin and Miller 1977; Connally and Sirkin 1970, 1971, 1986; Dineen 1986). The Potts site near Oswego, New York (Ritchie 1965a; Gramly and Lothrop 1984) lies within the borders of glacial Lake Iroquois and therefore dates afterthe lake's demise. It is possible that some Paleo-Indian sites lie below the present margins of Lake Ontario, where low water levels temporarily exposed more land surface shortly after 11,000 B.P. (Roberts 1980, 1984). The Champlain Sea in the present Champlain Basin lasted until about 8500 B.C . and may have been contemporaneous with Late Paleo-Indian occupations (Ritchie 1953, 1957; Funk 1972; Loring 1980). No excavatable sites or isolatable components of this stage have been reported or located in the Upper Susquehanna Valley north of Pennsylvania. Only the Shoop site (Witthoft 1952; Cox 1972) is known in the lower valley. This site is situated atop a high hill in rugged uplands some miles from the river. No Paleo-Indian materials were located north of the state border by our field surveys or the highway salvage surveys conducted by the Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Binghamton. In combination, these surveys covered a wide range of the physiographic and ecological zones in the valley; kame deltas, kames, outwash, lake shores, bog margins, and floodplains were walked over and test-pitted on the valley floor, as well as on valley walls and uplands, all without the discovery of a single fluted point. The State Museum surveys seem especially instructive, since large segments of the outwash plain and other ancient sediments were thoroughly examined between Wells Bridge and Emmons. Specific localities include: the higher terrace at the Russ-Johnsen complex, which was extensively test-pitted by hand and backhoe-trenched in several places; the Gardepe site terrace and adjacent moraine, hand-excavated, test-pitted, and backhoe trenched; the oldest rises at the Kuhr farm, extensively test-pitted and also trenched with a backhoe; the highest (T3) terrace atthe Enck No. 2 site, again test-pitted and backhoe trenched; the outwash terrace at the Crandall-Wells-Camelot Farm locality, extensively test-pitted; a corresponding terrace remnant next to the Mattice No. 2 site tested by SUNY Binghamton salvage crews; and the next outwash terrace to the east on the Hendrick Farm, test-pitted by a number of investigators. The lack of subsurface remains of the fluted point-using groups is not surprising, since at least some of the outwash apparently post-dates Lake Otego and definitely pre-dates the present river system; a date on a charcoal lens 7 5 cm deep in the outwash terrace atthe Russ site was ca. 13, 860 B. P., and the next lowestterrace was dated at about 10, 000 B.P. Therefore, the Russ site outwash may be over 14, 000 years old, and this should hold true for all of the corresponding outwash deposits in the study area. It is perhaps more surprising that fluted points are not more abundant on the surface of these terraces (one such point was reportedly found by an amateur on this terrace at locus 1 of the Russ site) . It should be emphasized that despite the extensive exploration of outwash deposits throughout the study area and adjoining areas, nothing remotely resembling "Early Llthic" pre-fluted point industries was encountered, either on or below the surface. The same is true of other regions subjected to systematic survey, such as the Schoharie Valley (Wellman 1974, 1979; Wellman and Hartgen 1975; Weide, et al. 1976), the Mohawk Valley (Starna 1976), the Genesee Valley (Trubowitz 1977), and the Delaware Valley (Kinsey, et al. 1972). These negative results tend to support the conservative interpretation of the Timlin site "industry" as Late Archaic in age, and renders it highly unlikely that pre-fluted point sites will be found in the glaciated Northeast. Where to look for fluted point sites? The present surfaces of kame deltas, moraines, and outwash terraces would be good places to continue to look for such sites. These landforms have already produced scattered finds of fluted points (described passim) . Little-explored localities where early sites may also be found include higher valley slopes as well as uplands (bogs, summit knolls, saddles, rockshelters). That unrealized potential may exist at high elevations is suggested by the "bear wallow" sites in the mountains of West Virginia and other southern states (Wilkins 1978). If such sites exist in New York, it is difficult to understand why none has been discovered by amateur archaeologists or construction activities, since a number of upland sites of the Archaic and Woodland stages have been known for decades. Despite our failure to find Paleo-Indian materials in situ, Paleo-Indians were certainly present in the Upper Valley, as evidenced by scattered finds of fluted projectile points and occasional uniface tools suggestive of Paleo-Indian forms. Forty-one fluted points are on record for the Upper Susquehanna in New York State (Wellman 1982). More are known to exist but some have not been formally recorded. The tally of 41 is presented with accompanying information in Table 18. The primary sources are Ritchie (1957) and Whitney (1977) . Broken down by counties, the numbers are: Chemung-! Tioga-2

173

Broome-3 Chenango- 1 Otsego- 16 Madison-2 Delaware-2 These totals do not include all of the points reported by Whitney ( 1977), since three of those he described and illustrated are very probably Jac k's Reef Pentagonal points, much younger in age than fluted points; a fourth lanceolate object appears to be a biface preform, not necessarily of Paleo-Indian origin. There is also some reason to dou btthe Paleo-Indian attribution of a few other points in Whitney's sample that do, however, appear on Table 18. For example No. 15 is trianguloid, rather than lanceolate, is fluted on only one face, and lacks grinding. No. 18 is also trianguloid and straight-based rather than inde nted-based, with a relatively short channel flake scar on only one face, and it also lacks grinding. No. 20 is very small, again with a channel flake scar on just one face, straight-based and not ground. AB noted below, No. 39 is also not a typical fluted point. The measurements for the specimens numbered 12 through 40 are regarded as approximate, because they are taken from the full-scale drawings by Whitney ( 19 77) using calipers. Thickness measurements are almost invariably absent from this group. Some of the Upper Susquehanna fluted points may have been associated with other Paleo-Indian artifacts in small surface assemblages despite the evidence for multiple occupancy of most sites. One such locality is atthe outlet of Nine Mile Swamp, an area where numerous sites including some of Archaic and Iroquois affiliation have been investigated by the Chenango Chapter, New York StateArcheological ABsociation. The south side of the outlet produced two small fluted points (Nos. 29 and 30 in Table 18) and three scrapers reminiscent of Paleo-Indian forms. One end scraper is on an expanding flake, 3 7 mm long and 33 mm wide with a graving spur at the left comer of the bit. A second end scraper on a similar flake is 27 mm long (from striking platform to bit) and 27 mm wide and has a graving spur at each front comer. The side scraper is 59 mm long and 34 mm wide with one retouched working edge. A field on the Miner Farm over looking the Chenango River near N orW:ich has yielded three lanceolate-sha ped fluted points (Nos. 33, 34, 35 on Table 18) and one pentagonoid-shaped fluted point. These were scattered finds, and no other implements suggesting Paleo-Indian affiliation have been reported (Whitney 1977) . A probable small Paleo-Indian encampment was located on an upland brook that flows into Cherry Valley Creek, in Otsego county (Plate 7) . During commercial removal of a small knoll for gravel in 1983 Martha Mott discovered a complete fluted point of gray chert that had apparently fallen from the knoll's crest into the gravel pit (No. 41 on Table 18) . The site was reported by Michael Whaling who also found two secondary flakes of the same gray chert. He and the writer subsequently investigated the locality, but no additional material was observed in the humus that thinly covered the intact portions of the knoll. Brief exploration of surrounding terrain failed to disclose traces of occupancy. The knoll has since been destroyed. Another possible component was found by Gordon and Graydon Ballard on a farm across the Susquehanna River from Bainbridge. The collection includes the fluted points numbered 39 and 40 on Table 18. Point No. 39 is much less convincing than No. 40 because it is triangular in form, lacks both grinding and an incurvate base, and has very short flake scars rather than flutes near the base. Nevertheless, both points occurred in a large field with approximately 156 flakes of red, yellow, and brown Pennsylvania jasper, 3 large retouched flake scrapers of jasper, l largejasper biface and 2 fragments of another large biface, also of jasper. The first side scraper as described by Whitney (1977) consists of a rectanguloid flake about 84 mm long and 43 mm broad, with a short unifacially retouched working edge near midpoint of one lateral edge. The second tool, on an irregular flake measuring 84 mm long and 65 mm wide, displays a short, concave retouched working edge implying use as a spokeshave. The third item is a long, narrow curved flake or flake-blade, 98 mm in length and 37 mm in width. About half of the incurvate long edge is unifacially retouched and a short portion of the other long edge is also retouched. The fragmentary large biface was about 53 mm wide and Whitney's reconstruction implies an original length of about 105 mm. Roughly bipointed in shape with a predominance of large, broad flake scars and measuring 120 mm long, 65 mm wide, the whole biface may have been a preform. Although the site is multicomponent, the typology and lithology of the jasper pieces, found distributed over a considerable area , strongly suggest their origin in a Paleo-Indian occupation. Also probably of Paleo-Indian age are yellow and brown jasper artifacts from an upland farm in the Upper Delaware drainage (Frank Schambach, personal communication 1979) . The general distribution of fluted points in the drainage, and the detailed locational data on some, conformed closely to the patterns described by Ritchie ( 195 7, l 965a). With rare exceptions fluted points were concentrated along major rivers and their tributaries, on terraces and knolls elevated above the modem floodplain . Two were found on a rise some eight meters above Canadarago Lake. Data on lithic materials are available for 35 of the Upper Susquehanna fluted points. Ritchie ( 1957) had such data for 81 New York points, 1 including 11 of those on Table 18. In general, the same specific types of materials are represented in both samples. Local New York lithic materials predominated (79 and 7 4 percent, respectively). Next most frequent was jasper, probably of the eastern Pennsylvania variety(8 .8and l 3.6percent). Less frequent was Upper Mercer, Ohio, chert (2 .9and 7.4percent). Deepkill or Normanskill chert and western New York Onondaga chert were the most abundant varieties imported into the Upper 174

Susquehanna from other parts of the State. Little Falls dolomite, Leray chert, and Fort Ann chert, present in small quantities in Ritchie's sample, were absent from the Susquehanna sample. The Susquehanna sample of fluted points shows considerable variation in size and shape, implying a range of functional differences. It is quite similar to Ritchie's sample in this respect. The points range from short, stubby examples, some probably resharpened from once longer points broken in use, to large , lanceolate specimens. The range in length is from 27 to 96 mm. Width varies from 18 to 38 mm. The great majority have the familiar lanceolate form with concave base and 12 have slight to prominent ears at the basal corners, either produced by a constriction of the lower edges or by the chipping of deliberately projecting ears. Nearly all show grinding, usually on both lower edges and base, ranging from very slight to heavy. There are no data on possible signs of use-wear except for the tip impact fracture noted by Whitney for specimen number 25. Fluting was present on both faces in 29 examples, and on one face in 10 cases. One specimen is unfluted but possesses the form and grinding attributes offl uted points; thus it resembles the Late Paleo-Indian Quad type of the Southeast. Anotherspecimen was too fragmentary to determine whether or not both faces were fluted. The length of the channel flake scars on the 39 fluted points varied considerably, from very short flake scars similar to basal thinning to long scars reaching almost to the tip. On 15 points the "Enterline" or multiple fluting technique was apparently employed, on at least one face. Two of the medium-sized points are pentagonal in outline and closely resemble some of the Late Paleo-Indian points from the Reagen site in Vermont (Ritchie 1953, 1957). Undoubtedly much of the formal and metrical variability of northeastern fluted points will prove to have temporal and functional significance; also some geographic variants may eventually be isolated in addition to those now recognized in southern Ontario, Maine, and Nova Scotia (Roosa and Deller 1982 ; Storck 1979, 1984; Deller and Ellis 1984; Gramly 1982; Gramly and Funk 1990; MacDonald 1968). The oldest of the several forms was probably the larger, lanceolate, "Clovis" or "Enterline" variant with straight or slightly constricted lateral edges and a concave base with bifacial fluting evidenced as single or multiple channel flake scars extending one-third to one-half the length from base to tip. Later forms were more diverse, probably including short, stubby points with fully fluted faces (some resembling the western type, Folsom Fluted), some longer points with full flutes including Cumberland-like points with constricted or "fishtailed" lower edges, and points with full or partial fluting and eared bases. All of these points had incurvate bases. Much less common but also probably late were short, broad points with convex edges, straight or slightly indented bases and short flutes grading into long basal thinning flakes. The lanceolate form with deeply indented base and long" ears" that characterized the Vail and Debert sites (Gramly 1982; MacDonald 1968) is rare in New York State. Several occurred in a small assemblage recently investigated at the Lamb site in western New York (R.M. Gramly, personal communications 1985-1986) . It is likely that these various fluted styles overlapped in time but occurred as clusters that constituted two basic stages in Early PaleoIndian development. A third stage, generally referred to as Late Paleo-Indian, was represented by the fluted and unfluted lanceolate or pentagonal points in the Reagen site assemblage, rarely seen in surface collections from New York; the two pentagonal points in Table 18 are examples. Gramly and Funk (1990) have postulated a stylistic sequence of "Shoop-Debert," "Cumberland-Barnes," and "Crowfield" that may be applicable over most of the Northeast. This sequence is not well-supported by the C-14 dates available for northeastern Paleo-Indian, which vary widely from 12,530 B.P. at Dutchess Quarry Cave No. 1 (Funk, etal. 1970) through about 8600 B. P. atthe Bull Brook II site (Grimes, et al. 1984; Moeller 1980; Gramly and Funk 1990). The chronology is further confused by wide variation in dates for particular sites, either from sample to sample or from laboratory to laboratory (Haynes, et al. 1984). Rare specimens of Late Paleo-Indian Agate Basin and Eden type points occur throughout the Northeast in surface collections or, even more rarely, in subsurface contexts (Ritchie 1940: 71, l 965a: 16-19; Funk and Schambach 1964; Kraft 1973), but none of these "Plano" types has been recorded in the Upper Susquehanna Valley. With the exception of the Reagen site, no other Late Paleo-Indian components have been found or excavated in New York or New England (Ritchie 1953).

Early and Middle Archaic (Forager Formative) Stages The extreme paucity of cultural remains noted for the Late Paleo-Indian stage in the Northeast continues into the earliest Archaic. By contrast, Early Archaic traces are relatively abundant in the southeastern and midwestern United States. This discussion necessarily emphasizes projectile point types, since they are the only known diagnostic traits for very early Archaic complexes. Very rare finds of Dalton points, Hardaway points, and Palmer points, types that have been C -14 dated a bout 8000 B. C. in the Southeast and Midwest (Coe 1964; Broyles 1971 ; Griffin 1974; Tuck 197 4), have been reported throughout the Northeast (Ritchie and Funk 1971, 1973; Funk 1976, 1977a, 1979, 1983; Brennan 1977; Dincauze and Mulholland 1977; Nicholas 1987). Most of these items were surface finds. A mere handful of these points have been excavated from undisturbed subsurface contexts on Staten Island (Ritchie and Funk 1971) and in the lower Hudson Valley (Brennan 1977; Tompkins and DiMaria 1979) . None have yet been found in situ in the Upper Susquehanna region. 2 175

Table 18. PALEO-HUNTER PROJECTILE POINTS FROM THE No.

Source

County

Location

Terrain

Associations

Material

Ritchie (1957)

Chemung

Near Horseheads

Yellow jasper

2

Ritchie (1957)

Tioga

Near Nichols

Gray Onondaga chert

3

Ritchie (1957)

Tioga

Near Nichols

Mottled dark blue chert

4

Ritchie (1957)

Broome

Kirkwood twp., Binghamton State Hospital

5

Ritchie (1957)

Broome

Union twp. between Willow Point & Vestal

Mottled gray Onondaga chert

6

Ritchie (1957)

Broome

At or near Windsor on Susquehanna River

Gray chert

7

Ritchie (1957)

Chenango Near Bainbridge

8

Ritchie (1957)

Otsego

T. Bishop Farm near Portlandville

Along brook draining into Susquehanna

9

Ritchie (1957)

Otsego

Richfield twp., Canadarago Lake

Knoll near lake

A second similar point from same field

Dark gray Onondaga chert

10

Ritchie (1957)

Otsego

Richfield twp., Canadarago Lake

Knoll near lake

Thin scatter of later artifacts

Dark gray Onondaga chert

11

Ritchie (1957)

Otsego

East bank Oaks Creek

Low ground near swale

Thin scatter of later artifacts

Mottled tan & gray western N.Y. Onondaga chert

12

Whitney ( 1977)

Madison

Near West Edmeston on Spooner farm

W. side Unadilla River on 15' terrace

Dark brown chert

13

Whitney (1977)

Madison

Near Yaw Bridge on Former Long Farm

Tongue of land above Confluence of Beaver Creek & Unadilla River

Gray Onondaga chert

14

Whitney (1977)

Otsego

Near W. Edmeston on Felton Farm

On terrace above Unadilla River

Gray-brown Onondaga chert

15

Whitney ( 1977)

Otsego

Near W. Edmeston on Rogers Farm

-------

Gray Onondaga chert

16

Whitney ( 1977)

Otsego

Near Yaw bridge on Howard farm

Tongue of land confluence of Beaver Creek & Unadilla River

Mottled gray Onondaga chert

High terrace near Susquehanna River

Mottled gray & brown Onondaga chert

17

Whitney (1977)

Otsego

Near Butternut Creek

18

Whitney ( 1977)

Otsego

Unadilla Valley

19

Whitney ( 1977)

Otsego

Unadilla Valley

20

Whitney (1977)

Otsego

Near Yaw Bridge on Howard Farm

Tongue of land above junction of Unadilla River & Beaver Creek

21

Whitney ( 1977)

Otsego

Gregory Farm

Aridge between Unadilla River & Silver Lake

22

Whitney ( 1977)

Otsego

Junction of Unadilla River & Susquehanna on Hotaling Farm

Brown jasper

Gray-brown Onondaga chert Gray Onondaga chert

176

UPPER SUSQUEHANNA DRAINAGE, NEW YORK STATE Size(inmm) w T L

Form

Fluting

Grinding

Collection

Condition

70

27

--

Lower edges incurvate (slightly eared)

Both faces, ca. 1/3, 1/2 Multiple on latter face

Lower edges to base

DeWitt Historical Society (Ithaca)

Complete

66.5

28

- -

Parallel-sided lower half, incurved base, s l. eared

Both faces , ca. 11J, :f3

Slight on base

F. Disinger

Complete

66

32

-- Lanceolate, irreg. base

Both faces, ca. 1/2. l/s (multiple on former)

Lower edges

F. Disinger

Complete

38

21

--

Lower 1/2 parallel-sided; upper l/neworked?

Nearly full & multiple both faces

Lower edges & base

F. Disinger

Complete

36

--

Parallel-sided

Full on both faces

Lower edges & base

F. Disinger

Basalfrag.

78

30

- -

Parallel-sided

Both faces, ca. 1/3

---- - -

M. Mallery

Complete

--

--

--

Parallel-sided

Both faces

Slight on base

M. Howe Coll., Colgate Univ.

Basalfrag.

84 32.5

9 .5

Lower 1/2 parallel-sided, base incurvate

Both faces, 1/2 & full

Slight on lower sides &base

R. Spraker

Complete

Lower edges sl. incurvate (eared)

Full on both faces

Slight on base & lower edges

L. Mclean

Complete

Parallel-sided, incurved base

Full on both faces

-- --- -

L. McLean

Complete

-- - ---

Lower edges & base

L. McLean

Basal portion

- -

52

27

6

--

--

--

--

--

-- Parallel-sided, incurved base

47

25

- -

Parallel-sided, incurved base; reworked tip?

Both faces; ca. 1f2 & 1/4. multiple on former

Lower edges & base

R. Hallock

Complete

51

25

--

Pentagonoid outline, sl. incurved base

One face , double fluted

Lower edges & base

J. Stillman

Complete

38

23

-- Pentagonoid outline,

Both faces, ca. 1/2. 1/2, multiple on one , single on other

Lower edges & base

N. Talbot

Complete

incurved base 31

21

- -

Trianguloid outline , sl. eared, sl. incurved base

One face :V3. other merely thinned

- ------

Former Van Hoesencoll.

Complete

96

33

--

Lanceolate, incurved base

Both faces :V3. :f3. possibly multiple on one

Lower edges & base

F. J. Hesse

Complete

38

22

--

Stubby (reworked?), eared

Both faces ca. 1/3. full

-- - ---

F. J. Hesse

Complete

42

22

--

Trianguloid, straight base

O ne face 1/3

- --- --

F. J. Hesse

Complete

- -

33

- -

Lanceolate incurved base

O ne face (2 adjoining scars), striking platform center of base

None

F. J. Hesse

Basal portion

27

23

--

Stubby, pentagonoid

O ne face 1/2

None

F. J. Hesse

Complete

59+

27

- -

Parallel-sided, incurved base

Full on both faces

Lower edges & base

L. Taylor

Tip & one basal corner missing

38

22

- -

Incurved base

Both faces ca. 1/2. :¥., multiple on 1, 2 overlapped scars on other

Lower edges & base

F. J. Hesse

Complete

177

Table 18. PALEO-HUNTER No.

Source

County

Location

Terrain

Associations

Material

23 Whitney ( 1977)

Otsego

Near Unadilla Village

Knoll V2 mile from Susquehanna River

---- - -

------

24 Whitney (1977)

Otsego

West Oneonta, Spencer Farm

------

-- ----

Exotic light gray chert with dark streaks

25 Whitney ( 1977)

Chenango Near New Berlin on Turner Farm

High terrace near Unadilla River

- --- --

Mottled & gray O nondaga chert

26 Whitney ( 1977)

Chenango South of New Berlin

Knoll near Unadilla River

------

Glossy black chert

27 Whitney ( 1977)

Chenango Earlville village, NowersFarm

Knoll on East side Chenango River

-- ----

Glossy black chert

28 Whitney ( 1977)

C henango East branch Chenango Knoll near East branch Chenango River River , Reynolds farm

- - - ---

Green Normanskill chert

29 Whitney ( 1977)

Chenango East branch of C henango River

Terrace on outlet of Nine Mile Swamp

Site also produced No. Gray O nondaga chert 30 plus 3 possibly associated scrapers

30 Whitney ( 1977)

C henango East branch of C henango River

Terrace on outlet of Nine Mile Swamp

Site also produced No. Gray Onondaga chert 29 plus 3 possibly associated scrapers

3 1 Whitney ( 1977)

Chenango North Norwich, Wilcox Near Chenango River Farm

---- --

Gray Onondaga chert

32 Whitney ( 1977)

C henango

Norwich , Jamba property

Low ridge on or just above Chenango River

------

Gray Onondaga chert

33 Whitney ( 1977)

C henango

Near Norwich on Miner Farm

Near C henango River

Other fluted pts. same Jet black chert farm , Nos. 34, 35 , 36

34 Whitney ( 1977)

Chenango Same as above

Same as above

------

Light colored chert

35 Whitney ( 1977)

Chenango Same as above

Same as above

------

Gray Onondaga chert

36 Whitney (1977)

C henango Same as above

Same as above

-- ----

Glossy black chert

37 Whitney ( 1977)

C henango Great Brook in Unadilla Valley

-- - -- -

------

Gray Onondaga chert

38 Whitney ( 1977)

C henango H ome farm on Great Brook

- -- - --

---- --

Glossy black chert

39 Whitney ( 1977)

Delaware

East Side of Susquehanna River opposite Bainbridge

Terrace above river floodplain

Multicomponent site; Gray Onondaga chert large jasper flakes also found

40 Whitney ( 1977)

Delaware

East Side of Susquehanna River opposite Bainbridge

Terrace above flood plain

Same as above

Branch of Pleasant Brook

Upland knoll near creek Two secondary flakes from locus

4 1 M. Whaling Otsego (personal communication, 1983)

178

Yellow-brown jasper

Gray Onondaga? chert

PROJECTILE POINTS (Cont'd) Size(inmm) w T L

Form

Grinding

Fluting

Collection

Condition

--

38

-- - - - - - -

One face

Edges ground

Gordon Ballard

Midsection fragment

68

29

-- Lanceolate, incurved base

Full on one face, ¥. on other

Lower edges & base

F. Chesebro

Complete

33

18

--

Slightly incurved lower edges forming ears, incurved base

Full on one face

Lower edges & base

L. Taylor

Tip impact fracture

50+

29

6

Lanceolate, incurved base

Both faces· Cd . :;/3, :;/3 multiple on one, single broad scar on other

Lower edges & base

E. Brodie

Tip missing

63+

30

--

Lanceolate, incurved base, sl. eared

Full on both faces

Lower edges & base

R. Bigford

Tip missing

--

34

--

------

Both faces

Both edges

R. Bigford

Midsection fragment

37

22

-- Stubby, eared, incurved

Both faces Cd. :VJ, ¥•. Both multiple

Lower edges & base

R.Garito

Complete

base (reworked?)

Lower edges & base

R. Garito

Complete

¥•. one

21

20

--

Stubby, reworked, slightly incurved base

Both faces multiple

36

23

--

Lanceolate, incurved base

Both faces full, both multiple

Lower edges & base

T. Whitney

Complete

--

--

--

Probably lanceolate, incurved base

Both faces

Lower edges & base

S. Gibson

Basal fragment

43

23

--

Lanceolate, eared

Full on both faces, one multiple

Lower edges & base

T. Whitney

Complete

37

23

--

Lanceolate, slightly eared

Full on one face

None

S. Gibson

Complete

54

24

--

Lanceolate, eared

None (resembles Quad type)

Lower edges & base

S. Gibson

Complete

35

21

--

Pentagonal (reworked?), slightly incurved base

Full & multiple on one face

Lower edges & base

S. Gibson

Complete

90

28

--

Lanceolate, sl. indented lower edges, eared,

Both faces :;/3 & full

Lower edges & base

I.Stillman

Complete

--

25

--

Lanceolate, slightly, incurved base

Both faces. At base one face shows bevel for striking platform

Lower edges & base

M. Brooks

Basal Half

32

20

--

Triangular, slightly indented base

Short broad flakes from each face, Cd. 1/3

None

Graydon Ballard

Complete

36

22

--

Lanceolate, straight base

Multiple fluted to ¥. length one face; only thinned other face

Lower edges & base

Graydon Ballard

Complete

65

26

--

Lanceolate, sl. constricted Full on one face, nearly lower edges, sl. eared, with full on other indented base

Lower edges & base

M.Mott

Complete

Cd .

incurved base

179

Types that are later in the southeastern sequences (dated between 8000 and 4000 B.C.) are slightly more common in the Northeast and include Kirk Stemmed, Kirk Corner-Notched, Charleston, MacCorkle, Kanawha, LeCroy, St. Albans, Stanly, Morrow Mountain, and variants of these including Neville and Stark (Ritchie and Funk 1971 ; Funk 1977 a, l 978a, 1979, 1983; Kraft 1975a; Brennan 1977 ; Dincauze 1976; Wright 1978; Starbuck and Bolian 1980; Thomas and Robinson 1980). A probable Kirk zone at the Richmond Hill site, Staten Island, was dated 7 410 B.C. (Ritchie and Funk 1971) . Kirk-like points were also dated ca. 7000 B.C. at the Johnsen No. 3 site in the Susquehanna Valley. Kirk Stemmed points have been dated to a bout 53005600 B.C. at the Harry's Farm and Rocklein sites in the Upper Delaware Valley (Kraft l 975a; Dumont and Dumont 1979). The bifurcates (MacCorkle, Kanawha, LeCroy, St. Albans and untyped forms) are more abundant than all the older types and constitute significant minorities in many collections. In the writer's study of 8500 points from the Hudson Valley (Funk 1976) only 52 or 0. 6 percent were assigned to the various bifurcated-base types that are dated to a bout 6000-6500 B.C. in West Virginia and Tennessee (Broyles 1971 ; Chapman l 976a, 1977). A roughly equivalent n um berof Neville points (very similar to Stanly points) were also represented, though not recognized as a type at the time the writer prepared his report. Only one date attributable to a bifurcated-base point has been obtained in upstate New York; the reading is 5185 B.C .± 200 years (SI-2638) and was assayed on charcoal from a pit at the Harrisena site near Lake George (Snow 1977). At the Weirs Beach site in New Hampshire, an indented-based point showing some resemblance to the MacCorkle type (Broyles 1971) was found in a feature C-14 dated 5365 B.C. ± 195 years (Bolian 1980) . Overlying levels, not dated, produced Neville and Stark points.

Plate 7 . View of Pleasant Brook site during examination, looking northeast. Small, narrow-crested knoll was completely destroyed by gravel removal shortly after photograph was taken.

180

A Neville zone at Dill Farm, Connecticut was underlain by a zone that produced bifurcated-base points. Two age readings on the bifurcate level were 6610 B.C. ± 260years and 5770 B.C. ± 270years (J. Pfeiffer 1986). Several dates ranging from7 a. 5300to 6300 B.C. were attributed to bifurcates on Staten Island (Ritchie and Funk 1971, 1973). NevillepointshavebeenC-14datedbetween5600and5000B.C.attheNevillesite,NewHampshire(Dincauzel976),and 5350 B.C . atthe Dill Farm, Connecticut (J. Pfeiffer 1986) . In the Hudson Valley the type has been dated 5220 B.C . ± 225years (GX-11448) at the North Bowdoin Rockshelter (Funk 1989), and 4875 B.C. ± 325 years (GX-11447) at the Muddy Brook Rockshelter (Tompkins and DiMaria 1979; Funk 1989) . Similar points suggesting an intermediate morphological step between the Kanawha and Neville types were found in the vicinity of two hearths dated ca. 6000 B.C. at the Russ site, Wells Bridge, N.Y. (See Vol. 2). 3 Stark points have not so far been placed in cultural and chronological context in New York; they dated to around 5000-4000 B.C. at the Neville site. Their stylistic ties are with Morrow Mountain points, a Middle Archaic type in the Carolina Piedmont (Coe 1964) . Neville and Stark points may be horizon styles that mark the end of the Early to Middle Archaic throughout the Northeast; however, we may expect a few surprises. For example Dincauze ( 1976) defined the late Middle Archaic Merrimack type point in the Neville site collection; these points were dated ca. 4000 B. C. Though of Middle Archaic age they appear morphologicallyvery similar to the small stemmed points of Late Archaic age. They have not yet been reported from sealed and dated Middle Archaic contexts elsewhere in the Northeast. Substantial closed sites of Early to Middle Archaic affiliation have proved very difficult to locate in the Northeast. Almost without exception the excavated components, even those on stratified sites, have produced rather small artifact samples, few if any radiocarbon dates, and negligible amounts of subsistence remains. Fair quantities of food refuse and botanical remains were present in Early Archaic levels at the Meadowcroft Rockshelter in western Pennsylvania (Adovasio, et al. 1975, 1977; Carlisle and Adovasio 1982); subsistence remains and paleoenvironmental data were also recovered from deep levels at Sheep Rockshelter, central Pennsylvania (Michels and Smith 1967; Michels and Dutt 1968). But Early Archaic artifacts were meagerly represented on both sites. The first subsurface sites of this stage to be found and excavated in New York State were the Hollowell, Ward's Point, Richmond Hill, and Old Place sites on Staten Island (Ritchie and Funk 1971); the investigators were Donald Hollowell, Albert J. Anderson, Donald Sainz, and Joseph Bodnar, all nonprofessional archaeologists. No similar concentration of sites has been reported for upstate New York or New England, although such may be found at promising localities such as Lake Winnepesaukee, New Hampshire (Bolian 1980) or Munsungan Lake in Maine (Robson Bonnichsen, personal communication 1980). Possible reasons for the scarcity of Early Archaic sites will be discussed on later pages. Through 1973 no undisturbed components of the stage had been located or reported in upstate New York; the Neville site was atthattime the oldest dated Archaic site in New England (Dincauze 1971) . There was reason to believe that early sites would be discovered in the Upper Susquehanna drainage, because projectile points similar to such southeastern types as Kirk and the bifurcated-base series were occasionally seen in surface collections . During a 1962 inspection of the proposed route of Interstate 81 from Syracuse to Binghamton, Fr~nk F. Schambach and the writer saw about 50 Early Archaic projectile points in a collection mounted on a wall in the American Legion Hall, in the village of Whitney Point. This village lies along the Tioughnioga River, a Susquehanna tributary. There were no data on the exact provenience of the finds, but it appeared likely that many of them came from a large, debitage-strewn field within the village near the river. The early points, of gray Onondaga chert, were relatively large, thick, and broad; most were corner-notched and many of these were bifurcated-based. A few had serrated edges. Unfortunately an hour-long walkover of the plowed field failed to disclose any examples of these types or any other diagnostic items. The richest concentration known in the drainage occurred at the multi-component Stewart-Fuller site in the Chenango Valley, which has produced at least 75 bifurcates from the surface or plow zone (Whitney 1972 and personal communications). Lamoka, Brewerton, Orient Fishtail and other relatively young point types plus potsherds have also been found on the site. Of 34 bifurcated-basepointsillustratedbyWhitney,about5conformtotheLeCroytype,25totheKanawhatype,and3totheMacCorkle type. All of these types were illustrated by Broyles (1971) from the St. Albans site, West Virginia. Other Early Archaic projectile points occurred in the collection of the late Jesse Benton, of Binghamton, N.Y. Most of these were found between Binghamton and Bainbridge, on or near the Susquehanna River. A majority were fashioned of locally available Onondaga chert. They were widely distributed over a number of surface sites and the writer identified them from a very large number of points, representing many different periods, in the collection. Of 464 7 points examined, only 48 were either definitely or possibly of Early to Middle Archaic age; these comprised just one percent of the total (Plate 8) . Late Archaic types overwhelmingly predominated. The group of early points (Plate 8) includes 5 Kirk Stemmed points; 1 possible Kirk Stemmed point; 1 possible Kirk CornerNotched point; 2 Palmer-like points; 4 bifurcated-base points; 1 Kanawha-like point; several possible bifurcates with bases missing; 1 Stanly-like point; 2 Neville points; 1 Neville-like point; and various broad stemmed and b;road corner-notched points somewhat resembling Early Archaic forms but in some cases perhaps of Late Archaic origin.

181

The writer also examined the Roland B. Hill collection, stored at the Roland B. Hill Museum in Otego, New York, through the courtesy of Calvin Behnke, president of the Upper Susquehanna Chapter, New York State Archeological Association. A total of 810 projectile points was studied. They were collected early in the 20th century from sites in the area from Sidney to Cooperstown. Only two Kirk points, both corner-notched, were in the collection, comprising only 0 .3 percent of the total. There were just 7 bifurcated-base points, 6 of which were Kanawha-like, while the seventh was large and broad like the St. Albans type (Broyles 1971). These constituted just .9 percent of the total. Only one point could be described as Neville-like. There were 2 2 untyped stemmed points undoubtedly of varied ages; perhaps 8 of these vaguely resembled either Morrow Mountain or Neville points. Similarly, a collection of 812 points examined in the collection of Larry Taylor came from Silver Lake, Otsego county, and contained just 3 Neville points, 1 Kirk Stemmed point, 1 Palmer? point, and 2 possible bifurcated-base points. Together, these early types comprised only 0 .8 percent of the total. Approximately 219 points were studied in the collection ofJames and Joseph Hendrick, of Oneonta, New York. There was just one serrated Kirk Stemmed point. Also noted was one probable Hardaway point, and a possible bifurcate that unfortunately lacked a base. These points comprised 1.4 percent of the total. Kirks, bifurcates, and other Early Archaic types were generally absent from other collections studied by the writer over a large area extending from Nichols to Oneonta. So, despite the surface indications that Early Archaic types were extremely rare and would be difficult to find in undisturbed subsurface contexts, we were pleasantly surprised to find occupation zones containing Kirks, bifurcates, Kanawhas, Nevilles, and other very early types in alluvial sediments at the Gardepe, Johnsen No. 3, and Russ sites near Wells Bridge (See Vol. 2) . Kanawha, "Kanawha-Neville," and morphologically similar points (Plate 15 7, Figs. 36-41) were clustered near two hearths dated 6010± 215 B.C. and 6270 ±420 B.C. in the central, best stratified area at Russ locus 2. Unfortunately the picture is confounded by the presence of other early styles in the same levels, including large, broad, cornernotched points here designated Wells Bridge Corner-Notched, some untyped stemmed points, and some untyped side-notched points. At a slightly higher level two of the Wells Bridge points were close to another feature dated 5010 ± 215 B.C . The deepest level in the central area at locus 2 contained a side-notched point and a Neville-like point. A feature at about the same depth was C -14 dated 5930 ± 145 B.C . Stratigraphic analysis of the data from three seasons of work at the Russ site produced somewhat disappointing results. Despite the obviously stratified, undisturbed condition of sub-plow zone sediments in the central area of locus 2 there was no consistent pattern in vertical distribution of point types. This was at variance with expectations based on the southeastern data where the various types occurred in a definite sequence. At Russ, for exam pie, one of the two Kirks occurred just below plow line and the other occurred in the 40-50 cm levels. Similarly, the Wells Bridge Comer-Notched points were found from the 0-10tothe40-50 cm levels. Since projectile points are, to date, the most reliable diagnostics for the earliest Archaic occupations we were unable to postulate a sequence of types, assemblages, or components based on the Russ site data alone. Despite these problems, the Russ site yielded extremely important data on a long series of occupations, ranging up to the historic period. The general sequence of Early Archaic (below plow sole) to Late Archaic (plow zone and associated features) is clearfrombothstratigraphyandC-14dates.Also,generalizedassociationsoftheearlypointtype swithsuchitemsasendscrapers, side scrapers, ovate biface knives, "choppers, " and anvilstones are strongly suggested by the data. Furthermore, the site teaches us that in New York State we can expect to find some Early Archaic point types that do not correspond exactly to types defined in the Southeast or other areas. Some will be generally similar to published types but will differ from them in certain attributes. For example edge serration, common in the Southeast, appears to be generally absent from the northeastern varieties. Other points will not conform to any recognized type. The Gardepe site evidence is intriguing, but ambiguous. Feature 23 in the upper levels of stratum 6 was dated 7430 B.C. ± 100 years. No diagnostic artifacts were in close association with the feature; at the same approximate level but over three meters distant was a broad, corner-notched bifurcated-base point (Plate 133, Fig. 23) . A broad, relatively thin corner-notched point bearing some attributes of the Jack's Reef Corner-Notched type also occurred in stratum 6 (Fig . 24) . The date is several centuries older than dates attributed to bifurcates at St. Albans (Broyles 1971), Rose Island (Chapman l 976b) and other southeastern sites; it would be about right for Kirk Corner-Notched points, none of which were found in stratum 6 . Therefore the artifact associations of the date are uncertain, although it appears to be consistent with the locus 1 chronology as well as an acceptable date for an Early Archaic component. Three untyped broad, relatively thin corner-notched points from the overlying stratum 5 (Plate 133, Figures 25-27) might be of Middle Archaic age, but their exact cultural and chronological placement remains undecided despite the occurrence of nearly identical points below plow zone at the Russ and Johnsen No. 2 sites. The context at the latter site was apparently Late Archaic. Excellent stratigraphic separation was present at the Johnsen No. 3 site, located a short distance downstream from the Russ site in the same field (Funk and Wellman 1984b). Heretherewereatleast 10 occupation zones belowtheplowzone, all of them apparently the result of Early Archaic occupations. A number of side-notched, corner-notched, and stemmed projectile points from upper levels can provisionally be equated with Kanawha, Neville, and other early types, including some relatively

182

2

3

7

11

12

4

9

8

13

5

14

10

15

Plate 8. A selected group of projectile points from the Jesse Benton collection. Some are definitely of Early or Middle Archaic age; others are possibly of similar age. Figs. 1, 2, Neville points; 3, untyped broad stemmed point; 4-6, untyped expandedstemmed points; 7, 8, Wells Bridge Corner-Notched points; 9, 10, possible Kirk Corner-Notched points; 11-13, Kanawha (bifurcated-base) points; 14, 15, possible bifurcates. Lithic materials: all probably of gray eastern Onondaga chert except 7, 8, gray Esopus chert.

183

amorphous forms illustrated by Chapman ( 1977) from deep stratified sites on the Little Tennessee River. However, zone D at the Johnsen No. 3 site yielded three points regarded as Kirk Stemmed variants (variants because lacking serrated edges), and zone F produced seven whole and fragmentary corner-notched points similar to the Kirk Corner-Notched type (again, lacking serrations). It should be noted that a number ofthe Kirk, Charleston, and other types described by Chapman ( 1977) also were not serrated. Eight of the features in middle and lower zones, above and below zone F, produced sufficient charcoal for C-14 dating; the rangeindateswasfrom6435 B.C. ±230yearsto 7715 B.C. ±550years, foranaverageofabout 7000 B.C . Thedateof6435 B.C. was on scattered charcoal from zone I, the second deepest zone on the site, and is clearly aberrant when compared with other dates, including a date of 7715 B.C. ± 550 years from the same zone. An average of about 7000 B.C. is compatible with Kirk dates obtained by Chapman ( 1977) and Broyles ( 1971), though tending to be in the upper range of their series. Because of the excellent stratigraphy at Johnsen No. 3, the association of Kirk points with other traits was very strong. These included end scrapers, ovate biface knives, ovate "choppers", and other rough stone tools. Thus the Johnsen No. 3 data establish occupancy of the Upper Susquehanna region by groups using Kirk Corner-Notched and Stemmed points, orverysimilarstyles, betweenabout7700and6800B.C. TheonlyprojectilepointforminzoneFwascornernotched; although the sample is small, it suggests that points very similar to the Kirk Corner-Notched type were the only points made and used by hunting and gathering occupations on this time level. This one type-one horizon association appears to be characteristic of the southeastern phases. It may also hold true for later (post-Kirk) types of the Early Archaic stage in the Northeast. U~fortunately, the data from the Russ site are of little help in determining the actual sequence of those types. However, the southeastern data and the meager data from zone D at the Johnsen No. 3 site indicate that Kirk Stemmed points followed Kirk Corner-Notched points in time. The bifurcated-base styles overlapped with or preceded the Kirk Stemmed type (Chapman 1979: 32-33), followed by Kanawha-like points and Neville points. Kanawha points have been dated ca. 6000-6200 B.C . in the Southeast, and as previously noted, Nevilles were dated ca. 5600-5000 B. C. at the Neville site. Kirk Stemmed points date to about ca. 6000 B.C. in the Southeast. Thus the group of points in middle levels of locus 2 at Russ whose geometry was similar to Kanawha points, or intermediate between Kanawhas and Nevilles, was expected to date around 6000 B.C . The dates for features 3 and 21 did indeed fall around 6000 B.C. and can probably be attributed to the "Kanawha-Neville" points, despite the presence of other styles in the same levels. The Russ site data seem to suggest the coexistence of several point styles over a long period of time, including Kirks, bifurcates, Nevilles, Wells Bridge Corner-Notched, and miscellaneous other forms. Multiple styles also occurred in the upper levels (zones A, B, and C) at Johnsen No. 3. Thus it would be foolish to dogmatically assert the universal validity of the so-called "Coe axiom" (Brennan 1967) either in the Upper Susquehanna region or elsewhere in the Northeast. This is true even though the apparent association of several point types at Russ and in the top levels at Johnsen No. 3 may be partly explained as the result of disturbance, compressed alluvial stratigraphy, and the small samples of individual point styles. Early Archaic projectile points resembling the Kirk, Neville, and Kanawha types also occurred in a multicomponent deposit at the Roberson site, on the confluence of the Chenango and Susquehanna Rivers (Versaggi, et al. 1986). Unfortunately, the early occupations could not be radiocarbon dated. Several radiocarbon dates are available for later components at the site. The relatively late persistence in the Northeast of some early southeastern point types is indicated by a series of C-14 dates ranging from ca. 4875 to 5600 B.C. on Kirk-like points from the Sheep Rock Shelter in central Pennsylvania (Michels and Smith 1967), from Harry's Farm on the lower Delaware River in New Jersey (Kraft l 975a), from the Rocklein site on the Delaware in northern New Jersey (Dumont and Dumont 1979), and from the Muddy Brook Rockshelter in the Hudson Valley (Funk 1989). These dates are 1500-2000 years younger than those assigned to Kirks in the Southeast. The determination of 5185 B.C. attributed to bifurcates at the Harrisena site on Lake George (Snow 1977) is about 1000 years younger than dates for bifurcates in the Southeast. Again, however, the artifact samples from the sites mentioned are extremely small (two Kirk-like serrated sidenotched points at Sheep Rock; two Kirk Corner-Notched points at Rocklein; one basal portion of a stemmed Kirk-like point at Harry's Farm; one Kirk Stemmed point at Muddy Brook; two bifurcates, one in the dated pit, at Harrisena). Also there were stratigraphic ambiguities at Sheep Rock (Michels and Smith 1967: 1 79-204) and at Rocklein (Dumont and Dumont 1979: 4 7). For example, despite careful stratigraphic control during excavation at Rocklein, there was considerable overlap in the depth distribution of materials from different periods of occupation, including the presence of bifurcated-based points above and below the levels containing Kirk points. Harrisena was an unstratified, multicomponent site. Thus despite the good association of charcoal with point types at these stations, there is the real possibility that some mixture of charcoal or other organic materials of widely differing ages had taken place, skewing the C-14 dates toward recency. Badly needed in the Northeast are Early to Middle Archaic sites with deep, sensitive stratigraphy and large artifact samples comparable to those in West Virginia and Tennessee. It would then be possible to resolve many questions concerning projectile point sequence and absolute chronology. Of course there are good precedents for the intimate association of two or more point types in some periods. The Laurentian and Point Peninsula traditions are good examp!es. But it must be stressed that the southeastern data and the evidence from middle and lower levels at Johnsen No; 3 strongly support a scenario in which ( 1) specific

184

point types dominated individual periods of occupation, (2) the absolute chronology of the northeastern types was in harmony with the southeastern chronology. This does not rule out some lag in the diffusion of types from south to north, but radical departures from the southeastern chronology seem doubtful. Four closely interrelated questions must be addressed: 1. Why are Early to Middle Archaic projectile points so rare in surface collections in the Upper Susquehanna Valley and other parts of the Northeast, in contrast to the abundance of Late Archaic points? 2. Why are subsurface sites of this stage so difficult to find in the Northeast? 3 . What is the relation between the scarcity of points and the scarcity of sites? 4 . Why is there an apparent concentration of very early Archaic materials in subsurface, stratified contexts in the Wells Bridge district, whereas our best efforts were unable to locate related sites elsewhere in the Susquehanna drainage? Several possible answers to the first question come to mind. First, on the two assumptions that projectile points are produced and deposited at a generally uniform rate by hunting and gathering family units, and that the quantity in a given region is directly proportional to total population size, it might be hypothesized that given a constant population size there was less time for their accumulation in Early to Middle Archaic than in Late Archaic times. However, this is manifestly not the case, since the C-14 chronology shows that the Early to Middle Archaic spanned roughly 4000 years and the Late Archaic about 3000 years. Given the same assumptions, it might be postulated that during Early to Middle Archaic times the Northeast or any particular region within it sustained a smaller average population than during the Late Archaic. Therefore, the overall rate of projectile point manufacture and disposition was relatively low. This is the most commonly used explanation, one that is linked with the so-called Ritchie-Fitting hypothesis (Cleland 1966; Fitting 1968; Ritchie l 969b: 212-213; l 979b) . In this scenario the early postglacial environment had a low carrying capacity for hunters and gathers, thereby keeping their population at a low level, in contrast to the higher carrying capacity of the later deciduous forests, which permitted a population increase among Late Archaic groups. For further discussion of this hypothesis, see Cha pt er 14 (also see G. Nicholas 1987) . Other explanations may be considered using the same assumptions. Differential survival of points from different time levels is out of the question since all are made of durable siliceous rocks (chalcedony, chert, jasper, quartzite). A more likely set of hypotheses would postulate that Early to Middle Archaic points are less common than Late Archaic points because earlier Archaic sites are located a) in places rarely frequented by collectors, b) where plowing, erosion, and construction do not often bring Early to Middle Archaic materials to the surface, and c) where site destruction by erosion (river meandering, sheet wash, slumping) has taken a greater toll of Early to Middle Archaic sites than of Late Archaic sites. These three hypotheses all recognize that the scarcity of sites and the scarcity of diagnostic artifacts are essentially the same problem, since except for rare cases of redeposition, prehistoric curio collection, or other causes, the locations of artifacts are identical with the locations of sites. Alternative (a) implies that Earlyto Middle Archaic settlement patterns were almost completely different from those of later peoples, with little or no overlap. Possibly the missing sites are located in uplands and mountainous regions where there is little modern cultivation and therefore little collector activity. Although rigorous survey procedures have seldom been employed in order to insure adequate coverage of rugged "high country," this alternative is unlikely to be supported by future work. Why? First, because collector experience in localities and regions is extensive, going back over a century, and because their awareness of what to look for has been greatly heightened since the l 950's, it is extremely unlikely that they have failed to discover any substantial number of Early to Middle Archaic sites. Second, professionally supervised archaeological surveys have been distributed over the major environmental zones within large drainages such as the Susquehanna, Hudson, and Genesee Valleys, including some uplands, but early sites have only rarely been located. Those which have been found occupy the same landforms as later sites, that is on terraces and knolls along streams. Early to Middle Archaic settlement patterns were probably similar to those of later peoples. Alternative (b) implies that the early sites are simply out of reach of both collectors and plow. It clearly relates to alternative (a) in the sense that different settlement patterns may mean that many sites occur in non-agricultural locations, or in accumulative geological situations (under upland colluvial fans, for example). It could also mean that early sites are deeply buried under alluvial terraces and colluvial lobes along valley bottoms. The Russ-Johnsen complex at Wells Bridge might be given as an example, but is the only such example so far recorded. This alternative is also regarded as an insufficient explanation forthe elusiveness of Ear lyto Middle Archaic sites and artifacts. Although survey coverage of the valley bottom is not claimed to be complete or truly representative, even in our main project area from Oneonta to Sidney, quite a large number of sites have been recorded on flu vial terraces and on a smaller number of colluvial localities in the long stretch of the valley between Oneonta and Nichols (west of Binghamton). Many ofthese have been examined and tested, and some have been excavated. Furthermore, surveys have drawn blanks in many of the areas examined. Most of the terraces were either of early postglacial age (ca. 10,000-5,000 B.P.) or of glacial to de-glacial age (ca. 15,000-10,000 B.P) . Except.for the Russ-Johnsen locality, none of these ancient deposits has produced clear evidence of Paleo-Indian or Early to Middle Archaic occupancy. There are numerous buried sites containing later Archaic and Woodland components, yet all of these cultural manifestations are much more heavily represented on surface sites than older Archaic materials.

185

Alternative (c) is a possibility both in the uplands (sheet wash, stream erosion, frost action) and in the lowlands (especially lateral migration by major streams, destroying old alluvial deposits). Are early materials preserved at Russ-Johnsen only because the river has been forced by resistant morainal deposits to migrate away from the sites, leaving them intact? This presupposes extensive destruction of earlypostglacial deposits elsewhere in the valley. However, this hypothesis is negated bythe fact that large areas of old alluvium presently cover the valley floor, and those tested , including the oldest terraces in a given series (as at Kuhr No. 1 and Camelot No. 2 sites) have so far failed to yield any Early to Middle Archaic traces. It might also be argued that we have so far only partly succeeded in identifying Early to Middle Archaic point types or other diagnostics in the Northeast, and that many items in collections from surface sites have either been unjustifiably attributed to later types or placed in an "untyped" category. There may be some validity to this idea. Large surface collections invariably contain a minority of points that do not conform to known types; bifurcates, Nevilles, and Kirks used to be placed in this category. As research proceeds, the percentage of unknowns is constantly reduced . Many untyped points are undoubtedly of relatively late provenience; some will eventually be assigned to the little-known early Middle Woodland stage. Other presently untyped points will doubtless prove to be of Early to Middle Archaic age. But the fact is that untyped points are almost always a very small part of any collection (only 5 percent of the Hill collection). Even if some old Archaic forms deviate from named southeastern types, there will usually be some recognizable similarities. Thus, it is argued here that the very sparse occurrence of Kirk, Hardaway, bifurcated-base, Neville, other types, and their look-alikes is a real phenomenon and notthe result of our inability to pic15 them out of collections. At best, the ascription of early styles to untyped specimens is a very minor factor contributing to our difficulty in delineating the earliest postglacial occupations of the Northeast. We must also consider modifying the two starting assumptions. Perhaps projectile points were not produced at the same rate by all Archaic groups; could the average rate have been relatively low d.uring Early to Middle Archaic occupations? This might signify a less efficient hunting-gathering adaptation than in later times. How does one evaluate the potential advantage conferred on a hunting-gathering group that produces more points (weapon tips) than its contemporaries or predecessors? This possibility cannot be discounted out of hand, butitis assumed that purely genetic or psychological factors were notinvolved, and the cultural or environmental determinants were critical. For instance, if the economic patterns of earlier Archaic groups differed significantly from those of their successors (Funk 1977a), they may have relied less on hunting than on collecting or fishing, hence would have had less need for chipped stone weapon points. Alternatively, Early Archaic groups may have relied more heavily than Late Archaic groups on perishable projectile tips of \ bone, antler, or wood. In either case the rate of production (and also presumably deposition) of chipped stone points would have - ' been relatively low. The first hypothesis is worth further consideration; the second is harder to evaluateJiue to poor preservation of bone and antler on most early sites. But given the ready availability and regular exploitation of high-quality cherts beginning with Paleo-Indian times, it seems unlikelythatwood, bone, or antlertipswere preferred overchippedstone pointsduringthe 4000 year span of the Early to Middle Archaic. Question No. 2 has been partly touched on in this discussion, as has No. 3 . Question No. 3 is not a simple one, although there is undoubtedly a close correlation between the quantity of projectile points found on the surface and the frequency of sites. For example, habitation sites and hunting camps will ordinarily produce more points than burial sites or other loci of specialized activity. Large, repeatedly occupied sites will produce more points than smaller, less heavily utilized sites. Conceivably certain sites such as chert quarries and associated workshops might not contain any points at all. Early to Middle Archaic sites might be much more common than indicated by the frequency and distribution of projectile points; many would go unrecognized because no known diagnostics were present. Also conflicting with a one-to-one correlation of the frequencies of surface-recovered projectile points and sites are the aforementioned possibilities that a significant proportion of early sites lie buried in sediments below reach of the plow or are located in rugged, uncultivated regions. Thus the most cogent possible answers to the first two questions are: 1. A smaller average population during Early to Middle Archaic, as compared to Late Archaic, times. 2 . Some Early to Middle Archaic points are hidden in the minority of untyped forms seen in collections. 3 . Subsistence resources exploited by Early to Middle Archaic groups differed from those exploited by later groups, possibly as a result of ecological factors. Hunting was less important, hence fewer stone points were manufactured and used in comparison to later times. Few convincing and testable hypotheses can be put forth as answers to the fourth question, concerning the uniqueness of the Russ-Johnsen cluster of Early to Middle Archaic sites. It is difficult to believe that similar subsurface concentrations do not exist elsewhere in the Upper Susquehanna drainage. Yet none have been located by the combined efforts of amateur and professional investigators, including deep backhoe cuts on alluvial terraces. Are we dealing with a settlement pattern radically different from that of the Late Archaic, perhaps involving sites located in rugged uplands? This possibility has been judged unlikely. The hypothesis of wholesale site destruction by erosion has also been rejected.

186

If Early to Middle Archaic sites are truly much less common than later Archaic sites, then they will appear infrequently, if at all, in any areal sample no matter how rigorous and systematic the methodology. Therefore in order to find more such stations, we must be patient and persistent in widening the search in the Susquehanna Valley or any other river basin. So far the discussion has been confined chiefly to projectile point types and their chronology. There is relatively little information on their whole cultural contexts. Data on their association with other traits are derived from the Russ-Johnsen excavations and comparisons with materials in other regions, such as the Upper Delaware Valley, Staten Island, New Hampshire, and the Southeast. Unfortunately, the Early Archaic materials on Staten Island displayed some mixture of components, despite the well-stratified condition of the sites. Some of the items in apparent association with each other were probably actually deposited over 1000 years apart. Thus only very generalized associations can be proposed for the dominant point types in each occupation zone. The Kirk levels atJohnsen No. 3 contributed important data on associations. Found with Kirk points were small ovate bifaces (probably knives), trianguloid or trapezoidal end scrapers on expanding flakes, flaked ovate or oblong" choppers," hammerstones, anvilstones and other "rough stone" tools. At the Richmond Hill site on Staten Island the dominant point type was first identified as Palmer Corner-Notched (Ritchie and Funk 1971) but was later referred to as Kirk Corner-Notched, small variety, by Chapman (1977). Although a Hardaway point and LeCroy bifurcated-base point also occurred in the same level as the Kirks, the date of 7410B.C . probably pertained totheKirkcomponent, as did lOsimpleendscrapers, astemmedendscraper, 3trianguloid biface knives, 12 ovate sandstone "choppers," pebble hammerstones, and a possible cell blank. Coe (1964) summarized the items associated with Kirk points at the Hardaway site as quarry blades, stemmed drills, several forms of end scrapers and side scrapers, and hammerstones. Broyles (1971) showed end scrapers, side scrapers, expanded-base and corner-notched drills , ovate biface knives, and large bifacial chipped stone objects called "grubbers" from the Kirk levels at the St. Albans site. At the Icehouse Bottom site the Kirk zones contained end scrapers, side scrapers, ovate knives, pieces esquillees, drills, and hammerstones. There were also textile and basketry impressions on prepared hearths (Chapman 1977). It will be noted that ground stone tools have not been confirmed for Kirk assemblages and that the ovate or oblong" chopper," generally of sandstone or quartzite, bifacially flaked along the edges, is present on the northeastern sites but lacking on the southeastern sites with the possible exception of rare examples in Kirk levels at the Icehouse Bottom and Patrick sites in Tennessee (Ibid.). On the other hand pieces esquillees have not been reported for northeastern Early Archaic sites. Coe (1964), Broyles ( 1971), and Chapman ( 1977) all observed strong continuity in most lithic elements from the Hardaway assemblages through Kirk, bifurcate, Stanly and Morrow Mountain occupations. The principal changes were in point typology and the frequencies of scraper types. Similar continuity may emerge from the northeastern data. On the bifurcated-base projectile point horizon, no components featuring assemblages of lithic artifacts besides points have been isolated in upstate New York or New England. Rare examples of bifurcates have occasionally been found in subsurface but mixed deposits, asattheRussand Neville sites, attheRobinsonsite, a BrewertonphasetypesiteincentralNew York (Ritchie 1944: Plate 110, Figs. 17, 18) and atthe Bannerman site in the Hudson Valley (Ritchie 1958: 69, 74) . So farthe best data come from Staten Island, where bifurcated-base points of Kanawha and LeCroy types predominated in the lowest levels of the Hollowell and Ward's point sites (Ritchie and Funk 1971). Found in the lowest level at Hollowell were uniface end scrapers, some bearing graving spurs, large oblong biface knives, smaller ovate knives, utilized flakes, numerous ovate sandstone "choppers," pebble hammerstones, abradingstones, a fragmentary ground stone adz, and two bifacially chipped felsite cells with ground bits. At Ward's Point the lowest zone produced 6 uniface end scrapers, 7 side scrapers, 20 retouched flake tools (3 bearing graving points), a spokeshave, 2 stemmed drills, an expanded-base drill, 4 ovate bifaces, 11 utilized flakes, 1 piece esquillee, 25 ovate or oblong "choppers," 4 fragmentary cells in process, pebble hammerstones, anvilstones, abrading stones, and a possible atlatl weight. Broyles ( 1971) reported expanded-base drills, drills on reworked points, end scrapers, side scrapers, ovate biface knives, large bifacial chert "grubbers" or "hoes," and hematite lumps with ground facets in association with bifurcated-base points at St. Albans. In the Tennessee drainage, on such deeply stratified sites as Rose Island and lcehouse Bottom (Chapman l 976b, 1977), bifurcates occurred in components with a wide variety of tools including biface knives, drills, scrapers, pieces esquillees, bipolar cores, utilized and retouched flakes, blade-like flakes, mullers, milling stones, anvilstones, hammerstones, and ovate "choppers." The succeeding Stanly horizon in the Southeast also represents continuity from previous horizons. At the Doerschuk site in North Carolina Stanly Stemmed points were associated with end scrapers, quarry blades, hammerstones, a mortar, and atlatl weights in process (Coe 1964) . In addition to these traits, Chapman (1977) reported pieces esquillees and notched netsinkers in the Stanly levels at lcehouse Bottom. The Neville assemblage in lower levels of the Neville site, New Hampshire (Dincauze 1976) was generally similar to the Stanly assemblages, but differences are apparent, primarily in the presence of small quartz crystal scrapers at Neville, a tool type lacking in the southeastern contexts.

187

The subsequent Stark assemblage at Neville comprised Stark type points, apparently derived from the prior Neville-Stanly types, plus a few Neville or Neville variant points, end scrapers, flake knives, spokeshaves, perforators, bifacial preforms, roughly flaked "choppers," pebble and core hammers, winged atlatl weights and grooved axes. Dincauze (1976: 136) noted that ground slate ulus, plummets, and gouges were probably associated with Neville and Stark points on sites in eastern Massachusetts reported by several writers (Bullen 1949; Ayres, et al. 1955; Engstrom 1951; Carlson 1964; Jam es Petersen, personal communications 1988) . This suggests an age for these traits in excess of 5000 B. C ., well before their appearance in the Laurentian tradition of New York and Vermont. These cultural and temporal associations remain to be confirmed. In sum, it would be a great surprise if the broad patterns of Early to Middle Archaic cultural development and continuity observed in the Southeast were not duplicated in the Northeast. The sequence of Kirk, bifurcated-base, Stanly/Neville, and Morrow MountainStar k point types and related variants should be confirmed by future research, as should the association of tool types th a tin cl ude end and side scrapers, ovate knives, drills, ovate peripherally flaked "choppers," hammerstones, anvilstones, and other long-enduring traits. Winged bannerstones (atlatl weights), grooved axes, and possibly plummets, gouges, and ulus should first appear in Neville-Stark times. It also seems likely that evidence of pre-Kirk Hardaway and Palmer horizons will be found . It is worth repeating, however, that even on present sparse evidence, important differences existed between the two areas. The Kirk through bifurcate horizons (radiocarbon dated roughly from 8000 to 6000 B.C. throughout the East) will almost certainly remain poorly represented in upstate New York and New England. Neville and Stark may prove more abundant, although the evidence is not sufficient on this point, at least in New York. Also it would be a mistake to assume that all of the northeastern assemblages will show close typological links with the South. A case in point is the 8000 year old assemblage atJohn' s Bridge, Vermontthat included broad corner-notched and stemmed points only vaguely resembling named types such as Brewerton and Kirk (Thomas and Robinson 1980). The John's Bridge component also contained bifacial preforms, quarry blanks, bifacial flake tools, end scrapers, denticulate scrapers, unifacially reworked biface fragments, utilized flakes, large "tabular stone knives" that appear roughly equivalent to the common ovate "chopper," and abrading stones.

The Late Archaic (Forager Florescent I) Stage This stage commenced in the Northeast with what may be loosely but conveniently referred to as Laurentian manifestations (Ritchie 1940, 1944, 1951, 1955a, 1965a, 197lb). In previous reports the writer, following the lead of Ritchie ( 1971 b; Ritchie and Funk 1973), proposed two basic stages of Laurentian development; an Early Laurentian or "Proto-Laurentian" and a late or developed Laurentian (Funk 1976, l 978a, l 978b, 1988) . The early stage is represented by assemblages containing Otter Creek points or very similar large side-notched points as the predominant style (Ritchie 1961 b, 1971 b) . This stage has the chipped stone traits, but not the ground stone diagnostics, of the Vergennes phase. The Otter Creek points conform to the original type description chiefly in terms of the hafting elements; deep notches of medium size, squared tangs, and a straight to slightly incurvate base, all of which are usually ground . The blade is broad with triangular to excurvate edges and relatively thick, but is short in contrast to the relatively straight-sided blades on a majority of points from Vergennes sites in the Champlain Valley. The assemblages include a small number of points intermediate between the Otter Creek and Brewerton Side-Notched types in that they are relatively small, usually straight-based, with narrower, less prominent tangs; basal rubbing is almost universal but the notches are frequently not ground. In the same assemblages occur chipped stone end scrapers, side scrapers, utilized flakes, ovate and lanceolate knives, bifacial preforms, flaked sandstone "choppers," pitted stones, hammerstones, anvilstones, and notched netsinkers. No gouges, plummets, or ground slates have been found in the assemblages. Within the study area, an assemblage made up of all the chipped and rough stone traits was excavated atthe McCulley No. 1 site in the Charlotte Creek drainage by amateur archaeologist Howard Hoagland, withsomehelpfromStateMuseumpersonnel(FunkandHoagland 1972a) .AsingleC-14dateof3780B.C.± l lOyears(l-5524) was obtained on hearth charcoal. In most respects this assemblage (Plate 9) corresponds with that excavated from the lowest level of the Shafer site in the Schoharie Valley, and dated 4340 B.C. (Wellman and Hartgen 1975). Similarly, broad side-notched points resembling the Otter Creek type occurred in lower levels of the Sylvan Lake Rockshelter near Poughkeepsie, where they were dated about 4000 B.C. (Funk 1976). The Otter Creek points and similar styles from basal levels of the Gillingham No. 1 Rockshelter near Otego can also probably be assigned to this horizon (See Vol. 2). None of these assemblages included plummets, ground slates, gouges, or other "core" traits of the Laurentian tradition as defined by Ritchie ( l 965a: 79-83) . Also, the radiocarbon dates are considerably in excessofthe known antiquityofthe Brewerton, Vosburg, and Vergennes phases. Therefore, although the chipped and rough stone inventories from McCulley, Shafer, and other sites share many similarities with Vergennes phase assemblages in the Champlain Valley, the former cannot, on present evidence, be equated simplistically with the latter. The former sites represent a Proto-Laurentian occupation of New York State that began before 4000 B.C. This old horizon may have been affiliated with, and even derived from, a horizon of similar composition, that

188

• a.

'I

4

2

3

7

9

8

6

5

II

10

e•

, •

18

17

16

13

14

19

20

15

21 22 23

24

26 ~-,...,

25

~t

,,

i

..

...

~.

1

E l

27 Plate 9. Artifacts from the McCulley No. 1 site. Figs. 1-5, whole or fragmentary Otter Creek points; 6, base of small side-notched point; 7, Brewerton Side-Notched point;8, sidescraper;9, bifaciallyretouchedflakeknife; 10, 16-20, endscrapers; 11, utilized flake; 12, 13, lanceolate knives; 14, l S, biface preforms; 21, bi pitted "nutting" stone ; 22, ovate bifacially chipped" chopper", 24, single-pitted "nutting stone"; 23, 25, anvilstones; 26, netsinker; 27, crescentic edge" chopper". Materials: 1-20, eastern Onondaga chert; 21, 23, 26, 27, sandstone; 22, 24, 25 graywacke. 189

was widely distributed through the Southeast and Midwest between ca. 4000 and 3000 B.C. (Tuck 1974) . This horizon is identified by large side-notched, square-tanged points similar to the Otter Creek type. These types include Big Sandy (Lewis and Lewis 1961), Raddatz (Wittry 1959), and Modoc Side-Notched (Fowler 1959) . The Proto-Laurentian occupations of the Hudson and Susquehanna Valleys are assigned to the South Hill phase. In the study area Otter Creek points comprise only 0.4 percent of the Taylor collection and 1.0 percent of the Hill collection. It may be assumed that, pending new evidence to the contrary, gouges, ground slates, and plummets were added to Otter Creek points and the other traits by about 3200 B.C., resulting in the earliest Laurentian expressions that meet Ritchie's definition. The oldest of these in northern New York, Vermont, and the Upper St. Lawrence Valley was probably the Vergennes phase, which on the basis of sparse C-14 dates (those at the KI site were contaminated toward recency) and estimates from the stratigraphic relationships of Vergennes components to those of other phases probably ranged in time from ca. 3300 to 2500 B.C. (Ritchie 1969a: 84-89, 197la, 1979a; Funk 1976). The Vergennes phase itself is notrepresented in the Susquehanna Valley. Some evidence from the Hudson and Champlain Valleys suggests that the Vergennes phase gave rise to the Vosburg phase, a Laurentian manifestation in the Hudson drainage (Ritchie l 965a: 83-84). Numerous examples of broad, notched points that are morphologically intermediate between Otter Creek and Vosburg points (Ritchie 1961 b) were seen by Ritchie and the writer in collections from the Champlain Valley and Lake George. These suggest a direct evolutionary relationship between the two types. Both types were found together in situ on the Otter Creek No. 2 site, Vermont (Ritchie l 979a). Vosburg assemblages occurred stratigraphically above Vergennes components on the Weinman and Knox sites at Lake George (Funk 1976) and also at Fish Club Cave (Ibid.) and Lotus Point (Ritchie 1958) in the middle Hudson Valley. In the lower Hudson Valley Otter Creek and similar points have been placed early in the known Archaic sequence, as at Dogan Point where they were dated ca. 3000 B.C. (Brennan 1972, 197 4) and the Sylvan Lake Rockshelter where the dates range from 4610 to 3720 B.C. (Funk 1976). At Sylvan Lake the Otter Creek-like points underlay a Vosburg level. In the lower valley the Laurentian "core" traits are rare in surface collections as well as below ground, a notable exception being the Bannerman site which produced 12 ulus (Ritchie 1958) . Thus Otter Creek and Vosburg points, though in temporal sequence, may not have belonged to the same whole cultural contexts in the lower valley as they did in the upper valley. In other words, strictly speaking the lower Hudson Valley assemblages may not correspond to the definitions for the Vergennes and Vosburg phases. In western and central New York (west of the Susquehanna Valley) there are no reported sites with Proto-Laurentian Archaic components. However, a few Otter Creek points were found in the lower levels of the Brewerton sites (Ritchie 1944: 236, 244), and similar points occur as a minority type in surface collections. It is possible that a Proto-Laurentian horizon also existed in central and western New York that served as the foundation for early Brewerton expressions. Presumably this horizon evolved into the Brewerton phase with the addition of gouges, plummets, and other traits to the pre-existing inventory. This developmental scenario is incompatible with the traditional Late Archaic chronology for western and central New York, in which the Brewerton phase, C-14 dated ca. 2000 B.C . followed the Lamoka phase, C-14 dated ca. 2500 B. C. (Ritchie l 965a, 1971 a). In Ritchie's preferred interpretation, Brewerton developed from cultural groups intrusive from the north and east into central and western New York, a region previously dominated for centuries by the Lamoka phase. Interaction between the two cultures resulted in a short-lived hybrid, the Frontenac phase, with Brewerton eventually emerging dominant (Ritchie 1951, l 955a, l 969a, 1971 a). If Brewerton actually developed from a Proto-Laurentian occupation of central New York, then Ritchie's model would require considerable modification. As one alternative, reconciling these viewpoints, Lamoka would be regarded as interrupting regional Laurentian development, perhaps as a result of the intrusion of Lamoka people from central Pennsylvania. After some centuries of occupation Lamoka would be submerged by strong Laurentian influences from the north and east, the assumption being that Laurentian development from Proto-Laurentian had proceeded without interruption in those areas. The Frontenac phase would once again be the product of contact between the two traditions. Another alternative, preferred by the writer, is that in western and central New York the Lamoka phase actually followed, rather than preceded, the Brewerton phase. The stratigraphic and radiometric evidence is ambiguous in this regard. However, two newly obtained radiocarbon dates support the sequence proposed by the writer. Scraps of bone from burial 4 at the base of the midden at the Oberlander No. 1 site (Ritchie 1940) were dated by accelerator to 3060 B.C. ± 130 years (AA-2251) (personal communication, Dr. A. T. Jull 1988). Another date was obtained on cremated bone from a burial at the Clark site, St. Lawrence county, excavated by Ritchie in 1954. A fire-spalled Brewerton Side-Notched point was directly associated. Unfortunately, the determination of 4170 B.C. ± 205 years (GX-13955) was on apatite, generally regarded as less reliable than collagen. Dates in excess of 5600 B. P. were also obtained on charcoal associated with Brewerton Side-Notched points at the Zawatski site, Allegheny County, New York (Calkin and Miller 1977) and at the Brown site in the Allegheny Valley, western Pennsylvania (George and Davis 1986). In eastern New York, including the Hudson, Schoharie, and Susquehanna Valleys, the evidence is clear that both ProtoLaurentian and fully Laurentian manifestations preceded complexes identified chiefly by narrow stemmed projectile points, including the Lamoka type; thus there was no interruption ofthe Laurentian developmental sequence by the Lamoka phase or any related manifestation (Funk 1976) . The problem of the chronology and relationships of Laurentian and "narrow point" expressions is further discussed in Chapter 11 . 190

In the Susquehanna Valley, there is an apparent gap of 1000 radiocarbon years between the South Hill phase occupation dated 3780 B.C. at McCulley No. land the next occupation suggested by the probable Brewerton Eared Triangle points in zone Fat Camelot No. 2, which were dated at ca. 2800 B.C . Part of the period, to perhaps 3000 B.C., may have been occupied by the continuation of the South Hill phase during which it evolved in the direction of the subsequent Brewerton phase. This would be analogous to the development ofthe Vergennes phase or a cognate cultural system into the Vosburg phase in the Hudson Valley. Vosburg spanned the period from about 3200 B.C. to 2400 B.C . according to the available C-14 chronology (Ritchie l 969a; Funk 1976) . This is supported by several dates clustering around 2700 B.C . on a Vosburg-related habitation and burialcomplex excavated at the Bliss site in Old Lyme, Connecticut (J. Pfeiffer 1984; and personal communications 1980-1983). A Brewerton component atthe Morrison's Island No. 6 site in the Ottawa Valley was dated 2750 B. C. (Kennedy 1966). Therefore it seems likely that when more C -14 dates are obtained from appropriate components Brewerton in the Upper Susquehanna Valley will prove to fall in the period between 3200 and 2500 B.C. Unfortunately, except per haps for the Camelot No. 2 evidence, datable Brewerton components have not been located in the region, despite the high frequency of the several Brewerton projectile point types (Ritchie 1961 b) in collections from mixed multicomponent surface sites. These types made up 20% of all types in the Roland B. Hill collection and approximately 9% of the Taylor collection. Judging from point types alone, Brewerton occupations were represented in lower levels of the Gillingham No. 1 Rockshelter; inzonesF andGatCamelot No. 2, locus 1; at Kuhr No. 2, zone 3; and in shallower deposits, withartifactsoflater cultures, at West Shelter No. 1, South Shelter No. 3, and the Deer Blind Shelter. A Vosburg-like point occurred in upper zone 4 at Kuhr No. 2, and two Brewerton points in zone 3 . Three points resembling the Brewerton Eared Triangle type, but rather thin for this type, occurred in zones F and G at Camelot No. 2, locus 1 where they stratigraphically underlay a zone containing Vestal points. Perhaps the largest subsurface collection of Brewerton-related materials in the Upper Susquehanna was acquired by excavations in 1966-1967 at the Temple Concord site in Binghamton (V. Hayes 1968). This site is on the floodplain of the Susquehanna a bout lOOOft. (300m)westofitsjunction with the Chenango River. Directed byWilliamD. Lipe and VernaF. Hayes of the SUNY Bing hamton Department of Anthropology, the work revealed intact, stratified silt deposits below the disturbed upper zone; about 1.5 feet of deposit had been bulldozed off the top. Under this was a light brown silt 1.0 feet thick containing some cobbles. The light brown silt overlay a dark brown zone 2.0 feet thick, that in turn rested upon sterile silts. Although artifacts occurred on the surface and in the light colored zone, most artifacts and all 30 features were in the dark brown zone. Several components were in evidence, ranging from Late Archaic through Transitional, Middle Woodland, and Late Woodland. Seventy-three potsherds from 1 7 vessels were assigned to the Point Peninsula and Owasco traditions. The unmistakable Laurentian items consisted of 25 Brewerton Side-Notched points (6 with serrated blades), 2 Brewerton Eared-Notched points, 1 Brewerton Eared Triangle point, and a drilled winged bannerstone. Possibly associated were 4 trianguloid uniface end scrapers. Stratigraphic analysis failed to demonstrate any significant vertical separation of the Brewerton point types from the 2 Lamoka points or the 14 Vestal Notched points that presumably represented later Archaic components. There was, however, a rough vertical separation of Archaic types from the 14 Susquehanna Broad points, 4 soapstone vessel fragments, 1 Levanna point, 1 Jack's Reef Pentagonal point, and the potsherds that mark Transitional through Late Woodland occupations. None of the components was radiocarbon-dated. Otter Creek and Brewerton points were recovered from the plow zone and underlying silts at the Clum site near the Sidney Airport in Delaware County, during highway salvage explorations directed by Ellis McDowell, State University College at Cortland (Weber 1973). The site failed to produce datable organic material. Traces of Laurentian occupancy occurred in test excavations at a flood plain site near Nineveh, New York (Beauregard 1984). This site was on one of two alternate locations for a bridge that connects I-88 with N .Y Route 7. Brewerton Side-Notched points, as well as later ceramic items, were found in the plow zone in some parts of the site. Archaic and Middle Woodland materials also occurred in stratified sub-plow zone deposits on other parts of the site. In one test square charcoal from an occupation zone under the plow line was dated 1190 B.C. ± 80 years (Beta-11274); well below this level was a feature lacking datable organics or diagnostic associations. From a deeper zone came two Brewerton Corner-Notched points and one Brewerton Side-Notched point. In another excavation unit a Lamoka-like point and a fragmentary biface were found in the plow zone. Beneath the plow line was a yellow-brown silt that yielded a Levanna point; this silt was underlain by a well-defined charcoal-rich occupation zone. A Brewerton Corner-Notched point was found in the silt directly under that zone. No radiocarbon dates have been obtained on these materials. William Turnbaugh ( 1977) reported abundant surface recoveries of the several Brewerton point types, Vosburg points, Otter Creek points, ground slate points or knives, and gouges along the West Branch of the Susquehanna River near Williamsport, Pennsylvania. Limited ex~avations by North Central Chapter No. 8 of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology atthe Ly-76 site on Antes Creek revealed a single-component Brewerton site. Features consisted of four small charcoal-rich basins, three cracked rock clusters, a patch of fire-reddened earth, and an arcuate post-mold pattern. Artifacts comprised 4 Brewerton Side-Notched points, 2 bannerstone fragments, a pebble hammer, ground hematite, utilized flakes and waste flakes. There were also 2

191

potsherds and a triangular point attributed to the Shenks Ferry occupation at a large, adjacent Late Woodland site. The Laurentian component has not been radiocarbon dated. So farthere is only meager evidence for a sequence of Brewerton and Lamoka occupations in the Upper Susquehanna Valley. But neither is there any indication that the reverse was the case; or that Lamoka and Brewerton occupations were partially or wholly contemporaneous. The materials in zone 3 at Kuhr No. 2 might be interpreted as reflecting contemporaneity or overlap, since Brewerton points, Lamoka points, Vestal points, Normanskill points, and a beveled adz all occurred in apparent association. There is every reason to believe that zone 3 is a example of compressed stratigraphy, representing an occupation surface that was open to the sky for at least 1000 years without significant accumulation of alluvium. On several sites with good stratigraphic separation, including Kuhr No. 1, Lamoka assemblages were followed by Vestal assemblages (also by the Charlotte phase assemblage at Fortin locus 1), followed by Broadspear occupations. In no case was this sequence interrupted by Brewerton components. Further, the character of the McCulley No. 1 assemblage at 3780 B.C. strongly foreshadows later Brewerton traits, and there is little reason to question an unbroken development of one manifestation into the other between ca. 3700 and 2500 B.C. The lack of sizable excavated Brewerton assemblages leaves open the question of a "true" Brewerton occupation of the valley, that is, were the sundry point types associated with gouges, ground slates, plummets, bannerstones, and other traits welldocumented for Brewerton in central New York? Gouges, though not common, are present in surface collections throughout the valley and many, probably the majority, can be attributed to the Brewerton occupation. A study of N.Y State Museum collections by Schokkenbroek (n.d .) listed 41 gouges in the Upper Susquehanna basin north and east of Binghamton. Similar studies of ground slates and plummets in those collections have not been conducted. Ground slate points or knives and plummets appear sporadically in surface collections in the valley but have never, to the writer's knowledge, been recovered from undisturbed subsurface contexts. Therefore, in the absence of direct associations with Laurentian point types, one can only assert the high probabilitythat all of these elements together constituted a Brewerton complex in the Upper Susquehanna Valley. The probable Brewerton occupation of the valley was succeeded by occupations that produced materials bearing strong formal resemblances to the Lamoka phase of central New York. At this stage in research, we have no definite indications of local continuity from Brewerton into Lamoka, nor is there any evidence of overlap or partial contemporaneity (again, with the possible exception of the data from Kuhr No. 2 site, zone 3). Lamoka assemblages were stratigraphically isolated in basal levels at the Kuhr No. 1 site, the Enck No. 2 site, the Fortin site locus 1, the Camelot No. 2 site, locus 2, andin threelevelsattheMatticeNo. 2 site. Importantinformation was also produced by the Engelbert site near Nichols (Elliott and Lipe 1970) and the Mattice No. 1 site near Oneonta, the latter excavated in 1968-1970 by the Upper Susquehanna chapter, New York State Archeological Association (F.J. Hesse, personal communications 1970-1975). Lamoka was a major occupation of the valley; sites are numerous and the points comprise 22 percent ofthe Hill collection and 45 percent of the Taylor collection. A number of Lamoka components were investigated by SUNY Binghamton crews during surveys along the route of I-88 from 1971-1977 (Weber 1973; Sterud 1977; Weide, etal. 1975; Dekin, et al. 1978). Extensive occupations were reported for the Osterhoudt flood plain (sites 505 and 136) and Brown Knoll (sites 182 and 183), both of which are near Colliersville. Sporadic Lamoka traces were found at sites on Hudson Lake, near Worcester on Schenevus Creek, and also atthe Van Smith No. 2 and No. 3 sites near Otego (Curtin 1978; Weber 1973). These occupations were predicated on the presence of Lamoka type points and preforms in multicomponent plow zone contexts. Artifact types of the Lamoka phase proved to be moderately abundant on the West Branch of the Susquehanna near Williamsport (Turnbaugh 1977). In addition to the characteristic projectile points, at least six beveled adzes were recorded for the region. Turnbaugh also recovered Lamoka materials from the stratified Rock Run shelter on Lycoming Creek. There were two artifact-bearing strata. The top stratum (stratum 1) consisted of humus and rubble, and produced 19th century artifacts. Two kaolin pipe fragments, 98 grit-tempered fabric-impressed sherds, and 1 Shenks Ferry sherd occurred at the contact of strata 1 and 2, as did 1 Lamoka point. The upper levels of stratum 2 yielded 1 Meadowood point of western Onondaga chert, 1 Susquehanna Broad point of rhyolite, 1 stemmed point resembling the Genesee type, several other biface fragments, and rhyolite flakes . Lower levels contained 14 Lamoka points (most of local cherts, 5 of western Onondaga chert). Stratum 2 also produced 13 notched stone netsinkers, 1 complete and 7 fragmentary adzes, 2 biface knives, 201 chert flakes and 3 anvilstones. No datable organic substances were present in the deposits. The sole identifying trait in all of the Lamoka phase assemblages was the Lamoka type point (Ritchie 1961 b); beveled adzes, a critical diagnostic, were recovered only from multicomponent zones at the Castle Gardens, Engelbert, and Kuhr No. 2 sites. Since they also occur in surface collections, it is probable that beveled adzes were also an element of the Lamoka phase in the region. Since bone preservation is so poor in the acid soils, it is not possible to determine whether the bone and antler traits found at Lamoka Lake were in fact part of the material culture in the Upper Susquehanna region. Other less diagnostic traits were shared with Lamoka Lake, including pitted stones, ovate "choppers," notched netsinkers and milling stones. A surprise association at Mattice No. 2 was the winged bannerstone with drilled septum, found in sealed

192

contexts in occupation zones 2 and 3. This trait has never been positively attributed to Lamoka assemblages on other sites in New York State. RadiocarbondatesforvariousUpperSusquehannacomponentsrangefrom2570B.C.tol720B.C.andaverageabout2066 B.C. All but one of these dates resulted from the Upper Susquehanna project; the exception is the date of 1900 B.C. from the Engelbert site (Elliott and Lipe 1970). The oldest dates so far come from the Kuhr No. 1 site (2570 B.C . ± 165) and the Mattice No. 2 site (2540 B.C. ± 90) . These two are completely consistent with the average of seven dates for Lamoka Lake (Ritchie l 965a: 44-45). The later dates in the Susquehanna series are compatible with those for other narrow point assemblages, including the Lackawaxen phase in the Delaware Valley (Kinsey, et al. 1972), the Cole Gravel Pit in the Genesee Valley (C . Hayes and Bergs 1969), the Sylvan Lake phase in the Hudson Valley and adjoining regions (Funk 1976; Swigart 1974), and the Squibnocket phase of eastern Massachusetts (Ritchie l 965b, l 969b: 218-219) . The dates for Lamoka levels at Mattice No. 2 , Fortin locus 1, and Enck No. 2 are in line with stratigraphy in each case. But the dates for levels L-1, L-2, and L-3 at Kuhr No. 1 are not only widely variable (25 70 to 1 720 B. C .) and incongruous with the stratigraphic order, but overlap considerably with the dates for the next higher floors (2330 to 1930 B.C.). In fact, nearly the whole series of dates for Kuhr No. 1 poses interpretive problems. The confusing Lamoka dates at Kuhr No. 1, the relatively small samples of lithic items in most components on other sites, and the probable functional variability from site to site, render it difficult to assess diachronic change within the period of Lamoka occupation of the valley. This period is estimated to have ranged from ca. 2500 to 1900 B.C., based on the dates from all of the sites excluding Kuhr No. 1. This estimate also excludes the 1720 B.C. determination from the upper level at Mattice No. 2 in the absence of firmer artifact associations. Just as there is no convincing evidence for temporal overlap or developmental continuity from the Brewerton into the Lamoka occupations, so there is also no firm evidence for similar overlap or continuity from the Lamoka into the succeeding Vestal phase occupations of the Valley. Provisionally named and defined, Vestal is distinguished from all other Archaic phases solely in terms of the two point types, Vestal Corner-N etched and Vestal Side N etched (Ritchie 1971 b). No other types occurred in the sealed components and unfortunately non-projectile point diagnostics are not known. Of course this is also a problem with some other phases defined in the region. Key components for defining the Vestal phase are Kuhr No. 1 , zones V-1 and V-2; Fortin locus 1 , zone 3; Camelot No. 2 locus 1, zone E; locus 2, zone 3; Johnsen No. 2, zones 1 , 2; and the Corn site, surface assemblage. Vestal points have been sporadically reported from subsurface contexts investigated by highway salvage crews from SUNY Binghamton. Fourteen Vestal Notched points were found intermixed with other Archaic types in zone 3 at the Temple Concord site in Binghamton (V. Hayes 1968) . Apart from projectile points, the Vestal inventory comprises ovate or trianguloid knives, knives or points in process, drills on side-notched bases, pebble hammerstones, anvilstones, pitted "nutting stones," and combination tools. This minimal trait complex with its characteristic points is apparently confined to the Upper Susquehanna region. It has not been found anywhere else; Vestal points are rare in adjoining river basins of New York State. Very few possible Vestal points were seen by the writer in collections from the lower Susquehanna Valley at the Pennsylvania State Museum, Harrisburg. Both Vestal types together comprise 21 percent of the Hill collection and 15 percent of the Taylor collection. Radiocarbon dates for Vestal components at the Fortin and Camelot No.2 sites indicate a placement between ca. 1900 and 1800 B.C . However the dates for levels V-1 and V-2 at Kuhr No. 1 suggest a greater antiquity, ca. 2330-1930 B.C . A date of 2140 B.C. ± 100 years applies to a feature containing 2 Lamoka points and 1 Vestal point atthe Castle Gardens site. Furthermore, five dates for probable Vestal features at the Russ site range from 2400to 2050 B.C. The feature dated 2400 B.C . contained a directly associated Vestal Corner-Notched point. Adate of 2680 B.C. ± 70 years (Dic-268) was obtained on a hearth containing a Vestallike point at the East Creek site in the Mohawk Valley (Starna 1976). This date seems several centuries too old, in view of the available data on Vestal chronology. Obviously many additional determinations are needed to establish a reliable Archaic chronology for the Mohawk Valley. The total series of 13 C-14 dates for Vestal assemblages in the Susquehanna Valley suggests a time span of roughly 2400 to 1800 B.C. These dates were run by three different laboratories and so variation in processing by individual laboratories cannot account for the spread. The problem is that the range of Vestal dates (average is 2098 B.C.) is nearly identical with the range of dates for Lamoka components. This implies contemporaneity of the Lamoka and Vestal occupations in the Valley. The cooccurrence of Lamoka and Vestal points in the same levels at the Kuhr No. 2 and Castle Gardens sites could be taken as evidence for such contemporaneity, or at least temporal overlap. Deposits containing both point styles could reflect either a blending of two coexisting traditions, similar to the proposed origin of the Frontenac phase (Ritchie 1945), or a stage of transition in development from Lamoka to Vestal within a single cultural tradition. In deciding among such alternatives, sites with well-defined and sensitive stratigraphy have a crucial role. In view of the data from several such sites, the apparent mixture of diagnostic types at Kuhr No. 2, Castle Gardens, and other less complex stratified sites may be seen as the result of compressed stratigraphy, i.e. the rate of sediment accretion was too low to effectively separate the remains of individual or even multiple occupations by groups of different cultural affiliation. Such separation did, however, occur at deeper, more complexly stratified sites such as Fortin locus 1, Kuhr No. 1, and Camelot No. 2, locus 2 . At these sites Lamoka elements or assemblages occurred in basal levels (three zones at Kuhr No. l, three at Fortin locus 1, and one at Camelot No. 2), 193

In each case they underlay Vestal levels (two at Kuhr No . 1, one each at Camelot No. 2 and Fortin). There was no evidence of the overlap or intermixture of Lamoka and Vestal points on any level. The same was true of the Mattice No. 2 site where there were three successive Lamoka components dated from 2540 to 1970 B. C. without any evidence of intrusive or intermixed Vestal traits. The single Vestal point in the upper Archaic level at the Enck No. 2 site was also stratified above a Lamoka zone. If Lamoka and Vestal points were not simultaneously manufactured and used by anyone cultural group, but instead represent successive occupations of the Upper Susquehanna Valley, then how do we account for the close match in range of associated C14 dates? This is a difficult question to answer. Some of the relatively early Vestal dates can be "explained away" without much difficulty. A case in point is the Castle Gardens date. At this site Lamoka and Vestal points were about equally frequent in all levels of the midden. It could be argued that the remains of an initial Lamoka occupation were heavily disturbed and displaced by at least one subsequent, intensive Vestal occupation, involving much pit-digging by the Indians. The result would be thorough mixture of artifacts in a stratum representing very gradual accumulation of flood plain silts. Thus, the dated feature may have contained charcoal derived from the earlier Lamoka occupation(s), possibly with admixture from the Vestal component. This was not, however, regarded as the most likely scenario by David R. Wilcox, who analyzed the site (See Vol. 2). The Kuhr No. l dates for Lamoka and Vestal levels are so incongruous with the stratigraphy and show such large ranges for the individual occupations that it is tempting to discard them out of hand. In one or two cases it is conceivable that despite our best efforts the charcoal samples were improperly labelled, mixed up in the laboratory, or incorrectly attributed to particular levels or zones; butthe majority cannot be rejected on this basis. Similarly, some of the Russ site dates could be rejected because they lacked artifact associations. But feature 30 at Russ, dated 2400 B.C ., contained a Vestal point, and Vestals were clustered in the plow zone near most of the other dated features. In view ofthese considerations, the writer is forced to the conclusion that many of the dates for Vestal components are simply not accurate within the stated deviations (leaving aside the question of bristlecone pine calibrations) . The problem is chiefly confined to the Russ and Kuhr No. 1 dates. Possibly, unusual environmental conditions influenced the content of the samples; for example, unusually high amounts of carbonates were present in the Kuhr No. 1 samples, but whether or not this factor affected the radioactive behavior of the samples remains to be determined (personal communication, Irene C. Stehli, Director, Dicarb Radiosotope Laboratory 1973) . Whatever the explanation for the discordant dates, the stratigraphic relationships clearly take precedence in evaluating the absolute chronology. This is because the relative sequence of types and components is consistent within the study area. Since Lamoka components always preceded Vestal components on the most sensitively stratified sites, without instances of overlap, reversal, or alternation of components in the sequences, then there are no grounds for assuming contemporaneity or coexistence except perhaps during a relatively brief phase of transition. In turn, this means that the lengthy coexistence suggested by the available dates is false and illusory. The Lamoka series of dates and the Vestal series should each cluster around a mean, with some overlap between the means. Unfortunately the 13 Vestal dates average 32 years older than the 16 Lamoka dates, in contradiction to the indisputable stratigraphic order! Recalculating the Lamoka dates after subtracting the Kuhr No. 1 series results in a nearly unchanged mean of 2062 B.C. Setting aside the Russ, Kuhr No. 1 and Castle Gardens dates for Vestal components leaves only the three dates from Fortin locus 1 and Camelot No. 2 locus 2; these average 1838 B.C ., more in linewith expectations, but the sample is small and more dates are obviously needed for Vestal assemblages. On the basis of comparisons with related "narrow point" manifestations in eastern New York and New England, thetime range proposed for Lamoka (ca. 2500-1900 B.C .) is probably valid. This interpretation excludes the Kuhr No. 1 dates. It is postulated that the true dates for the Vestal phase should fall between 1900 and 1800 B. C. (uncorrected). Unfortunately, there are no dated Vestal components on record outside our study area that could be used for comparative purposes. Nevertheless, an important clue can be gleaned from the stratigraphy at Fortin site, locus 1. The Lamoka assemblage in zone 4 under lay horizontally separated clusters of Vestal and N ormanskill points, pl us associated materials, in zone 3. Genesee, Snook Kill, and Susquehanna Broad points were confined to zone 2. Clearly the Vestal and Normanskill points were bracketed in time between the Lamoka assemblage of ca. 1900 B.C. and the Susquehanna types of ca. 1600-1300 B.C . Two features associated with Normanskills were dated 1735 B.C. and 1660 B.C. The two dates of 1870 B.C . and 1825 B.C. for Vestals are also compatible with the stratigraphic situation. 4 Even without the zone 3 dates, it would be obvious that the Vestal and Normanskill clusters were deposited within a relatively short time, either as part of the same occupation or as two closely successive occupations. The important issue here is that the N ormanskill points, whether or not representing a distinct horizon in the Susquehanna Valley, have been C-14 dated elsewhere between ca. 1900 and 1600 B. C ., as well as found in stratigraphic columns between "narrow point" and Susquehanna levels. An example is the Hudson Valley sequence (Funk 1976). Therefore they provide an excellent independent check on the chronology of Vestal points, given their association with Vestal in the Fortin site sequence. The estimate of 1900 - 1800 B. C. for Vestals seems eminently reasonable despite the contradictory C-14 dates obtained for the Russ and Kuhr No. 1 sites. Normanskill points (Ritchie 1961 b) were found in stratified contexts only at the Kuhr No. 2 and Fortin sites. They are generally a small minority of types in surface collections (8 percent of the Hill collection, 4.6 percent of the Taylor collection). In 194

zone 3 at Fortin, they occurred in a cluster with similar, but relatively broader, side-notched points and a variety of chipped and rough stone tools. None of the diagnostic traits described by Ritchie (l 965a: 124-131) for the River phase ofthe Hudson Valley, including effigy pestles, edge-grooved anvilstones, shallow-lipped gouges, and winged drilled bannerstones, has been found in association with Normanskills in the Upper Susquehanna region . It was proposed that the Normanskill cluster was not only horizontally separated from the Vestal cluster at Fortin, but also represented a separate occupation, slightly later in time than the Vestal cluster. This interpretation is supported by radiocarbon dates; 1870 B.C. ± 95 and 1825 B.C. ± 115 forthe Vestalfeatures, 1735 B.C. ± 100 and 1660 B.C. ± 95 forthe Normanskill features. Thus, a temporal rather than functional explanation is advanced for the observed artifact type distributions in zone 3. At Kuhr No. 2, the different horizontal distribution of N ormanskill, Lamoka, and Vestal points in zone 3 is again interpreted to be the result of three discrete occupations, separated in time . There the radiocarbon dates are of no help; the Lamoka component is securely dated around 1955 B.C., but feature 9, dated 1820 B.C ., lacked clear associations. Normanskill type points and associated styles appear to represent a horizon extending across New York State from the Hudson Valley to the Genesee Valley; they also occur in adjoining drainages including the Upper Delaware Valley (Ritchie l 965a, 1969a; Kinsey, etal. 1972; Funk 1976; C . Hayes and Bergs 1969). Thus, although thereisconsiderableuncertaintyaboutthe whole cultural context of Normanskill points in the Susquehanna Valley, they are believed to represent a separate Late Archaic occupation, though perhaps not an important or intensive one . They are provisionally assigned to a "Charlotte" phase for need of a convenient term of reference, with the understanding that much remains to be learned about this hypothetical occupation and its relationship to the Vestal phase. Subsequent occupation of the Susquehanna Valley is recognized in the form of the large, broad, straight-stemmed Genesee points and the wide-bladed contr acting-stemmed Snook Kill points (Ritchie 1961 b). The precise chronological relationships of these types are unknown; they frequently occur together in the same levels of stratified sites both in the Susquehanna and Hudson Valleys. Though they are two distinct types, there is considerable overlap in morphology and flaking characteristics and this implies a genetic relationship (Funk 1976: 263). However William A. Ritchie (personal communication 1985) feels these types have different historical bases. Genesee points are a small minority in the Hill collection (only 2 percent of the total) but constitute 7.6 percent of the Taylor collection. Genesee type points were described by Ritchie ( 1961 b : 24) as "large, thick, straight stemmed points, of medium breadth." They are abundant in collections from western New York and the Niagara Peninsula, but far less common in eastern New York including the Hudson Valley (Funk 1976) and exceedingly rare in the Upper Delaware Valley (H.C. Kraft, personal communication 1989). The type was originally placed by Ritchie in the Late Archaic Brewerton and Frontenac phases. A number of the points occurred as grave goods at the Frontenac Island site (Ritchie 1945: 48-80). Many examples were recovered at both the Robinson and Oberlander No. 1 sites, type stations of the Brewerton phase (Ritchie 1940: plate XIII, figs. 1-4; plateXXV, figs. 44,45). Their radiocarbon chronology is uncertain, although similar points were dated 1830 B.C. in the Satchell phase of southwestern Ontario (Kenyon 1980). Genesee points were found in zone 2 atthe Fortin site, locus 1, along with Snook Kill and Susquehanna Broad points, stratigraphically above the Vestal and Charlotte clusters in zone 3. They also occurred in apparent single-component contexts at the McCulley No. 2 site near Davenport, on Charlotte Creek; at the Gravesen site in the Unadilla Valley (Whitney 197la, 1971 b); and atthe Winnie Hill site near Otego. The McCulley No. 2 site is located on the property of Donald McCulley, some 500 feet from the McCulley No. 1 site on the floodplain of Char latte Creek near the Char latte Valley wall. Artifacts and lithic debris were scattered on the surface of the plowed field over an area of a bout 50 by 30 feet during a walkover by the writer in 1970. In the collection ofthe discoverer, the late Howard Hoagland, were five Genesee points, several fragments of large bifaces, and retouched flake scrapers. Another small camp site producing Genesee points and associated tools was located atop Winnie Hill in the Otego Creek drainage. It adjoined a small headwater brook and consisted of materials concentrated in the duff just below the surface of an uncultivated field. The remains of the site, which had been excavated by a collector, were seen by the writer in 1973 by courtesy of F.J. Hesse. Fire-cracked rocks and chert chips were distributed within an area about 20 feet in diameter. Hesse borrowed the collection from the excavator and made careful full-scale drawings of the artifacts. There were approximately 2 2 whole or fragmentary Genesee points1mives, including two relatively narrow specimens, three expanded-base drills, atleasttwo points in process, three large ovate bifaces in process, a large block of chert, and four tips from broken points. Single examples of Lamoka, Meadowood, and Levanna points were also found and betoken occupations by earlier and later Indian groups. The largest site on record is the Gravesen locality on Silver lake, Otsego county (Whitney 1971 a, 1971 b) . The site is actually on a broad glacial terrace about 1000 feet northeast of the lake and 40 feet above it in elevation; it is situated about 1100 feet above sea level, within a large, continuously farmed field . The material came from a plow zone (sandy loam) resting on gravelly subsoil. It was scattered over an area of at least three acres. The site has been a collectors' haven for many years, apparently producing nothing but items from a single component. Whitney's 1971 excavations added to the artifact inventory and yielded over 2000 chert flakes . Two features were noted. One was basin-shaped, 12 inches deep from its junction with the plow zone and about 15 195

inches in diameter, with a black humus lens at the top resting on mixed fill of ash, soil, and cracked stones. There was insufficient charcoal for dating. The second feature was amorphous, consisting of a patch of reddened earth, charcoal, and fire-shattered rocks. A charcoal sample was collected by Whitney and submitted by the writer to Teledyne Isotopes; the date was disappointingly recent, AD. 1480 ± 110 years (I-5911), and would be suitable for an Iroquois occupation. However, the site has not produced evidence of late prehistoric components. The Gravesen assemblage, studied by the writer through the courtesy of Theodore Whitney, consists of 24 Genesee points, 26 basal sections probably of the type, 24 basal fragments of tapered-stem points or knives, two broad, side-notched points, five large biface blades, one side scraper, one concave scraper, eight narrow biface blades or drill sections, nine stemmed bifaces with rounded, heavily rubbed ends, a birdstone fragment, and a pestle. The chipped stone material is eastern New York Esopus chert of a dull gray color. The birdstone almost certainly pertained to a minor Early Woodland occupation. As research proceeds, it has become increasingly evident that Genesee points pertain, not to the Laurentian tradition, but to a very late Archaic horizon that post-dates Lamoka and Brewerton but precedes the introduction of soapstone vessels. Their relative chronological position in the Hudson Valley was established by stratigraphic data from the Shagabak site, near Hyde Park (Funk 1976: 141-145), the Dennis site near Albany (Ibid: 29-42), the Himmer Rockshelter, Greene County (Weinman and Weinman 1970), and the Coffin site near Schuylerville (Funk and Lord 1972) . In nearly every case the Genesee points were clustered in levels between older Sylvan Lake and River phase assemblages and the later Orient assemblages. Approximate contemporaneity with the Snook Kill phase between about 1900 and 1600 B.C., was suggested (Funk 1976:263) . The only single-component site in the Hudson Valley that is comparable to McCulley No. 2, Gravesen, and Winnie Hill is the Oatman site, on the Batten Kill River flood plain in Washington county (Ashton 1970). Part of the site, undisturbed in silt below plow zone, produced a number of Genesee points plus utilized flakes, ovate knives, biface blanks, expanded-base drills, anvilstones, whetstones, and pebble hammerstones (Funk 1976: Plate 80) . The total evidence strongly indicates that Genesee points (and their cognates) not only constituted a horizon style extending from southeastern Ontario eastward into eastern New York, but occurred within an assemblage of consistently recurring artifact traits such as stemmed scrapers, expanded-base drills, biface knives, and other tools. The writer proposed a tentatively named Batten Kill phase for this manifestation within New York State (Funk 1976:263) . Although the relative chronological relationships of Snook Kill and Genesee points are unknown, the data suggest that these types are diagnostics for separate occupations or phases distributed over large areas of the Northeast. Here it is hypothesized that SnookKillwasgenerallythelaterofthetwo,althoughtherewasprobablyoverlapintimeaswellasspace. BothGeneseeandSnook Kill points are geometrically similar to the Savannah River type of the Carolina Piedmont (Coe 1964), and there is little doubt of a historical relationship (Ritchie 1961 b: 4 7). Savannah River points are the oldest of the three types, having been dated to around 2000B.C. Closely related to Snook Kill, if not regional cognates in the same Late Archaic tradition, are the Lehigh points of central Pennsylvania and the Upper Delaware Valley (H.C . Kraft, personal communication 1989; Witthoft 1953) and the Koens-Crispin points of the Delaware Valley. Koens-Crispin points have been dated to ca. 1800-1600 B.C . in New Jersey and the Delaware Valley (Regensburg 1971; Kinsey, etal. 1972). Snook Kills were dated to 1470 B.C ± 100 years atthetype site in the upper Hudson Valley (Ritchie 1958) and 1670 B.C ± 130years atthe Kuhr No. 1 site. Similar points were placed at about 1600 B.C. in New England (Dincauze 1968, 1972, 1975; Bourque 1975). Relatively little information has been acquired on the Snook Kill phase in the Upper Susquehanna drainage. The point type is not common in surface collections (1.1 percent of the Hill collection and 1.0 percent of the Taylor collection) . Few examples occurred on excavated sites. Two Snook Kill points and a Perkiomen point occurred in zone D at the Camelot No. 2 site, locus 1 along with the more numerous Susquehanna Broad points, an Orient Fishtail-like point, and a Meadowood point (all these types are described in Ritchie 1961 b). It is uncertain whether all of these types pertained to the same component, or to at least three different components; but it is unlikely that the Meadowood point was part of the same assemblage as the Snook Kill and Perkiomen points. The stratigraphy at least shows that all of these types preceded the Middle Woodland assemblage in zone Band followed the Vestal assemblage in zone E. Snook Kill points comprised the only type of an occupation zone (the SK floor) positioned between Vestal and Frost Island levels at the Kuhr No. 1 site. Two Snook Kills were found with a Vestal-like point in the S-V level at the Enck No. 2 site , above the Lamoka zone and below the level that produced a Meadowood and a Susquehanna Broad point. At the Fortin site locus 1, three Snook Kills were present as a minority type in zone 2, in which Susquehanna Broad points numerically predominated. Only two Snook Kill points were part of the large Late Archaic representation in the plow zone at the Russ site, locus 2 . Similar temporal distributions were revealed by investigations in the Hudson Valley, on such stratified sites as the Sylvan Lake Rockshelter, Parham Ridge, Shagabak, Dennis, and the Zimmermann Rockshelter (Funk 1976). Comparable data were obtained for Koens-Crispin points in the Delaware Valley (Kinsey, et al. 1972). There is no reasonable doubt that in eastern New York the Snook Kill phase followed the Lamoka, Sylvan Lake, Vestal, through River (Charlotte) phases and preceded the later Susquehanna expressions (Frost Island, Orient).

196

In the Hudson Valley, traits associated with Snook Kill points included scrapers and drills on reworked points, large broad stemmed and ovate knives, bifacial preforms, simple end scrapers, polished stone celts, piano-convex adzes, shallow-lipped gouges, ovate flaked "choppers," pebble hammerstones, and other rough stone tools. Nothing has been added to this trait list in the Upper Susquehanna Valley although the separate status of the Snook Kill phase is not subject to serious doubt.

The Transitional (Terminal Forager Florescent I) Stage Next in the Upper Susquehanna sequence was the Frost Island phase (Ritchie 1965a: 155-163). Key components were excavated in zones C and Datthe Camelot No. 2 site, locus 1; inzone6 attheJohnsen No. 1 site; in zones S-1 through S-4 atthe Kuhr No. 1 site; inzone2 attheFortinsite, locus l; in locus 1 at the Camelot No. 1 site; and in floor 3attheEnckNo. 1 site. There was some slight mixture of the diagnostic Susquehanna Broad points with both older and younger types (Meadowood, Genesee, Snook Kill, for example) in the pertinent stratigraphic zones at Camelot No. 2, Fortin and other sites, thereby suggesting some temporal overlap or coevality of these traits. However, the Kuhr No. 1 data strongly indicate that Frost Island and Snook Kill assemblages formed entirely distinct horizons. Onlywhere the SK, hum us, and S-1 levels tended to merge on the northern margins of the site was there any co-occurrence of Snook Kill and Susquehanna Broad points in one deposit. A Frost Island component represented by 14 Susquehanna Broad points and 4 soapstone sherds was present at Temple Concord in Binghamton (V. Hayes 1968). These items were mixed with artifacts from other occupations, but tended to cluster stratigraphically above the Late Archaic types. Speaking very generally, the Frost Island trait inventory, as abstracted from the several components, consists of Susquehanna Broad points, pentagonoid bifacial Susquehanna knives, ovate or trianguloid knives, drills and strike-a-lights on reworked Susquehanna Broad points, retouched flake tools, celts, steatite vessels, netsinkers, hammerstones, pitted stones, anvilstones, and milling slabs. The numerous large ovate or pentagonoid biface blades at Camelot No. 2, chiefly of central New York Onondaga chert, and fragmented by apparently deliberate exposure to fire, presumably served a ceremonial purpose in activities specific to that site. Susquehanna Broad points comprise only 1.1. percent of the Taylor collection and 2.5 percent of the Hill collection. Although most projectile points conform to the Susquehanna Broad type description, there is interesting variability in the assemblages. In most cases there are single examples approaching the Orient Fishtail and Dry Brook Fishtail types (Kinsey, et al. 1972). Perkiomen Broad points or points that are morphologically intermediate between Perkiomens and Susquehannas occurred with moderate frequency in the Johnsen No. 1 and Camelot No. 1 assemblages. Broad-bladed contracting-stemmed slope-shouldered points or knives also occurred at Johnsen No. 1. Perkiomen Broad points have long been suspected to represent a discrete horizon style within the Susquehanna tradition (Witthoft 1953; Kinsey, etal. 1972). In the Delaware Valleytheyaredated ca. l 700-1500B.C . (Kraft 1970; Kinsey, etal. 1972). They may also denote an evolutionary step from Snook Kill points into Susquehanna Broad points (Ritchie l 965a: 149-155). This position is consistent with chronological data in the Hudson and Susquehanna basins. Perkiomens comprise just 0.1 percent of the Taylor collection and 0.1 percent of the Hill collection . Whether or not Perkiomens were part of a separate horizon anywhere in the Northeast, the presence of Perkiomens and Perkiomen-Susquehanna intergrades at Camelot No. 1 and Johnsen No. 1 suggests that these assemblages signify an early stage in development of the Frost Island phase from the previous Snook Kill phase. Thus Perkiomen, Perkiomen-Susquehanna Broad, and Susquehanna Broad points may have all been simultaneouslymanufactured and used by individual bands in the Susquehanna Valley and other northeastern regions, just prior to the appearance of full-blown or "pure" Frost Island manifestations. The latter are probably exemplified by the S-1 through S-4 components at the Kuhr No. 1 site. This developmental scenario is, unfortunately, not supported by the radiocarbon chronology. The Frost Island components at Kuhr No. 1 were dated between 1595 and 1535 B.C ., the Camelot No. 1 component was dated 1475 B.C. ±95, the floor just under the Enck No. 1 component was dated 1300 B.C. ± 110, a date of 1330 B. C. ± 90 was determined for the zone 2 component at Fortin locus 1, and the Frost Island assemblage in zone D at Camelot No. 2 was dated 1290 B.C. ± 95. 5 Because of the hypothetical early position of the assemblage, one would expect the Camelot No. 1 date to be the oldest in the series, but the earlier dates at Kuhr No. 1 apply to the fully developed Frost Island phase! As in the case of the Lamoka and Vestal occupations, the Kuhr No. 1 radiocarbon chronology seems" out of synch" with the absolute dates for other sites, which except for Camelot No. 1 average around 1300 B.C. The latterfigure is compatible with the 1250 B.C. ± 100 years reading forthe O'Neil site on the Seneca River (Ritchie 1965a: 156). Relatively old radiocarbon dates have been obtained for several components of the Frost Island phase and related manifestations. The FrostlslandcomponentattheClaud 1 site in the Genesee Valley was dated 1540 B.C. ±80years (Dic-494) (Trubowitz and Snethkamp 1975; Trubowitz 1978). Asimilar level at the Zimmermann site in the Upper Delaware Valley near Port Jervis was dated 1650 B.C . ± 80 (Kinsey, et al. 1972) . Three dates for the related Watertown phase in Massachusetts average ca. 1600 B. C . (Dincauze 1968, 1975) . A cremation cemetery of Susquehanna affiliation, excavated by John Pfeiffer at Old Lyme, Connecticut, produced several dates ranging from about 1585 B.C . to 1055 B.C. (J. Pfeiffer 1980, 1984; personal communications 19801983).

197

As noted above, evidence suggests that Dry Brook Fishtail and Orient Fishtail points were minor types associated with Frost Island assemblages. There is as yet little evidence that the range of the Orient phase of coastal New York, the Delaware Valley, and the Hudson Valley, or a regional equivalent, extended into the Upper Susquehanna Valley. Conversely, a separate Frost Island occupation remains to be established for the Hudson Valley (Funk 1976). Both Witthoft (1953) and Ritchie (1965a: 149-155) recognized the probable evolutionary relationship of Orient Fishtail and Susquehanna Broad points; Ritchie ( 1959) saw the development of Fishtail points from Susquehanna points as the logical end result of the long-term trend from broad blades and contracting stems toward progressively narrowing blades and expanding stems. Orient Fishtail and similar styles are common in the Delaware Valley (Kraft 1970, l 975a). They are also common in the type collections from the Lower Susquehanna Valley accumulated by Witthoft and others at the Pennsylvania State Museum in Harrisburg. These projectile points, studied in 1971 by Ritchie and the writer (by courtesy of Barry Kent and Ira F. Smith, Pennsylvania State Museum) are chiefly of Pennsylvania jasper whereas those from our study area are almost entirely of local eastern Onondaga chert. Dry Brook and Orient Fishtails together comprise only 3.2 percent of the Hill collection and 1.4 percent of the Taylor collection from the upper valley. There is some evidence for the development of an Orient-like horizon from the Frost Island phase in the Upper Susquehanna drainage. This evidence was mainly recovered at the Rose site, locus 2. The assemblage in zone 2 consisted of five Dry Brook Fishtail points, an expanded-stemmed, semi-lozenge-shaped point, an ovate knife, a broad, contracting-stemmed knife in process, and biface fragments . Unfortunately the features contained insufficient charcoal for radiometric dating. Locus 2 at the Camelot No. 1 site produced two Orient Fishtail-like points, a Normanskill-like point, ovate or trianguloid knives, biface fragments, bifaces in process, a retouched flake and an anvilstone. Unfortunately feature 2, which contained one of the Fishtail-like points, produced charcoal which yielded the anomalously late date of A.D. 130 ± 95 years. A probable small Orient component was excavated in stratum 2 atthe Davenport Creamery site, comprising two fishtail points and a soapstone vessel fragment; a Lamoka point was also in the zone. Only a few examples of Orient and Dry Brook Fishtail points were recovered in our excavations at other sites, including the plow zones at Russ and Fortin locus 1. An Orient component was partially excavated by Turnbaugh ( 1977) at the stratified Ly-62 site near Williamsport. Stratum 1 (plow zone) and underlaying stratum 2 contained artifacts of Woodland affiliation. Stratum 3 was sterile. Stratum 4A contained much fire-cracked rock, debitage, Dry Brook and Susquehanna Broad points (11 in number), netsinkers, and cells. There were several features. Two features were of about the size and shape of soapstone vessels. A shallow crescent-shaped depression containing red ocher-stained fill, netsinkers, and a scraper on a reworked point was interpreted as a possible burial from which the bones had disappeared. There were a few charred hickory nut shells in the zone. Ly-62 has not been C-14 dated, and the same is true of Ly-6 near the town of Muncy, excavated by North-Central Chapter No. 8 of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology (Ibid .). At Ly-6 there were several shallow firepits containing a few unidentified nuts and seeds, opening at the base of the plow zone, but most cultural items were confined to the plow zone. Among the recovered materials were Orient Fishtail points, steatite sherds (smoothed on both interior and exterior surfaces), donut-shaped beads of steatite, a two-holed gorget, a pestle, pitted mullers, and notched stone netsinkers. The Orient phase on Long Island was dated between 1043 and 763 B.C. (Ritchie 1959, l 965a: 164), two dates for the Orient levelattheCoffinsitein the upper Hudson Valleyare870± 110 B.C . and 1090±95 B.C. (Funk and Lord 1972; Funk 1976), and a similar component at the Dennis site, also in the Hudson Valley, was dated 720 B.C. ± 105 years (Funk 1976). Orient components in the Delaware Valley have been dated between 1280 and 810 B.C. (Kraft 1970; Kinsey, et al. 1972) and similar dates are available for western Connecticut (Swigart 1974). Therefore, given the dates for the preceding Frost Island and following Meadowood phases, the chronology of the Orient expression in our study area is estimated to have ranged from ca. 1200 to lOOOB.C. As should be expected, soapstone vessels were a trait of the Frost Island phase in the Upper Susquehanna basin, although present in only two excavated assemblages. It is worth noting that, as in the Hudson Valley and other regions, there is no solid evidence for the occurrence of soapstone in the preceding Snook Kill phase (Funk 1976). Ritchie ( l 965a: 158) reported the association of Vinette 1 pottery (Ritchie and MacNeish 1949: 100) with the Frost Island component at the O'Neil site. This type was also presentin Orient components of the Hudson Valley (Funk 1976). On the strength of several Vinette 1 sherdsinFrostlslandlevelsattheKuhr No. 1 site, itislikelythatthetypewasalsoa traitofthephasein the study area.

The Early Woodland (Forager Early Ceramic) Stage In the Susquehanna Valley and elsewhere in upstate New York, manifestations of the Susquehanna tradition were succeeded by the Meadowood phase (Ritchie 1965a: 179-200; Ritchie and Funk 1973; Funk 1976) . No intermediary cultural units have been identified, and there is little evidence of continuity from Orient or Frost Island into Meadowood. This connection might be inferred from the sparse incidence of Meadowood points, cache blades, and other traits in seeming association with some Frost Island assemblages; examples include locus 1 at the Camelot No. 1 site, and locus 1, zone D at the Camelot No. 2 site. These 198

occurrences could represent the first appearance in local cultural continua of traits that were later to dominate the Meadowood inventory. But it is more parsimonious to explain these occurrences as resulting from the intrusion of Meadowood artifacts into deposits containing the remains of earlier Frost Island occupations, whether or not the sequence Frost Island-Orient-Meadowood exemplifies a process of in situ cultural change experienced by resident populations. As a minor point type in the study region, Meadowood points comprise only 0.4 percent of the Hill collection and 1.1 percent of the Taylor collection; none was observed in the Hendrick collection. They are the sole diagnostic representing the phase on several sites, viz. them ulticomponent plow zones at Russ and Gardepe sites. The component in zone lB at the Fortin site, locus 1 , consisted of two Meadowood side-notched points and three cache blades in feature 7 4, dated 1230 B.C ± 95 years. The presumed separate Meadowood component at Camelot No. 1 site, locus 1, was represented by two Meadowood points, a probable point fragment, and four cache blades. A single Meadowood point occurred with the Frost Island materials in locus 1 zone D at the Camelot No. 2 site and another Meadowood was found just below plow zone at the Enck No. 2 site, in the same level as a Susquehanna Broad point. A component of the phase, represented by Meadowood points and Vinette 1 pottery, was excavated by F.J. Hesse in 1972 at the Maple Terrace site, situated orr a glacial terrace adjoining the Camelot No. 1 site and across Route 7 from the Maple Terrace Motel (Hesse, personal communications 1972-73). A charcoal sample from one of the features containing diagnostic artifacts was C-14 dated at680 B.C . ± 70years (Dic-643). Meadowood associations may also be suggested for the Vinette 1 sherds from zone 4 at the Johnsen No. 1 site; from the plow zone at the Munson site; from the plow zone and immediately underlying deposits at the Russ site; and from strata 3 and 4 at the Cottage site. Although Vinette 1 is known to occur in Frost Island, Orient, Adena-Middlesex, and Bushkill contexts, it is most common in Meadowoodassemblages, and Meadowood itself was unquestionably the dominant Early Woodland manifestation in what is now upstate New York. Theagereading of 1230 B.C. for feature 74 atthe Fortinsiteistheoldestyetobtained for the phase; therangeof dates for other sites in central and eastern New York and the Delaware Valley is ca. 1000-560 B.C . (Ritchie 1969a; Kinsey, etal. 1972; Kraft 1986:97). The Maple Terrace site date falls within this range. The Fortin site date thus appears too old by ca. 200 years; possibly some carbon-14 from the Snook Kill/ Susquehanna occupations of zone 2, into which feature 74 intruded, became mixed with younger charcoal from the Meadowood component. On the other hand, the date could signify the first appearance of Meadowood traits immediately following, or partially coeval with, the last stages of occupation by Frost Island or Orient groups. Analogous relative chronological placement of Meadowood (as either a phase or a horizon) in the Hudson Valley relies chiefly on data from a handful of stratified sites. A number of Meadowood points were recovered from the base of stratum 2 at the Dennis site near Albany, in the same levels as two Meadowood drills, biface fragments, one ovate cache blade, two Adena points, 2 stemmed "Cresap" points (Dragoo 1963), a two-holed slate gorget, a notched netsinker, and sherds of Vinette 1 pottery. These items were stratigraphically situated between the Transitional stage assemblage in underlying stratum 3 and the Middle Woodland materials in upper stratum 2 (Funk 1976: 40,42). Meadowood points clustered in upper (Woodland) levels of the Barren Island site (Ibid.: 56), and in the lower zone at the Menands Bridge site which also produced Orient Fishtail points, Vinette 1 pottery, and some Archaic stage point types (Ibid.: 45). Meager traces of Meadowood occupancy were noted by Turnbaugh (1977) for the Susquehanna's West Branch. These consisted chiefly of Meadowood points, Vinette 1 potsherds, and a birdstone from surface sites. Very little evidence of Adena-Middlesex occupation was acquired during our Upper Susquehanna surveys, and a similar dearth was noted by Curtin (1\)78) for the highway salvage surveys conducted by SUNY Binghamton. No Adena-Middlesex burials or burial mounds have been reported for the region. Blocked-end tubes and other diagnostic artifacts are rare in surface collections. Adena points (Ritchie 1961 b) comprise only 0.3 percent of the Hill collection (none occur in the Taylor collection) . Components related to Middlesex could be represented by some of the untyped projectile points in collections. A component unmistakably affiliated with Middlesex was excavated at the Gardepe site, locus 1 (See Vol. 2). The evidence consisted principally of three Adena points and four fragments of a blocked-end tube made of Ohio fireclay. Closely associated with one Adena po intin a" cache," underlying feature 1 , zone 3 but probably belonging to zone 4, were 12 small, relatively broad, stemmed points that are morphologically distinct from the Adena type. With seven similar specimens from zones 1, 2, 3 and the eroded riverbank these are grouped under a new type, Sand Hill Stemmed. Possibly affiliated were seven other small, broad stemmed points. Sand Hill points bear some resemblance to Plott Short Stemmed points, an Early Woodland type in Tennessee (Chapman 1979: 196) . The original stratigraphic provenience of all the Early Woodland traits may have been zone 4, but this cannot be determined due to the compressed and plow-disturbed stratigraphy of zones 1, 2, and 3. Feature 1 at the Gardepe site was radiocarbon-dated A.D. 290 ± 100, but the underlying cache of points must be older. Feature4 in zone 4 was dated A.D. 130 ± 55 years. This is consistent with the stratigraphy and with dates for higher and lower zones, but seems more appropriate for an early Middle Woodland occupation than for an Early Woodland occupation; the expected date should be around 300 B. C . Adena-Middlesex sites in northeastern North America have been dated between about 610 B. C. and A.D. 300 but the correct time period must be in the last millenium B.C. 199

Adena-like and Sand Hill Stemmed points were found in the plow zone at the Johnsen No. 1 site, along with types representing other components. Perhaps Adena and Sand Hill Stemmed points were recurrent traits of the Middlesex-related occupation in the Upper Susquehanna drainage. Although blocked-end tubes are usually found in burial contexts, no graves or human skeletal remains occurred at the Gardepe site; the tube fragments were incorporated into habitation debris. Objects of Adena-Middlesex affinity were relatively frequent in the study area investigated by Turnbaugh ( 1977) . No burial mounds are known along the Susquehanna's West Branch, but surface finds include Adena type points, celts of Adena form, tubular pipes, boatstones, bar amulets, two-holed gorgets drilled from one side , a stone cone, and other diagnostic items.

The Middle Woodland (Forager Florescent II) Stage A . Early Middle Woodland For the purposes of discussion this substage embraces all Middle Woodland expressions that pre-date the Fox Creek, Kipp Island, and Hunter's Home phases. In eastern New York this means the period between about 500 B.C. and A.D. 400 (in radiocarbon years) . Next to the Early Archaic this is the most poorly understood substage in the Northeast. Three phases have been proposed for the early Middle Woodland stage; they are not considered to be a complete description ofallculturalactivityassignedtothestageintheNortheastoreveninNewYork.TheyaretheBushkill,CanoePoint,andSquawkie Hill phases. Squawkie Hill refers to a set of Hopewellian traits, including burial mounds, confined largely to western New York (Ritchie l 965a : 213-228). Artifacts showing Hopewellian affinities are rare in the Susquehanna Valley (Ballard and Whitney 1973). They include Snyders type points (Ritchie 1961 b) (0.2 percent of the Hill collection); a cache of 125 ovate blades (of local Onondaga chert) found on one site, averaging 6 .75 cm long, 3.45 cm wide, .77 cm thic k, and 22 .86 gm in weight; two-holed gorgets from several sites; and a curved-base stone platform pipe bearing a frog effigy. A "burial mound" reported by Parker (1922) was discovered in Chenango County in 1829 and apparently destroyed. It was described as circular, 40 feet in diameter, 6 feet high, and it apparently contained at least two layers of disturbed or chaotically deposited human bones. The lower layer showed signs of burning. In one place a cache of 200 "arrowheads" of "black and yellow jasper" was found; in another was a cache of 60 similar objects. Especially significant is the description of a silver band or ring containing the remains of a reed pipe. A piece of cut mica "in the shape of a heart" was also reported. Together these traits strongly suggest a Hopewellian burial mound. This site, potentially of great importance, presumably no longer exists and the description cannot be verified. Surface finds of platform pipes and Snyders points were the only evidence for Hopewellian occupation in the vicinity of Williamsport (Turnbaugh 1977) . The Bushkill phase was defined by Kinsey (Kinsey, et al. 1972) on the basis of excavations at several sites in the Delaware Valley. Dated between 500 and 100 B.C ., Bushkill is defined chiefly by lobate stemmed points of the Lagoon and Rossville types (Ritchie 1971 b) , side-notched points, and pottery including Vinette 1, Brodhead Net-Marked, and other types. The evidence for this phase in New York State remains meager. Atthe Kuhr No. 1 site, the W-1 level produced a damaged stemmed point similar to the Adena type, and clusters of Vinette 1 and Point Peninsula Plain (Ritchie and MacNeish 1949: 103) potsherds; the level was dated 380 B.C. ± 85 . These materials may represent a weak Bushkill occupation; the date is compatible with the Delaware Valley chronology and with dates for the closely related Lagoon phase on Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts (Ritchie l 969b: 224-225) . The best candidate for a Bushkill component in New York occurred in stratum 5 atthe Westheimer site in the Schoharie Valley (Ritchie and Funk 1973). There the unique assemblage, dated 570 B.C., consisted of Adena-like stemmed points, small triangular points or knives, lanceolate and ovate bifaces, end scrapers, and net-marked pottery. Turnbaugh ( 1977) reports Lagoon points, Rossville points, and other items attributed to the Bushkill phase in his study area. Excavations by North Central Chapter No. 8 at the Ly-37 site on an island near Loyalsock Creek disclosed a stratified sequence. The upper zone produced Late Woodland artifacts; in the lower zone were pit features, post molds, and a Middle Woodland assemblage consisting of Rossville points, Fox Creek points (Ritchie 1971 b), one soapstone she rd, Vinette 1 sherds, bifaces, end scrapers, netsinkers, pitted stones, sinewstones, cell or adze fragments, and hematite nodules. Bushkill and the very similar Lagoon phase appear to represent a poorly understood stage of transition from such Early Woodland complexes as Middlesex and Meadowood into Early Point Peninsula and related Middle Woodland manifestations. A similar transition from Bushkill into Fox Creek might be represented in the basal zone at Ly-37 . The definition of the Canoe Point phase rests on data from a rather limited number of sites, including Grindstone Island on Lake Ontario, O'Neil on the Seneca River, Davenport Creamery on Charlotte Creek, and Cottage near Binghamton (Ritchie l 965a: 203-213; Funk and Hoagland l 972b ; see Vol. 2) . The identifying criteria are chiefly ceramic, consisting of dentatestamped, rocker-stamped, and pseudo-scallop shell impressed pottery vessels with rounded or wedge-shaped lips. Generally associated are relatively thick, often asymmetrical small, broad side-notched and broad stemmed projectile points. The phase definition is met by the small sample from the Cottage site, dated A.D. 140 ± 100 years, although pseudo-scallop shell impressed sherds are absent. At the Davenport Creamery site (Plate 10) the Middle Woodland materials ,;,,ere found in the plow zone, in partially disturbed stratum IB, and in features intrusive into stratum 2 from stratum lB. Of the 381 artifacts from stratum lB and

200 /

5 3

4

9 7 6

10

8

II

12

20

21

13

14

22

15

16

26

25

24

17

18

19

27

23

29

•

~~· ~ - .-u \tnCHl 2 3

1

.- ,.-

30

31

-,, .- JI"""

4 S 6 rl r l r1r l 1l1l r l1 l'111l 111 l 111l 111l 111 l 11 1l 11 r l 1i 1

Plate 10. Artifacts from strata IA and lB, Davenport Creamery site. Fig .1, from plow zone (stratum lA); 2-4, from test pit; all others from stratum lB or associated features. Fig. 1 , untyped broad corner-notched point similar toJ ack' s Reef Corner-Notched type; 2-4, 15-19, untyped thin side-notched points; 5, net-marked rim sherd with rounded lip; 6, rocker-dentate stamped rim sherd with rounded lip; 7, plain rim sherd with rounded lip; 8, Jack's Reef Corner-Notched point; 9, rocker-dentatestampedrimsherd with rounded lip; 10, Petalas blade; 11, possible drill midsection; 12-14, Fox Creek Stemmed points; 20, 24-26, untyped broad side-notched points; 21, Snook Killlikepoint; 22, Perkiomen Broad point; 23, Lamoka-likepoint; 27, 28, ovate knives; 29 , pitted stone; 30, bipitted hammer-anvilstone; 31, notched netsinker. Lithic materials: Figs. 1-4, 8, 11 -28, eastern Onondaga chert; 29-31, graywacke. 201

2 4

3

5

6

8

7

9 10

12

11

13

15

14

18

19

16

20

17 21 Plate 11. ArtifactsfromtheFredenburgsite. Figs. 1, 2, net-impressed potsherds; 3, 4, 9, 10, 13-16, Fox Creek Stemmed points; 7, Fox Creek Stemmed point modified to end scraper; 5, 8, untyped side-notchedpoints; 6, untyped stemmed point; 11, 12, ovate or trianguloid knives; 17, notched stone; 18, 19, expanded-base drills; 20, celt fragment; 21, discoidal object chipped around edges and battered. Lithic materials: all items of gray Onondaga chert except fig . 10, argillite; 17, 21, sandstone; 20, diorite.

202

2

3

6

5

8

7 •

•

,lnCH r

-

-

L

l

. ,..

4

2

-

ll

3

9

-... ,.... Ifl"' ~ I

4

I

S,

6

11I111l111I111I111I111I11.1I111I111I111I111I111

Plate 12. Artifacts from the Afton site. Figs. 1-4, sherds of Point Peninsula Rocker-Stamped pottery; 5,6, ovate bifaces (scrapers?); 7, 8, Fox Creek Lanceolate type points; 9, fragmentary polished stone gorget. Lithic materials: 5, 6, eastern New York Onondaga chert; 7 ,8, Delaware Valley argillite; 9, gray slate.

203

associated features at the site, 333 are potsherds. Some 150 sherds from three vessels represent the Point Peninsula RockerStamped type (Ritchie and Mac Neish 1949: 102-103). Another pot, net-marked, is represented by two rim sherds. A Point Peninsula Plain vessel and various corded , smoothed-over-cord, and rocker-dentate sherds are also in the collection. Where rims are available, the lips are rounded in cross-section. Thus the pottery is consistent with a Middle Point Peninsula assignment. Several projectile points from strata lA and 1 Bare of Archaic origin, but five small, thin side-notched points similar to Long Bay points (Ritchie 1971 b), four larger, thicker side-notched points, and three Fox Creek Stemmed points do not conflict with a Middle Woodland placement. It is suggested that except for the Archaic points these items represent one component, since Fox Creek, broad side-notched, and similar types have been found together in stratified contexts on other sites, such as Westheimer in the Schoharie Valley (Ritchie and Funk 1973), Fredenburg in the Susquehanna Valley (Hesse 1968) and elsewhere. At the Davenport Creamery site rocker-dentate sherds and small thin side-notched points occurred together in feature 1, datedA.D. 325 ±95 years. Therefore, on the assumption that Fox Creek, small side-notched, and large side-notched points pertained to the same assemblage as the pottery, the writer has suggested that the Davenport Creamery component exemplifies an episode of Middle Woodland development intermediate between a Canoe Point level and a Fox Creek level in eastern New York. This placement is in accord with the radiometric chronology, since other Canoe Point expressions have been dated between A.D. 140 and 240 and Fox Creek components between A.D. 360 and 450 (Ritchie and Funk 1973; Funk 1976). 6 Unfortunately, no other "transitional" sites like Davenport Creamery are presently on record. The Fox Creek phase itself is well-represented in the Upper Susquehanna Valley. One of the type stations is the Fredenburg site, on Mill Creek about three miles from the river (Plate 11) (Hesse 1968). The two other type stations are the Westheimer site in the Schoharie Valley (Ritchie and Funk 1973) and the Ford site in the Hudson Valley (Funk 1976), although important components of the phase were present on several coastal New York sites (Kaeser 1968) and at Abbott Fa rm near Trenton, New Jersey (Cross 1941, 1956; Lorraine Williams, personal communications 1981) . Principal diagnostics of the Fox Creek phase comprised the Fox Creek Lanceolate and Fox Creek Stemmed point types, and net-marked pottery. Traits shared with other Middle Woodland complexes include rocker-stamped, dentate-stamped, cordmarked, zoned incised, and plain ceramics; Greene points; and a variety of chipped, polished, and rough stone tools. The Fox Creek point types are present in many surface collections from the Upper Susquehanna drainage but constitute only 0 .6 percent of the Hill collection and do not appear in the Taylor collection. Larger numbers of these types occur on some mixed multicomponent sites. A large collection of such points from a surface site near Colliersville was studied by William A. Ritchie (personal communication 1970). Apart from the Fredenburg site and a small component near Afton, reported by Jesse Benton and brieflytested by Frank F. Schambach and David R. Wilcox in 1967 (Plate 12), it has proven difficult to locate and isolate additional Fox Creek components. The lowest excavated level in the stratified portion of the Egli site near Sidney yielded a single Fox Creek Stemmed point, stratigraphically overlain by Owasco materials. The Fox Creek level was dated A.D. 630 ± 150 years (GX11932). Another Fox Creek specimen occurred in undisturbed deposits at locus 2 of the Fortin site (See Vol. 2); unfortunately it was found in a peripheral area where the stratification was vague, and could not be assigned to either occupation zone 2 or 3. Zone 2 would be preferred, since the date of A.D. 4 75 ± 90 years is compatible with other Fox Creek dates, and the zone failed to produce other projectile points. Also assigned to the Fox Creek occupation of the valley are a single pit at the predominantly Owasco Apl-6 site near Binghamton, reported by avocational archaeologist Murray Shapiro, and several Fox Creek points from the West Shelter No . 1 near Otego (See Vol. 2). Fox Creek points, chiefly of purple-weathering argillite, and found on surface sites, were the sole evidence for the phase in the Susquehanna's West Branch (Turnbaugh 1977). In central New York and in the Hudson Valley the archaeological data suggest that early Middle Woodland phases such as Canoe Point and Fox Creek evolved without interruption or abrupt change into late Middle Woodland manifestations, &iich as the Kipp Island phase and regional variants including the Fourmile and Burnt Hill phases of eastern New York (Ritchie l 965a; Funk 1976) . Both the early Middle Woodland substage and the transition into the late Middle Woodland substage are less well known than are the sundry late Middle Woodland expressions. The period in question began about A.D. 400 and ended at about A.D. 700. In the western half of the State ceramic seriation enabled Ritchie (1944, l 965a; Ritchie and MacNeish 1949) to define an arbitrary Middle Point Peninsula (equivalent to "Middle Middle" Woodland) cultural unit that filled that period. In eastern New York Funk ( 1976) based his intermediate Middle Woodland developmental sequence on the temporal ordering of components by ceramic and projectile point seriation. In the Susquehanna and Hudson Valleys the Fox Creek phase gavewayto one or more regional precursors of the Kipp Island, Burnt Hill, and Fourmile phases. The characteristic Fox Creek points and net-marked pottery were gradually replaced by Jack's Reef Pentagonal and Jack's Reef Corner-Notched points and corded pottery. Later, Levanna points made their appearance and gradually supplanted the other types. Dentate-stamped, rocker-stamped, and plain pottery, found in Fox Creek but also common

204

in Point Peninsula assemblages in central New York, continued through the period of transition with some changes in relative frequency and in vessel lip form. This transition is better understood in the Hudson Valley than in the Upper Susquehanna Valley. Evidence of the Fox Creek phase is equivocal, at best, in central and western New York, where there seems to have been a progressive development from Canoe Point (Early Point Peninsula) into Middle and then Late Point Peninsula. B. Late Middle Woodland

The Kipp Island Phase The presence in the upper valley of groups affiliated with the Kipp Island phase (Ritchie l 965a: 232-253) is attested by the data from numerous sites, including the plow zone and associated features at the Russ site; zone 3 atthe Sternberg site; upper levels atthe Cottage site; occupation zones 2 and 3 at the Fortin site, locus 2; floor 2 atthe Rose site, locus !; zones 1-3 atthe Gardepe site, locus 1; the plow zone and associated features at Kuhr No. 2 site; zone Bat the Camelot No. 2 site, locus 1; plow zone and features atthe Davis site, South Edmeston (Boyd, et al. 1981): and zone C atthe Street site (See Vol. 2) . These components are considered coeval on the basis of shared projectile point and ceramic traits, including Levanna, Jack's Reef Corner-Notched, and Jack's Reef Pentagonal points (Ritchie 196lb) in association with corded, dentate-stamped and rocker-stamped pottery vessels bearing flattened lips. Although Middle Woodland potsherds are rarely seen in surface collections, there is some information on lithic traits in those collections. Surprisingly, only five Jack's Reef Corner-Notched points were observed in the Hill collection (0.6 percent of the total); there were no Jack's Reef Pentagonals. Just one pentagonal occurred in the Taylor Collection, without any of the cornernotched variety. Levanna points (35 or 4.3 percent) were also represented in the Hill collection but some can be attributed to later Owasco occupations. Long Bay points (8 examples or 1.0 percent) may also pertain to Late Point Peninsula. Occupation zone 2 at Fortin's produced a very limited assemblage consisting of ovate and pentagonoid biface knives, biface fragments, a triangular drill, a thumbnail scraper, a hammer-anvilstone, sherds from a Jack's Reef Dentate Collar pottery vessel (Ritchie and MacN eish 1949: 106), and smooth-surfaced sherds from another vessel. Zone 3 was the most heavily utilized "floor," producing 19 Jack's Reef Pentagonal points, 12 Jack's Reef Corner-Notched points, 13 untyped trianguloid points, 1 Levanna point , several untyped points, 7 biface knives of varied form, numerous fragmentary bifaces, bifaces in process, strike-a-lights, several uniface scrapers, rough stone tools, a fragmentary slate pendant, and a series of potsherds from approximately 20 vessels. The ceramic types (Ritchie and MacNeish 1949:100-107) include Jac k's Reef Corded, Jack's Reef Dentate Collar, Vinette Dentate, Point Peninsula Plain, and Wickham Punctate, and there are some untyped sherds. The group of untyped triangular points displays unusual variation. They are small and tend to be convex-sided with straight or slightly indented bases; several have one convex edge and one slightly to moderately angled edge. On others the silhouette of the lower edges near the base displays a pronounced excurvature. Thus they intergrade with Jack's Reef Pentagonal points. Because they are predominantly isosceles, ratherthan equilateral, in outline they are not classifiable as Levanna points and belong to the small series of diverse forms often found together in assemblages of the Kipp Island phase, Late Point Peninsula tradition. The series usually includes Jac k's Reef Pentagonal, Jack's Reef Corner-Notched, and Levanna points; Long Bay Side-Notched and Port Maitland points (Ritchie 1971 b) are less often associated. Although the artifact samples are small and there were ambiguities in the complex stratigraphy, occupation zones C and F in locus 1 at the Street site may represent components of "pure" Jack's Reef affiliation; at least, no Levanna points were found in the sampled areas. However Zones A and B produced a considerable number of Levanna points, and Jack's Reef points were a small minority; these frequencies plus the associated ceramics appear to signify a Late Point Peninsula, Hunter's Home component. The upper four zones at Gardepe site, locus 1, contained Jack's Reef Pentagonal, Jack's Reef Corner-Notched, and Levanna points and a few cord-impressed, incised, and plain sherds. Although from mixed deposits, they probably all reflect Kipp Island occupation. The small assemblage from floor 2 at the Rose site, locus 1, comprised three Levanna points, fragmentary bifaces, one side scraper, 13 sherds from a Vinette Dentate pot, and cord-malleated body sherds. Despite the absence of Jack's Reef points, the assemblage is attributed to a Kipp Island ratherthan a Hunter's Home component on the grounds that the Vinette Dentate pot was wedge-lipped instead of flat-lipped . Stratum 2A, in locus A, at the Cottage site contained a variety of plain, cord-malleated, cord-decorated, dentate-stamped, rocker-stamped, and corded punctate sherds that appear to constitute a Kipp Island component, apparently stratigraphically superior to an Early Point Peninsula component in stratum 2B. Comparable ceramics and a Jack's Reef Corner-Notched point occurred in other loci of the site but in multicomponent situations. Stratum 3 at the Sternberg site yielded materials also assigned to the Kipp Island phase, largely on the basis of ceramics. The types present in the small sample included Point Peninsula Rocker-Stamped and Vinette Dentate. There were also untyped punctated, fingernail-impressed, cord-malleated and plain sherds. The lithic associations are indefinite, since just one Jack's Reef Corner-Notched point was found on the creek bank, apparently lodged in stratum 3, a Fox Creek Stemmed point occurred ·in otherwise sterile stratum 2, and a Lamoka point was found in feature 5 at the base of stratum 3 . 205

A Ki pp Island componentis also denoted by materials from the plow zone and associated features at the Russ site, locus 2. This is clear even though artifacts from other components also occurred in the plow zone . Some Middle Woodland items were found in seemingly undisturbed silts just under the plow zone. No later Middle Woodland or Late Woodland occupations are indicated by the artifact data. A contact period Indian occupation is suggested by a date of A.D. 1680 ± 70years (GX-11930) on feature 89, which produced charred corn cobs. The significant Middle Woodland traits include 3 Levanna points, 9 Jack's Reef CornerNotched points, 8 Jack's Reef Pentagonal points, and several points similar to the Jack's Reef types. Vinette Dentate, Vinette Complex Dentate, Point Peninsula Rocker-Stamped, and other Middle Woodland sherds are in the collection. Thirty-five fragments of a Point Peninsula Rocker-Stamped pot evinced a Point Peninsula component in the Calder Hill Ravine Shelter near Otego (See Vol. 2). The very small assemblage in zone Bat Camelot No. 2 site, locus 1, consisted of two Jack's Reef Pentagonal points, fragmentary bifaces, and sherds from a Point Peninsula Plain pottery vessel. At the Kuhr No. 1 site, the plow zone and underlying W-1 level produced just 5 Levanna type points, an untyped stemmed point, 3 Susquehanna Broad points, a Susquehanna knife, biface fragments, rough stone tools, Vinette 1 potsherds, and part of a Point Peninsula Plain vessel. The Levanna points doubtless pertain to either a Middle or a Late Woodland component. It is uncertain whether the Point Peninsula Plain pot was associated with the Levanna points, or with the stemmed point and Vinette 1 sherds, since the latter two traits are tentatively attributed to a component of the Bushkill phase, here dated 380 B.C . A Kipp Island provenience is suggested for the Levanna points because Jack's Reef Corner-Notched and Jack's Reef Pentagonal points were recorded in the William Kuhr surface collection from the site. Late Middle Woodland artifacts were recovered from subsurface deposits at a stratified alluvial site located within the bounds of an alternate location for a bridge across the Susquehanna at the village of Nineveh (Beauregard 1984). A feature well below plow zone in one test unit produced Jack's Reef Corded sherds and a Jack's Reef Pentagonal point; charcoal from the feature was dated A.D. 980 ± 60 years (Beta-11275). Two charcoal samples outside the feature's periphery but apparently on the same level provided dates of l 180B.C. ± l lOyears (Beta-l 1277)and370B.C. ± lOOyears(Beta-11278), suggestingtheimprintofseveral occupations over at least 2000 years in this stratigraphic context. A feature at the base of the plow zone in another unit lacked diagnostic associations but contained charcoal dated at A.D. 690 ± 80 years (Beta-11276), well within the range of dates for late Middle Woodland components in New York. The date on feature 2 at the Nineveh site appears relatively young in view of the associated artifacts, which suggest a component of the Kipp Island phase; the date would be more consistent with a Hunter's Home association (Ritchie l 965a: 253265). The plow zone and associated subsurface features at the Kuhr No. 2 site also produced evidence of a Kipp Island component. No Levanna or Jack's Reef points were found in the excavated area, but two dentate-stam ped sherds and one body she rd with plain exterior, channeled interior are probably from a Late Point Peninsula occupation. The Davis site in the Chenango Valley appears to have been essentially single-component, producing abundant Kipp Island artifacts and debitage from plow zone and from features at the base of the plow zone (Boyd, et al. 1981). The lithic inventory included 44 Jack's Reef Corner-Notched points, 51 Levanna points, 14 Jack's Reef Pentagonal points, 5 Archaic Stage points, netsinkers, ovate knives, drills, end scrapers, pitted stones, anvilstones, a millingstone, teshoas, strike-a-lights, sinewstones, and a possible platform pipe fragment of soapstone. Ceramics consisted of the Vinette Dentate, Wickham Punctate, Wickham Incised, and Jack's Reef Corded types. Although no subsurface components of the Kipp Island phase have been excavated along the Susquehanna River's West Branch, its former presence is assumed on the basis of occasional corded, punctated, and dentate-stamped potsherds and numerous Jack's Reef Corner-Notched and Jack's Reef Pentagonal points in surface collections (Turnbaugh 1977). The radiocarbon chronology of Kipp Island components in the study region rests on six dates. Zone 2 at Fortin locus 2 was datedA.D. 475 ±90years. Two dates for zone 3 areA.D. 560±55yearsandA.D. 830±90years. Kippislandmaterialsatthe Davis site were dated A.D. 755 ± 130 years. The age reading of A.D. 550 ± 55 years on feature 30 at the Gardepe site, locus 1, is compatible with theKippislanditemsinmulticomponentzone3. PerhapsthedateofA.D. 290± 1OOyearsonfeature1 in the same level applies to an older Point Peninsula occupation, although there was no definite evidence for Canoe Point or Fox Creek components at Gardepe. A range of ca. 500-800 A.D. is commensurate with dates for Kipp Island components in central New York (Ritchie l 965a: 241) and for related components in the Hudson Valley (Funk 1976), the Delaware Valley (Kinsey, et al. 1972), and western Vermont (Peterson and Power 1982).

The Hunter's Home Phase Data from central New York and the Hudson Valley, principally ceramic seriation, rather firmly demonstrate a continuous development from the Kipp Island phase and similar cultural units into the Hunter's Home phase (Ritchie l 965a: 253-265; Funk 1976) . There is little reason to doubt that a similar pattern existed in the Upper Susquehanna Valley.

206

A major component in Ritchie's synthesis was the White site, in Chenango county, which has been a favored collecting locale for decades (Whitney and Gibson 1972; Ritchie l 965a: 257-260). The total amount of material taken from this site, which covers about two-thirds acre, was considerable, but the precise quantities are unknown. Whitney recorded over 6000 artifacts including potsherds. A probable oblong house pattern and several burials were also reported. Whitney and Gibson's (1972) trait list includes well over 900 projectile points, principally of the Levanna, Jack's Reef Corner-Notched, andJ ack' s Reef Pentagonal types, pl us some untyped triangles and a smaller quantity of Archaic types (Lamoka, Brewerton, bifurcated-base, etc.). There are more than 1100 end scrapers, as well as several drill forms, biface knives, biface scrapers, strike-a-lights, chipped disks, "choppers," sinewstones, abraders, hammerstones, pitted stones, polished celts, stone maskettes, stone beads, stone pendants, stone platform pipes, ceramic pipes, fossil sharks' teeth, bone awls, pins, needles, and harpoons, and many other items. The ceramic types were" classic" for Hunter's Home, comprising Wickham Corded Punctate, Jack's Reef Corded, Levanna Cord-on-Cord, Jack's Reef Corded Collar, Point Peninsula Corded, Kipp Island Crisscross, and early varieties of Carpenter Brook Cord-on-Cord , Owasco Platted, and Owasco Corded Horizontal (Ritchie and MacNeish 1949) . Roughly 360 rim sherds comprise the sample. One unusual partially cremated burial (Whitney and Gibson 1977) was associated with several bone pins, an antler harpoon, and textile fragments of bark, Indian hemp, and cord. A radiocarbon date on associated charcoal was A.D. 905 ± 125 years (M176). Contract archaeology excavations at the Ouleout site, on the floodplain of Ouleout Creek, revealed evidence of Middle Woodland occupancy (Hartgen Archaeological Associates 1988). Feature 18 was a living area consisting of clustered artifacts, debitage, calcined bone and charred nuts. It was attributed to the Hunter's Home phase on the basis of the exclusive occurrence of Levanna type points and corded pottery similar to Owasco types, but lacking the lip profiles characteristic of full-fledged Owasco assemblages (Ritchie and MacNeish 1949: 107-119). Several C -14 dates for feature 18 ranged from about 770 to 990 A.D. Zones A and Bin loci 1 and 2 at the Street site (See Vol. 2) produced 42 Levanna type points, 3 Jack's Reef Pentagonals, and 1 Jack's Reef Corner-Notched point. Pottery types included Kipp Island Crisscross, Jack's Reef Corded Punctate, Vinette Dentate, Owasco Corded Horizontal, and Wickham Punctate. The Owasco Corded Horizontal pot may pertain to a small Owasco component rather than to the Hunter's home component inferred from the other types. Other associated lithic tools include expanded-base drills, trianguloid strike-a-lights, end scrapers, anvilstones, hammerstones, and "choppers" . Radiocarbon dates on zones A and Bare confusing, inconsistent and erratic, as detailed in the report, and cannot be used to place the occupations in absolute time without a great deal of arbitrary selection and rejection.

The Late Woodland (Village Farmer) Stage Relatively few Owasco components were encountered during our investigations. These were in occupation zone 4 at the Fortin site locus 2; zone 1 at the Stern berg site; and stratum 2 at the Egli site. In each case the artifact samples were meager, consisting chiefly of pottery (Carpenter Brook Cord-on-Cord, Canandaigua Plain, and other types) and Levanna points. Substantial assemblages have been recovered at other sites in the drainage, such as Bates, Bainbridge, Hilltop, Roundtop, and Castle Creek (Ritchie 1934, 1939, 1944, 1965a; Ritchie and Funk 1973), Engelbert (Elliott and Lipe 1970), Otsdawa (Hesse, personal communications 1968-1973), Jamba (Whitney 1975 ) , Subi-672 (Versaggi, et al. 1982), and Boland (V. Steponaitis, personal communications 1986). The first five of these sites were among those instrumental to the formulation of the Owasco developmental sequence (Ritchie 1944, l 965a: 271-300) and represent the three fundamental phases or stages, i.e., Carpenter Brook, Canandaigua, and Castle Creek.7 The few components we sampled were of Carpenter Brook affiliation, as were the Roundtop, Hilltop, Boland, and Otsdawa sites. An Owasco shell midden near Owego was investigated in 1985 by Edward Curtin (personal communication 1985). A small Carpenter Brook phase site near the Unadilla River was discovered and excavated by the owner, Newell E. Talbot, in the l 920's (personal communication to William A. Ritchie 1950) . He reported thatthe materials were confined to an area about 20 feet in diameter, including the plow zone and an underlying midden remnant. The artifacts included approximately 38 whole and fragmentary Levanna points, some biface knives, two strike-a-lights, several expanded-base drills, and some corded pottery. The Otsdawa site covers several acres, on a high, south-sloping field adjoining the headwaters of Otsdawa Creek north of the village of Otego, Otsego County. Great quantities of lithic debris, including debitage, Levanna points, scrapers, strike-a-lights, sinewstones, and other artifacts have been brought to the surface by plowing. Similar lithics plus many sherds from Early Owasco pots - chiefly of the Carpenter Brook Cord-on-Cord type - have been excavated by amateur archaeologists from refuse areas. This site represents a slightly more recent period than the not-too-distant White site, and would handsomely repay large-scale settlement pattern excavations. A small component near Oneonta designated the Lookout site by the investigator, F.J. Hesse, also produced Early Owasco artifacts and may represent one facet of the settlement system that includes the nearby and much larger Hilltop site. Another small component called the Outpost site may be a satellite of the Otsdawa village (Hesse, personal communications 1970-1973). 207

Salvage excavations were carried out by the SUNY Binghamton Department of Anthropology at the Boland site, located on the Chenango Riverfloodplain near Binghamton (Vincas Steponaitis, personalcommunications 1986) . The recovered ceramics were chiefly of Carpenter Brook affiliation. Postmold patterns representing at least two houses were surrounded by a palisade, possibly the oldest palisade yet recorded in New York State. Radiocarbon dates for Carpenter Brook components atthe Fortin site locus 2, zone 4, and on feature 35 at the Roundtop site were, respectively, A.D. 1080 ± 75 years and A.D. 1070 ± 60 years . A presumably inaccurate date of A.D. 1630 for zone 4 at Fortin' s is discounted here. Also incongruous with the great majority of Early Owasco dates is the determination of A. D. 1365 ± 140 years on the Carpenter Brook phase component at the Egli site (See Vol. 2). Some of the dates from the Street site, in the range of A.D. 950-1150, may apply to a Carpenter Brook component, but there are problems with the conflicting and confusing series of dates for the site. In the Middle Owasco (Canandaigua) range were the Engelbert, Bates, and Jamba sites. The Jamba site is located at the juncture of Canasawacta Creek and the Chenango River. O ccupation debris covers low ridges ona presently active floodplain that includes some abandoned channels still acting as chutes during floods . On the rises the brown loamy plow zone directly overlies dense yellow clay-silt that is least four feet deep and contains some boulders and cobbles. Most cultural material came from the plow zone and from pits intrusive from the plow line into the subsoil. Obviously multicomponent, the site has produced numerous Brewerton and Levanna points as well as Lamoka, Orient Fishtail , Susquehanna Broad, Meadowood, and Jack's Reef points pl us end and side scrapers, biface knives, strike-a-lights, drills, pestles, netsinkers, abradingstones , sinewstones, millingstones, an adz, a banded slate pendant, and soapstone vessel fragments.Numerous potsherds were recovered, heavily dominated by corded and punctated Owasco styles. The rims displayed broad, flat lips. In one area a house outline was suggested by an oval pattern of post molds. The structure was about 25 feet long and 10 feet wide; the post molds averaged 7 inches deep, 2 .7 inches in diameter. A dentate-stamped sherd was found in one post mold. There was a central row of hearths, evidenced as fire -reddened patches of earth. Only Meadowood points and untyped "Woodland" sidenotched points occurred in or close to this pattern; there were no Levanna points, but other items from the vicinity included the slate pendant, miscellaneous stone tools, and sherds of Owasco pottery. The associations are not clear, but the house is likely to have been an Owasco construction. Part of a sizeable Middle Owasco village or campsite was excavated by SUNY Binghamton field crews during mitigation of a sewage treatment plant at the village of Owego (Versaggi, et al. 1982) . Designated SuBi-672 , this site produced considerable material including some 3,000 potsherds . Several features with associated diagnostic artifacts produced charcoal samples suitable for dating. Bain bridge and Castle Creek (Ritchie 1944, l 965a) were key sites in the definition of the Castle Creek phase: the Engelbert site was also occupied during this period. Dates attributed to the Middle Owasco component at the Owego Sewage Treatment Plant are A.D. 1220 ± 60 years and A.D. 1280 ± 55 years. A third sample dated A.D. 1330 ± 75 years may pertain to this component but there were no diagnostic associations. Three other features containing Owasco ceramics, including Owasco Corded Horizontal and Owasco Platted rim sherds, yielded charcoaldatedA.D. 1490± 50years, A.D. 1539± 55years, andA.D. 1740 ±60years. Because these dates are much too late for the Owasco occupation they are attributed by the authors to the Iroquois component on the site (Versaggi, et al. 1982: 116). The supposed Middle Owasco component at theJamba site has a relatively late date of A.D. 1340 ± 65 years, a date more appropriate for Late Owasco. Three dates for the Bates site (Ritchie and Funk 1973) areA.D. 1125 ± 100 years, A.D. 1190 ± lOOyears, and A.D. 1298 ± 100 years. Attributed to the Late Owasco component at Castle Creek are determinations of A.D. 1196 ± 100 years and A.D. 1435 ± 100 years. Owasco occupation of the Engelbert site, attributed to Middle and Late Owasco, was dated to A.D. 1280 ± 160 years.8 Owasco expressions in the Delaware Valley, referred to a "Pahaquarra culture" by Kraft (1975a, 1975b), followed a developmental path verysimilartothatin New York. DatesforseveralcomponentsrangefromA.D. 1190± 1 OOyearstoA.D. 1410 ± lOOyears (Kinsey, etal. 1972; Kraft 1975b) . For as yet undetermined reasons, Iroquoian manifestations are far from abundant in the Upper Susquehanna valley (either within New York State or just south of the New York-Pennsylvania border). These manifestations are identified almost entirely from sporadic discoveries of ceramics representing the Oak Hill, Chance, and Garogahorizons (Ritchie l 965a: 300-323; Ritchie and Funk 197 3; Lenig 1965). Oak Hill pottery types and components are almost unknown, apart from recoveries at the Willow Point site near Binghamton; this site also produced Castle Creek Owasco materials (Ritchie 1944: 59; l 965a: 311). Chance horizon assemblages were produced by the Weaver Lake site near Richfield Springs, the Goodyear Lake site near Oneonta (now under a reservoir), and the Deowongo Island site in Canadarago Lake (Ritchie 1952). Another Chance phase component, stratigraphically sealed below alluvium, was present at the Bemis site on Butternut Creek (See Vol. 2) . Sherds of a Chance Incised pot occurred in the Harrington Rockshelter in the Unadilla Valley (Taylor and Barney 1959) . None of these Oak Hill and Chance components was directly dated. Oak Hill sites in central New York and the Mohawk Valley have been C-14dated betweenA.D. 1300and 1400, anddatesforChancesitesfall betweenA.D. 1400and 1500 (Ritchie l 965a; Tuck 1971; Ritchie and Funk 1973). 208

Meager traces of Garoga-level occupations have been found at the Munson site, West Oneonta and at a few other locations. Likewise, Madison type points, generally a useful diagnosticfor late prehistoric horizons, are rare in Upper Susquehanna Valley collections (only 0.5 percent of the Hill collection). Whitney (1974) reported several surface sites as "Iroquois" on the basis of recovered Madison points and incised, collared pottery; one was on the Chenango River, one was on the Unadilla River, and two were on the Susquehanna. One of these sites is located near Afton and has produced considerable early trade material including kaolin pipes, gunflints, and brass kettle fragments, as well as Madison points. Prehistoric artifacts are also abundant. Whitney ( 1974) suggested that this site could bethe historic Indian village of Conihunto, although Parker ( 1922) believed Conihuntowas located near Sidney. However as suggested by Elliott (1977) Conihunto, Otsiningo, Onaquaga, and other 18th Century Indian place names may refer to districts, rather than precise village locations. Several village locations, sequentially or coevally occupied, could have existed within each district during early historic times. The extreme paucity of Late Woodland evidence dating A.D. 1300-1700 on the Upper Susquehanna north of Binghamton contrasts with the slightly more abundant traces of Susquehannock occupation in the valley from west of Binghamton to the juncture with the Chemung River, just across the border in Pennsylvania. Burials, pottery vessels, and other items apparently representing the late prehistoric to early historic Susquehannock were excavated at the Engelbert site near Nichols (Elliott and Lipe 1970; Stewart 1973; Dunbar and Ruhl 197 4). These components can reasonably be dated in the middle of the 16th century, prior to the supposed migration of the Susquehannock tribal groups down the river to their seventeenth century locations (Witthoft and Kinsey 1959; Kent 1984). A number of hypotheses have been offered to account for the apparent depopulation of the Upper Susquehanna region from A.D. 1300 to about 1700 (Rippeteau 1978). One postulates that the growing season for maize was too short to grow two annual crops, hence it was not possible to support the growing populations of post-Owasco Iroquoians, resulting in a tendency for resident groups to move north to the Lake Ontario Lowland where the growing season was longer. A second hypothesis links the abandonment of the valley to the general process of village nucleation and population aggregation noted for the Onondaga sequence by Tuck ( 1971). U nderthis hypothesis, the Upper Susquehanna Iroquoians would have moved north to join the Oneida and Mohawk. The tendency toward fusion throughout Iroquoia presumably set the stage for the formation of the League of the Iroquois in the 16th century. Another proposed explanation attributes the population loss to growing hostilities between northern Iroquoian tribes and the ancestral Susquehannock after A.D. 1400, resulting in abandonment of the Upper Susquehanna region which then became a buffer zone between the warring factions. Finally, it is possible that we are confronted with a sampling problem; some sites dating from A.D. 1300-1 700 may have been destroyed by modern construction and development, while others may remain undiscovered, perhaps tucked away in littlesurveyed types of terrain. None of these hypotheses, singly or in combination, seems to satisfactorily explain the situation. The agricultural hypothesis fails because it does not account forthe apparently successful Owasco agricultural system that persisted through the Castle Creek horizon and led to the construction of villages covering several acres. Unless a climatic deterioration is postulated (the Little Ice Age ca. A.D. 1400-1700?), subjecting the Iroquoian horticultural system to extreme stress, there seems to be no logical reason why people should not have persisted in the valley through the Oak Hill, Chance, and Garoga horizons, and built sizeable villages, even if the population density was below that for the Mohawk Valley, Oneida Lake margins, and Lake Ontario Lowland. Further, such a climatic deterioration is not evidenced elsewhere in the archaeological record in New York State. The tendencies to aggregation and fusion noted by Tuck ( 1971) for the Onondaga, beginning with the Oak Hill horizon around A.D. 1400, remain to be demonstrated for the Oneida and Mohawk (the Upper Susquehanna Valley is within the historic territory of the Oneida and overlaps into Mohawk territory). Therefore, the second hypothesis has no basis for support at this time. There is little reason to invoke intertribal hostilities as an explanation for the hiatus prior to the Sixteenth Century (when there may have been military and economic pressures arising from the formation of the League, drivingthe Susquehannock southward) or even the 17th century (during the Wars of the Iroquois, when many tribal groups were dispersed or dominated by the Five Nations) . Finally, the hypothesis of inadequate areal sampling may have some merit. Small camp sites such as Bemis, Goodyear Lake, and Deowongo Island do exist in the region, and many others probably remain unreported or undiscovered. Major villages comparable to the older Castle Creek and Otsdawa sites, or to the large Onondaga and Mohawk sites, are another matter. Are some like Otsdawa located in the uplands? It is hard to believe that if such sites existed, they have not been discovered during the stepped-up archaeological activities of the last 25 years. Amateur, student, and professional coverage of the region has been extensive, involving all major environmental zones such as the uplands , valley walls, kame terraces , and valley floor. Possibly, large sites have evaded detection despite everybody's efforts, but it seems less and less likely as time goes on.

209

Burial Customs and Burial Ceremonialism Although numerous reports of burials unearthed throughout New York State were published by Parker (1922), the great majority of those reports were derived from the data of Beauchamp ( 1900), obtained during the late 19th Century. Except for a few sites investigated by Parker and his colleagues these reports have never been scientifically confirmed. Many were based on hearsay, precise locations were lacking, and again with the exception of Parker's research, no skeletal remains were saved for study by physical anthropologists. Thereforein most cases it has not been determined whether particular burials were of aboriginal or Euroamerican origin. This is as true of the Beauchamp- Parker data in the Upper Susquehanna Valley, as in other parts of New York. To briefly review the data, no skeletal remains attributable to the Paleo-Indian, Early Archaic, or Middle Archaic stages are known in the Northeast. The oldest recorded and studied remains are those of the Late Archaic Vergennes, Brewerton, Lamoka, andFrontenacphases(Ritchie 1932, l 938a, 1940, 1944, 1945, 1951, l 965a, 1979a). One Snook Kill burialsitewasreported by Ritchie (l 965a: 138), and no information is available on burials of the Frost Island phase. Variable information is available on later periods from Orient, Meadowood, Adena-Middlesex, and Middle Woodland sites located in various areas of the State (Ritchie 1944, 1959, l 965a, l 969a; Ritchie and Dragoo 1960). Within the Upper Susquehanna Valley, the oldest systematically excavated and reported burials were found at the White site, a Hunter's Home manifestation (Whitney and Gibson 1972). A small number of burials were unearthed on Owasco sites (Ritchie 1944, 1965a; Ritchieand Funk 1973; Elliott and Lipe 1970), and Susquehannock Iroquois burials have been found at several localities, including the Engelbert site near Nichols (Elliott and Lipe 1970; Stewart 1973) . For pre-Owasco parts ofthe Upper Susquehanna sequence, we are forced to fall back on extrapolations from or analogies to burial data from other regions. Though osteological data are lacking for eastern Paleo-Indian, there is meager evidence that ( 1) cremation was practiced, (2) red ocher and broken, perhaps ritually killed, as well as whole artifacts were placed with the bones. The evidence comes from three sites: the Renier site in Wisconsin (Mason and Irwin 1960), the Anzick site in Montana (Lahren and Bonnichsen 197 4), and the Crowfield-Willaeys site in southern Ontario (Deller and Ellis 1982, 1984). Red ocher, cremated fragmentary bones, bone weapon parts, and fluted points were all associated at Anzick. A "cache" of fluted points occurred without red ocher or human bones in the presumed burial pit at Crowfield-Willaeys. Renier was a Late Paleo-Indian cremation in a shallow grave with associated Scottsbluff points and a side-notched point. Early to Middle Archaic burials remain undiscovered in the Northeast. The situation is not much better in the Southeast and Midwest. The oldest documented Early Archaic burials in the Southeast were excavated at the deeply stratified Icehouse Bottom site in Tennessee (Chapman 1977). There Burial 1 was a cremation, probably of an adult female, placed in a shallow burial pit in a Kirk level. Burial 2 also contained the cremated bones of an adult female in a shallow pit and was located in a LeCroy zone. Flesh inhumations in Horizon 9 at the Koster site, Illinois, were dated at 5960 B.C. ± 100 years (Buikstra n.d.) . Early to Middle Archaic burials from deep levels at Russell Cave, Alabama, were C-14 dated between 6550 and 4350 B.C. The intact burials had been placed in shallow pits in the flexed position (Griffin 1974). Much more information is available on Late Archaic burial customs. There is some evidence that Vergennes groups in Vermont buried their dead in flexed position in shallow pits below house floors, sprinkling the remains with red ocher (Ritchie l 965a: 85) . Others were interred, again in flexed mode, in or below midden refuse as at the Otter Creek No. 2 site, Vermont (Ritchie 1979a). Laurentian people at the Brewerton sites (Ritchie 1940) buried their dead in shallow graves dug into, or through, middens. Although most individuals were interred in the supine position, there were instances of flexed, bundled, and cremated burials. Grave offerings were rare, and consisted chiefly of stone tools. Red ocher was associated with one skeleton. If and when Brewerton burials are found and excavated in the Susquehanna basin, we can expected a repetition of the central New York pattern. A very similar pattern occurred at the Morrison's Island 6 site on the Ottawa River in Quebec (Kennedy 1966). There 12 burials were extended flesh inh umations, 5 were bundle burials, and 1 was flexed. Eight were sprinkled with red ocher. In contrast to the Brewerton sites, grave goods were numerous, including stemmed copper knives, copper beads, stone adzes, stone gouges, beaver incisor tools, bone points, bone needles, turtle shell rattles, and stone projectile points. Detailed information on this very important site, C-14 dated to ca. 2750 B.C., has yet to be published. Critical new data on Laurentian burial customs were unearthed in 1981-1983 by John E. Pfeiffer (1984) atthe Bliss site in Old Lyme, Connecticut. There 22 circular to oval grave pits were mapped and excavated. They contained fragments of cremated human bone, Brewerton Eared-Notched points, ovate bifaces, hammerstones, winged atlatl weights, a full-grooved axe, and a basalt pestle. Many artifacts had been ritually broken or "killed" and others were damaged by exposure to fire. There were also some concentrations of red ocher, exotic lithic wastage, sheets of unworked mica, and several quartz crystals. Adjoining the cemetery was a habitation area, consisting of several rock-filled hearths, numerous chipped stone artifacts including small stemmed, Brewerton Eared-Notched, Brewerton Eared Triangle, and Vosburg points, a ground slate ridged ulu , and a gouge. In the same area, near the graves, were one complete and two partial house patterns indicated by lines of post molds. The complete

210

house was oblong in outline and 30 feet (9.5 m) long by 16 feet (5m) wide. The Laurentian burial pits were C-14 dated from 4675 to 4 775 B.P. (J. Pfeiffer 1984). The present writer has examined the artifacts by courtesy of Pfeiffer, and was also privileged to join

the excavations on two occasions d uringthe summer of 1983. The weight of evidence atthis site indicates that the burials and house patterns were associated in the Laurentian component. Nothing like the Bliss mortuary complex has to date been reported in New York, and at this writing the Bliss site remains unique in the Northeast. A variety of burial practices were evident at the Frontenac Island site in Cayuga Lake (Ritchie 1944, 1944, 1965a). Laurentian, Lamoka, and Broadspear-Susquehanna components were represented, as well as the cultural entity referred by Ritchie to the Frontenac phase. Laurentian burials were extended, supine; Lamoka skeletons were in flexed position. Grave accompaniments, as opposed to randomly intrusive objects from the surrounding and overlying midden, were common. Lamoka points, beveled adzes and similar diagnostics occurred with flexed skeletons assigned by Ritchie to a Lamoka physical type; Laurentian items occurred with extended skeletons assigned by him to a Brewerton physical type. Graves containing offerings of both Lamoka and Brewerton diagnostics were associated only with extended burials that were physically intermediate between the two morphological types recognized by Ritchie ( 1945: 1 7-22). Trubowitz ( 1977) carried out a detailed statistical analysis of the Frontenac burials and associated grave offerings. There were hints of status differentiation, chiefly by age and sex, although Trubowitz found no evidence of social stratification. Relatively little information exists on mortuary practices of the other groups subsumed under the "narrow point" or "Piedmont" tradition (Kinsey, et al. 1972: 337). Ritchie (1932, 1936, 1944, 1965a) reported flexed and bundled burials in shallow pits in the middens of Lamoka phase sites of central New York; there was one instance of powered hematite sprinkled over a skeleton. No burials of the Sylvan Lake phase, a Hudson Valley manifestation (Funk 1976), are known; the same is true of the Lackawaxen phase in the Delaware Valley (Kinsey, et al. 1972). As pointed out by Pfeiffer ( 1984), there is little evidence for elaborate mortuary ceremonialism among Piedmont groups, in contrast to earlier and later people. Some ofthe well-accoutered Late Archaic burials atAssawompsett Lake in eastern Massachusetts (Robbins 1960, 1980) may pertain to the Squibnocket phase. A burial associated with the narrow point component at the Bear Swamp site, also in Massachusetts (Staples and Athearn 1969) contained small stemmed points, atlatl weights, a gouge, and worked graphite. Bear Swamp is dated 4640 B.P. ± 80 years (Y-2499). A lone burial on another site not identified by name consisted of a flexed skeleton in a small pit, covered with red ocher. Nearby were more pits containing small stemmed points and in one case a broken gouge. Adate on bone collagen is 4134 B.P ± 225 years (GX-2528) (Dincauze 1975). Burial associations are unknown for subsequent Late Archaic expressions in the Upper Susquehanna Valley. There are also few comparative data from other drainages. Neither graves nor human skeletal material have occurred on sites of the River phase in the Hudson Valley (Ritchie 1965a: 124-131; Ritchie and Funk 1973) or on sites of the related Charlotte phase in the Susquehanna Valley. Features containing projectile points, bannerstones, other artifacts and possibly red ocher appear to be associated with the heavy River phase occupation at the ABC site in Cambridge, Washington county, New York (personal communications of Roger Ashton and William O'Donnell 1988). These features may represent cremation burial pits from which human osseous remains have disappeared. Burials were associated with the Cole Gravel Pit assemblage in western New York. As previously noted this assemblage displayed affinities with both the Lamoka and River phases (C. Hayes and Bergs 1969; Funk 1976). There were 13 graves containing at least 15 individuals, interred in the flexed position. A flexed burial also occurred in a refuse pit; other refuse pits contained randomly placed or partial skeletons. One skeleton was partially cremated (S. Pfeiffer 1977). Grave offerings (not described) occurred with one burial. Currently no information exists on burials of the Vestal and Batten Kill phases. Data pertinent to Batten Kill were obtained by Ritchie (1945, l 965a, 1971 a; Ritchie and Funk 1973) atthe Frontenac Island site on Cayuga Lake. Some of the extended burials at Frontenac contained Genesee points that were deliberately emplaced, in addition to other grave offerings. Ritchie (personal communication 1986) doubts that these graves were products of "pure" Batten Kill occupations, and suggests that the observed traits were contributed by several different cultural traditions. Thus, burial 78 at Frontenac was of a robust, supine male, with the following associations: a ground slate knife; an effigy comb of bone; a bone flute; a whetstone; chopper, stemmed drills; antler flaker; beaver-incisor engraver; bone awl; antler punch; and iron pyrites. This individual and a companion in close proximity shared a Genesee point that also seemed to be an offering. A bone sample was radiocarbon dated 1900 B.C. ± 95 years (I-5266). No mortuary ceremonialism is on record for the Snook Kill phase in the Hudson or Susquehanna Valleys. However Ritchie (1965a: 134-141) reported the discovery on Lake Montauk, Long Island of two Snook Kill burials in shallow pits below a shell midden. Each contained small quantities of cremated human bone in association with red ocher, Snook Kill points, bird-boJ;le whistles or flutes, and numerous thin, white, discoidal shell beads.

211

Dincauze (1968) defineda Call complex, later subsumed by her under a broader Atlantic phase (Dincauze 1972), both terms denoting a Snook Kill-like manifestation. The Call group was based chiefly on burial data. Grave pits were small but richly furnished. They contained black fill, scraps of calcined human bone, broad stemmed "blades" allied to Snook Kill points, drills, end scrapers made from such points, beveled cobble abraders, fire-making sets, winged bannerstones, grooved-back and plain tapered adzes, and flaked adze-scrapers. No red ocher occurred in the reported graves. Also related to the widely distributed "Broadspear" tradition is the Koens-Crispin complex of New Jersey. Mortuary practices of this occupation comprised the placement of cremated bones in shallow pits, the use of red ocher, and the lavish use ofofferings such as atlatl weights, ground stone woodworking tools, and projectile points (Regensburg 1971 ). Subsequent to the various regional complexes identified by Snook Kill, Koens-Crispin, Lehigh, and Atlantic points was the emergent horizon represented by such complexes as Frost Island, Susquehanna, and Watertown. Evidence of associated burial ceremonialism is confined largely to southern New England. The Watertown phase has been described by Dincauze (1968 , 1975) . Without going into great detail, the burial practices can be summarized as follows. The dead were cremated and some portion of the remaining bones placed in pits located on knolls. These pits contained dark "greasy" fill with charcoal , burned and broken artifacts, and sometimes red ocher. Artifacts, many ritually burned or "killed," included projectile points or knives of Wayland Notched type (similar to Susquehanna Broad) , Mansion Inn blades (equivalent to Susquehanna knives in the present volume), Boats blades, bifaces modified to scrapers and drills, small oval hammers, strike-a-lights, flaked adze-scrapers, tapered adzes, full-grooved and notched axes, plain and grooved cylindrical pestles, steatite bowls, abradingstones, incised bone combs and barbed bone points. Asimilar mortuarycomplexwas unearthed by Pfeiffer (1980; 1984; personalcommunications 1982- 1985) atthe Griffin site in Old Lyme, Connecticut. The Griffin burial traits show similarities to the much older Bliss complex in 1) similar feature construction, 2) dry bone cremation, 3) use of ocher, 4) ritual killing of ceremonial offerings, 5) the use of exotic materials in artifact manufacture, 6) the incorporation of plant and animal remains into the grave pits, 7) the use of long, broad, and thin bifacial projectile points (though the typologies differ), 8) a lithic technology based on a pink quartzite. The Griffin site is C-14 dated between 1585 and 1035 B.C. (J. Pfeiffer 1980, 1984). Considerable mortuary information has been amassed for Early Woodland occupations of the Northeast. Meadowood groups (Ritchie 1944, l 955b, l 965a) usually cremated their dead, but some individuals were bundled and flexed. Multiple burials also occurred. Cremation took place either in the grave pits or in separate stone crematories. In the pits have been found charcoal , burned fragments of leather shrouds, basketry, and fish nets, plus fire-cracked stones and stone artifacts. Offerings comprised red ocher, Meadowood points, thin trianguloid biface blades ("cache blades" or "mortuary blades" sometimes numbering in the hundreds), tubular pipes, gorgets, birdstones, copper beads, and fire-making sets. Most Adena-Middlesex sites in New York are located in the Finger Lakes, the Mohawk Valley, and the Champlain Valley; these consist of non-mound burials. However the Long Sa ult Mound in the upper St. Lawrence Valley and the Augustine Mound in New Brunswick are exceptions (Ritchie and Dragoo 1960; Ritchie l 965a; Turnbull 1976) . The chief burial practice was cremation, although flexed and bundle burials are known. Grave goods chiefly comprised blocked-end tubes, usually of stone, rarely of clay; large leaf-shaped and lanceolate bifaces; stemmed or notched projectile points; ovate and trianguloid cache blades or preforms; copper awls and cells; bar amulets; truncated or bust-type birdstones; gorgets; pendants; cylindrical copper beads; and a variety of shell beads. Red ocher was commonly sprinkled over the burials. Many of the artifacts were made from materials foreign to the terrain surrounding the burial sites; i.e., Ohio fireclay; Flint Ridge, Ohio chalcedony; Ohio banded slate; and Harrison county, Indiana flint. There is evidence that Vinette 1 pottery was used by Middlesex groups. Only a single burial is known forthe Lagoon phase. It was excavated by Ritchie ( l 969b:7 l) at the Pratt site near Lagoon Pond on Martha's Vineyard. The flexed skeleton of an adult male was accompanied by a quartz end scraper, a prismatic bar atlatl weight of magnetite, sherds of Vinette l ware and a fragmentary Lagoon point. As remarked by Ritchie ( l 965a: 212-213), there is scanty information on the burial customs ofEarly Point Peninsula (Canoe Point)people . MuchmoreisknownabouttheSquawkieHillphase,aHopewellianmanifestationinwestern NewYork(Ibid.:213228). Hopewellian burials were characteristically placed in artificially constructed mounds, usually of earth but sometimes involving the use of rock slabs. Primary burials were interred in central su bfloor pits or stone cist gr aves, the latter usually featuring cover slabs. Cremated remains predominated in the main grave or in the mound fill, but extended, flexed, and bundled burials also occurred. Burial of trophy skulls was frequent. Grave goods were highly varied and whole pottery vessels have not been recorded in New York mounds. These goods included plain, curved-base platform pipes, straight-based platform pipes, elongate rectangular two-holed slate gorgets, slate pendants, copper beads, copper and!or silver breast ornaments and buttons, copper or silver pan pipe covers, expanded-bit copper cells, stone cells and axes, leaf-shaped cache blades, notched and stemmed projectile points, cut mica objects, galena and quartz crystals, iron pyrites, and other objects. Red and yellow ocher were extensively used. Archaeological evidence of precontact mortuaryceremonialism in the Northeast terminates with late Middle Woodland times (Kipp Island phase). Although there is no evidence for continued mound-building in this period of A.D. 500-800, the evidence demonstrates an elaborate ritualism doubtless rooted in the Hopewellian tradition (Ritchie l 965a: 228-253).

212

Kipp Island mortuary treatment comprised flexed inhumation, bundle burial, cremation, and multiple burial. Red ocher was lavishly used, and furnishings comprised such objects as stone pendants in several forms, incised moose antler combs, copper beads, bracelets made of small shells, smoking pipes in platform, right-angle elbow, and obtuse-angle forms, and fossil shark's teeth. With the advent of the Hunter's Home phase ca. A .D. 800, burial ceremonialism in New York appears to have run its course. More accurately, perhaps, offerings of stone, pottery, bone and shell were no longer routinely placed in graves during the rites that accompanied the disposal of the dead. Otherwise, modes of burial were similar to those of the Kipp Island phase. The absence of significant evidence for mortuary ceremonialism continued from Hunter's Home into the subsequent Owasco tradition and into the later Iroquoian (and Algonquian) manifestations represented by the Oak Hill, Chance, and Garoga ceramic horizons. Indeed, the placement of durable material wealth in graves was not to reappear until the protohistoric period when the fur trade was in full swing (Ritchie l 965a:295-323). Despite the paucity of evidence for burial ceremonialism in late prehistory and at certain other periods, it is obvious that some form of ceremonialism was practiced by eastern North American people from the beginning of the Paleo-Indian era. This took forms very reminiscent of later Archaic and Woodland practices, e.g., human cremation, offerings of both whole and "killed" artifacts including projectile points and bone tools, and the use of red ocher. These traits have their roots in the Upper Paleolithic of the Old World, at least 20 ,000 years ago. It seems safe to predict that burial sites manifesting a high degree of ritualism and representing at least the Frost Island, Meadowood, Middlesex, Hopewellian, and Kipp Island occupations will eventually be discovered in the Upper Susquehanna Valley.

Footnotes 1 The

total number of fluted points on record in New York State now exceeds 300 (Wellman 1982). ' Noting the paucity of Dalton and similar projectile points in collections throughout the Northeast, Funk (199 1) has postulated a "Triangular Dalton" horizon. This would comprise a regional equivalent of the Dalton complex known in the Southeast and Midwest (Gramly and Funk 1991) but represented chiefly by triangular and lanceolate forms that overlap with similar styles well-represented in the Late Archaic of New York and New England and in the Maritime Archaic of Labrador (McGhee and Tuck 1975) 3 A Neville component represented by 75 Neville type points was recovered from the multicomponent Mohonk Rockshelter in Ulster county, New York; unfortunately, this component could not be radiocarbon-dated (Eisenberg 1991 ). 4 Lamoka and Normanskill points were found during cultural resource surveys at the Hendrick No. 4 site near Oneonta near hearths dated 2380 B.C. ± 250 years and 2210 B.C. ± 250years (Versaggi 1987). s A Susquehanna biface found at the D&H site near Schenevus was in the vicinity of charcoal dated 1530 B.C. ± 200 years (Versaggi 1987). 6 Middle Woodland components excavated during highway salvage investigations atthe Smith No. 6 Site near Otego were dated 60 B.C . ± 150 years, 120 B.C. ± 160years, andA.D. 245 ± 160years (Versaggi 1987) . 7 Although these three developmental stages are here referred to as phases, it may be more accurate to use them as ceramic horizons (see Lenig 1965). 8 Owasco ceramics recovered during highway salvage surveys along Interstate 88 at Sidney Airport were associated with charcoal dated A.D. 1090 ± 125 years (Versaggi 1987) .

213

214

CHAPTER 11 CONTINUITY, STABILITY AND CHANGE by Robert E. Funk and Bruce E. Rippeteau A time-space framework for the Upper Susquehanna Valley was described in considerable detail in Chapter 10. Historical connections are suggested for many cultural units in the framework. As is often the case with culture-historical schemes, this framework is summarized in a chart that presents the names of individual units, such as components and phases, in little boxes that may suggest that the units were completely isolated from each other (e .g ., Figure 40) . This may provide a false impression of prehistoric reality, although such charts are useful for purposes of exposition. The archaeological sequences observed in the Northeast clearly do not represent disconnected cultures that individually arose by spontaneous generation. All cultures have roots in previous cultural systems. With this understood, the purpose of this chapter is to consider interpretations of cultural continuity, stability, and change in the study area. Various models of change are routinely used in archaeological reports. Definitions are rarely offered for such models, which may be uncritically inferred from the available data. This chapter briefly reviews some theoretical and methodological issues relating to change. It is not intended as an exhaustive treatment of the subject. Some basic questions are posed, including: What were the relationships of archaeological units in the culture-historical scheme to those units preceding and following them? How did they relate to cultural units in adjacent geographic regions? What were the rates of change, i.e., how long did particular phases persist through time, and how rapid were episodes of change from one unit to another? Culture change can be viewed both diachronically and synchronically. Holding time constant, the observer can study variation in the geographic distribution of traits. On given time levels the cultures of geographically adjacent groups may contrast sharply with each other, displaying few trait correspondences, or there may be a clinal intergrading of traits from one local group to another. The empirical data of North American ethnography indicate that spatial continuity, in terms of traits shared with geographically adjacent social groups, was the rule on particular time levels. This has been a problem in defining culture areas (Wissler 1938; Kroeber 1939; Swanton 1952; Driver 1961). In dealing with a particular region, such as the Upper Susquehanna Valley, we are primarily concerned with patterns of diachronic change. Relatively little cultural variation is to be expected within a restricted geographic setting on particular time levels. The issue is complex; various forms of culture change have been reported in the ethnological literature and there are various ways of interpreting apparent change in the archaeological record. Some important considerations include defining what it is that changes or does not change; approaches to detecting change in the archaeological record; and formulating explanations of particular changes. Change may be observed in a whole culture, in individual traits, or its larger parts (subsystems), such as its economy, technology, social structure, or religion. It was argued in Chapter 1 that culture change is most cogently and parsimoniously explained as an aspect of a selective process driven by behavioral variability interacting with environmental conditions. For archaeological cultures (phases), inferences about the mechanisms of change must be derived from the material remains of traits and subsystems, such as postmold patterns, refuse dumps, projectile points, stone and bone tools, features, and burials. This raises anew the question of how archaeologists identify phases and distinguish them from immediately preceding or following phases in a sequence. The problem is compounded by the perennial difficulty in defining cultures from their preserved material remains, when so much information has been lost due to the destructive action of natural and cultural agents. For example, does the appearance of a new projectile point type necessarily signify the evolution of a new cultural configuration? Such an assumption is risky and the implications necessitate the provisional definition of many prehistoric phases. Successive phases may seem to display vivid contrasts when in actuality numerous continuities have been erased from the record. Despite these problems, we must do the best we can to interpret the data available to us. Seeking to discern the actual modes of prehistoric change in the study area, a major concern is with archaeological evidence for continuity as opposed to evidence of discontinuity. From the view-point of whole cultures, the former implies in situ development; the latter, an interruption caused by migratory intrusion, conquest, or depopulation. When two or more archaeological phases are in sequence, continuity is assumed ifthere are no consistent gaps in the material data and a particular phase shows pronounced similarities to the immediately preceding phase, perhaps containing some traits modified from pre-existing traits; completely new traits should constitute a small minority. Discontinuity is assumed when there are pronounced formal and functional contrasts between two adjoining segments (phases) of a sequence, or there is a hiatus, whatever its duration, indicating a complete absence of human activity. However, unusually rapid change in a cultural continuum may create the illusion of breaks in occupation (an apparent discontinuity), especially when the archaeological data are incomplete or ambiguous. An apparent discontinuity could also result from the conquest of one people by another, destroying much of the original culture (rendering its material expressions invisible in the archaeological record) while the original

215

population remains largely intact. In other cases a genuine discontinuity might result when a culture becomes extinct, terminating what may have been a lengthy developmental sequence, and completely vanishes from the study area or any other area. Both extinction and migration may conceivably occur as the result of conquest by alien people, or from the adverse effects of environmental change. Examples of the former (conquest) include the Roman destruction of Carthage or the dispersal of the Huron by the Iroquois. Examples of the latter (environmental change) range from catastrophes like the volcanic entombment of Pompeii to more gradual processes such as the dessication of the Egyptian Fayum. The conquest of one people by another of differing culture may result in the short-term, or even long-term, coexistence of both cultures in one region or locality. Such coexistence may also be of a peaceful nature. During such coexistence, considerable blending or amalgamation of cultural traits may occur as in ethnographically well-documented "melting-pot" situations. Coexistence of cultures representing different levels of technological achievement is exemplified by the Norse settlements among the Greenland Eskimo in the 12th Century A.D., or the 17th Century English settlements among the Indians of the Atlantic Coast (Brasser 1978; Salwen 1978) . Ethnographic data suggest that, in emic terms, human populations usually experience change in their mental and material culture as a gradual, continuous process through time. At certain times, social groups may not be aware that change is taking place, even though such change may be eticallydemonstrable. People are most likely to be aware of processes manifested within a single lifetime; these processes may be perceived as abrupt or threatening, as in the case of migration or conquest. In evaluating the evidence for continuity, stability, and change, there are various possible methods for quantifying cultural similarities and differences, and for determining closeness of relationship ("social distance"). Such approaches include the interassemblage comparison of traits and attributes using coefficients of similarity. These and similar systems of measurement are not explored in this report. Returning to deficiencies in the archaeological data, apparent gaps in the geographic distribution of traits or in a developmental sequence may be due to sampling problems. Inadequate survey and testing of a particular region result in incomplete data on the frequency and distribution of sites of all time periods. Consequently, there will be breaks in the radiocarbon chronology of the region, and some cultural complexes will not be represented in the archaeologist's time-space framework. Poor information on the archaeology of adjoining regions makes it impossible to realistically asses the relationships of phases in those regions to phases in the region under study. Possible scenarios of change include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following : 1. A particular cultural manifestation was carried by people who migrated into the study area from an area beyond its borders. 2 . The cultural unit represents one of a chronological series that developed through purely internal change. 3. The unit resulted from the conquest of local people by an intrusive group. Three possible consequences are 1) the previously resident culture anc:Vor people were destroyed, 2) there was a fusion of both cultures, 3) parts of the resident culture were retained but the intrusive culture emerged dominant. 4 . The developmental sequence originated chiefly through internal change, occasionally infused with traits from afar or interrupted by the movement of peoples into and out of the region. 5. Eitherthrough the intrusion of an alien culture into a region already occupied by local groups of differing culture, or through the branching of a resident tradition, two different cultures or sequences of cultures come to reside side-byside in the study area.

Migration vs. In Situ Development The in situ hypothesis of!roquoian origins (Griffin 1943; Kraus 1944; Ritchie 1961 a, l 965a; Trigger 1970) or any similar explanation of cultural change entails a number of assumptions that are rarely articulated. The implication is that an historically documented cultural tradition, including a distinct population composed of subgroups speaking closely related dialects, endured within its historic territory for the same length of time as prehistoric material culture traits that closely resemble traits of the historical culture. And despite change in a tradition that may have millenia of time depth, continuity is inferred from the recurrence of diagnostic traits or complexes on archaeological components that are in chronological sequence; otherwise, one must assume the re-creation or re-invention of traits from one observation to another. Therefore, in situ development can be defined as the continuous presence of a cultural tradition through a specified period of time within a geographic space, area, or region. As a corollary, the tradition is recognizable despite undergoing change throughout the period of its duration. In other words, as delineated by standard archaeological practice the tradition would subsume a series of sequential phases. The quality of archaeological data has an important bearing on the validity of particular models of in situ origin. The attempted projection of ethnographically known cultures into the prehistoric past entails the old anthropological maxim that race, language, and culture mayvaryindependently of each other (Boas 1940; Trigger 1970; Hodder 1979) . The probability

216

that an ethnographic culture originated in a culture represented by prehistoric archaeological materials may be enhanced by the conjunctive application of multiple lines of evidence, including settlement analysis, ceramic seriation, glottochronology and other kinds of linguistic analysis (Trigger 1970; Mithun 1984). Migration is defined as the mass transfer of a culture by means of, and accompanied by, the movement of a population from one area or region into another. As previously noted, this has a number of possible ramifications, since the transfer could be accompanied by conquest of resident people by the intruders, through migration of the new people into a depopulated area, through the rapid movement of many people, the slow infiltration of small groups, and so on. Rouse ( 1958) offered the following criteria for determining the occurrence of migration in an area under study: 1. Identify the migrating people as an intrusive unit in the region it has penetrated, 2 . Trace this unit back to its homeland, 3. Determine that all occurrences of the unit are contemporaneous, 4 . Establish the existence of favorable conditions for migration, 5. Demonstrate that some other hypothesis, such as independent invention or diffusion of traits, does not better fit the facts of the situation. Sanger ( 1975) adds: 6. Establish the presence of all cultural subsystems and not an isolated one such as the mortuary subsystem. We have previously touched on potential problems with some of these criteria. For example, it may be difficult to identify an intrusive unit, because of insufficient archaeological data, because the intrusive people made little impact on the environment, or because their material culture was similar to that of groups already residing in the area. There are similar obstacles to tracing the intruders back to their homeland. Chronological information may be inadequate to establish contemporaneity of all sites attributed to the immigrants. Rouse's fourth criterion does not seem particularly relevant to ascertaining whether or not migration has in fact occurred. Finally, it is unlikely that the explanation of diffusion can be ruled out in all but rare cases . The following refomulation might be proposed for the archaeological determination of migration: 1. The local or regional developmental sequence, as deduced from material remains, is interrupted by the appearance of components manifesting a trait-complex apparently unrelated to the preceding complex. This interruption may be temporary, with subsequent reappearance of older complexes, or it may be permanent, with the establishment of a different cultural trajectory. 2. Ideally, the new trait-complex contrasts with immediately preceding complexes in all aspects of culture; technological, economic, ceremonial, and so on. If available for study, the skeletal remains of the intruding population show important morphological and metrical differences from the resident population. Such osteological data are crucial in cases where the migrating culture shows strong resemblances to the resident culture. 3. The new or intrusive complex can be identified with a complex from a geographic location outside the study area. 4. The trail of movement of the intrusive complex can be shown in the distribution of sites through areas intervening between the homeland and the study area. 5. Both radiocarbon dates and relative chronologies show that all components evidencing the intrusive trait-complex are contemporaneous within narrow time limits, and follow closely (perhaps with overlap) upon the preceding resident culture. 6. Alternate explanations such as diffusion, trade, borrowing, and local innovation can not be shown to better fit the facts than migration. Potential problems include: 1) the possible action of both migration and diffusion, resulting in gradual rather than abrupt change, 2) The gradual movement of people from one area to another may result in a merger of both genes and culture through time. In actuality none of the listed criteria is easy to apply, as evidenced by considerable migration-diffusion debate in archaeological writings. Can archaeologists reliably distinguish between migration and other forms of change, such as diffusion? We contend that not only is it difficult, but that in most cases, prehistoric migrations remain to be effectively demonstrated in the Northeast. Migration is probably most readily demonstrated when there are strong discontinuities in skeletal morphology between the inferred resident and intrusive populations. Migration was probably an important mechanism of change at some periods, but local or regional continuity prevailed at most times and in most places. The following criteria are proposed for demonstrating the operation of in situ development in a regional sequence: 1. There is no recognizable interruption of the developmental sequence, or of continuity of skeletal morphology. Within the sequence, the cultural unit (phase) under study displays strong correspondences to the immediately preceding unit or units. 2 . These correspondences are in all subsystems (technological, sociological, ceremonial) that can be inferred from material remains, as well as in skeletal characteristics. 3 . Although each cultural unit is distinguished from the others by certain differences in traits, some traits represent either carry-overs or modifications of preceding traits; completely new traits are a small minority. 4 . N ewtraits, or modifications of preexisting traits, can be attributed either to local or regional innovation, or to diffusion from groups in adjacent regions. 217

5. Innovation is assumed if no sources for given traits can be demonstrated in geographically adjacent and contemporaneous (or slightly older) cultural expressions. 6 . Diffusion of a trait is assumed if no prior, ancestral trait existed in the regional sequence and if sources were available in the contemporaneous or immediately preceding groups living in surrounding regions.

The Hypothesis of Conquest In archaeological writings, conquest is sometimes evoked as an explanation of changes observed in the prehistoric past. The conquest of one tribal group by another was a common and well-documented occurrence following European intrusion into the Northeast. Examples include the Wars of the Iroquois (Hunt 1940; Trigger 1978) and the Pequot War (Washburn 1978; Salwen 1978). The following criteria, modified from Rouse's migration criteria, are offered as an aid to determining whether conquest may reasonably be inferred from the archaeological record: 1. As in the case of migration, the conquering group must be shown to be intrusive into the area being subjugated. 2. The invaders must be traced back to their place of origin. 3. It must be shown that the intruding units, as manifested on archaeological sites, are contemporaneous within a narrow time frame. 4 . Unambiguous evidence of conquest must be demonstrated. Examples of possible supporting evidence include artistic depictions of battle (on petroglyphs, pipes, pottery vessels, bone combs, other items), combat traumas on skeletal remains, trophy skulls, cannibalism, multiple burials showing signs of massacre, burned settlements, and the unusually rapid appearance and dominance of traits characterizing the intruders. 5. The possible alternate roles of independent invention, diffusion, and extremely rapid internal change must be eliminated from consideration. Once again, there are many possible variations on the inference of conquest . Without the aid of written accounts, the obstacles to successful archaeological demonstration of conquest may be insurmountable. For example, if the conquerors possessed the same material culture inventory as the conquered people, though differing in language or other traits, the conquest may be archaeologically "invisible". Presumably the contesting groups with shared material culture would have come from the same general geographic area and so the invaders could not be traced back to an external homeland. If the two populations were genetically similar they could not be distinguished through studies of skeletal remains. Therefore, given no abrupt, well-defined changes in the cultural trajectory the archaeologist may be unable to discern that conquest has occurred. If there are indications that a conquest took place, what form did it take? Was it accomplished solely by raiding parties who subsequently occupied the new territory? Did the warriors clear the way for a larger migration of women, children, families, traders, even whole villages? Or was the chief purpose simply to open up trade routes or gain access to desired resources? Details such as these may generally elude the northeastern archaeologist. Wright's ( 1966) hypothesis that in southern Ontario the people of the Pickering phase conquered the Glen Meyer people is based on the knowledge that ceramic styles and other traits originally confined to the Pickering area spread rapidly into the former Glen Meyer area, transforming the Glen Meyer phase into something like Pickering. Upon the completion of this transformation a new Iroquoian phase arose, called the Uren. Though dominated by Pickering-derived traits, the Uren phase had also assimilated some elements of the preceding Glen Meyer phase. Wright's hypothesis was stimulated both by the apparent rapidity of Pickering domination and the depth to which Glen Meyer material culture was submerged by the onslaught. In actuality there is little other supporting evidence; no wholesale destruction of Glen Meyer sites, no mass burials of victims, no artistic depictions of Pickering conquerors burning villages and enslaving defeated Glen Meyer folk. Probable cause for such a conquest remains to be demonstrated. Conquest also implies a movement of some sector of the conquering population, perhaps comprising war parties, but this has not been established. Wright's envisioned scenario also implies broader cultural influences that would involve other segments of Pickering society. In other words, migration and conquest followed by pervasive and enduring dominance. An alternate hypothesis might postulate not conquest, but migration followed by assimilation of the resident people by the intruding groups . Only two of the listed criteria for inferring conquest are fulfilled in Wright's proposal; the first is apparent site-unit intrusion, the second is the contemporaneity of sites of the intrusive cultural entity. The diffusion hypothesis cannot be ruled out, at this writing. A better case can perhaps be made for the theorized 16th century movement of the Susquehannock Indians from the North Branch of the Susquehanna River near the present New York border to the lower valley near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where they conquered and absorbed the previous residents, referred to as the Shenks Ferry people (Witthoft and Kinsey 1959; Heisey and Witmer 1964; Kent 1984). Tentative in situ hypotheses have, however, been put forward in opposition to this explanation of Susquehannock origins (Weber n.d.; Schwartz 1985).

218

Coexistence Belief in the side-by-side persistence of differing cultures and traditions overtime periods of varying length is well-entrenched among archaeologists. How valid is such an assumption? Are such coexistences evident in the archaeological record of the Northeast or the Susquehanna Valley in particular? Certainly there is abundant documentary evidence for coresidence of some contrasting American Indian groups during the disruptions of the colonial period (cf. Elliott 1977; Brasser 1978; Washburn 1978; Trigger 1978). Certain considerations and definitions are in order. First, there is the problem of determining cultural differences and similarities in the spatial and temporal dimensions. Second, is the scales we are using, both geographic and chronological. In other words, what precisely do we mean when we speak of coexistence? Obviously at European contact and in the prehistoric past, American Indians of widely contrasting cultural patterns occupied continental North America at any given moment (Kroeber 1939; Driver 1961 ). In the mid-17th century, tribes of the Northwest and Southwest differed greatly from the New York Iroquois. But it is fairly obvious that the debate centers around groups that may have been coexistent on the local or regional level. Is it likely that two completely different traditions could persist side-by-side for decades, centuries, even millenia within one stream valley? The senior writer vividly recalls a conversation with John Witthoft in 1964. At that time, evidence seemed to show that the broad, stemmed Steubenville points (Mayer-Oakes 1955; Dragoo 1959; Ritchie 1961 b) were of Late Archaic age in the Ohio Valley, but very similar points found with pottery on New York sites suggested a Middle Woodland provenience. This provenience was later confirmed (Ritchie and Funk 1973; Funk 1976). Witthoft proposed thatthis contradiction was resolved bythe hypothesis that some of the initial makers of Steubenville points retreated into the uplands ofthe Allegheny Plateau, conserving their culture for over 2000 years while lowland groups evolved along the familiar path to the Point Peninsula tradition. In the early centuries A.D., the uplanders acquired pottery and presumably descended to the river valleys while still manufacturing Steubenville points. These points are now called Fox Creek points and assigned to the Fox Creek phase in New York (Ritchie 1971 b; Ritchie and Funk 1973; Funk 1976). No evidence in support of Witthoft's model has ever come to light. A similar scenario of long-term coexistence of the Brewerton and Lamoka phases in.central New York was postulated by Ritchie (1944, 1951, 1955a, 1965a, 197la; Ritchie and Funk 1973), who saw eventual amalgamation with dominance by Brewerton after a period of interaction. In this case a total period of 500 to 1000 years must have been involved. Interaction on the local level is exemplified in this scheme by the repeated alternate and/or contemporaneous occupations by Lamoka and Brewerton people atthe Frontenac Island site (Ritchie 1945). The particulars of this scenario have been debated by Ritchie and Funk for over two decades but remain unresolved in the absence of critical data. There is accumulating evidence in southern New England that the ubiquitous small stemmed projectile points, usually of quartz and first appearing in the Late Archaic, continued to be manufactured and used well into Early Woodland times and possibly into the Late Woodland period. Despite some indications of the interruption of local sequences by traits of the Susquehanna tradition, small stemmed points reappeared in some numbers in later occupations. Some archaeologists have proposed that the Susquehanna components represent a migration from the Mid-Atlantic area, and that there was a period when two discrete peoples, identified respectively by Susquehanna elements and small stemmed points, together occupied coastal New England; perhaps they exploited different ecological niches, thus maintaining separate identities (Ritchie l 969b; Dincauze 1975; J. Pfeiffer 1984; Lavin 1984). To add to the confusion, data from the deeplystratified Neville site in New Hampshire suggest that small stemmed points (the Merrimack type) extended back into Middle Archaic contexts (Dincauze 1976) . Evidence of a Merrimack horizon is so far lacking in upstate New York. The same is true of small stemmed points in ceramic contexts, but recent investigations on Fishers Island, New York (off the Connecticut coast) indicate that small stemmed points were closely associated with early Middle Woodland or even Late Woodland pottery in New York coastal regions (Funk and Pfeiffer 1988) . The following criteria are offered as a means of testing whether or not two or more cultural entities were contemporaneous within a region: 1. The occupations (phases, complexes) can be consistently distinguished from each other on the basis of contrasting traits. 2. All subsystems of each phase are represented in the material remains from a number of sites in the region. 3. Components of each individual phase are radiocarbon-dated to the same age. Where one phase or tradition coexisted for long periods with a sequence of different phases, as in the "Steubenville" model discussed above, its full range of C-14 dates will coincide with that of the parallel sequence. 4 . On some components, elements of each complex, although usually recorded in separate contexts, are found together, either intermixed or in separate activity loci. Some components will reflect trait exchange between the original, discrete complexes. Such influence could take the form of traded items and materials, borrowed traits, or elements synthesized from traits of the donor complexes. 5 . Components of the respective phases occur both above and below each other in the columns of some stratified sites. This is analogous to the stratigraphic "interleaving" of presumably independent Mousterian assemblages in France (Bordes 1966, 1968). 219

6 . There is evidence that components of the respective phases occur as parts of separate, though perhaps intersecting, settlement systems implying different approaches to the exploitation of regional resources. In practice, few of these requirements can be met by evidence in the archaeological record. It is impossible to show that all subsystems of a culture are represented in the material evidence, but the data available for northeastern complexes are also generally inadequate for confident assessment of the other criteria. Perhaps the most convincing example of the long persistence of a tradition in parallel to a separate sequence of phases is that of the small stemmed points in southern New England. They comprise easily recognizable projectile point styles that contrast with the other styles - Susquehanna, Rossville, Lagoon, Jack's Reef, Levanna - with which they were coeval at various times during their 2000 to 3000 year history. There are a moderate number of C-14 dates for the various phases. On stratified sites the points appear both below and above components of Transitional and Early Woodland stages. Settlement pattern data are presently too sketchy to permit reasonable inferences about either overlapping or mutually exclusive settlement systems pertaining to separate but coeval phases. The problem, of course, rests with meeting the demands of the second condition; the small stemmed points themselves do not represent all subsystems of a culture, let alone even the hunting portion of the economy. After their Archaic introduction, they occur associated with other traits characteristic of the later periods, and are not part of separate, non-ceramic phases. In other words, there is no evidence of an independent persistence of the Squibnocket phase, or a similar Archaic entity, in some special environmental niche through Middle or Late Woodland times. The small stemmed points exemplify the exceptionally long duration of a single style and technology rather than a whole culture or complex. Does this particular instance of trait-continuity reflectthe uninterrupted long-term residence, with little horizontal movement, of culturally uniform regional social groups and populations rather than coresidence of two or more groups of differing culture? This would imply ethnic stability in New England through several millenia. Similar continuity through episodes of change is suggested by the persistence in southern Connecticut of a sophisticated quartzite stone-working technology from Laurentian through Susquehanna occupations, dated between 2700 and 1200 B.C . (John Pfeiffer 1984 and personal communications 1982-83) . This evidence is of great interest because it does not appear that small stemmed points were manufactured and used after about 1800 B.C. in upstate New York. The situation in coastal New York needs to be clarified; it could be similar to that in southern New England 0Nyatt 1977; Funk and Pfeiffer 1988). In dealing with these problems, it is important to keep in mind that in the Northeast we are dealing with indigenous cultures of relatively low population density, possessing very limited stone age technologies and at the mercy of major fluctuations in climate and subsistence resources. They were settled into, and dependent on, restricted regional environments such as stream basins. These conditions were not generally conducive to large-scale migrations, warfare, and other factors tending to displace aboriginal populations. But, if cultures in a region were undergoing in situ change, rather than replacement by migration or conquest, why do the various defined phases usually appear to contrast vividly with preceding or following phases? It is true that phases are often defined on the basis of incomplete data, such as projectile point types, and in such cases other trait continuities with spatially or temporally adjacent phases may go unrecognized. Relatively few obviously transitional or intermediate links between successive phases are known to us, in the Susquehanna Valley or elsewhere. This paucity may be partly explained by the short duration and low "archaeological visibility" of such assemblages. A number of writers (Spaulding 1960; Chang 1967; inter alia) have pointed out that periods of extensive change or transition are usually of brief duration, followed by longer periods of stability, at least in major sociocultural configurations. Hence, the actual transitional periods are under-represented in the archaeological record in comparison to the stable periods or "stationary states," a concept borrowed from Chang ( 1967). As archaeological activity continues throughout North America, more evidence is unearthed for transitional steps or phases in local sequences. So, in part, the seeming gaps or discontinuities in such sequences were and are a function of the state of the art, as well as the vast time spans involved; in other words, the result of sampling deficiencies and loss of data through destructive natural processes. Some of the anticipated transitional assemblages are beginning to be discovered in the Susquehanna Valley. If a continuous development is usually involved, what is the meaning of episodes of rapid change or transition? Do some of the observed cultural manifestations represent the intrusion through diffusion of traits or trait-complexes, for example from the Mid-Atlantic Province or Southeast? Are others entirely indigenous developments? Are some amalgams of local and extraneous traditions? Were there instances of two or more distinct and discrete traditions, coexisting side by side, over significant periods of time? How are observed changes to be explained? As of this writing, our own archaeological data do not indicate significant overlap of cultural traditions in the study area. The stratigraphic sequences are monotonously repetitious and predictable from site to site. There are no deviations from the established order in terms of the reversals or reappearances of discrete trait-complexes in the multiple floor sequences of our stratified sites, which would logically be expected if such prehistoric coexistences were a fact. Also, there are relatively few ambiguities in the radiocarbon chronology which could be interpreted as supporting overlap or coexistence. Nevertheless, such situations remain a possibility, especially with regard to closely related and temporally adjacent phases which are variant outgrowths of a slightly older tradition. Few example, thetemporallyveryclose Batten Kill and Snook Kill phases may denote such 220

developments from complexes allied with the Savannah River phase of the Piedmont. Another possibility is that in some cases assemblages and complexes seemingly different in character but which are coeval may be functionally differentiated facies of one sociocultural system.

Rates of Change (Tempo) We have previously fouched on the problems of defining components and dealing with the time factor in estimates of the number and duration of occupations. Basic as it is to archaeological interpretation, the component can be a slippery entity to deal with. Ourgoalistonarrowthetemporalfocusinordertostudyasliceofaculturalcontinuumthatisatoncerepresentativeofformer physical reality and yet in which little or no culture change occurred. This brings us close enough to the unattainable ideal instant, analogous to the enthnographer's present, to study sociocultural organization, structures and processes at the community level. Only by studying a series of such slices can we construct a valid approximation of prehistoric change in a region. We are also concerned with establishing rates of change in the Upper Susquehanna sequence, principally in projectile point styles (the most sensitive diagnostic element surviving in preceramic assemblages) as interpreted from our excellent radiocarbon chronology. Rippeteau (l 973a, l 973b) published his analyses of then available dates for the Northeastern Late Archaic and Transitional, including the Susquehanna series . Besides discussing the principles underlying the selection and evaluation of datable organic samples, and methods for standardizing and correcting the published accounts according to the Bristlecone pine calibrations, he described and used criteria for testing and evaluating the dates themselves. Data on rates of change are of interest in themselves, but their ultimate value is as an aid to understanding cultural processes. The Susquehanna C-14 chronology has reached the point where, assisted by radiometric dates for adjoining regions, it is possible to estimate the periods of duration for most of the defined phases within currently tolerable limits of as little as 100 years.

Linguistic Continuity A number of writers have attempted to trace tribal and linguistic affiliations from the contact period into the past by a combination of archaeological and lexicostatistic approaches (Lounsbury 1961 , 1978; Snow 1977, 1984; Tuck 1977; Wright 1984; Fiedel 1987). Their fundamental assumption is that continuity of material expressions over long periods suggests concurrent ethnic and therefore linguistic continuity. By projecting hypothesized linguistic changes into the past, they attempt to correlate glotto-chronological estimates with well-dated episodes of archaeological change. Examples include Byer's (1959) assignment of Lamoka culture to an early Iroquoian stock, Tuck's ( 1977) and Wright's ( 1984) view that the Laurentian people were early Iroquoians, and Snow's (1977, 1984) beliefthatthe Iroquoian languages were introduced into the Northeast when the Frost Island (Susquehanna) groups migrated into upstate New York. All of these rather contradictory propositions are speculative and may be untestable, because there are no known physical correlates of language in the absence of written records. One potentially useful method is the reconstruction of prehistoric environmental settings through the comparative study of words used by historic Native Americans (Mithun 1984). Although the possibilities seem limited to either proto-lroquoian or proto-Eastern Algonquian, the correlation of language with material culture beyond the late prehistoric period seems an insurmountable task (Trigger 1970). Historically both language groups were widely distributed outside the borders of the Northeast as defined here. Furthermore, the archaeological remains of some of the historic groups that spoke Iroquois and Algonquian are nearly indistinguishable; what used to be called "Iroquoian" ceramics were also typical of Algonquian groups in the Hudson Valley (Ritchie 1952; Funk 1976; Brumbach 1975), and a ceramic sequence very similar to that of New York's Owasco-Iroquois continuum has been documented in the Delaware Valley whereAlgonquian-speakersresidedhistorically(Ritchie 1949; Kinsey, etal. 1972; Kraft 1975b, 1978; Puniello 1980) . Thus there is no simple one-to-one correspondence of ethnolinguistic identity with archaeological remains; within the total area of distribution of the historic language groups and their late prehistoric-early contact period material products, language boundaries could have shifted many times without creating observable disturbances in the archaeological record. Also, differences in artifact traits, burial customs, or settlement patterns that help to define tribal groups in contact times may be difficult if not impossible to trace back into Middle Woodland, or even Late Woodland, times. Therefore in this report no effort is made to assign linguistic affiliation to pre-16th century (Chance horizon) archaeological expressions in the Susquehanna Valley.

Continuity, Stability and Change on the Upper Susquehanna As already noted, existing data rarely permit a clear choice between in situ development, migration, and any other mechanism of change that was operative for prehistoric cultures in the Upper Susquehanna Valley. There are many variables to deal with. The nature of these variables and their interrelationships are only dimly grasped at present. Some parts of once living cultures will never be reconstructed by archaeologists. Usually we are more optimistic a bout such parts as technology and subsistence-settlement systems. Even so, the data are often inadequate for our purpose. Technology is often represented largely by the products of the ancient flint-knapper, and change is often described entirely in terms of durable lithic 221

artifacts - especially projectile points - and lithic refuse. Therefore, we arguably do not have enough information about all parts of any prehistoric culture, or sequence of cultures, to be able to delineate the actual processes of change and to decide among the mechanisms that may have been in operation. Nevertheless, there is evidence that can be used in support of particular hypotheses of change. This is especiallytrue of certain periods which are relatively well-defined and well-dated as compared with other periods. It is often difficult to picture continuity in projectile point styles, some of which seem to contrast sharply from one phase or period into the next. One exception is the Susquehanna tradition, where point morphology seems to undergo a smooth series of transitions from one type to another. Are changes in projectile points sufficient to mark phase boundaries? Obviously it is preferable to be able to show coordinated change in a large body of traits, perhaps even a whole cultural configuration, in order to define and contrast phases. This is often not possible. We cannot always be sure to what extent projectile points in the Archaic sequence covary with other distinctive traits. It is possible that many traits vary independently of points, pottery, and other elements that are generally relied on for the recognition and definition of cultural entities. Lacking adequate data for some periods or phases in Upper Susquehanna prehistory, it is necessary to rely in part on comparative data from nearby regions such as central New York and the Hudson and Delaware Valleys. Certainly there is a profound lack of data forthe Paleo-Indian through Middle Archaic stages in the study area. This is also true of the Northeast in general. Continuity from Paleo-Indian into Early Archaic is strongly suggested by tight sequences of well-dated complexes in the Southeast, and by apparent morphological and technological continuities in points, scrapers, and other traits in that area. The data also indicate continuity from the Early Arc haic through the Middle Archaic complexes. A similar developmental pattern is emerging through archaeological research in the Northeast. Rapidly accumulating data for the Northeast also indicate reasonably complete sequences of Late Archaic through Transitional phases. There are still some unresolved problems of chronology and cultural affinity. Throughout much of New York and New England the Late Archaic stage begins with a Proto-Laurentian complex that is in tum followed by Laurentian, narrow point (Piedmont), Broadspear (Snook Kill, Batten Kill, etc.), and Susquehanna expressions. There is little room for undiscovered "cultures" within this period of about 3000years, and this is supported by C-14 dates forthe individual units. The Proto-Laurentian occupation of the New York area seems to appear in local sequences without immediate precursors. The preceding period of ca. 5000-4000 B.C. is even more poorly known in New York. At the Neville site in New Hampshire single examples of Otter Creek and Brewerton points occurred in stratigraphic contexts near the end of the Middle Archaic Merrimack occupation (Dincauze 1976), but no Merrimack components have yet been identified in New York. Although there are obvious stylistic and technological links between Proto-Laurentian and the Big Sandy, Raddatz, and related complexes in the Southeast and Midwest, all on about the same time level, it is premature to suggest that migration was the source of the South Hill phase and other Proto-Laurentian complexes as manifested at the Sylvan Lake, Shafer, and McCulley No. 1 sites. But the hypothesis of derivation from a prior occupation through borrowing, internal change, and invention cannot be evaluated at this time. There is little difficulty in visualizing the subsequent development of the Vergennes phase and other Laurentian manifestations from the Proto-Laurentian horizon, with the addition of such diagnostics as gouges, ground slates, and plummets and the internal differentiation of projectile point types. Some elements may have been borrowed from the Maritime Archaic (McGheeand Tuck 1975; Tuck 1977). Thus although the older horizon of Otter Creek points , similar side-notched points, scrapers, and other tools has not been isolated and described in central and western New York, the presence of Otter Creek points in basal levels of the Robinson and Oberlander No. 1 sites (Ritchie l 965a) hints that these elements of the Brewerton phase may have stemmed from a regional Proto-Laurentian occupation. A similar evolution may have taken place in the Ottawa River Valley (Kennedy 1966 and personal communications; Ritchie l 965a, 197 la) . If there was a separate homeland for Brewerton, it must have been concentrated in the St. Lawrence drainage (Ritchie l 965a: 79-83, 1971 a), since sites and materials of Brewerton affiliation are most frequent there. In distributional studies such elements as gouges and ground slates become progressively less common proceeding south from the Finger Lakes region, and the same pattern is evident in the Hudson Valley (Funk 1976). Nevertheless, this north-to-south variation in freque.ncy of" classic" Laurentian traits does not seem to be true of the more widely distributed chipped stone items, suggesting that the territory of Brewerton people in northern and central New York adjoined the territory of groups with similar chipped stone technology to the south (examples of the latter are reported in Turnbaugh 1977 and Adovasio, et al. 1974), and that all of these people experienced a parallel evolution in material culture from an older Middle Archaic horizon. In Ritchie's preferred interpretation, the Brewerton phase represented a Laurentian intrusion from the east and north into the Finger Lakes and Genesee Valley, areas already occupied by Lamoka people; rather than a quick, violent episode of migration and conquest, he envisions gradual movement, prolonged interaction and contact, with final amalgamation (Ritchie 1938, 1944, 1951, l 965a, 1971 a). The senior author has proposed a model in which a Laurentian horizon at first dominated the whole upstate New York area, to be later replaced by "narrow point" groups including the Lamoka and Sylvan Lake phases (Funk 1965, 1976) . The "narrow point" or "Piedmont" groups presumably originated in the Mid-Atlantic and coastal regions (Ritchie l 969a, l 969b, 197la). Assuming the general equivalence in content of the Brewerton and Lamoka expressions in the Susquehanna study area, known chiefly from lithic assemblages, with the type stations of these phases in central New York, one sees undeniably strong

222

contrasts that argue against the direct derivation of one phase from the other. There are very few demonstrable continuities or traitlinkages from Brewerton to Lamoka. This fact underlies Ritchie's treatment of Lamoka and Brewerton as separate cultures carried by separate peoples, interacting through migration and conquest, in the Finger Lakes region (Ritchie l 938a, 1940, 1951, 1965a). If the senior author's hypothesized sequence of Brewerton followed by Lamoka (Funk 1976) is the correct one, then Lamoka could be envisioned as one of a series oflinked phases advancing northward ca. 2500 B.C. along a broad front into New York and New England from a hypothesized and still obscure homeland in the Mid-Atlantic region. Given an as yet unguessed adaptive advantage, these "Piedmont" cultures would have dominated, acculturated, and eventually submerged the resident Laurentian peoples. The available C-14 dates suggest that this process was of short duration, perhaps lasting about 200-300 years. This reconstruction differs from that suggested by Ritchie ( l 969a, l 969b, 1971 a) chiefly in the relative chronology of Brewerton and Lamoka. Referring to Rouse' s criteria for migration, we could state that the Piedmont groups including Lamoka do appear to have been intrusive into regions formerly dominated by Laurentian groups (criterion No. 1). But a Piedmont homeland has yet to be satisfactorily described (criterion No. 2). All occurrences of Lamoka and other narrow point units seem to have been roughly contemporaneous (criterion No. 3). It is, however, not possible to establish the existence of favorable conditions for migration (criterion No. 4). Although other explanations such as independent invention or diffusion cannot be ruled out (criterion No. 5), they seem less likely than migration because they must account for far-reaching changes in many aspects of Laurentian units, not simply the modification or replacement of a small number of traits. Change by diffusion or invention would also imply more continuity of elements from Brewerton into Lamoka than is actually the case. Change by migration would presumably also include the apparent replacement of one population by another, based on the evidence of skeletal remains. Such a replacement was hypothesized by Ritchie (1938a, 1944, 1945, 1965a). Ritchie (1944, 1945, 1951) interpreted the data from the Frontenac Island site in Cayuga Lake to reflect the interaction, over time, of Brewerton and Lamoka eventually resulting in the Frontenac phase. In a sense, then, Ritchie viewed Frontenac as transitional between Brewerton and Lamoka, a product of mutual influence, trait-exchange, and innovation. In his preferred chronological framework, Brewerton eventually completely dominated the central New York region, leaving little or no trace of Lamoka. In the writer's preferred scheme, this scenario is reversed. Despite the previous discussion, the clear implication from a central New York perspective is one of culture change and replacement. The crux is whether it can be demonstrated that separate Laurentian and Lamoka peoples were contemporaneous along a broad geographical front for a significant period of time. As of this writing, much remains to be resolved in the Archaic chronology of central New York (Funk 1965, 1976; Ritchie 1971 a; Ritchie and Funk 1973). More data are also needed on the Late Archaic complexes that followed Lamoka and Brewerton in central New York. There are reasonably convincing grounds for assuming continuity from Lamoka and allied phases into the subsequent Charlotte and Vestal phases in the study area. In large part this is because a similar pattern is emerging in western New York where Lamoka was followed by a clearly derivative complex, demonstrated at the Cole Gravel Pit in the Genesee Valley (C. Hayes and Bergs 1969), and in eastern New York where the Sylvan Lake complex was followed by the River phase (Ritchie l 965a: 124-131; Funk 1976; Ritchie and Funk 1973). There are obvious morphological and metrical similarities between Lamoka points, especially the side-notched variety, and Normanskill points (Ritchie 196lb). In some assemblages intermediate forms are represented. There are, of course, differences between Sylvan Lake and River, for example the occurrence of winged drilled bipennate bannerstones, effigy pestles, shallow-grooved gouges, and grooved anvilstones in the latter complex but not the former. Nevertheless there are also important links in notched lunate bannerstones, point typology, and less distinctive industrial artifacts. The traits that distinguish the River phase have few counterparts outside eastern New York, and the homeland is pretty clearly the middle Hudson-Mohawk drainage. This complex could only have arisen from the foundation of the immediately preceding occupation - the Sylvan Lake phase. The distinctive and diagnostic traits were in situ developments or modifications of inherited traits. In the absence of skeletal associations no osteological data are available that might support or refute an in situ hypothesis. Probably one reason few diagnostic elements can be traced back to Sylvan Lake is that major riverine habitation sites of the latter, comparable to the type sites of the River phase, have not been found and excavated. The little that is known about the Charlotte phase - if indeed a separate cultural system is indicated - is compatible with a direct derivation from the Lamoka occupation of the Upper Susquehanna, one important change consisting of the diffusion of the Normanskill type point from the Mohawk Valley. It is more difficult to explain the relationship of Charlotte and Lamoka to the Vestal phase. Vestal is clearly distinct in point typology from both prior and subsequent phases, no matter what its derivation. Radiocarbon dates and stratigraphic relationships show that Vestal (distinguished on the basis of point types) is close in time to Lamoka and Charlotte, but follows the one and precedes the other. Some instances of overlap or transition between phases are suggested on some sites. It is virtually certain that Vestal is distinctive to the Upper Susquehanna Valley, hence there is no external homeland. This complex must therefore be rooted in the preceding Lamoka occupation. Since so little is known about it, we must rely heavily on projectile point comparisons.

223

Although Vestal points are broad-bladed and notched, the resemblance to Brewerton types ends there. Vestals are smaller and thinnerthan Brewertons, with less frequent and generally lighter basal rubbing and a distinctive configuration of base and notches (Ritchie 1971 b) . Therefore a derivation from a late-persisting Brewerton occupation, contemporaneous with Lamoka, is unlikely (besides, no other Laurentian traits are associated) . Atfirst glance Vestal points are quite dissimilar to side-notched Lamoka points. However, some continuity is suggested by a technological trait, that is, the occurrence on some Vestals of a thick, unfinished base, occasionally preserving the unmodified cortex of the cobble from which the flake preform was struck. This is a well-known Lamoka attribute. It is rarely seen in periods after the Vestal phase. Vestal and Charlotte both followed Lamoka in the valley, and were not only close in time to each other but may have overlapped or coexisted at some times in some places. Both Vestal and Normanskill point types may also have been simultaneously manufactured and used by some individual groups, perhaps serving different, specialized functions. Thus although Vestal generally preceded Charlotte, and many of the known components contained only the two Vestal point types, relatively late Vestal components may have taken on a "mixed" complexion, with the appearance of narrow side-notched Normanskill points and the "medium broad" side-notched points seen in zone 3 at the Fortin site, locus 1. The relative proportions of the different forms would have varied in accordance with the predominant activities at each site. Alternatively, all ofthese point types may have been simply adopted for use together in the same activity or set of activities without any particular specialization. It is possible that single components producing nothing but Normanskill orrelated notched points will never be found in the study area because none may have ever existed. In this event the concept of the Charlotte phase as a separate cultural system will have to be abandoned. The next major cultural tradition recognized in the study area and Northeast is usually referred to as the Susquehanna tradition. Here it is labelled "Broadspear-Susquehanna," first because the projectile point or knife types play a basic role in its recognition and in the definition of individual complexes. Second, the term as used here includes Genesee points, not usually considered part of the Susquehanna tradition, but nevertheless showing unmistakable relationships with Snook Kill and other broad-bladed, straight to contracting-stemmed points. Third, the word "Susquehanna" by itself often connotes an association with soapstone vessels, when in fact such an association remains to be established for Snook Kill, Lehigh, Koens-Crispin , Perkiomen, and Atlantic points, all known to be early in the sequence of projectile points/knives. To the best of our knowledge, the Vestal-N ormanskill horizon (or horizons) in the Upper Susquehanna Valley was closely and immediately followed by the initial Broadspears, corresponding to the Genesee and Snook Kill types. No cont in uityis evident from Vestal-Normanskill totheBroadspear horizon. Genesee points probably appeared throughout New York ca. 1900-1800 B.C. and Snook Kills around 1800-1700 B.C. The Broadspear points and their cognates are widely and abundantly distributed throughout New York and New England as well as southwestern Ontario and the Middle Atlantic states. Their ultimate source may have been the older Savannah River phase of the Carolina Piedmont (Claflin 1931; Ritchie 1961 b, 1965a; Coe 1964) . Savannah River points may in turn derive from preceding Early to Middle Archaic stemmed point types. On a comparative basis, traits associated with the Broadspears include knives, scrapers, and drills on reworked points; winged bannerstones; shallow gouges; celts; cremation burials with grave goods andred ocher; and extended burials, also with grave goods. Manyofthesetraits are shared bythe Snook Kill phase (Ritchie l 965a: 134-141; Funk 1976). Given the known distribution of these traits and their temporal priority in the Middle Atlantic province, it is impossible to maintain that the Broadspear tradition originated in the Upper Susquehanna Valley or the rest of the Northeast. However some traits could have been, and probably were, added in the Northeast to the imported Broadspear complexes. Given an extraneous origin for the Broadspear points and associated traits, what was the mode of transmission? Many if not most writers opt for migration, or at least a gradual movement of peoples into the Northeast up major river valleys and along the coast. Some of Rouse's criteria appear to be met: the Broadspear points and phases they represent are apparently intrusive into the Northeast, showing strong contrasts with prior phases; they can be traced back to a southern homeland; the units appear contemporaneous, allowing for a south to north time slope. Again, it is not possible to demonstrate favorable conditions for migration. But independent invention is extremely improbable and not a serious consideration here. Diffusion remains a possibility but the process must have been relatively rapid, since according to C-14 dates the early Broadspear phases closely followed the Lamoka/ Vestal/Normanskill horizons. In Maine the early Broadspears seem to have closely followed on the Moorehead phase (Bourque 1975; Sanger 1975). Little if any evidence ofoverlap exists, and many traits other than projectile points (scrapers, drills, burial practices) do not show continuity with the earlier horizons. Snook Kill and similar points or knives were followed in time by a sequence of forms - including among others Perkiomen, Susquehanna Broad and Orient Fishtail - that appear to form a geometrically intergrading series, thus implying cultural continuity. For example, thesmallassemblageatCamelotNo. 1, locus 1 (See Vol. 2)mayrepresentasteporstageintheevolution of the Perkiomen complex into the Frost Island complex, just as Dry Brook Fishtail points and associated traits may represent an intermediate stage in the development of Frost Island into the Orient phase (Kinsey, et al. 1972) . This sequence is not universally present throughout the Northeast. There is some variability in the morphology of projectile points, their lithic materials, and their associations. Also there is evidence for the temporal overlap or contemporaneity of two or more Susquehanna tradition point types in New York and southern New England.

224

The use of exotic lithic materials by northeastern Broadspear-Susquehanna groups is often cited as evidence that they migrated from places where the materials could be obtained, in particular central Pennsylvania and the Mid-Atlantic region. However, the early Broadspear points in New York State are almost always of local cherts, rather than Pennsylvania jasper or rhyolite. Since these types (Snook Kill, Perkiomen) are the first in an evolving series, the prevalence of local cherts suggests that the inferred complexes resulted from diffusion rather than migration. The later Susquehanna Broad points are occasionally of rhyolite from the lower Susquehanna Valley in Pennsylvania and rarely of other exotic stones. But the great majority are of local lithics. The same pattern is true for Orient Fishtail points and other terminal manifestations of the Susquehanna tradition. The implication is that the Susquehanna tradition in New York represents an in situ development lasting at least 700 years . The biggest problem is with archaeologists' frequent inability to show that all subsystems of a culture are represented by the recovered materials; for example, the Batten Kill, Snook Kill and Perkiomen manifestations are represented almost entirely by lithic assemblages in the Upper Susquehanna drainage. The introduction of soapstone vessels, followed by ceramics, as seen in the Frost Island phase of New York (Ritchie l 965a: 155-163; Ritchie and Funk 1973), was also correlated with a series of events occurring over a large area. The geometric logic of the sequence of Broadspear-Susquehanna point or knife types exemplifies internal development within this tradition, which had run its course by about 1000 B.C . In New England, as in New York, most stone artifacts of the Susquehanna tradition were made from locally or regionally available materials rather than lithics from Pennsylvania or the Mid-Atlantic province. These successive point types cannot, therefore, be interpreted as simple imports or as independent inventions. Thus the apparent discontinuity with prior occupations was at the beginning of this tradition, with the introduction of the earliest Broadspear points into the Northeast. Although migration may have played a dominant role in introducing Susquehanna traits to certain areas, such as northern New England, our preferred hypothesis is that rapid internal change in diverse regional cultures was the primary mechanism in most areas . The ultimate source of the diagnostic traits was located south of present-day New York and New England. Contrary to statements by some authors (Snethkamp, et al. 1982; Custer 1984) , Susquehanna manifestations do not simply represent a lithic technology and tool kit grafted on to "narrow point" complexes previously established throughout the Northeast. The weight of evidence in New York, the Upper Delaware Valley and New England clearly indicates that the BroadspearSusquehanna diagnostic traits are material remnants of discrete, whole cultural systems. In New York State habitation and workshop sites of these complexes occur in diverse environmental settings and stratigraphically sealed components rarely contain point types of older traditions. A rich inventory of associated stone and bone artifacts is suggested by some discoveries (Ritchie l 969a: xxii). A complex mortuary ceremonialism with roots in prior Laurentian occupations is evident in Susquehanna complexes of southern New England (Dincauze 1968, 1975; Pfeiffer 1984). A related ceremonialism, again reflecting the ideological subsystem of these cultures, is evidenced at sites in eastern New York including a discovery near Hoosick (Dean Snow, personal communication 1983), another at Lake Montauk on Long Island (Ritchie l 965a: 138), and possibly also at the Camelot No. 2 site, locus 1 (See Vol. 2) . Although Broadspear-Susquehanna complexes represent whole cultural systems in the study area, we are in partial agreement with Custer and others in our belief that those systems were products of diffusion and in situ development rather than migration . In upstate New York, at least, the Broadspear-Susquehanna occupations are succeeded by Early Woodland expressions, with no evidence for intermediate developments and little indication of continuity in particular traits. Although the Meadowood phase (ca. 1000-500 B. C .) has synchronicties across the Northeast and Great Lakes, its derivation in the New York area remains obscure. Some linkages to the prior Frost Island and Orient phases may be reflected in oblong gorgets and Vinette 1 pottery, but Meadowood tr ails such as cache blades, birdstones, trapezoidal gorgets, and aspects of burial ceremonialism, have no immediate antecedents in the heartland. Conversely, Orient Fishtail points, Susquehanna Broad points, leached chipped and ground celts of chert, and soapstone vessels did not continue into the Meadowood phase. Occasional worked fragments of soapstone recovered on Meadowood sites were not necessarily directly inherited from prior phases. Soapstone vessels were not being made; the worked fragments were probably picked up by Meadowood people from the refuse of previous occupations. Thus it appears that in the absence of an external homeland Meadowood was not intrusive through migration' into the N ortheastfrom another area; on present knowledge it mus\ represent an in situ developmentfrom the prior horizon, although there are few demonstrable linkages between them; certainly, no intermediate complex has been defined in New York and New England. Some traits probably diffused from the Upper Great Lakes and Midwest (cf. Ritchie l 969a: 200-201) while others were invented or elaborated in situ. As in most prior periods, the physical anthropological data are too meager to contribute to this problem. Granger ( 1978) hypothesized that Meadowood chipped stone technology was derived from the Lamoka technology, basing his conclusion chiefly on resemblances in lithic reduction sequences. However, Meadowood projectile points, scrapers, and other lithic traits are completely incongruous in flaking patterns and morphology with the Lamoka traits, and the two phases were separated in time by about 1000 years of intervening cultural developments. If connections exist, traits must have filtered down

225

from Lamoka to Meadowood by surviving the process of in situ cultural evolution among populations long resident in the central New York region. Possible continuity from Meadowood (originally termed Point Peninsula I) into subsequent early Middle Woodland horizons was suspected by Ritchie on the basic of ceramic seriation at the Vinette site near Brewerton, N.Y. (Ritchie 1944; Ritchie and Mac Neish 1949) and the persistence of minor amounts of Vinette 1 ware in early Middle Woodland components elsewhere. Some such connection remains a possibility even though the role of the temporally intermediate Adena-Middlesex complex remains to be elucidated. Ritchie and Dragoo ( 1960) hypothesized that Middlesex represented an intrusion of late Adena migrants into the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic coast from the Ohio Valley, and that this movement took place contemporaneously with Early Point Peninsula developments in the area of present-day New York. So far, however, there are no demonstrable direct connections between Early Peninsula, including the Canoe Point phase, and the Middlesex phase. There is also no direct evidence for interaction between Meadowood and Middlesex. Indirect (circumstantial) evidence consists of the occasional discovery of both Meadowood and Middlesex burials and grave goods on the same sites, such as Cuylerville and Scaccia in the Genesee Valley (Ritchie and Dragoo 1960; Ritchie l 965a; Ritchie and Funk 1973). Some relationship or possible contemporaneity is also suggested by the recovery of both Meadowood and Middlesex artifacts from the same midden at the Batiscan site, Quebec (Levesque, Osborne, and Wright 1964), as well as from stratum 2 atthe Dennis site near Albany (Funk 1976). In both cases, however, it could be argued thatthe associations were only apparent and had resulted from mechanical mixture of items from separate components that happened to be close in time. Unfortunately, no radiocarbon dates are available for New York Middlesex, although sites in adjoining areas including New Brunswick (Turnbull 1976), New Jersey (Kraft 1976) and the Delmarva area (Ford 1976; Custer 1984) have been dated between ca. 600 and 200 B.C . The West River site in Maryland produced a wide range of dates from about 360 B.C. toA.D. 320 (Ford 1976). These apparent anomalies remain unexplained. With the exception of the West River suite, the dates fall in the last four centuries B.C. and indicate that Middlesex preceded Canoe Point by several centuries. The time range is consistent with dates forthe Bushkill phase of the Delaware Valley (Kinsey, et al. 1972), the Lagoon phase of Martha's Vineyard (Ritchie l 969b), and the Saugeen phase of southern Ontario (Wright and Anderson 1963). Recently some writers have challenged the migration hypothesis, preferring the interpretation that Middlesex represents the adoption of Adena religio-ceremonial ideas and practices by local northeastern Woodland populations (Grayson 1970; R. Thomas 1970; Dragoo 1976; Custer 1984). Adena burial traits, including artifacts fashioned in Ohio from raw materials available in that area, are sometimes very numerous on Middlesex sites, especially in the Delmarva (Delaware-Maryland-Virginia) and the Upper Delaware Valley regions. This is one argument for their transport by Adena splinter groups radiating from the Ohio Valley, since if exchange systems were operating, it is uncertain what items were being traded back to the Ohio Valley (Ritchie, personal communications 1965-1985) . Perhaps trade is only part of the explanation, since a religious ideology was involved. Long-distance travel by religious specialists or high-status traders "spreading the word" is a distinct possibility. Nevertheless it is still difficult to account for the great quantities of transported grave goods. It is also difficult to show diagnostic continuity from Meadowood into Middlesex; these complexes share a number of general traits (gorgets, birdstones, elbow pipes, tubular pipes) but not their specific forms, and other traits are widely divergent. Vinette 1 pottery is also a shared trait, on the limited data from some Middlesex sites. Meadowood may well have contributed some traits to the Middlesex burial complex. But we cannot be sure that Meadowood provided both the resident population and the cultural platform on which the subsequent Early Woodland horizon, with its borrowed Adena traits, was reared. Even if the one gave rise to the other, there may have been a period of coexistence of both manifestations, each preserving its separate identity. But this remains speculative in the absence of better information on Middlesex, including habitation sites, more C-14 dates and osteological evidence. If, as the writers suspect, Middlesex denotes a widely if thinly distributed post-Meadowood Woodland occupation, then continuity with the Bushkill phase of the Delaware Valley and eastern New York (Kins~y, et al. 1972) and the Lagoon phase of Martha's Vineyard (Ritchie l 969b) is relatively easy to establish. Bushkill and Lagoon, dated from about 500 to 100 B.C., are obviously linked to Middlesex by the Lagoon type point, very similar to Adena points, and Vinette 1 pottery. Rectanguloid twoholed gorgets, drilled from one side, link Bushkill to Middlesex (Kinsey, et al. 1972: 183). There are significant differences, including the presence of Rossville points in the Bushkill and Lagoon phases, but not in Middlesex. Also, net-marked and dentatestamped pottery types occur in Bushkill, but not in the Lagoon or Middlesex phases. Late Lagoon sites contain corded and plain early Middle Woodland pottery. It is noteworthy that the C-14 dates for Bushkill and Lagoon closely match most of the dates presently available for Middlesex. Th us the Bushkill and Lagoon phases may have coexisted with the regional Early Woodland occupations that served as hosts to the diffusion of Adena burial ceremonialism. Alternatively, Bushkill and Lagoon may themselves represent those occupations; Bushkill, with its diverse pottery types, was at a slightly later developmental stage (that diversity may reflect some mixture of components on the Delaware Valley sites). Some sites of both phases evidence the initial appearance of elements characterizing

226

the Middle Woodland stage. This Early to Middle Woodland transition is C-14 dated between 360 and 100 B.C. on Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts (Ritchie 1969b:266). In other parts of southern New England, Early Woodland assemblages are characterized chiefly by narrow stemmed points of quartz and Vinette 1 pottery (Lavin 1984; Juli and McBride 1984), and Lagoon-like complexes remain to be described. There is meager though convincing evidence for Bushkill phase occupation of upstate New York; the component at the Westheimer site in the Schoharie Valley was dated 570 B.C. (Ritchie and Funk 1973). There is little doubt of a close historical relationship between Bushkill and the other Early Woodland occupations of the area. If wholesale migration is ruled out as the source of the mortuary complex known as Middlesex, what was the source of the poorly known whole cultural context of those traits in the Early Woodland of New York? Again, the migration hypothesis is rejected because nothing quite like Bushkill or Lagoon has been found in the Ohio Valley, and no other external homeland seems likely. The Meadowood phase constitutes ample .e vidence for a pre-existing Woodland occupation or horizon. The position taken here is that there is no significant evidence for site-unit intrusion as an explanation of Middlesex, Bushkill, and Lagoon, nor are there grounds for postulating conditions especially conducive to such an immigration. The available C-14 dates are not conducive to a refined chronology of Middlesex, but they also do not provide support for the Ritchie-Dragoo hypothesis. That hypothesis was convincing as long as the evidence pointed to site-unit intrusion as the primary source of Adena traits in the Northeast. Seen in a broader context, with new data, this is no longer likely because there is growing evidence for resident Woodland groups in whom the seed of Adena religious ideology found fertile ground. In sum, the writers' preferred explanation of Middlesex origins holds it to be the mortuary subsystem (or one such subsystem) of regional or local northeastern Woodland cultures. Two geographic expressions of these cultures are the Lagoon and Bushkill phases. These various facets of one underlying tradition developed on the base of the preceding Meadowood phase, with change occurring through internal elaboration of traits and diffusion from areas to the south and west. As already suggested, some Bushkill and Lagoon phase components a ppearto be transitional into the early Middle Woodland stage. The Bushkillnet-markedceramicsdatedat ca. 400-100 B.C . appear antecedenttothenet-markedpotteryofthe Fox Creek phase dated at ca. A.D. 350-500. Net-marking is not known to have been part of any intervening complex (period of ca . 100 B.C. to A. D. 350) in upstate New Yorkandisrareinthe Upper Delaware Valley(H.C. Kraft, personal communication 1989). However, the early Middle Woodland stage in the Hudson Valley and coastal New York is poorly known and net-marked pottery may have been manufactured during that period (cf. C . S. Smith 1950). This mode of surface treatment is almost unknown in the Canoe Point phase, representing early Middle Woodland in central and western New York (Ritchie 1965a: 203-213). Net-mar king may have been a trait of early Middle Woodland complexes that followed Bushkill in the Delaware Valley, but sites of these complexes remain to be discovered and excavated there; the known sequence resumes with Kipp Island manifestations (Kinsey, et al. 1972). A similar gap in southern New England (Ritchie l 969b) is being closed by recent work by a number of investigators (Juli and McBride 1984; Lavin 1984). Apparent continuities are also reflected in projectile point styles. The small, often crude, side-notched points of Bushkill, Lagoon and related phases may be antecedent to the side-notched points of the Canoe Point and later Point Peninsula phases. Twoholed rectanguloid gorgets, found in Canoe Point and probably in Fox Creek, are also retained from the older phases. Fox Creek and Greene points may well represent an evolution from the broad stemmed points of the horizon represented by the Bushkill and Lagoon phases. Despite these suggestions of continuity, it is not presently feasible to demonstrate a lineal development of Canoe Point and Fox Creek from Early Woodland or very early Middle Woodland occupations. The same is true of the southern New England expressions exemplified at the Cunningham site on Martha's Vineyard (Ritchie l 969b) . Ritchie ( l 965a: 203-213) proposed a close relationship between Canoe Point and the Saugeen phase of Ontario; the latter is dated several centuries older than the former, suggesting a west-east time slope and similar directional movement of traits. Some writers have challenged the Saugeen dates, proposing instead a placement in the early centuries A.D., coeval with both Canoe Point and Hopewellian occupations (Mason 1981 : 269-271). The argument adopted here is that neither Fox Creek nor Canoe Point (and related expressions) can be shown to be intrusive into the Northeast from a homeland outside the area. There is ample reason to postulate a continuous development from the Bushkill level into Fox Creek over a large geographic area from Chesapeake Bayto upstate New York, and a parallel development from Lagoon to the Cunningham complex in southern New England. Complicating this simple scenario is the apparent role of a regional aspect of the Canoe Point phase as a precursor of Fox Creek in the Upper Susquehanna study area. This sequence has not been observed in other parts of upstate New York, but remains a possibility in central and western New York since Fox Creek points are common in surface collections there (see "weathered argillite points" in Ritchie 1944: 313). If a Canoe Point-Fox Creek-Kipp Island development is confirmed by future research, and proves to be a general pattern over a large area of the Northeast, then it is necessary to reconsider the diachronic picture proposed above. For one thing, the occurrence of net-marked pottery would apparently be interrupted by more traditional Early Point Peninsula ceramics. Obviously, a great deal more information is needed on the poorly understood period of 500 B.C.-A.D. 500 before questions of continuity, stability, and change can be addressed with any hope of success. 227

The Kipp Island phase (Ritchie l 965a: 232-253) occurs in New York and adjoining parts of Pennsylvania and New Jersey as a full occupation consisting of both habitation and burial sites . Manifestations of the mortuary complex appear to have a wider range. In Ohio it is known as the Intrusive Mound Culture (Mills 1922), it has been referred to as the Webb phase in Delaware (Thomas 1969; Custer 1984), and a related component was present at the Bowman Mound in Virginia (Fowke 1894). There is, however, no evidence thatthe Kipp Island phase had a geographic source as a whole cultural unit outside the area where it was defined. The major concentration of the diagnostic pottery types and the Jack's Reef Corner-N etched and Pentagonal point types is clearly within New York and closely adjacent areas, including Ohio. On the other hand, an evolutionary source for the Jack's Reef types remains to be delineated; they seem to appear abruptly and without recognizable antecedents a bout A.D. 500. There is, however, some formal similarity between Jack's Reef points and the older Snyders type, of Hopewellian affiliation, suggesting an ultimate origin in Ohio Hopewell. Alternatively the Jack's Reef types may have developed from modifications in the "template" of the thin side-notched points of earlier Middle Woodland periods. Evidence of regional continuity is seen in the persistence of thin side-notched points, including the Long Bay type (Ritchie 1971 b), from the Canoe Point phase into the Kipp Island phase. Since Canoe Point burial customs are so poorly known, it is difficult to show continuities in this aspect of culture. However, the relationship of Kipp Island burial ceremonialism to ceremonialism in Ohio Hopewell is obvious. The intermediary conduit in New York may have been the Squawkie Hill phase, which probably represents a Hopewell-influenced mortuary complex established among Canoe Point groups of western New York (Ritchie 1965a: 215) . Kipp Island ceramics show very strong affinities in form and decoration to the pottery of the preceding Canoe Point phase of central, western, and northern New York. There are also many similarities to Point Peninsula ceramics in the St. Lawrence Valley and to Fox Creek ceramics in eastern and coastal New York. This evidence of continuity with older Middle Woodland groups, and the lack of a prospective antecedent in'the areas outside New York, indicate an in situ development of the Kipp Island phase from an older Middle Woodland level. That precursor was the still poorly understood Middle Point Peninsula horizon, intermediate in time and in some traits between Canoe Point and Kipp Island (Ritchie l 965a: 228). Thus, even though some traits such as Jack's Reef points and burial practices may derive from the Ohio Valley, the Kipp Island phase was one arbitrarily defined segment of a regional cultural continuum to which traits were added through the processes of innovation and diffusion. The burial complex evidently spread, also through diffusion, to receptive Middle Woodland groups living in areas some distance from the Kipp Island heartland. In the Hudson Valley the Fourmile phase, a manifestation similar to Kipp Island and on the same time level, apparently developed from the Fox Creek phase through a series of intermediate occupations (Funk 1976). The available data from Martha's Vineyard (Ritchie l 969b) also indicate strong continuity from the Late Lagoon phase into late Middle Woodland times. Although incompletely known, this developmental sequence displays many analogies to Woodland development in New York. There are some differences throughout southern New England, the most notable occurring in some ceramic attributes and in the long persistence of small stemmed points that first appeared in Late Archaic times. On some sites, at least, these points seem to be intimately associated with the Jack's Reef Pentagonal and Jack's Reef Corner-N etched types; on some Connecticut Middle Woodland sites small stemmed points occur without other styles (Kevin McBride and John Pfeiffer, personal communications 1982; Juli and McBride 1984; Lavin 1984) . Such regional distinctiveness persisting over long periods of time is one argument in support of the in situ development of Middle Woodland cultures in the Northeast. In this connection, it is of some interest that a regional Middle Woodland continuum has been demonstrated in western Vermont, and that projectile points are of the usua!J ack's Reef and Levanna styles rather than the small stemmed varieties (Petersen 1980; Petersen and Power 1982; Power, Cowan, and Petersen 1980). Progressive developments within the Kipp Island phase led to the Hunter's Home phase, which in turn evolved into the Carpenter Brook phase of Owasco, and so on into the tribal cultures of the Iroquois, who were encountered by Europeans in the 16th century. This evolution has been traced via changes in ceramics, projectile point styles, settlement patterns, and other tr ails , which supply the basis for the now generally accepted in situ theory of Iroquoian origins (Griffin 1943; MacNeish l 952a, b; Ritchie and MacNeish 1949; Ritchie 196la, 1965a; Lenig 1965; Tuck 1971, 1978; Wright 1984) . Both thelackofidentified precursor complexes outside the New York-Ontario area and the uninterrupted flow of material culture within the area over at least 1100 years render a migratory derivation of the Northern Iroquoians very unlikely. This is in vivid contrast with archaeological opinion prior to the l 950's, because apparent discontinuities in the archaeological record seemed to support the intrusion of Iroquoian sites into an area occupied by the seemingly different(" Algonkian") Owasco people (Parker 1922). Crucial evidence in the triumph of the in situ hypothesis included the discovery of the Hunter's Home phase linking the Point Peninsula tradition with Early Owasco, and the Oak Hill phase linking Late Owasco with materials remains attributable to the early Iroquois (Ritchie l 965a; Lenig 1965; Tuck 1971, 1978; Ritchie and Funk 1973). Acomparabledevelopmentwasworkedoutinsouthern Ontario (Wright 1966; Trigger 1970) . There is every reason to believe in situ development was also the rule for Middle and Late Woodland occupations throughout eastern New York (Ritchie 1956, l 965a; Ritchie and Funk 1973), the Upper Delaware Valley (Kinsey, et al. 1972; Kraft 1975a, 1975b, 1978, 1986) and New England (Salwen 1969, 1978; Feder 1984), where Algonquianspeakers resided at European contact (Snow 1978, 1980). 228

CHAPTER 12 FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES by Robert E. Funk and Beth Wellman Functional analyses are intrinsic to archaeological studies of all kinds, beginning with assumptions about the uses of artifact types, and proceeding through the interpretation of features, refuse, activities and other internal site phenomena to inferences concerning the roles of sites in settlement systems. Artifact nomenclature reflects numerous assumptions standardized in the literature, based on archaeological tradition, common-sense precepts, and analogies from the ethnographic record. While many of these assumptions are probably correct, it seems desirable to treat them as hypotheses to be tested whenever possible. Functional interpretations of artifacts, features, subsistence remains, and activity loci are presented where appropriate in the site reports (Appendix 3). Here some of our findings, hypotheses, and conclusions are briefly reviewed.

Artifacts Our studies of use-wear on artifacts produced interesting, though often equivocal, results. Our particular approach was developed following consideration of the analytical techniques employed by Semenov ( 1964), Ahler ( 1971), Tringham, et al. ( 1974), Keeley and Newcomer ( 1977), and others. Our techniques were described in Chapter 2 and will not be repeated here. A number of problems became apparent while these studies were in progress. 1 . On artifacts such as finished projectile points and ovate bifaces, signs of use-wear often appeared to be absent or were barely perceptible. During microscopic examination a critical stage was often reached when a decision had to be made as to whether or not a particular modification was present and if so, to what degree. This implicates a subjective factor that cannot be co~pletely avoided. Also entailed is the question whether or not particular kinds of use will cause any modification whatever of a tool's edge or surface, even on a molecular level that might be visible under an electron microscope. A knifethat is used once or twice for cutting meat may show no wear at all, in contrast to a knife used many times. Particular conditions may be required to produce some kinds of wear. Such conditions might for example include the presence of dirt and grit on a hide being worked with a scraping tool. The absence or apparent absence of wear does not necessarily mean that a tool was never used. Or, it may have been used on soft materials that did not cause wear. 2. Different observers invariably record different frequencies and intensities of wear patterns. This became obvious when Funk re-examined the notations of four other persons who worked on the Susquehanna materials. In some cases pronounced discrepancies were apparent between his perceptions and theirs. These differences could spring in part from variation in the levels of individual training and experience, as well as in workers' understanding of the perceptual criteria used to define the sundry types of wear. Standardization was provided by Funk who reviewed the more serious disparities in accordance with his own criteria. Again, a subjective element seems to be inescapable. 3 . Determining the actual, rather than assumed, functions of tool types including the materials on which they were used, is a more difficult task than recording the physical transformations of the tools. It depends heavily on the results of experimental studies as well as on testing hypotheses formulated from ethnographic analogies. 4 . Categorizing the artifacts in the absence of definite knowledge of functions was often difficult. A type name or category was deemed necessary, even if we had to fall back on terms with functional implications that seemed obsolete in terms of new data. These terms provided "handles" for identifying and grouping the individual objects into sets. Some objects were easy to classify, but others proved very refractory; hence some were assigned to descriptive, rather than functional, categories like "bipitted stone" or "chipped disk." The search for precision was hindered by (1) the above-mentioned subjective element in recording use-modification, (2) the absence of confirmed functions for specific wear patterns, (3) the problem of classification, (4) problems with morphological (geometric) description, and (5) variation in workers' measurements of suchattributesas length or thickness. Not only were some artifacts resistant to accurate and clear verbal description, but even the same attribute measurements taken by different observers using the same calipers forthe same artifact often differed by up to 5 millimeters. Because of such problems, conclusions reached from any studies, including our own, must be regarded as general and p.reliminary and may never advance beyond that stage. We can only hope to approximate the functional realities behind the artifacts. Despite the enumerated problems, much light has been thrown on artifact functions as a result of i:ecent experimental work by a number ofresearchers (e.g., Tringham, et al. 1974; Keeley and Newcomer 1977) . In the late l 960's we conducted a series of experiments aimed at determining the functions of Paleo-Indian artifact types (Funk 1976: 214-215) . For example, an attempt was made to duplicate the grooves on sandstone slabs found atthe West Athens Hill site (Ritchie and Funk 1973) . One hypothesis was that these tools had been used to grind the edges of fluted points. U nprovenienced bifaces from the State Museum collections were used to produce grooves in similar slabs. Result: the edges of the bifaces quickly acquired a rounded, shiny edge, and the

229

slabs acquired polished groves with U-shaped cross-sections. However, the objects from the site had grooves with V-sha ped crosssections and without polish, thereby eliminating the hypothesis. A second hypothesis was that the grooves had been produced by the sharpening of bone and antler objects. Prolonged experimental abrasion of slabs with fresh deer bone resulted in excellent bone awls, but without any visible effect on the rock surfaces. Third hypothesis (untested); the V-shaped grooves were intentionally produced by abrasion with chert flakes (although no ground flakes were found on site), and subsequently used to sharpen bone tools. Additionally, unmodified N ormanskill chert flakes of varying shape and thickness were used to scrape bone and wood. Parts of freshly butchered deer, consisting of the metapodial and foot with skin and fur attached, were obtained. After removal of the hide and hoofs, the tendons and adhering membranes were scraped off the bones. The resulting wear on flakes consisted of small chips pressed off the working edges. The longer the flakes were used, the more extensive the wear became. This pattern of wear was identical with that observed on many utilized flakes and on such tools as end scrapers and side scrapers. Experiments on wood were less conclusive. Chert flakes were used to scrape the bark off white pine branches, and to shave the underlying wood as if in shaping weapon shafts. Thejo b was accomplished with both thick and thin flakes. Afterward, no signs of wear were visible on flake edges at 6 to 50 magnifications. Also, a thin flake with a concave edge was used like a knife to slice deeply into the wood, and as a saw to cut through it. These tasks were easily managed, but despite the application of considerable force, the thin, sharp working edge remained without modification. It thus seems clear that some wear patterns on unifaces could have been produced by using them to work relatively hard substances like bone and antler. Use on hard woods might cause similar signs of wear. It is difficult to visualize the use of uniface end scrapers in the shaping of wooden weapon shafts, as often suggested, because of the impracticality of trying to maintain contact between two small, convex surfaces. These experiments tend to reinforce the conclusion that some types of activity will not create any perceptible modifications of tool surfaces. On the other hand, the application of some tools to certain materials produces definite wear patterns. At the very least, experimental studies can help to eliminate the use of tools in specific tasks or on specific materials, as in the case of the grooved stone slabs at West Athens Hill. The wear attributes used in our Susquehanna study were modified from the classification by Ahler ( 1971). His long list of wear patterns registered forthe artifacts from Rogers Shelter, Missouri, was only partially adaptable to our needs. Many of his categories did not appear in our sample and several could be combined into single categories. The following use-modifications were recorded on bifaces in our sample: "rip impact fractures, rounding andlor gloss (on 1 edge, on 2 edges, on the base, or on the tip); edge-nibbling (on 1 edge, 2 edges, or the tip), edge-crushing, smoothing or polish on some part of the face, striations along (parallel to) edges, striations perpendicular to edges, and steep edge retouch . Tip impact fractures were recognized by characteristic hinge flakes extending from the broken distal ends of bifaces part way along the blade surface toward the bases. Sometimes these flake scars were multiple, presenting a jagged appearance. Some were moderately long and narrow, others were short and occurred almost entirely along the broken surface. In most cases, they showed unmistakable evidence of strong percussive impact, directed from the tip toward the base. There were the usual ambiguous examples, fortunately small inn umber. Rounding and/or gloss is a category combining several of Ahler' s attributes. It recognizes the problems in distinguishing wear caused by the different actions of basal grinding, drilling, meat cutting, or preparation of striking platforms. These modifications all involve a form of abrasion. The degree of modification caused by basal grinding is generally supposed to be greaterthan that caused by cutting meat, or by other tasks, but in actuality there is considerable overlap; the wear on the edges of some probable biface knives is sometimes very heavy and similar to heavy basal grindingthat is supposedly produced by deliberate abrasion with a stone tool. We also doubt that it is possible to consistently separate evidence for the preparation of striking platforms on biface edges from use-wear that is confined to high points along those edges. It sometimes happens that rounding of edges occurs without gloss (polish or sheen), but gloss does not occur without some rounding. Gloss or polish is occasionally seen on the faces, as opposed to edges, of bifaces, usually near either tip or base. Even though rounding is not visible on such flat or shallowly concave surfaces, there is little doubtthatthe surfaces have been abraded by contact with very fine-grained materials such as grit; the flake scar ridges on the faces of these tools were subjected to less abrasion than the ridges on the bifaces' relatively fragile edges. Edge-nibbling is seen as tiny flake scars, usually in contiguous sequence, pressed off part or all of an edge by the application of pressure parallel or sub-parallel to the edge. These scars are superimposed on the larger, broader flake scars that remain from manufacture of the biface. Edge-crushing manifests a different kind of flake scar, one that proceeds from step flakes that seem to have been produced by force directed into the edge of the tool. Striations, either along or perpendicular to an edge, may or may not accompany rounding and/or gloss. Steep edge retouch, sometimes hard to distinguish from edge nibbling, is a deliberate attemptto bevel or thicken part of a biface's edge, presumably in order to use it for scraping. Wear attributes noted on unifaces (basically, end scrapers, side scrapers, and retouched flakes) are: rounding and/or gloss, grinding, striations along edge, striations perpendicular to edge, edge crushing, edge nibbling, and heavy step flaking. Scrapers were rather scarce in most excavated assemblages. Therefore, only the results of our analyses at the Russ site are

230

summarized here. For analytical purposes rough stone tools fall into two fundamental classes, those with pre-use modification, perhaps showing later use-modification,.and those modified in use only. In practice, these were not always easy to distinguish. In the first category are notched netsinkers, pitted "nutting" stones, flaked oval, stemmed, or side-notched "choppers," chipped disks, and pecked pestles. In the second are hammerstones, anvilstones, abrading stones, sinewstones, mullers, and millingstones. This second category exhibits a variety of use-modification attributes. Among these are amorphous scarred areas, irregular to oval pitting, or other damage to natural surfaces on cobbles and slabs generally as a consequence of pounding or hammering. Other kinds of modification include conical pits with radial or vertical grooves along the sides produced by means of pecking, pounding, or gouging; conical pits with small secondary indentations at the bottom produced by means of pecking plus drilling; broad, shallow depressions, and beveled or faceted surfaces, with or without associated grooves and striations, all caused by abrasion; scraping and polish resulting from grinding or milling; crushing or deep step-flaking on narrow, previously flaked edges (such as those on choppers) caused by hammering or battering against another object; and numerous combinations ofthese. Use-wear attributes were also recorded for ground or polished stone tools such as celts and adzes, although these tools were rare in our assemblages. These attributes included battering on polls, sides, faces, or cutting edges presumably from use as hammers or anvils, and scratches, striations, or blunting of the cutting edges from use in woodworking and similar tasks. The results of our use-wear studies are summarized as follows.

Projectile Points Although rounding/gloss on bases, barbs and notches was recorded within the general category of use-wear, it is far more likely to have been a manufacturing characteristic to minimize damage to lashing which bound points to hafts. Basal rubbing or grinding, usually accompanied by grinding of notches, produced rounding/gloss on 35% of Susquehanna Broad points from the Came lot No. 2 site, 78% of this type from Kuhr No. 1 , and 82% of the Susquehannas from Camelot No. 1. Two of five Snook Kill points from the Kuhr No. 1 site were basally ground, as were four of five Dry Brook Fishtail points from the Rose site locus 2. All of these types pertain to the Susquehanna tradition, Transitional stage and samples from sites in other drainages commonly display grinding of bases and lower edges. In the Late Archaic, Lamoka points, with their characteristic unfinished or roughly thinned bases, showed basal grinding in only 12 to 20% ofthe samples studied from the Kuhr No. 1, Enck No . 2, and Mattice No. 2 sites. This trait occurred on 28% ofthe Vestal points from Kuhr No . 2, 35% of those from Russ locus 2, and on 53% of the Vestals from Kuhr No. 1. This is considerably higherthan the frequency of about 14% stated in the original type description (Ritchie 1971 b). Of 5 Brewerton Side-Notched points from the Russ site, 3 were basally rubbed and 2 were rubbed in the notches. Three Otter Creek points from this site were also basally rubbed and 2 showed notch rubbing. Basal and notch rubbing or grinding are generally characteristic of Laurentian projectile points (Ritchie 1971 b). Of 6 Neville-like broad stemmed points (Middle Archaic stage) 1wasbasallyrubbed,1 wasrubbedinthenotches. Basalgrindingalsooccurredon 1 ofthe6Kanawha-likepoints, assigned to the Early Archaic stage, but none was visible on any of the 5 tentatively named Wells Bridge Corner-Notched points, also probably of Early Archaic age. Moving forward in time, to the Early Woodland stage, 21 % of Sand Hill Stemmed points from the Gardepe site were basally rubbed. Of eight Meadowood points from three sites only two were basally ground. Not one instance of basal grinding was observed on the 128 Levanna points (Late Woodland stage) examined from the Bemis site. Edge wear (rounding/gloss) interpreted as reflecting use as meat knives was seen on zero to 33% of the Lamoka, 8% to 40% of the Vestal, 37% to 40% of the Normanskill, 40% of the Snook Kill, 4 .3 to 24% of the Susquehanna, 37% of Jack's Reef Pentagonal, 8.3% of Jack's Reef Corner-Notched, and 0.8% to 20% of Levanna points in the studied assemblages. Of 4 Meadowood points from the Russ site, 2 from the Camelot No. 1 site, and 2 from Camelot No. 2 (totaling 8), 4 displayed rounding/gloss on edges. This attribute was not visible on 5 Brewerton Side-Notched points from the Russ site, but was present on 1 of 2 Brewerton Corner-Notched points. It occurred on one of the 6 Neville-like points and 1 of the 6 Wells Bridge points, but did not appear on any of the 6 Kanawha-like points. Edge-nibblingwasless common than edge-rounding, occurring ina fewexamplesof Susquehanna Broad, Vestal, Normanskill, Levanna and Lamoka points. Edge-crushing was also infrequently recorded for Susquehanna, Vestal, Levanna, and Jack's Reef Pentagonal points. Steep edge-retouch occurred on 2 Levanna, 2 Vestal and 2 Jack's Reef Pentagonal points. Rounding or blunting of tips on intact points was also seen, the total occurrence in all samples being as follows (types are listed in reverse chronological order): Levanna- 1 Jack's Reef Pentagonal -1 Sand Hill Stemmed - 5 Dry Brook Fishtail - 1 Susquehanna Broad - 1 Snook Kill- 1 N ormanskill - 1 231

Normanskill-like- 1 Vestal (both types) - 2 Lamoka-1 Brewerton Corner-Notched- 1 Brewerton Side-Notched- 1 Facial smoothing near the edge or tip was noted on 1 Vestal point, 1Meadowood point, and 1 Wells Bridge Corner-Notched point. Rounding and gloss was superimposed over crushing on the edge of 1 Vestal point. Tip nibbling occurred on 1 Brewerton Side-Notched point and on 1 Otter Creek point. Tip impact fractures were seen in most point type samples of 5 or more. Frequencies (again showing types in reverse chronological order) were as follows: Levanna - 7 .8% to 20% Jack's Reef Corner-Notched- 16.7%to 22.2% Jack's Reef Pentagonal- 5.3%to 37.5% Sand Hill Stemmed - 21.0% Dry Brook Fishtail - 20.0% Susquehanna Broad - 8. 7% to 22% Snook Kill- 20.0% Normanskill - 21. 0% Normanskill-like - 0-36.4% Vestal (both types)-9.6-40.0% Lamoka ~ 6.3-16.7% Brewerton Side-Notched- None Neville-like - None Kanawha and Kanawha/Neville - 16. 7% Wells Bridge Corner-Notched - 20.0% These fractures were not seen on the ovate, trianguloid or lanceolate bifaces usually identified as knives, but did occur rarely among probable projectile point fragments lumped with other biface fragments under the category "knives or points, fragmentary." The incidence of tip impact fractures among the "projectile points" tends to support the functional designation. However, it is clear that these bifaces also served in other tasks that produced edge-rounding, edge-nibbling, tip-smoothing, and other wear attributes. Use as knives, drills, and possibly scrapers, is indicated. Projectile points, secured to their shafts, probably also served hunters as convenient skinning or butchering tools. Weight is another projectile point attribute, besides wear and rechipping, from which functional inferences can be made. In a classic study Fenenga (1953) analyzed the weights of chipped stone points from both historic and prehistoric sites west of the Mississippi Valley in order to test some assumptions concerning the correlation of size and function. A bimodal distribution was demonstrated in a sample of 884 points, leading to the separation of a "small point" tradition (modal weight 1.1 grams) and a "large point" tradition (modal weight 9.0 grams). Evidence from ethhnographic records and well-preserved archaeological specimens showed that the small points were used with the bow and arrow, and the large points were used with the atlatl. Further, the groups who used small points were late in cultural sequences (late prehistoric to historic), and those who used large points were relatively early in those sequences. Since 1967 the writer and his associates have weighed and measured several hundred points from various parts of New York State, including the Hudson and Susquehanna Valleys. Mean weights have been calculated for whole points from components representing nearly the whole sequence in the latter drainages. The samples of individual types varied in size from 3 to 79. In a few cases small samples from more than one component were lumped together to provide larger samples of particular types. The result in Figure 27 shows interesting variations through time. The modal weights of 1.1and9 gm noted by Fenenga do not appear in the New York samples. As might be expected, Otter Creek, Genesee, Snook Kill, GreeneandFoxCreekpointsarerelatively heavy, theirmean weights ranging from 7.5to 29grams. The light est weighttypes (ca. 2. 2-4. 5 gm) are Brewerton Eared Triangle, Beekman Triangle, Lamoka, Vestal, Jack's Reef CornerN otched, Jack's Reef Pentagonal and Levanna or Levanna-Madison. Other types are intermediate in weight, including N ormanskill, Susquehanna Broad, Orient Fishtail, and Vosburg. The "small stemmed" (Sylvan Stemmed) samples from several Hudson Valley and Long Island sites are consistently heavier (by up to 3 gm) than the Lamoka points from the Susquehanna sites. Without the good preservation of wood and other perishable materials seen on some western sites, it is difficult to estimate the antiquity of the bow and arrow in the moist Eastern Woodlands. It is probably safe to assume the use of Levanna, Madison, and Jack's Reef points with the bow and arrow, but Late Archaic points of equal or lighter weight (Beekman and Brewerton Triangle, Lamoka, Vestal) were associated with atlatl weights in many excavated assemblages.

232

££2: Mean W e i ght In Gr a m s

"'lj

~·

....i.

NW~~m~oo©o

i::

......

......

...i.

.....

-a.

N

Nv:>~~m~oomo

N

.....

l\l

I\)

tv

I\)

N

N

l'V

NW

Nv:>~~m~oowo

~

t\)

~

~~

::::~ ~ ::r

Kl

Ott e r Creek { B a nn e rm an

Br ewerto n Side-Notched -

B a rr en I s l a nd

B a nn e rm a n Camelot No. 2

Br ewer t on E ared Tri a ngle {

I'll

-

Ul ::r i:: 0

~ ~. i:: ::s (1) IQ

::r s ~ re

~ ::s lOOmfrom

0-IOOmfrom

river, etc .

river, etc .

river, etc.

No.

Pct.

Historic

2

28.6

Garoga

4

28.6

No.

Pct.

Floodplain Terraces

Kame Terraces and Deltas

0-lOOmfrom

No.

Pct.

1

14.3

> IOOmfrom Lower Bedrock 0-IOOmfrom river, etc .

No. 1

Pct.

Slopes No.

Pct.

7.1

Chance

river , etc.

No.

Pct.

3

42.9

6

42.9

2

66.7

> IOOmfrom river , etc.

No.

Pct.

3

30.0

O ak Hill Castle Creek

2

33.3

Canandaigua

1

16.7

1

16.7

1

33.3

1

33.3

Carpenter Brook

2

20.0

5

50.0

Hunter's Home

1

33 .3

2

66.7 47 .4

Kipp Island

10

26.3

2

5.3

Fox Creek

3

20.0

2

13.3

1

2.6

1

2.6

18

2

13.3

7

46.7

2

100.0

1

100.0

3

60.0

Canoe Point Bushkill Middlesex

1

20.0

1

20 .0

Meadowood

6

25.0

1

4.2

1

4.2

1

4.2

10

41.7

Orient

4

12.9

4

12.9

1

3.2

3

9.7

13

4 1.9 60.9

Frost Island

8

17.4

1

2 .2

2

4.3

2

4. 3

28

Perkiomen

3

25.0

2

16.7

1

8.3

1

8.3

3

25.0

Snook Kill

4

19.0

3

14.3

1

4.8

1

4.8

8

38.0

Batten Kill

4

23.5

1

5.9

1

5.9

1

5.9

5

29.4

Charlotte

2

5.4

1

7.7

2

15.4

1

7 .7

4

30.8 43.8

8

25.0

1

3.1

2

6. 3

3

9.4

14

12

14.5

8

9.6

2

2.4

7

8.4

42

50 .6

Brewerton

9

16.7

6

11.1

2

3.7

6

11.1

22

40.7

1

1.9

South Hill

1

10.0

1

10.0

2

20.0

1

10.0

4

40 .0

1

10.0

2

40.0

6

42.9

5

1.0

Vestal Lamoka

Neville Kirk Stemmed

1

25.0

3

75.0

1

20.0

2

40.0

1

7.1

1

100.0

1

4.5

1

Kanawha Bifurcated-base

1

7.1

33.3

Kirk Corner-Notched Palmer Hardaway-Dalton

1

Early Paleo-India n

4

30.8

1

7.7

Owasco-general

7

31.8

2

9 .1

Iroquois-general

2

33.3

1

16.7

108

20.7

39

7.5

TOTALS

2

66.7

4

28.6

2

100.0

3

23.1

100.0 3

24

4.6

37

23.l

7.1

1

1

7 .7

0.2

9

40.9

3

50.0

232

44.4

Table 26. Frequency and distribution of components assigned to phases among local habitats on the valley floors. Not shown are gravel bars, islands, or rockshelters because no confirmed sites were associated with them.

254

I

Isolated Knolls and Ridges 0-100 m from

> 100 m from

river, etc .

river, etc .

No.

Pct.

1

14.3

1

7 .1

No.

Pct.

Swamps and Bogs

Tributary Alluvial Fans

Onoutwash plains etc.

Onkame terraces etc.

On floodplains

No.

Pct.

No.

No.

1

7.1

Pct.

Pct.

0-100 m from Lakes

river, etc .

No.

Pct.

1 1

7.1 33.3

No.

Pct.

> 100 m from river, etc .

No.

Pct.

7 14 3 1

1 100.0 2

33.3

1

33.3

Totals

6 3 10 3 4

10.5

1

2.6

1

2.6

1

6.7

38 15 2 1

1

1.2

4 4

16.7 12.9

4 1

8.7 8.3

2

9.5

3 2

17.6 15.4

3

9.4

4

4.8 6.0

4

1

1

1.2

3.2

1

4.2

5 24

1

3.2

31

1

2.2

46 12 21

1 1

8.3 4.8

1

4.8

1

5.9

1

5.9

1

7.7

5 3

6.0

17 13

1

3. 1

32

2

2.4

83 54 10

5.6

4 5 1

7 .1

1

3 14 2

7.1

1 1 1

4.5

7

1. 3

1

7.7

13

2

9.1

22

21

4 .0

6 37

7.1

1

255

0.2

10

1.9

522

Stream headwater banks & benches

ROCKSHELTERS

,,;

i

«!

Phases Contact (16th-18th Century) Garoga Chance Oak Hill Castle Creek Canandaigua Carpenter Brook

2

3

Hunter's Home Kipp Island Fox Creek Canoe Point Bushkill Middlesex Meadowood Orient Frost Island Perkiomen Snook Kill Batten Kill Charlotte Vestal

2

Lamoka

2

Brewerton South Hill Neville Kirk Stemmed Kanawha Bifurcated-base Kirk Comer-Notched Palmer Hardaway-Dalton Late Paleo-Indian Early Paleo-Indian Owasco-general

TOTAIS

2

12

2 4

19

Table 28. Frequency and distribution of components assigned to phases among local habitats in the uplands. 256

Local habitat

Area in sq. mi.

Pct.

1.20 0.44 3.43 5.06 5.79 0.27 0 .15

7.1 2.6 20.2 29.8 34.0 1.6 0 .9

4 5 3 2 1 8 9

0.29 0 .37

1.7 2.2

7 6

17.00

100.1

Moraines Knolls & ridges (kames, eskers, etc.) Kame terraces & deltas Outwash plains & terraces Floodplains Swamps and bogs Islands Gravel bars Lower bedrock slopes Tributary fans Rockshelters TOTALS

Rank

Table 29. Areal comparisons (in square miles) of local habitats on the Susquehanna valley floor between Emmons and Wells Bridge (Gifford Creek to Sand Hill Creek).

D

~Sites

~

Qi E

...Cl> ~

0

0

-;;

~ as

~

..0

...

al

Q)

0 al

Qi 50 45 40 I-

z

35

()

30

w

a:

w

Q.

25 20

o6 rtl

c:: Cl!

c. .r:.

0 ·; E

0 Qi >

... E 0

~ Cl> 0 al

Qi

E

.r:.

I

as

0

Qi

>

c::

as c.

0 0

::J

0

rtl

:11:

E 0

"O

o6 rtl Cl> 0

as Qi

E 0 0

::J

0

as

A

Cl>

E

as

~

E

0 Qi ~

E 0

E 0 0 I 0

::J

"E

0

rtl

I/)

::J

..0

·;

E

Qi

:11:

0

0

·;

o6

Cll

as

...

..0

I/)

al

..0

::J

Cll

...as>-

~

::J

E

c.

;

rtl

as Cl>

"O

o6 Cll

Cl> 0

~

~ Q)

E

as

~

0

·;

-;;;

E

rtl

0 ... Cl>

c.

~ E

~ E 0 0 A

Cl>

~

I/)

I 0 Cl> 0

..0

as

...0

Cl>

-; E

0

>al ::J

0

~

E

E

Qi

Qi

E

~

0 0

.e

E

I 0

cCl>

Cll

rtl

Q)

Cl> O>

Q)

c.

0

...

0

~

al

·;

>

E

0 0

u.

0

A

::J

E

Qi :11:

0 ...J

Q)

0

0

:; E

....

E

...

.e 0

... c

Cl>

rtl

c::

~

"O

Q)

I/)

0

~

..0

as

"O Cl> ..0

>-

...0

Qi

0

components identified - 221

Qi

·;

~ ~

..ii:

Number of sites on which

::J

0 0

Cll

Site sample - 397

B·

0

Cl>

>o

:;

Component sample - 522 >o

cCl> ~

E

Components

iii >

..= ......

Q)

Ill

...c.

Cl>

ro

0 ~ 0

~

-;;; >-

:-u

;

0

!!

~

.::

Cll

~

c::

Qi

rtl Cl

...0

0

0

"'c::

rtl Cl

0

::J

..0

rtl

c::

..0

"O

as

as

c.

"O

Cll

.r:.

I/)

c::

0

c.

Ill

Cl> 0 al

c::

as

iii

E

c.

as

:11:

E

0

:11:

::J

I/)

0

:11:

c::

as ~ Cll

0

Ill

Cl>

as

...J

E

...0 ... Cl>

>

>

E

>-

0

:; ..ii:

0 -;

al

::J

as

as

al

Qi >

E

!

rtl

..0

..ii:

Cl>

-;;

0

c::

"O

>o

:u

::J

..0

E 0 0

~ ~

15 10

5 0

Figure 28. Graph comparing the number of sites with the number of components recorded in the Upper Susquehanna Valley (larger study area). 257

Outwash Plains and Terraces

Lower Bedrock Slopes

~

s .g s

·~ s .g s

~

·~

·~

0

6 Proposed habitability score

Flood Plain Terraces

Kame Terraces and Deltas

115

~

-~ s .g s

0

0

A

6

107

113

-~

~

Gravel Bars

·~

0

0

A

6

s .g s

~

~

98

~

-~

s .g s

s .g s

109

Moraines

0

A

6

100

Percent of total site sample

21.9

7 .8

3.3

9.1

0 .5

44.1

1.8

Percent of total component

20.7

7 .5

4.6

7 .1

0.2

44.4

1.0

~

-~

s .g s

0

~

109

·~

s .g s 0

~

~ A

111

101

67

sample Ranking by areal extent

1

3

7

2

4

Table 30. Comparison of habitability scores proposed for valley floor local habitats with the actual distribution of sites and components in the local habitats and their ranking by size {as measured in square miles). Total site sample - 397 Total Component sample - 522

Subsistence Patterns Direct evidence of prehistoric subsistence habits in the form of preserved plant and animal remains is summarized for the Upper Susquehanna region in Table 31. Indirect evidence inferred from artifact functions is presented in Figure 29. This discussion also makes use of comparative data from outside the Upper Susquehanna drainage. The following presentation of extant data on aboriginal exploitation of the regional environment should be read keeping in mind the summary of floral and faunal potential in Chapter 4.

The Paleo-Indian Stage No new information was acquired on Paleo-Indian subsistence in the study area or in eastern New York during the period of our investigations. Elsewhere in the Northeast, the current evidence strongly suggests a heavy reliance on caribou, on fishes, and on wild plants, such as the hawthorne and hackberry (Funk 1972, 1976, 1978; Funk etal. 1970; Kopper, et al. 1980; Ritchie 1965a, l 969a; Ritchie and Funk 1973; Fitting, etal. 1966; Curran 1979, 1984; Speiss 1984 and personal communications; McNett and McMillan 1977; Adovasio, et al. 1975, 1977; Carlisle and Adovasio, eds. 1982). Other food resources were certainly used whenever and wherever available. These may have comprised the moose-elk, mastodont, mammoth, and other large mammal species that became extinct around 10, 000 B.P. (Hester 1960; Meltzer and Mead 1983) as well as small mammals and birds. 1 Late in the period, with changing ecological conditions, some use was probably made of animals better known in the Holocene epoch as for example white-tailed deer, bear, elk, and moose. A variety of plant foods - roots, tubers, shoots, berries, and seeds -was present in the mid-latitude late-glacial environment and must have been exploited, even though the park-tundra or spruce woodland biome contained a lower abundance and diversity of vegetal resources than in later postglacial times. Nuts and acorns were generally not available in quantity. Thus the contribution of plants to the diet in terms of protein and fat was probably negligible, although carbohydrates were provided by berries, the bark of some trees, and so on.

The Early Archaic Stage The earliest confirmed Archaic horizons in New York, C-14 dated to around 8750-9600 B.P . at the Johnsen No. 3 site (See Vol. 2), were affiliated with artifacts characteristic of the Kirk manifestations of the Southeast. These horizons occupied an environmental setting characterized by the pine-oak forests that have been inferred from B zone pollen assemblages (Sirkin 1978; Melia 1975; Chapter 8, this volume) . Such forests contained lesser but varying amounts of spruce, fir, larch, other coniferous trees, and very small numbers of deciduous trees besides oak. Although acorns would have been available in some abundance, other mast-producing tree species were generally absent. 258

Isolated Knolls and Ridges

Tributary Alluvial Fans

Swamps and Bogs

Islands

Rockshelters

Colluvial Lobes

Lakes gj

-~

·~ e

e

_g

_g

0 0

86

9

0

~0

A

0

92

87

s

0 109

~ i::

~

"'

~

SUBSISTENCE

CONTEXT. I COMPONENT ZONE, (PHASE OR ASSIGNMENT) LEVEL

CF0~~;5~1~~:0 AND I csTR~6i~:EAs\~~~r;=~~s~ETCJ

•

~~

ARTIFACTS)

~

E:

1r~I

~~

ILAMOKA-VESTALl~~~~~~~~!~~~i!ir~~es~~~ses,I

I

FORTIN LOCUS 1 FOR TIN LOCUS 1

I

FORTIN LOCUS 1

I

I

ZONE 4 ZONE 5 ZONE 7

I I

LA MOK A

I

LA MOK A

I

LA MOK A

None observed (excavation very

None observed

Boneblts.1netslnker

2~o~n:~~~:~~~ed stones, On~~~t°e~g3~~i11~rtf,~e~1~~a:i'h°s~d~nbett':g~~k

2

I

ZONE 1

I

~~';,~ CA:~~ours N1o.

2

I z~~:s

296m2

Floo1~~:1~1::~om

xx?

x

x

x

same as above

Roughly 1soom2

Flo~~:~air~::~om X

x

x

x

Floodplalnillad

I I '""""'a\ 'a"' I •a'""' I Q¥gl: I l "o""~ooo"'""-" CRIOAMERY

ZONE1B

CA NOE POINT

~. l ne 1 sinker

\

.:=::~:::..

x/x

x x xi

x xx

Table 31. Subsistence and settlement data for selected components in the Upper Susquehanna Valley. Analysis based chiefly on excavated, stratigraphically isolated components but includes some single-component surface sites. Components are arranged in chronological order. Shown are data on context, zone or level; phase assignment; subsistence remains and artifact types used to infer subsistence activities; internal patterning in regard to structures and task areas; types of features ; component size in square meters; inferred seasons of occupation; associated microhabitats; activities present or absent (includes some artifact types representing a range of tasks or activities); and numerical ratios of certain artifact categories in the assemblages. Question marks indicate activities that are provisional in a given component.

(Figure 29) . Nevertheless, an accurate idea of the Early Archaic use of food resources in the region can only be obtained by excavating sites on which organic remains are preserved. There are some comparative data from other eastern North American sites for the period of 8000-6000 B.C . Bits of unidentifiable refuse bone occurred in Early Archaic occupation levels on Staten Island (Ritchie and Funk 1971) . At the John's Bridge site in Vermont, an Early Archaic assemblage was associated with the bones of fishes and mammals, including the deer, catfish, and possibly the bullhead (Thomas and Robinson 1980). Refuse in deep levels of the Sheep Rockshelter, central Pennsylvania (Michels and Smith, eds. 1967), indicates some reliance of Early Archaic peoples on freshwater fish, chiefly shad, plus sucker (Catastomidae), bullhead (lctalurus sp.), lesser species, and shellfish (mainly, Elliptio dilatatus) . The middens also contained the bones of mammals, principally of deer, with smaller amounts of elk, bear, raccoon, squirrel, gray fox, marten, bobcat, and skunk (many bones of small mammals such as mice, rats, voles , chipmunk, and squirrel were from owl predation) . There were also bones of wild turkey, ruffed grouse, passenger pigeon , ducks, and various turtles. Identifiable vegetal food remains did not occur below the Late Archaic levels, according to Bebrich (1967 : 147-168). Early to Middle Archaic zones at the Meadowcroft Rockshelter, western Pennsylvania, produced fauna! refuse remains dominated by the white-tailed deer, plus lesser quantities of elk, turkey, ruffed grouse, hooded merganser, passenger pigeon, trumpeter swan, box turtle and other animals. There was a heavy numerical predominance of the bones of small mammals such as southern flying squirrels, voles, mice, moles, and shrews, all probably raptor food remains. Freshwater clam shells were a minor source of nutrition, occurring chiefly in Late Archaic through Early Woodland levels. The list of shellfish is long, but the major representatives were Eilliptio dilatatus (found chiefly in Cross Creek) and Lampsilis ovata (collected mainly from the Ohio River). Hickory nuts, acorns, butternuts or walnuts, hackberries, black cherries, raspberries, and other wild plants were consumed (Carlisle and Adovasio, eds. 1982) . At the St. Albans site in West Virginia, Broyles ( 1971) reported finding charred hulls of luglans sp. from the Early Archaic levels; there were no faunal remains identifiable as to species. Similarly, Chapman (1977) recovered acorns and hickory nuts from the Kirk, bifurcated-base, and Stanly levels of his stratified alluvial sites in Tennessee; walnuts occurred in Stanly and Morrow Mountain, but not Kirk or bifurcated-base, zones. The presence of nuts on these southeastern sites does not necessarily mean that they will be found on Early Archaic sites in upstate New York or New England, where the environmental setting was somewhat different at 8000-6000 B.C.

The Middle Archaic Stage During this period of 6000 to 4000 B. C ., plant and animal associations were continuing to change in the direction of modern .forms. The inception of the C-1 pollen subzone, and of the oak-hemlock forests inferred from it, are C-14 dated about 5500 B.C. Thus by this time the deer, bear, turkey and other species well-known to contact period tribes were probably important to the prehistoric economy. Oak, chestnut, beech, hickory, and hazel nuts were now undoubtedly abundant and seasonally exploited . Unfortunately, there is no direct evidence in the Susquehanna Valley for subsistence practices of this period, except possibly the butternut fragment found in the same level as the Neville-like point at the Kuhr No. 2 site (See Vol. 2) . Dincauze (1976) postulated a basic role for fishing during the Neville and Stark occupations atthe Neville site, New Hampshire. One of the "firsts" for this time level includes the use of marine shellfish, such as the Virginia oyster, in coastal regions (Brennan 197 4) . Oysters and unidentified mammals were consumed by the Neville period occupants of the North Bowdoin Rockshelter near Poughkeepsie, and deer, raccoon, fox , porcupine, and squirrel were eaten by similar occupants of the Muddy Brook Rockshelter near Brewster (Funk 1989) . · Dumont and Dumont ( 1979) described a Stanly-Neville encampment of 900 square feet (81 square meters) in middle levels of the stratified Rocklein site, New Jersey. Associated with projectile points and a variety of tools were features containing carbonized nutshells (species not given); no fauna! remains were reported. Netsinkers occurred in this cluster, suggesting that fishing was also a subsistence pursuit. 264

Middle Archaic (Neville and Stark) levels at the WMECO site in Riverside, Connecticut, produced the remains of fish, including shad, plus the bones of deer, muskrat, bird, snake and turtle (Thomas 1980). Turtle and possible mammal bones occurred in Middle Archaic contexts at a site near Belmont, New Hampshire (Starbuck 1984). It is of interest to note recent reports of the discovery of domesticated squash in southeastern Middle Archaic contexts, as early as 7000 B.P. (Conrad, et al. 1984). Since no substantial Middle Archaic components as such have been isolated or defined within New York State (those in the North Bowdoin and Muddy Brqok Rockshelters consisted chiefly of projectile points), no artifact assemblages are available from which to infer subsistence practices based on functional types. Subsistence patterns that were generally characteristic of Middle Archaic components at Sheep Rock, Meadowcroft, and other sites south of New York State, are probably generally applicable to Middle Archaic expressions in New York and New England.

Late Archaic Stage The period of occupations assigned to the Late Archaic stage overlaps from the end ofthe C-1 pollen subzone into the first part of the C-2 subzone. With the advent of a deciduous forest biome by ca. 4000 B.C ., one would expect archaeological sites to produce the remains of deer, elk, bear, woodchuck, racoon, squirrel, turkey, grouse, and other modern species of animals. No horticultural products such as squash ( Cucurbita pepo) or marsh elder (Iva annua) have been found on Late Archaic sites in the Northeast, although they have been reported for contexts dating ca. 4000 B.P. and older in the Southeast (Conrad, et al. 1984). The earliest part of this period, from ca. 4000-3000 B. C ., is still poorly known and the major occupations are attributed to a Proto-Laurentian complex, the South Hill phase. These occupations share a small group of chipped and rough stone artifact traits including projectile points resembling the Otter Creek type, and may derive from a terminal Middle Archaic manifestation that preceded the advent of the ground stone traits characterizing the Vergennes phase (Ritchie l 969a: 84-89), despite the chipped stone traits shared with Vergennes. Not only have few sites dated between 4000 and 3000 B.C . been excavated in the Northeast, but only a small percentage of those have yielded identifiable food remains. The only one in the study area is the McCulley No. 1 site, dated 3780 B.C ., which contained some charredluglansnut shell fragments (Funk and Hoagland l 972a) . Here hunting implements predominated and fishing was weakly represented (Figure 29). This site is assigned to the South Hill phase, two components of which are the basal component at the Shafer site in the Schoharie Valley (Wellman and Hartgen 1975) and the lowest level at the Sylvan Lake Rockshelter near Poughkeepsie (Funk 1976). Neither Shafer nor the Gillingham No. 1, Rockshelter produced identifiable refuse remains. Despite regional ecological differences, clues to general subsistence patterns on this horizon may be obtained from the Sylvan Lake site data and from related manifestations in the Hudson Valley. As should be expected, by far the most important game animal in stratum 3 at Sylvan Lake was the white-tailed deer. Other speciesweredogorwolf, grayfox, raccoon, fisher, beaver, porcupine, muskrat, graysquirrel, woodchuck, woodrat, rabbit, elk, turkey, ruffed grouse, quail, Canada goose, and painted turtle. There were also one fish bone and fragments of fresh water clam, both unidentifiable as to species. This archaeofaunal assemblage could easily have been duplicated in the Upper Susquehanna Valley under the right conditions of preservation. At Dogan Point near Ossining on Haverstraw Bay the Virginia oyster heavily predominated in the lower midden, although there were a few bones of the deer and other animals (Brennan 197 4) . The subsistence patterns in the lower Hudson are not particularly relevant to upstate New York, since oysters and other marine fauna (except for anadromous fish) were not available in the Susquehanna Valley north of the Fall Line. Vergennes components in the Upper Hudson Valley and Lake Champlain basin are probably relevant, although radiocarbon-dated to a slightly later time (ca. 3200-2500 B.C .). Only calcined bone fragments, too small for species identification, occurred at the KI site in Vermont (Ritchie 1968, l 969a, 1971 a) . Large quantities of deer bone, plus fewer bones of black bear, beaver, muskrat, dog, turkey, heron, and wood turtle were recovered at the Otter Creek No. 2 site, also in Vermont (Ritchie l 979a). Deer bones were also associated with Otter Creek points in basal levels of Fish Club Cave south of Albany (Funk 1976) . Predominant tool types at the McCulley No. 1, Shafer, Gillingham No. 1, and Sylvan Lake sites bear out the impression of a generalized Archaic hunting-gathering economy, in which deer was the most crucial food resource and nuts, acorns, fish, and fresh water clams were harvested in season. Projectile points and biface knives dominated the assemblages, although rough stone tools (choppers, hammerstones, pitted stones, etc.) were moderately frequent at the open-air sites. Similar patterns seem indicated for the Vergennes sites in Vermont. A . The Brewerton Phase Next in the established sequence for the Upper Susquehanna Valley and eastern New York are manifestations to which the appellation "Laurentian" definitely or probably applies. Laurentian in the Susquehanna basin is poorly known, but components are represented at the Gillingham No. 1 Rockshelter, middle and lower levels; South Shelter No. 3; and Deer Blind Shelter, all near Otego (See Vol. 2) . A Laurentian component was also suggested for the Camelot No. 2 site, zones F,G. These components

265

can be attributed to a regional equivalent of the Brewerton phase (Ritchie 1969a: 89-104) . Again food remains were scanty, consisting of charred butternut shells at the Camelot No. 2 site and unidentified fragments of bone in the rockshelters. Comparable adaptations are exemplified by the Robinson and Oberlander No. 1 sites at Brewerton (Ritchie 1940, 1944, l 965a), the Morrison's Island-6 site in the Ottawa Valley (Kennedy 1966), and Vosburg levels of the Sylvan Lake Rockshelter in the Hudson Valley (Funk 1976). Hunting was apparently the primary Brewerton food-getting activity; a few deer bones and fish bones were found at the two type stations. No subsistence remains were reported for Morrison's Island. Vosburg materials in lower levels of stratum 2 at Sylvan Lake were associated with the bones of deer, bear, gray fox, raccoon, bobcat, porcupine, gray squirrel, elk, turkey, and fresh water clam, with deer heavily predominant. The high emphasis placed by Brewerton people on hunting is evident in the lithic artifacts. Ritchie ( l 969a:92) pointed out that projectile points comprised up to 80 percent of chipped stone items, and up to 60 percent of the total inventories, at the Brewerton type sites. If other bifaces were added to the counts, the percentages reflecting the hunting-butchering activity would be even higher. Similarly, the Vosburg assemblages display high percentages of points and knives summed together (from about 52 to 85 percent) . B. The Lamoka Phase The excavated Lamoka components in the Upper Susquehanna drainage, dated ca . 2500-1800 B.C ., have produced numerous bits of calcined refuse bone but none identifiable as to species. However, charred nuts were found at the Mattice No. 2 site, zones 2,3,4 ; the Enck No. 2 site, zone L; the Fortin site, locus 1, zone 4; the Kuhr No. 1 site, zones L-1, L-2, L-3; the Kuhr No. 2 site zone 3; and the Camelot No. 2 site locus 2, zone 5. At each site some fragments were identified as either butternut or walnut, but in addition hickory nuts were present at Mattice No. 2. These sites can be compared to the component at Lamoka Lake (Ritchie 1940, 1944, 1965a), to the related component at the Cole Gravel Pit in the Genesee Valley (Hayes and Bergs 1969; Brown, et al. 1973) and to the Sylvan Lake phase occupation of the Sylvan Lake Rockshelter (Funk 1976). Although the Lamoka Lake site (in the western Upper Susquehanna drainage) is unique in so many ways, its general subsistence pattern should be similar to that of Lamoka groups in the eastern Upper Susquehanna Valley. The white-tailed deer overwhelmingly predominated over other animal food remains. Also important were black bear, woodchuck, raccoon, muskrat, gray squirrel, beaver, snowshoe hare , elk, gray fox, turkey, and passenger pigeon. Other mammals, birds, and turtles were eaten. Relatively few fish bones were found, representing the bullhead, perch, sunfish, sucker, and pike. Vegetal foods were a major source of nourishment, as shown by the great quantities of charred acorns, and lesser amounts of hickory nuts, in the refuse. The inferred relative importance of hunting at Lamoka Lake was borne out by the numerous projectile points--and knives (combined total 7 28) in the artifact inventory compiled by Ritchie (1944) . Pitted stones, pestles, mortars, and mullers (combined total 505) were presumably used to process nuts, acorns, seeds, and other plant foods. These numbers are relatively small when converted into percentages of the total lithic inventory (6.7 % and 4. 7%, respectively). That is because the figures are skewed by the 8000 netsinkers counted on the site, comprising 73 .8 % of the total of all artifacts (10 ,843) . This large value demonstrates a major fishing industry at Lamoka Lake, completely at odds with the small role suggested by John E. Guilday on the basis of the sparse number of fish bones in the refuse (Ritchie 1965a:58) . Not only do these data illustrate how difficult it is to interpret subsistence from remains subjected to differential modes of deposition and preservation, but they also show the need for caution in determining subsistence patterns from artifact traits . At the Cole Gravel Pit site, faunal remains included the elk, deer, bear, dog, wolf, raccoon, woodchuck, beaver, bobcat, squirrel, otter, muskrat, turkey, grouse, passenger pigeon, turtles, catfish, and bullhead (Brown, et al. 1973). The Sylvan Lake phase was a Hudson Valley manifestation, with a range extending into the Delaware Valley and western New England. Subsistence and settlement systems of this phase must be compared with caution to the Lamoka patterns, since the ecological contexts differed in some respects. Yet the faunal remains from the Sylvan Lake Rockshelter (middle and upper stratum 2) provide valid analogues with the Susquehanna Valley archaeofaunas of the same period. Clearly, the deer was the most crucial single species in the economy of Sylvan Lake groups who used the shelter, with the raccoon a strong second; no other animal species was represented by more than 3 individuals. No vegetal food remains or plant-processing implements occurred at the shelter, and netsinkers were absent. Projectile points comprised over 90 percent of the lithic inventory, in keeping with the nature of subsistence remains. Thus, although Lamoka phase sites in the Upper Susquehanna north of Binghamton failed to produce identifiable faunal remains, it is virtually certain that hunting was the major subsistence pursuit, except at certain localities at certain times of the year. Butternuts and other mast foods may have dominated subsistence on some fall camps; fishing may also have provided the bulk of protein at certain spring and summer localities . Looking at the relative frequencies of lithic artifacts / traits on Figure 29, it is evident that hunting and butchering items were importantin Lamoka levels of the Mattice No. 2, Fortin locus 1 , Kuhr No. 1 , and Enck No. 2 sites. Netsinkers, absent from Mattice No. 2, were minor elements at Fortin loc us 1, zones 4, 5, and Enck No. 2, but strongly represented at Kuhr No. 1; they were also dominant in the small assemblage at Fortin locus 1, zone 7. Inferred plant processing implements were present at all of the sites, but moderately abundant only at Mattice No. 2 and Fortin. Despite the 266

absence offish bones, it is reasonable to suggest that the Fortin site, locus 1, zone 7, and the Kuhr No. 1 site, zones L-1 through L-3, were primarily fall hunting and fishing camps where some plant foods were collected. The Mattice No. 2 site was apparently a fall hunting and nut-harvesting camp, and this was probably also the case at the Enck No. 2 site. C . The Vestal Phase Vestal componentsatthe C amelot No. 2 site, locus 2, zone 3, andatthe Kuhr No. 1 site, zones V-1 and V-2, produced small non-diagnostic fragments of calcined refuse bone and the charred shells of butternuts; there were also hickory nuts at Camelot No . . 2. Charred butternuts or walnuts and calcined bone bits were also associated with Vestal points in the western cluster in zone 3 at Fortin locus 1. These arethe only extant data on Vestal subsistence remains, and comparative data are not available because Vestal sites do not seem to exist outside the Upper Susquehanna Valley. Nuts and calcined bones occurred in features at the Castle Gardens site (See Vol. 2), but given the stratigraphic data these cannot be assigned specifically to either the Vestal or the Lamoka component. The same tentative assignment of nuts to the Vestal components is suggested for the Kuhr No. 2 site, zone 3, and the Enck No. 2 site, zone S-V. In Figure 29 relative frequencies of hypothesized functional groups of artifacts are shown for the Kuhr No. 1 site, zone V-2 and the Fortin site, locus 1, zone 3. In both cases hunting is a prominent activity, fishing is barely represented, and plant food gathering and processing is indicated as a moderately important pursuit. These inferences are congruous with the actual food remains. However, it is very probable that with the discovery and excavation of more Vestal components, fishing will prove to have been a basic economic concern. D. The Charlotte Phase On the still rather tenuous assumption that Normanskill points and related forms represent a discrete phase or complex in the region, the calcined bones and nutremains from the eastern cluster in zone 3, locus 1 at the Fortin site and from the eastern part of zone 3 atthe Kuhr No. 2 site suggest basic roles for hunting and the harvesting of mast foods. This interpretation is strengthened by the high numerical values for artifacts relating to the chase and to the gathering and preparation of plant foods (Figure 29) . Such a pattern is similar to that evinced for the River phase in the Hudson drainage (Ritchie l 965a: 128; Ritchie and Funk 1973:342; Funk 1976:258). It is also much like the subsistence practices of the coeval Archaic groups who lived at the Cole Gravel Pit, in the Genesee Valley (C. Hayes and Bergs 1969; Brown, etal. 1973). Many projectile points in that assemblage showed stylistic affinities with Normanskill points. Again, the apparent paucity of fish remains on the Susquehanna sites is almost certainly the result of poor preservation and inadequate sampling, since there was considerable evidence of fishing on sites of the River phase (Ritchie 1965a:l28; Funk 1976:258) . E. The Batten Kill Phase No floral or faunal subsistence remains were found in direct association with artifacts of this phase on any of the Upper Susquehanna sites. Available artifact inventories indicate a dominant role for hunting, but the investigation of more singlecomponent sites with preserved food remains is badly needed before we can make definite statements about Batten Kill subsistence in the region. Despite the excavation of a number of subsurface components in the Hudson Valley, no floral or fa unal remains were found with them (Funk 1976) . F . The Snook Kill Phase Except for the small assemblage in zone SK at the Kuhr No. 1 site, associated with butternuts or walnuts, no Snook Kill components have been isolated anywhere in the Upper Susquehanna region, hence minimal information is available on food refuse. The Snook Kill points in zone S-V at Enck No. 2 were closely associated with charred butternut shells. One can only surmise that the subsistence economy was generally similar to that of the Snook Kill expressions in the Hudson Valley. Calcined animal bones and charred wild cherry stones were reported for the type site (Ritchie 1958:92), but the absence of fish bones, netsinkers and fishhooks from the reported stations suggests that fishing was not an important pursuit.

The Transitional Stage A. The Frost Island Phase Several Frost Island components in the study area have yielded subsistence remains. Deer bones were present among the calcined fragments in zone D atthe Camelot No. 2 site. Bone fragments not attributed to particular animal species occurred atthe Kuhr No. 1 site, zones S-1 to S-4 along with some charred luglans nut shells, and this was repeated atthe Camelot No. 1 site, locus 1. Only pieces of calcined bone, not assigned to particular fauna! species, were found at Fortin locus 1, zone 2. The artifact inventories (Figure 29) suggest a similar picture, in which hunting contributed most of the calories, supplemented by the gathering and processing of plants. N etsinkers were nearly absent from these assemblages. However, a different pattern is evoked by the small assemblage from zone 6 atthe Johnsen No. I site (See Vol. 2). There hunting and butchering implements comprised over 56% of the inventory, and fishing implements (netsinkers) over 26%; only one possible "nutting" stone was found.

267

A similar picture is suggested by the data from the O'Neil site on the Seneca River, where a few netsinkers also occurred with Susquehanna Broad points and steatite sherds (Ritchie l 965a: 156-15 7) . Carbonized hickory nuts were recovered from a Frost Island feature at the Claud No. 1 site in the Genesee Valley (Trubowitz and Snethkamp 1975) . B. The Orient Phase The only "pure" component ofthis phase that has been excavated in the study area is locus 2 atthe Rose site, although Orient Fishtail and Dry Brook Fishtail points are fairly abundant in surface collections, suggesting a substantial occupation on this time level. No subsistence remains were recovered at Rose; the prevalence of projectile points in the small assemblage (Figure 29) reflects the importance of hunting at this particular camp site. Subsistence data are also lacking for similar occupations in the Lower Susquehanna Valley (Witthoft 1953) . Orient phase groups in the Hudson valley relied heavily on the deer and turkey and collected butte rnuts in season. So far, there is little evidence of fishing (Funk 1976:267) . Long Island Orient groups hunted, used marine mollusks, and collected nuts but apparently paid little attention to fish (Ritchie l 965a: 165). Possibly attributable to this or the subsequent Meadowood occupation were the floral and faunal remains from feature 01, squares 2 and 23 atthe Southside Treatment Plant site, Owego (Versaggi, et al. 1982: 115-116, 122-124). This feature, dated 940 B.C ± 65 years, was in close proximity to several steatite sherds in the surrounding alluvial matrix. Plant remains identified from the fill comprised hickory nut shells and seeds of sunflower, marsh elder, fiddleneck, thyme, sumac, and mint.

The Early Woodland Stage A. The Meadowood Phase We acquired few data on the Meadowood phase during the period of our investigations, although it was definitely present in the valley. Lacking discrete assemblages with associated food remains, we are forced to fall back on comparisons with betterknown expressions in western, central, and eastern New York. In the midden at the Riverhaven No. 2 site on the Niagara River, faunal remains included the elk, white-tailed deer, bear, dog, wolf, bobcat, raccoon, woodchuck, beaver, otter, squirrel, muskrat, turkey, grouse, merganser, turtles, catfish, and bullhead (Grayson 1974). A similar pattern was evident at the Scaccia site in the Genesee Valley where deer again outranked other animal species. These included the black bear, woodchuck, raccoon, and muskrat plus the turkey, turtles, catfish and sucker. Nuts and acorns were also consumed. Deer bones were associated with the Nahrwold No. 2 Meadowood component in the Schoharie Valley (Ritchie and Funk 1973:347) . It is probably safe to assume a nearly identical subsistence pattern for the Upper Susquehanna groups. B. The Middlesex Phase Although the writer has proposed that this Early Woodland manifestation , so far defined only on the basis of burial and ceremonial traits, actually represents a complete cultural system with a full range of settlement types, no stratigraphically sealed or isolated habitation components have been excavated anywhere in New York. Several Middlesex habitation sites have been reported in Delaware (Custer 1984). A Middlesex component, or a closely related occupation, may have been represented by the Adena points, Sand Hill points, and blocked-end tube from zones 3 and 4 at the Gardepe site, locus 1 . However, no subsistence remains were associated. Therefore, subsistence data are lacking for New York Middlesex except for clues provided by mortuary accompaniments, including projectile points.

The Middle Woodland Stage A. The Bushkill Phase In the study area, possibletracesofaBushkilloccupation were confined to zone W-1 attheKuhr No. 1 site. This zone produced a few charred fragments of butternut or walnut. The artifact inventory of this component, dated 380 B.C., was unfortunately very small and mixed to some extent with items from other components; hence, a functional analysis of lithic traits is not feasible . The probable Bushkill occupation level at the Westheimer site, in the Schoharie Valley, produced deer bones, but faunal remains have not been studied in detail and other species are probably represented (Ritchie and Funk 1973). The only food refuse associated with Bushkill expressions in the Upper Delaware Valley were bones of the raccoon. Artifact inventories suggest a mixed hunting, fishing, gathering economy (Kinsey, et al. 1972), and this very generalized picture is probably equally valid for the Upper Susquehanna complex. B. The Canoe Point Phase The only components of this phase identified in the Upper Susquehanna Valley were at the Cottage site (See Vol. 2) and Davenport Creamery site (Funk and Hoagland l 972b) . There were no preserved remains at the former; deer bones, calcined bone fragments and charred hickory nuts were recovered at the latter. The lithic assemblage at Davenport Creamery, stratum 1 B, supports a hunting emphasis, with less reliance on plant foods and even less on fishing (Figure 29) . This picture is somewhat at variance with the major role of fishing described by Ritchie ( l 965a:2 l 0) for Canoe Point sites in western and northern New York, but the Davenport Creamery site may have been primarily a fall-winter hunting and nutcollecting camp. Other sites of this phase in the Upper Susquehanna Valley may prove to be spring-summer fishing stations. 268

C. The Fox Creek Phase Although Fox Creek points are moderately numerous in surface collections, the only isolated, reasonably large assemblage was unearthed at the Fredenburg site on Mill Creek near Otego (Hesse 1968). There subsistence remains were confined to small fragments of calcined animal bone. The lithic artifacts suggest a heavy stress on the capture and consumption of animals, with less attention to wild plant foods. There is no evidence for fishing (Figure 29). A similar subsistence economy was suggested by the evidence from the Westheimer site in the Schoharie Valley, where Fox Creek residents depended heavily on the deer and much less on bear, beaver, gray fox, etc. Hickory nuts, butternuts, and acorns were also abundant and fish bones were rare. Projectile points and biface knives were numerous. These together with a few pitted stones and pestles and the lack of netsinkers are consistent with the refuse remains (Ritchie and Funk 1973). D. Kipp Island Phase Several Kipp Island components in the Upper Susquehanna Valley have produced food refuse. The late Middle Woodland level at the Rose site, locus 1, contained burned bone fragments but the species hunted are unknown. Zone 3 at the Sternberg site also yielded calcined bone fragments, plus charred hickory nuts and hazelnuts. The Davis site near South Edmeston (Boyd, et al. 1981) produced deer and dog bones. The Kipp Island level at the Fortin site, locus 2, contained deer and bear bones plus butternuts, hickory nuts, and hazelnuts. Lithic artifacts at Davis and in the Fortin assemblage reflect the hunting activity, but only feebly suggestthe practices of fishing and gathering (Figure 29). Elsewhere in New York State, Kipp Island phase sites such as Felix and Kipp Island characteristically produced fish bones (including bullhead, channel catfish, walleyed pike, and northern pike), mammal bones (mostly of deer, but also including elk, bear, dog, raccoon, otter, fisher, muskrat, beaver), bird bones, and turtle bones. Carbonized hickory and butternut shells and possible Chenopodium seeds were found at Kipp Island. Few plant-processing tools are known for Kipp Island sites. Traces of cultigens have not been found; however, "Despite this body of equivocal evidence, it must be supposed that wild plant foods were significantly utilized and that cultigens were probably known" (Ritchie l 965a:24 7). E. The Hunter's Home Phase In the Susquehanna Valley, this terminal Point Peninsula manifestation is represented by the White site near Norwich (Whitney 1972), the Ouleout site near North Franklin (Hartgen Archeological Associates 1988), and the Street site near Oneonta. The White site yielded the bones of deer (predominant), bear, beaver, unidentified birds, and northern pike. At the Street site deer, bird, and possibly squirrel were identified, as well as carbonized butternuts, hazelnuts, and possible hickory nuts. Lithic artifact traits in the Street and White site assemblages suggest a very strong role for hunting, almost none for fishing, and a minor one for gathering (Figure 29). Charred butternuts or walnuts were reported for the Hunter's Home component at the Ouleout site; the predominance of bifaces in the lithic assemblage and recoveries of calcined bone fragments suggested some reliance on hunting (Hartgen Archaeological Associates 1988).

The Late Woodland Stage A . The Carpenter Brook Phase In the Upper Susquehanna Valley, subsistence remains have been produced bythree sites of this Early Owasco developmental level. Deer bones and fresh water clam shell fragments were recovered from zone 2 atthe Egli site near Sidney (See Vol. 2). From zone 4 at the Fortin site, locus 2 came species-unidentifiable calcined bone fragments, charred butternut shells, and carbonized corn kernels. Considerable subsistence evidence was present at the Roundtop site (Ritchie and Funk 197 3), including the bones of deer, elk, bear, beaver, woodchuck, muskrat, squirrel, dog, turkey, and box turtle; fish bones; carbonized corn kernels, beans, and squash seeds. Analysis of stone tools and weapons from the Roundtop and Fortin components (Figure 29) appears to show that although hunting was a basic food-getting activity, fishing predominated. A minor role is indicated for the gathering and preparation of plant foods . This pattern of mixed hunting, fishing, gathering, and farming conforms to that described by Ritchie (1965a:275-278; Ritchie and Funk 1973: 166) for the Owasco tradition in general. The subsistence economy of Owasco-like manifestations in the Delaware Valley (called "Pahaquarra" by Kraft 1975a, l 975b) was based on the cultivation of corn, beans, and squash, as well as the hunting of deer, elk, bobcat, gray fox, raccoon, woodchuck, beaver, rabbit, squirrel, muskrat, turtle, and turkey; the shad and otherfish were taken, and mollusks and nuts were gathered when available. Stone tools possibly used to process maize, beans, or squash cannot be identified in the New York assemblages. Corn may well have been pulverized with wooden mortars and pestles, as documented for the historic Iroquois.

269

B. The Canandaigua Phase The subsistence pattern of the Carpenter Brook phase undoubtedly continued into the Canandaigua phase as represented by the Bates site hamlet (Ritchie and Funk 1973: 226-252), and probably also by the Jamba site near Norwich (Whitney 1975) . Unearthed from pits at Bates were the bones of deer (numerically predominant), bear, beaver, muskrat, chipmunk, deer mouse, turkey, ruffed grouse, box turtle, painted turtle, bullhead, white sucker, creek chub, eel, black bass, and shad. Also found were charred corn kernels, butternuts, acorns, hazelnuts, hawthorne apple, and cherry. A few deer bones occurred at Jamba. The abundant netsinkers in the Bates lithic inventory (Figure 29) suggest a much greater rank for fishing than is evidenced by the meager fish remains, and lesser roles seem indicated for hunting and gathering. Again, the relative importance of horticulture cannot be estimated from stone tools in the assemblage. Middle Owasco features at the Southside Treatment Plant site, Owego, contained the bones of deer, raccoon, turkey, and turtle (Versaggi, et al. 1982) . The Owasco midden atthe River Street site produced mammal, fish, and reptile bones plus mollusk shells (mostly Elliptio dilatata and Lampsilis sp.) (Curtin 1984). C. The Castle Creek Phase Previous subsistence patterns probably continued into this stage (Ritchie l 965a:275-278; Ritchie and Funk 1973: 166). Much refuse bone, not classified by species, occurred at the Castle Creek site along with fresh water clam shells, charred maize and beans, and carbonized shells of butternuts, hickory nuts, and acorns (Ritchie 1944:61-67) . The Bain bridge site produced maize, beans, clam shells, and much refuse bone, chiefly of deer. Netsinkers were abundant at both sites in contrast with the absence of fish bones. Implements for hunting, and preparation of plant foods were present in relatively small quantities at these sites (Figure 29). D. The Oak Hill Phase No data are available on floral or faunal resources exploited by Oak Hill phase groups living in the valley. No Oak Hill habitation sites have been systematically excavated; only small quantities of the diagnostic ceramics were recovered at the rare sites assigned to this phase. Presumably, subsistence patterns on these sites closely matched the patterns described for Oak Hill sites in the Mohawk Valley and central New York (Ritchie 1965a:309; Tuck 1971; Ritchie and Funk 1973) . E. The Chance Phase Deowongo Island (Ritchie 1952) and Bemis are the only two Chance phase components that have been excavated in the Upper Susquehanna Valley. Fresh water clam shells were the only food remains preserved on the Deowongo Island site. At Bemis, the excavators unearthed the bones of deer, beaver, elk, woodchuck, and dog(?), fresh water clam shells, charred butternuts, and charred corn kernels. The stone artifacts suggest a heavy emphasis on hunting, a lesser importance for fishing, and almost no role for gathering; fishing seems more important at Deowongo Island (Figure 29). A buried Chance phase component on the Smith farm near Otego, excavated during highway salvage operations on I-88, produced charred corn, butternuts, and calcined bone fragments (Weber 1973) . Very generally, these sites exemplify the same subsistence pattern as Chance sites in the Mohawk Valley (Ritchie and Funk 1973) . F. The Garoga Phase No single-component sites on this level of Iroquoian evolution have been recorded in the Upper Susquehanna Valley. Occasional finds of notched, collared incised pottery on multicomponent sites testify to at least a feeble representation in the region. In view of the sparse data, it can only be stated that regional Garoga phase subsistence patterns undoubtedly followed the general patterns noted in the Mohawk Valley and adjoining areas (Ritchie and Funk 1973; Tuck 1971). A much narroweror more limited range of activities may have been represented in the Upper Susquehanna Valley.

The Historic Period Since very little information exists on Iroquoian sites or components of ca. AD. 1500-1 700 in the region north of Binghamton (Whitney 1974), this period will not be further considered here. Subsistence data remain to be published for the 16th century Susquehannock component at the large, multicomponent Engelbert site located west of Binghamton near Nichols (Elliott and Lipe 1970; Stewart 1973, 1977). Some information is available on the incompletely analyzed subsistence remains from the 18th century compcnent atthe Egli site (Old Unadilla) near Sidney (Hesse 1975). Deer, woodchuck, beaver, fish, turtle, and fresh water clams were present in the faunal refuse. Charred hickory nuts and hazelnuts were among the floral remains. Neither the bones of hogs and cows nor charred maize were found at the site but all of these food resources are mentioned in the historic accounts (Halsey 1901).

Seasonality A rather limited number of Upper Susquehanna Valley sites produced subsistence remains (see Table 31). Such remains are direct clues to seasons of procurement and hence to the seasons of site occupation, when used with caution. Caution is required 270

because some foods may be obtained, processed and even partly consumed at localities some distance from their final depositional context. Such foods may also be stored for use in a later season. In general, therefore, it is assumed that food remains found in a component were obtained, prepared and consumed during the occupation of the site. In some cases, nuts and cultigens may have been carried to a site from more distant sites and stored there for weeks and months, but given the probable limitations on prehistoric storage technology it is assumed the foodstuffs were usually no more than a few days old. Numerous sites produced charred nut fragments reflecting fall activity. A smaller number produced the bones of deer, bear, or other mammals. Fewer yet are the sites that yielded fish bones, bird bones, and fresh water clam shells. Traces of domesticated plants such as maize, beans, and squashes occurred ona handful of sites. Another group of sites produced nothing but small pieces of burned refuse bone. As previously noted, there was additional evidence of subsistence practices in the form of artifact traits such as pitted stones (some of which at least, were used in processing nuts) and netsinkers (for net-fishing) (Figure 29 and Table 31). On sites where mammal, bird, turtle, and fish bones were found along with maize and other cultigens and netsinkers, it seems safe to assume either year-round occupation, or occupation through several months of the year. Late Woodland sites located generally or entirely above flood waters, such as Egli, Bates, Bainbridge, Castle Creek and Roundtop were probably inhabited throughout the year; this sedentism is also suggested by the presence of numerous large, deep storage pits filled with refuse and by substantial longhouses that, in some cases, were encircled by palisades. Despite equivocal or unpublished data, the following sites are also attributed to year-round occupation : Engelbert (Elliott and Lipe 1970) and Apl-6 (Murray Shapiro, personal communications). These were of substantial size, and contained evidence of longhouses as well as deep storage pits. Heavy and sustained occupation is indicated even though the subsistence remains have not been completely described. Cultigen and nut-producing sites located on floodplains, such as Fortin locus 2, zone 4, Southside Sewage Treatment Plant (Versaggi, et al. 1982), and Bemis may have regularly been inundated by spring floods and therefore occupied from late spring or early summer through the fall. The maize found at these sites may have been raised on the nearby flats and harvested before site abandonment which took place at the onset of winter. Or, it could have been brought in from village sites located elsewhere in the valley. In either case the floodplain sites were probably fishing and nut-gathering camps that served as satellites of larger agricultural settlements. Possibly attributable to this group is the Jamba site. Many of the non-agricultural sites produced nothing but charred nuts often accompanied by pitted stones or millingstones, and bits of calcined refuse bone; a few also contained animal bones identifiable as to species, and netsinkers. Such remains are good evidence of occupancy in certain seasons, usually confined to the fall. Even the presence of fish bones, clam shells and netsinkers in assemblages is not proof of spring and summer occupancy, since fish and shellfish could be taken in the fall and fish in the winter. Unfortunately, the bones of anadromous fish, such as shad, are extremely rare on Upper Susquehanna sites; these would be good evidence for occupation during spring migratory runs. Other sites or components located on valley floors lacked nut remains but produced pitted stones, millingstones, or other artifactual evidence for plant food (nut?) processing. Sites in these categories include Fortin locus 1, zones 2, 7; Gravesen; Kuhr No.l,zonesL-2, S-2, S-2A; Mattice No. 2, zone 1 ;Camelot No. 2, locus 1, zonesD,E;andRusslocus2, the 10-50cmlevels. These components probably represent fall occupations. Sites located close to major waterways, producing calcined bones, in some cases clam shells, a few identifiable animal bones, and netsinkers but no nuts are tentatively assumed to have been occupied in the spring and summer. In this group are Deowongo Island; Rose locus 1, floor 2; Johnsen No. 1, zone 6; and Enck No. 1, zones 3, 4. Another group of components either produced no food remains at all, or occasional fragments of calcined bone. They also generally lacked netsinkers, pitted stones, milling slabs or (except for projectile points) other artifactual indications of foodgetting activities. These sites include Osterhoudt (SuBi 505); Johnsen No. 3, zones E,F, G; Johnsen No. 2, zone 1; Rose locus 2; and Fortin locus 2, zone 2 . Subsistence remains were nearly lacking in all of the sites investigated on the valley walls; calcined or uncalcined bone fragments occurred with Laurentian artifacts in some of the Otego Rockshelters. Here negative evidence may be important. None of these sites produced pitted stones, milling stones, netsinkers, or other subsistence-related stone tools apart from projectile points. Therefore it is postulated thattheywere primarily fall-winter hunting camps. However they arenearthevalleyfloor and their occupants could easily have gone to the river in order to hunt, fish, or gather nuts, while using the shelters as temporary dwellings. Three upland sites are represented in Table 31 . Small fragments of bone were recovered at the Fredenburg site, and none were reported (though likely present) for the Winnie Hill site; neither station yielded netsinkers (the single-notched slabs from Fredenburg's are too large and irregular in shape to have functioned as sinkers) , "nutting" stones, or other suspected subsistencerelated tools. The White site did produce bones of deer, bear, beaver, birds, and pike; there were no mast food remains and only one netsinker was reported. The interpretation that all of these sites were primarily, if not exclusively, winter encampments is compatible with the evidence.

271

Site and Component Size The data available for some sites permit reasonably accurate estimates of the areal extent, not only of sites, but of components within the sites. Unfortunately, we were unable to obtain such data for some of our sites, whether because of practical difficulties or inappropriate excavation strategy. Some useful data on site or component size were acquired in other investigations, including those on segments of I-88, the Susquehanna Expressway.2 Accepting the definition of a site as any primary locus of human activity (as contrasted with a secondary locus of redeposition), then certain ambiguities must be dealt with in estimates of overall size. A site confined to the plow zone or surface may consist of the residues of multiple occupations representing long periods of time. These occupations may or may not be distinguishable by spatial analysis. What is the meaningful unit of measurement? Is it the overall area of the combined residues? It is the area of distribution of a particular category of evidence, such as chert flakes, features, or scattered charcoal? Or is it the areas of individual components? Obviously, it is frequently not possible to distinguish the areas of separate occupations. Another consideration; on stratified, multicomponent sites the buried zones are often highly variable in overall area, size of activity loci and density of remains. Also, more often than not, the plow zone may produce materials over a much wider area than the subsurface zones. In part this may result from the dispersing effects of repeated plowing. So there is an arbitrary dimension to giving size estimates for either sites or individual components. Nonetheless, such estimates are provided here in the hope that they may prove useful in settlement studies, for example in deriving approximations of the size of resident groups in relation to activities, community organization, and other variables. Setting aside the practical difficulties of determining site or component size in the field (e.g., landowner refusal to allow access to sites, the obscuring of ground surface by crops, weeds, or forest cover, the inconvenience of fences and other obstacles), the data presently available for the Upper Susquehanna Valley are presented in Table 31 . To summarize briefly, no data on component size are presently available on the early Holocene parts of the sequence. (The Kirk-related manifestations at Johnsen No. 3 site are currently under analysis.) The South Hill phase camp at McCulley No. 1 was about 231 square meters (2242 square feet) in area. The Brewertoncomponentsin the Otego shelters were housed in living spaces of ca. 8 to 18 square meters (77 to 175 square feet) . Lamoka components ranged in area from 42 square meters (407 square feet) to over 7 500 square meters (73, 000 square feet) . Although there is little information for the Vestal phase, a range from ca. lll to 2300 square meters ( 1078 to 22 ,000 square feet) is indicated. The Charlotte component at Fortin locus 1 was at least 556 square meters (5400 square feet) in extent. The maximum possible extent of Charlotte occupancy at Kuhr No. 2, zone 3 was about 602 square meters (5800 square feet). Considerable variation is evident for the Batten Kill phase, from about 26 square meters (252 square feet) for the Winnie Hill site to about 12,000 square meters (116,000 square feet) atthe Gravesen site. The Snook Kill components atthe Enck No. 2 and Kuhr No. 1 sites covered areas of roughly l 39to 216 square meters (1350 to 2100 square feet). Frost Island encampments in the study area ranged in size from 90to over 1500 square meters (873 to 1456 square feet) . The Orient occupation at Rose locus 2 covered about 192 square meters ( 1864 square feet). Information on the Canoe Point phase is confined to the Davenport Creamery site (222 square meters or 2155 square feet), and the small isolated component of the Fox Creek phase at Fredenburg's covered about 111 square meters (1077 square feet) . Estimates for four components of the subsequent Kipp Island phase vary from 139 square meters to over 3500 square meters ( 1350 to 34 ,000 square feet) . The major Hunter's Home component at the White site was spread over 3000 square meters (29, 000 square feet) , and the probably multiple occupations at the Street site occurred over at least 5000 square meters (48,500 square feet) . Carpenter Brook phase components ranged in area from 243 square meters to over 3000 square meters (2360 to 29,000 square feet) . The Bates site, Canandaigua phase, occupied 2000 square meters (19,400 square feet). The Castle Creek site covered 3000 square meters (29, 000 square feet), and Bainbridge about 1037 square meters ( 10 ,000 square feet). Data exists for three regional Chance phase sites; Bemis measured about 162 square meters ( 15 70 square feet), Deowongo Island 16 square meters (155 square feet) and Van Smith No. 1about800 square meters (7767 square feet) . The 18th century village at Egli's was apparently situated on both banks of the river and covered several acres (Hesse 1975) . The area sampled on the north side was at least 4000 square meters (38,800 square feet) in extent.

Structures, Facilities, and Clusters There is relatively little information on the internal organization of sites and components in the Susquehanna Valley. Postmold patterns representing houses (as opposed to religious, ceremonial, or specialized activity structures) are known for one Hunter's Home phase site (White's), several Carpenter Book phase sites (Apl-6, Roundtop, Egli, Boland), two Canandaigua phase sites (Bates, Jamba), one Castle Creek phase site (Castle Creek itself), two Chance phase sites (Bemis and Deowongo Island) and one 18th century site (Egli). The 18th century house (at least two may be indicated) was apparently supported in part by square hand-hewn posts but the exact outline could not be determined. Presumably it was a rectangular cabin with plank walls and roof, similar to the houses 272

described in early historic accounts (Halsey 1901, 1906; Wallace 1945) . These accounts are interesting as a description of the partitioning of interiors into a central aisle adjoined on each side by a row of stalls. Each stall was about eight feet wide and five feet deep, containing a bench slightly raised off the floor, and was home to a single family. Fires were built in the center aisle, and smoke escaped through a hole in the roof. The roof consisted of sheets of bark laid horizontally on poles across the rafters. The ends of the structure were open and a shed serving as kitchen and storeroom was attached to one end. The whole houses ranged from 30 to 50 feet (9 to 15 m) long and 20 feet (6 m) wide and held up to six or more families . The houses at the Bemis and Castle Creek sites were small and circular in outline. The Bemis houses ranged from 13-1 7 feet (4-5 m) in diameter, and were closely adjoined by external hearths. At least two houses at Castle Creek were about 12 feet (3. 5 m) in diameter, with central hearths (Ritchie 1944: 61-67) . Because postmolds at the Castle Creek site were so numerous, and wall lines were difficult to distinguish, it is possible that other house types were also present. At the Bates site, the house outlines were difficult to determine; either several round houses, several times rebuilt, or a long house expanded by stages were represented by the numerous molds (Ritchie and Funk 1973). The house outline attheJamba site was oblong in form, about 25 feet (7 .5 m) long and 10 feet (3 m) wide; it may have been of Owasco phase construction, but in the absence of directly associated Owasco artifacts the only diagnostic items in the overlying plow zone pertained to the Meadowood and Point Peninsula traditions (Whitney 1975). Typical Owasco longhouses with rounded ends occurred on the Apl-6, Roundtop, and Egli sites. The Apl-6 site has not been formally reported and precise data on size and internal structure of the houses are not available. Atthe Egli site, a nearly complete Owasco house outline on the higher terrace was overlain and partly obscured by the 18th century house and its associated features (Hesse 1975) . However, it was evident thatthe Owasco dwelling was about 39 feet ( 12 m) long and 20 feet (6 m) wide, with a door gap at the south end; both walls consisted of two parallel lines of posts. Although several basin-shaped features occurred within the house, others were situated outside the walls or even straddled the walls, making it impossible to determine which, if any, features had been associated with the house. On the lower terrace, our 1971 excavations disclosed large pits and postmolds that were probably remnants of another Early Owasco longhouse. The excavated long houses at the Roundtop site measured from 79 to 92 feet (24-28 m) in length and 22 to 26 feet (6.6-7 .8 m) in breadth. Door gaps 2-3 feet (.6-1.0 m) wide occurred atthe ends. A central row of hearths, such as those seen atthe MaxonDerby site in central New York, was lacking (Ritchie and Funk 1973). Salvage excavations by the SUNY Binghamton Department of Anthropology at the Boland site on the Chenango River floodplain near Binghamton uncovered at least two longhouse patterns. Partially destroyed by gravel mining, one house had rounded ends and a door gap in at least one end. It was about 20 feet in width; the length will never be known. A palisade line was also exposed; it encircled at least two houses. This is the first palisade recorded for a site of the Carpenter Brook phase. (Vincas Steponaitis, personal communications 1985-1986.) The roughly rectangular postmold pattern atthe White site had a length of about 37 .5 feet (11.4 m) and a width of 22 .5 feet (7 m). Within the outline were nine unevenly distributed shallow features. A small oval dwelling about four meters long and three meters wide with a central hearth was indicated by postmolds atthe Port Dickinson site near Binghamton, excavated by the Public Archeology Facility at SUNY Binghamton. This structure pertained to a Middle Woodland component (Versaggi, et al. 1986) . Postmolds, some occurring in lines, have been mapped at other sites but were not resolvable into distinct structures. A line of molds at the Deowongo Island site was interpreted as a longhouse wall (Ritchie 1952). A short line was noted in the Middle to Late Woodland level at the Fortin site, locus 1. A possible Lamoka phase house may be represented by a row of hearths in the principal occupation level, zone 2, at the Mattice No. 2 site. Although no postmolds were present, the linear arrangement and regular spacing of the hearths would be consistent with their position along the main axis of a rectangular house (longhouse?) some 65 feet (20 m} long and 20 feet (6 m) wide. Defensive palisades have been unearthed at the Boland, Castle Creek and Bates sites; there were apparently none at the Roundtop, Bainbridge, and Bemis sites, or any of the other Late Woodland sites. Although Squier (1851) and Parker (1922) reported several "earthworks" in the drainage, none of these have been confirmed by archaeological field work. Features and ether "facilities" apart from houses displayed a monotonous regularity on pre-Owasco sites. By far the predominant category was the amorphous hearth, lenticular in cross-section and ranging from circular to oval to irregular in outline. These appear to have usually resulted from fires built on top ofthe ground and were identified by concentrations of cracked rock, charcoal, and reddened earth, attributes that occurred singly or in various combinations. Those with reddened earth and! or charcoal were probably the products of in situ fires. Those consisting chiefly or entirely of cracked rocks .may be secondary features, for example, the rocks may have been heated in a separate feature and removed for stone-boiling of food. Amorphous hearths prevailed on nearly all of the Archaic components; however, there were frequent instances of associated basin-shaped and saucer-shaped hearths. Possible functional differences between hearths in deliberately prepared depressions and amorphous hearths or bonfires remain to be determined. Large basin-shaped pits were numerous on the Archaic components in zone 3 at the Castle Gardens site (See Vol. 2) and common on Owasco sites. A few large basin-shaped pits also occurred atthe Fortin site, locus 1 , zone 3, and in zone 2 atthe Mattice 273

No. 2 site. It may be significantthat Lamoka components were associated with the pits at Castle Gardens, Fortin, and Mattice No. 2 . True pits with U-shaped or trapezoidal cross-sections were generally absent from sites of all other periods; the largest features on these sites were generally shallow and saucer-shaped with gently sloping sides . Although the pits at the Fortin and Mattice No. 2 sites were almost certainly hearths or cooking pits, cleaned out and re-used several times, the more regular and often straight-sided pits at the Castle Gardens site fall into a different category. Some were probably earth ovens, but others may have been used to store wild vegetal foods including nuts and acorns. The later Owasco phase pits were of larger average size than the Archaic stage pits; most of them were cylindrical rather than bowl-or basin-shaped in form . Evidence suggests they were used to store corn and other crops for fall-winter consumption (Ritchie and Funk 1973). The greatest internal variation in feature construction on an Archaic site, possibly excepting Castle Gardens, was observed in zone 3 at the Kuhr No. 2 site (See Vol. 2). In addition to the usual small- to medium-sized, basin-shaped, saucer-shaped and amorphous features there were cone-shaped, bell-shaped, and large basin-shaped pits. Some of the large pits and some saucershaped and amorphous features pertained to the Lamoka phase occupation. It is not possible, however, to definitely attribute the other features to any particular component (Lamoka, Brewerton, Vestal, or Charlotte). The unusual variability may result from the multicomponent status of zone 3. Although subsistence habits, feature morphology, and house forms show definite trends before, during, and following the Middle Woodland-Late Woodland stage boundary, few data exist on possible synchronic variation from one environmental zone or local habitat to another. This is because so few sites have been excavated on the valley walls or in uplands. For example, large corn storage pits are common on Owasco tradition sites on the valley floors, but there is little evidence for such pits on sites of this tradition in the uplands . No pits were encountered at the Hilltop workshop site. The pre-Owasco component at the White site contained both basin-shaped fire pits, averaging about 24 inches in diameter and 15 inches deep, and amorphous features, but no large storage pits were found (Ritchie l 965a:259; Whitney 1972). It is unfortunate that the Early Owasco Otsdawa Creek village has not been systematically excavated, since the tops of pits have been seen during testing and large, dark stains caused by concentrated organic refuse suggest the presence of longhouse patterns (F.J. Hesse, personal communications). Concerning the intrasite patterning of material evidence on Late Woodland sites, Bates, Roundtop, and Castle Creek have provided the best data. Complete information exists only for Bates, where the dwelling or dwellings were surrounded by a stockade (a stockade was also present at the Boland site). The arrangement of houses and other structures or facilities within the stockade at Castle Creek is uncertain. Although a large part of the Round top site was excavated, it lacked a palisade that would set precise boundaries to the village, and the plethora of postmolds (suggesting multiple occupation or at least frequent shifting of houses) made it impossible to map the complete settlement. There is little information on internal patterning from sites that lacked postmolds or other evidence of structures. Available data from some multicomponent sites, whether in plow zone or subsurface levels , indicates some horizontal separation of occupation debris representing different occupations based on the differential distribution of diagnostic items. For example, three separate though intersecting clusters of material were observed in the plow zone at the Russ site, locus 2 (See Vol. 2, Figure 129). These are attributed to Vestal and Kipp Island phase and 18th century occupations. The apparent horizontal separation of Vestal and Charlotte components in zone 3 at Fortin locus 1 has been previously mentioned. At Kuhr No. 2, in zone 3, there were hints that Brewerton, Lamoka, Vestal, and Charlotte materials were concentrated in different parts of the grid. Attempts have also been made to define patterning within single components. At the Osterhoudt site (SuBi 505), a small Lamoka phase camp, four concentrations of flint-knapping debris, possibly representing different steps in biface production, were observed (Curtin 1978; McManamon 1978) . Hearths at the Fredenburg site, a Fox Creek station on Mill Creek, were predominantly arranged in an oval pattern 5 m ( 15 feet) in diameterthat could be interpreted as a small circle of single-family huts (Hesse 1968). The Frost Island artifacts atthe Camelot No. 1 site, locus 1, were tightly clustered around a hearthand may have been deposited within a single-family lodge about 12-15 feet (3.6-4.5 m) in diameter (Figure 73). There was a distinct tendency for residues to cluster within "hot spots" in Hunter's Home phase levels at the Street site (See Vol. 2). Two or three clusters of features, debitage, and artifacts were noted within the Proto-Laurentian encampment at the McCulley No. 1 site (Funk and Hoagland l 972a) . The sizes of the clusters are roughly estimated as 600, 100, and 225 square feet (56, 9 .3, and 21 m 2). They may represent individual family dwelling and working areas. A flint-knapping workshop was localized on the periphery of the Kipp Island phase occupation at the Fortin site, locus 2, zone 3, even though evidence of the same activity was horizontally distributed throughout the zone (See Vol. 2). Two separate task or activity areas were noted within zone 7 at the Fortin site locus 1. The largest of these was about 600 square feet (56 m 2 ) in area, the smallest about 400 square feet (37 m 2). In both cases features denote the building offires, presumably for cooking fish, since netsinkers were associated with both clusters. Most of the netsinkers occurred in the small cluster, but the major cluster was also evidently the scene of a workshop for the manufacture of Lamoka points. No charred nuts or animal bones were found in the zone. Four looseclustersarealsoevidentonthefloormapforzone4attheFortinsitelocus 1. Thesemeasuredabout400, 144, 225, and 225 square feet (37, 13, 21, and 21 m 2) in area. The same basic activities seem to have been represented in each cluster: fire-

274

making, cooking, flint-knapping (production of Lamoka points), and nut-processing. Hence the clusters may be the locales of family dwellings or task areas. Again, it should be mentioned that such clusters or concentrations may not collectively represent single occupations; each individual cluster could be the residue of a seasonal occupation, separate in both time and space from the other clusters. Clusters of debris-principally debitage-were reported at Hudson Lake on Schenevus Creek during highway salvage investigations (Weide, et al. 1975, 1976, 1977; Dekin, et al. 1978). Most of these were in plowed fields. They varied considerably in size, from 225 m 2 to 600 m 2 ; unfortunately, diagnostic artifacts were not recovered from most of these areas. When debitage analyses are complete for the sites reported in this volume, they should supplement other kinds of data and help to confirm, refute, or modify the interpretations offered here. Also, some intrasite patterns may emerge where none were indicated by other data.

Lithic Resource Utilization In all periods of occupation, locally available chert pebbles or cobbles were the predominant source of raw material for chipped stone artifacts. These were transported by glacial action into the study area from the belt of carbonate rocks lying 40 miles to the north . Although eastern New York Onondaga chert was the most frequently used variety, Kalk berg chert also came from the carbonates and was present in local deposits. Also commonly used for the manufacture of Genesee points were the abundant exposures of Esopus chert in the carbonate series between Otsego Lake and Sharon Springs. People of the Batten Kill phase apparently made frequent visits to the outcrops in order to obtain cores of sufficient size for the manufacture of the large, relatively thick Genesee points. Cobbles of Esopus chert remain to be identified in the stream beds and drift in the study area. Cryptocrystallines exotic to the Upper Susquehanna Valley (those not glacially imported from the carbonate belt) and present on the sites investigated, include western New York Onondaga chert, Normanskill chert, South Mountain (PA) rhyolite, Fort Ann chert, and yellow and brown Pennsylvania jasper. Purple-weathering Delaware Valley argillite is also represented. Possibly exotic, but of unknown origin, are a dense black chert, a gray argillite, a gray-brown siltstone, a white chalcedony, a creamy white chert, a semi-translucent light gray chert, a mottled dark red jasper, a pink and white jasperoid, a brownish red-speckled chert, and light red jasper. It is uncertain whether small quantities of Knauderack chert and Oriskany chert from the Mohawk Valley were ice-transported or carried in by the Indians. The occurrence of exotic materials in artifact assemblages from excavated components of several phases is summarized in Table 32. Western Onondaga chert (six items) was the most common such material in the Early Archaic levels at the Russ site; there were also single items made of yellow Pennsylvania jasper and Normanskill chert and others of unidentified materials. These nonlocal items comprised only five percent of the analyzed sample of 218 bifaces and unifaces from the site. Eastern Onondaga chert heavily predominated in the analyzed debitage, which also contained single flakes of Knauderack chert, Oriskany chert, and rhyolite. No known exotics except possibly for 1 instance of unidentified black chert were present in the Laurentian-affiliated artifactassemblagesattheMcCulley No. 1 site, the Kuhr No. 2 site, zone4, and the Camelot No. 2 site, locus 1. There were only 6 items of exotic or possibly exotic stones in the combined chipped stone assemblages of Lamoka phase affiliation from the Mattice No. 2, Fortin locus 1, Kuhr No. 1, Enck No. 2, and Camelot No. 2 sites; these comprised only 2.7 percent of 221 artifacts (3 of western Onondaga chert, 1 of Knauderack chert, 2 of unknown material) . Debitage from these sites was similarly lacking in nonlocal material. A total of 84 artifact items from Vestal phase components at the Kuhr No. 1 and Camelot No. 2 sites contained 8 pieces of nonlocal material (9.5%) . In this group were 6 of western Onondaga chert, 1 of Beekmantown chert, and 1 ofrhyolite. The combined Vestal and Charlotte assemblages from zone 3 at Fortin locus 1, consisting of 92 pieces, included 1 item of Normanskill chert. A similar pattern is evident in debitage from these components, which consists very largely of eastern Onondaga and Esopus cherts. There were 99 items of non-local stones in a total of 764 artifacts attributed to the Frost Island phase from Fortin locus 1, Kuhr No. 1, Enck No. 1 , Johnsen No. 1, Camelot No. 1, and Camelot No. 2 sites. Most of these items occurred in zone D at Camelot No. 2. Heavily predominant among non-local material was western Onondaga chert. There were small amounts of N ormanskill, Fort Ann, and unidentified cherts. Debitage from these components and from the "Dry Brook" component at the Rose site, locus 2, contained small quantities of rhyolite but no other exotic stones. Of 259 chipped stone artifacts in Kipp Island phase assemblages from the Camelot No. 2, Fortin locus 2, Rose locus 1, and Sternberg sites, only 5 (1. 9%) were of exotic stones. Two were of western Onondaga chert, 1 of Knauderack chert, 1 of yellow jasper and 1 of brown jasper. Exotic materials occurred in debitage only at the Fortin site, which produced rare flakes of red, brown and yellow Pennsylvania jasper, and an untyped dark reddish jasper, N ormanskill chert, and crystalline quartz. An unidentified pink and white jasperoid flake was recovered at the Sternberg site. Non-local items were confined to one example of western Onondaga chert in the samples of 45 chipped stone artifacts from Owasco components at the Egli, Fortin locus 2, and Sternberg sites. There were only 3 items of non-local material (2 of western Onondaga, 1 of Normanskill chert) among the 227 chipped stone artifacts in the Chance phase assemblage at the Bemis site. 275

Assemblages used in the analysis Early Archaic

6

South Hill

218

11

5.0

Russ site; below plow zone.

32

0

0.00

McCulley No. l site.

33.0

3

Brewerton

Camelot No. 2 site, locus 1, zoneF.

Lamoka

3

221

6

2.7

Mattice No. 2site, zones 14; Fortin site locus 1, zones 4, 5, 7; Kuhr No. l site, zones L-l-L3; Enck No. 2 site, zone L; Camelot No. 2 site, locus 2, zone 5 .

Vestal

6

84

8

9.5

KuhrNo. lsite,zonesV-1, V-2; Camelot No. 2 site, locus 1, zone E; Camelot No. 2 site, locus 2, zone 3 .

1.0

Fortin locus 1, zone 3 .

Vestal/ Charlotte Frost Island

92 75

3

3

17

Orient Kipp Island

TOTAl.S

99

18

2

259

Owasco

Chance

764

5

45

2

96

6

2

2

2

4

18

13.0

Fortinsitelocusl,zone2; Kuhr No. 1 site, zones S-184; Enck No. 1 site, Floor 3; Johnsen No. 1 site, zone 6; Camelot No. 1 site, locus 1; Camelot No. 2 site, locus 1, zones C, D.

5.6

Rose site, locus 2

1.9

Camelot No. 2 site, locus 1, zone ·B; Fortin site locus 2, zone 3; Rose site locus 1, floor 2; Sternberg site zone3.

2 .2

Egli site zones 1, 2; Fortin site, locus 2 , zone 4; Sternberg site zone 1. Bemis site

227

3

1.3

1963

136

6 .9

Table 32. Occurrence of non-local lithic materials in assemblages from the Upper Susquehanna Valley.

276

Table33

~

~

·a

~

s:: s::

Q)

Projectile Point Types

J

. 0 c as G> as c c .r: m

"' 'O

as

0

(,)

Cl ....

as (J)> as

~ ..J

....c z0 (J)

Q.

(J) (J)

a:

"'

~

(,)

...I (J)

c

...0

(.) (J) (J)

Cl

c 0

..J

~

(J) (J)

... (.) )(

0 LL

(J)

c (J) (J)

"'... (J)

'O

>. C!I c Cl)

as

c

(J)

'O

:c 'O

< c

as

Cl)

~

'O 0 0

> :t

....as .r:

'O

as

c (J)

(J)

-::

0

...Cl 'O (J)

.,, ~ (J)

'O

~

(J)

(J) (J)

(J)

'O

(J)

'O

Cl)

as

0 0

c Cl)

"'c "'c as C!I E ... 0

(/)

(J)

(J)

(J)

>

z

(J)

Cl .r: .r: c E .c .r: (,) (,) (,) ::I

(J)

(J)

~

0

E

as

..J

Point Types

(J)

(J)

(J)

w (.) c w 0 c c c 0 0

...

... ....... .......0

(J)

:t

...

(J)

(J) :t :t :t

(J)

m

(J)

~

... (J)

E

as Q.

(J)

(J)

>.

(J)

(J)

(J)

(J)

.....

::I Cl)

a:

..,as

(J)

C'

as

.r:

~

~

..,as ."' ~ (,)

'O

::I

~

c

....as

"'

E ::a::

m2 0 "'"'0 'O LL"' as ... a: (J)as .... c (J) c Q. ~

(J) (J)

... > EE .cas"' .r: E .... as .... (.) .... ~ I .... "'0 0 0 ... z0 ... z .... 'O z0 Cl) > z z ICl) .... I I I I .... as ... 'O 'O ... .... c 'O ... ... c as ... c 0 ... > ... Cl) as as ... ::a:: 0

0

~

(,)

(J)

-

0

::I

m

(.) ~

.: ::a::

... mm m (J)

(J)

Figure 36. Graph comparing relative frequencies of projectile point types in samples from the Hudson and Susquehanna Valleys, measured in numbers per century (from Tables 33 and 35).

Sample size: Hudson Valley, 7905; Susquehanna Valley, 1523.

307

This objection is countered by the following: 1) Strong contrasts in the use of valley floor habitats remain to be demonstrated for pre-Owasco occupations; the vast bulk of sites are located on or near major rivers or lakes, and excavated components usually yield evidence of multiple use for hunting, fishing, gathering, food-processing, cooking, and biface manufacture. In other words, they are habitation sites in an environmentally diverse setting where basic needs could be met through most of the year. 2) Probably all Upper Susquehanna Valley groups exploited resources on the valley walls or in uplands to some degree. Whether different degrees of utilization of these higher elevations on the Allegheny Plateau by different phases can be demonstrated is moot. Orient phase groups in the Hudson Valley apparently spent little time in the back-country, but the Frost Island phase is represented in valley wall and upland zones in the Upper Susquehanna region. Although intensive, systematic surveys over large upland areas would unquestionably disclose numerous sites not previously known, the proportion of upland to lowland sites may have remained fairly constant from Kirk through Kipp Island times. A basic uniformity in settlement distributions may have been controlled after about 6000 B. C. by a little-changing climatic, physiographic, and biotic setting. In turn this means that the relative frequencies of components assigned to phases on the valley floor should accurately reflect prehistoric population size for this period. Minor differences in habitat utilization can be considered to average out over the postglacial period. Something different may have transpired in Hunter's Home phase and Carpenter Brook phase times, since the first appearance of large upland settlements occurred with these phases. If the average size of settlements in both uplands and lowlands increased during the horticultural epoch, this supports the evidence of an overall population increase suggested by quantitative data on projectile points and components. In any case, despite the sampling deficiencies, the present study tends to support the basic trends in relative site densities first sketched by Funk and Rippeteau ( 1977) from a from a much more limited data base. The preferred interpretation is that these trends represent changes in relative population size. An alternate method attempts to arrive at estimates of the number of components per phase per square mile. Since the same figures are used (Table 40) it is necessary to assume that the counts represent both adequate spatial coverage and an unbiased sample of the total number of aboriginal sites in the drainage. Given these conditions, the patterns of relative site or component densities should emerge. Certainly, the extant figures represent site distribution and frequencies over a wide area. The problem of bias is a thorny one partly because differentiation of phases after Kipp Island depends heavily on the availability of ceramic data, whereas previous phases can be defined largely or exclusively from projectile point types. The calculations of number of components per square mile (Table 40) are based on the valley floor data, again assuming that the prehistoric use of uplands was roughly constant up to the appearance of the Owasco tradition. But another step must be taken to allow for the different lengths of duration of each phase. The result is a final set of figures denoting the number of components per phase per square mile per century, graphed in Figure 37. The peaks and lows on this graph could, once again, be taken as indications of relative site densities that may also reflect relative population size. As expected, Figure 37 indicates a paucity of components prior to the Late Archaic, then a prominent Late Archaic "high," a decline into an early Middle Woodland "trough," and generally higher though variable levels after early Middle Woodland times. These attempts to measure site (component) densities as a possible indication of relative population size may be regarded as both tentative and heuristic. The results may be subjected to much change after large-scale systematic surveys are accomplished in the region.

Comparisons: The Genesee Valley One of the largest systematically surveyed land areas in the Northeast, comparable to the Upper Susquehanna Valley, is the project area of the Genesee Expressway, Interstate 390 (Trubowitz 1977). These surveys were carried out by crews from SUNY Buffalo under the direction of Neal Trubowitz, as part of the larger state highway salvage program coordinated by the New York State Education Department, Anthropological Survey. Interstate 390 extended from Dansville, Livingston County, N. Y. to the city of Rochester, for a linear distance of 49 miles. The larger study area in this case was encompassed by the eight 7 .5' U .S.G.S. quadrangle maps of the terrain through which the highway was built. Thus the sample area enclosed about 333,000 acres (520 square miles) or 21 %of the entire Genesee river basin. The expressway crossed four of the five general landforms in this area; the upland, valley slope, floodplain, and lake plain (Erie-Ontario Lowland) . The upland is the major landform ( 161 ,480 acres or 48% ofthelargerstudyarea), followed bythelakeplain (70,320acres, 21 %), the valley slope (61,920acres, 19%), and the floodplain (31,470 acres or 9%). Swamp or valley flat (south of Conesus Lake) was not involved. A rough concordance will be noted between Trubowitz' major landforms and the environmental zones used in the present study. There is no lake plain in the Susquehanna Valley. In some areas Trubowitz' floodplain and valley slope may have together formed the equivalent of the valley floor as used here; but our valley wall concept also has its ambiguities. His usage and ours are generally congruent. The uplands in both regions correspond well, attaining elevations up to 2000 feet. General correspondences also exist between the two regions with respect to forest types, fauna! assemblages, climate and precipitation. 308

An area of 7 415 acres was investigated through reconnaissance of the Genesee Expressway by Trubowitz and SUNY Buffalo crews. Over half of this area (4930 acres) was examined by intensive surface collection techniques, and one-fourth ( 1 791 acres) using the shovel-testing technique. Just 693 acres were simply walked over where surface visibility was poor or subsurface tests were not employed. Within the areas surveyed, the breakdown by landforms was: upland 2823 acres (38% of total) valley slope 2560 acres (34%) lake plain 1286 acres ( 1 7%) floodplain 746 acres (10%) Therefore the survey covered only 2 percent of the whole project area less Conesus Lake (i .e., 330 ,030 acres or 516 square miles) . This figure is rather higher than the estimated 0 .3 percent surveyed in the 4456 square miles of the Upper Susquehanna study area by somewhat different methods. The 7 415 acres surveyed by SUNY Buffalo crews amounts to just under 12 square miles, as compared with about 14 square miles surveyed for public construction projects in the Upper Susquehanna study area. Trubowitz (1977) reported that 2823 acres (4.4 . square miles) of upland were surveyed, which contrast with less than one square mile in the Susquehanna Valley. Also only slightly over one square mile of valley wall was traversed in our work, whereas his crews examined four square miles of valley slope, as defined by him. Twelve square miles of the 1-88 survey were on valley floors, in sharp contrast to slightly over one mile along 1-390. Trubowitz classified discovered sites into the categories of large and small camps, ossuaries and cemeteries, stray finds and villages. In terms of the results of cultural resource surveys, sites of most known prehistoric phases occurred on all landforms along 1390. Lowest site densities were almost uniformly in the uplands, though nearly all groups made significant use of that landform (or environmental zone as used here) . In general, densities were also low on the floodplain, probably as Trubowitz postulates because many sites lie buried in sediment and are difficult to detect with current methods. The higher densities were on the lake plain and on valley slopes, however, a disproportionately high number of sites on valley slopes lay close to the main river at its junction with Canaseraga Creek, an environment very rich in the resources useful to prehistoric peoples. From Archaic through Middle Woodland times, hunting and gathering were the major subsistence pursuits, and nearly all sites were classified as camps or stray finds . Villages first appeared during the Owasco period, continuing through the contact Seneca period. Utilization of the varied landforms followed a consistent pattern prior to Owasco occupation, with highest site densities on the valley slopes. Significant changes occurred during Iroquois occupations, with higher densities on floodplain and lake plain than on valley slopes. Although upland density continued to be low, villages became an important site type in that habitat. Thus Trubowitz is probably justified in suggesting that in Iroquois times population in the Genesee Valley was at an alltime high. Using data provided by Trubowitz ( 1977: Table 1 7), the writer calculated the relative site densities of prehistoric phases in the 1-390 survey, in terms of numbers per square mile per century (Table 41) . The resultant curve through time (Figure 38) is not strictly comparable to the curve shown for the Upper Susquehanna study (Figure 37), because: 1) Trubowitz was not able to subdivide some periods on the Genesee, such as the Early Archaic, Point Peninsula, Owasco and Iroquois, due to the nature of available data, 2) some phases present in the Upper Susquehanna Valley were either absent from his sample or not represented at all in the Genesee basin, e.g. the Vestal phase, 3) some occupations appeared to be heavier in one drainage than in the other; thus, the Batten Kill phase was more characteristic of the Genesee than the Susquehanna, as previously suspected from surface distributions of Genesee type points (Ritchie 1961 b :24) . Nevertheless, the graphs show interesting points in common. As expected, both Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic are feebly represented in the samples from both drainage systems. On both graphs there are strong surges in the density of Late Archaic sites, beginning with the Brewerton and Lamoka phases. There follows a slight decline during Batten Kill, Snook Kill, and Perkiomen times, succeeded by an unprecedented peak in the Frost Island period. Another moderate decline during the Orient phase is followed on the Genesee by a strong showing of Meadowood, which is less prominent in the Susquehanna Valley. Middle Woodland is weakly expressed in the 1-390 area, but more abundant along the Susquehanna. In both basins Owasco is wellrepresented. It is followed by a steep rise in Iroquois sites along the Genesee, but by a decline along the Susquehanna. Trubowitz ( 1977) offered some possible explanations fortheseeminglysparse numbers of sites of some peri6ds. For example, Hopewellian (Squawkie Hill) is known almost entirely from burial mounds, over 100 of which are on record in western New York although none was found along 1-390. Identification of this phase on habitation sites rests chiefly on scattered finds of Snyders type projectile points. Hence Squawkie Hill must have been more strongly represented in the general area than was indicated by the highway salvage data. Similarly, the paucity of Point Peninsula stations may be partly explained by the infrequent survival of pottery on surface sites along the highway route; Middle Woodland camp and burial sites are moderately frequent in other sections of the Genesee Valley (cf. Ritchie 1944, 1965a) . It should also be remembered that the 1-390 sample drew heavily on upland environments, where only small Point Peninsula seasonal camps might be expected.

309

PHASES Contact to 16th Century

Components

No. per Square Mile

Duration C-14 Years

Divisors

Components per Square Mile per Century XI 00

4

.01

100

1

1.0

Garoga

14

.04

100

1

4 .0

Chance

3

.01

100

1

1.0

Oak Hill

1

.003

100

1

0 .3

Castle Creek

6

.02

100

1

2.0

Canandaigua

3

.01

100

1

1.0

10

.03

100

1

3.0

Carpenter Brook

3

.01

150

1.5

0.6

Kipp Island

38

.11

350

3.5

3.1

Fox Creek

15

.04

150

1.5

2 .7

2

.006

200

2

0.3

Hunter's Horne

Canoe Point Bushkill

1

.003

400

4

0.08

Middlesex

5

.01

200

2

0 .5

Meadowood

24

.07

400

4

1.8

Orient

31

.09

300

3

3.0 6 .5

Frost Island

46

.13

200

2

Perkiomen

12

.04

100

1

4.0

Snook Kill

21

.06

200

2

3.0 2.5

Batten Kill

17

.05

200

2

Charlotte

13

.04

200

2

2.0

Vestal

32

.09

150

1.5

6 .0

Lamoka

83

.24

700

7

3.4

Brewerton

54

.16

700

7

2.3

South Hill

10

.03

1,000

10

0 .3

Neville

4

.01

1,000

10

0 .1

Kirk Stemmed

5

.01

500?

5

0 .2

Kanawha Bifurcated-base

3

.01

500?

5

0 .2

14

.04

1,000

10

0.4 0.1

Kirk Corner-Notched

2

.006

500?

5

Palmer

1

.003

500?

5

0.06

Hardaway

1

.003

500?

5

0 .06

1,500?

15

0 .3

Early Paleo-Indian TOTALS

13

.04

491

Table 40. Data used to calculate numbers of components per phase per square mile per century on valley floors, Susquehanna Valley. (Total Area 340 Square Miles).

310

0 .... 0 Cl>,...

Cl.

x

!~ c:

:::l

Cl> ....

6

5

c: c: 0

Cl>

a.(.) 4

E .... 0 Cl> (.)Cl. -

3

Cl>

o= .... ::2:

Cl>

.0

Cl>

E .... :::l

z

~

C"

1

Cl)

""':

"'

CD

()

-"'

CD 0

"' "' -"' "' c 0"' .! ., c "' "'

"'

Cl

:r

c

0

~

"O

()

.t:

~

::I Cl

()

.t:

Cl

CD CD

(/)

()

0

()

-"'

CD

0 0

E

m

J:

~

-"'

c CD

a.

"'

"'c

-"' .,c .,

"O

CD

0

~

c

(/)

()

a. x a. 0

:.::

LL

--"'

c 0 D..

.t:

CD 0

m

(/)

::I

., c

x

"O

CD

0 0

(/)

CD

3:

"O "O

"O

::!!

CD

()

0

"O

c

c CD

0 !!"'

E

c CD

"' ::!!

(/)

0

CD

:.:: :.::

0

-"'

-"'

0

D..

Cl)

., g

c CD

iii

0

"'

(/)

CD

>

.t:

;

c

"' .,

CD CD

Cl

m

CD

m

LL

"'c u; :.::"'

CD

3:

.t:

E E

c c

-'

()

CD

CD

0

E

"'3:

"O

(/)

0

-"'

CD

-"'

>

:.::

::I

J:

CD

"O

(/)

CD .t: 0

"'

.0 I

] iii

()

0

Phases

()

0 !.

~ z

CD

~ ~

;>,

D..

"O

c

., .,"'3: "'c ., "O

J:

I 0

.!

"' .,

c

D..

0 ()

?::

-"'

w

:.::

Figure 37. Graph showing frequencies of components assigned to phases in the Upper Susquehanna Valley, measured in numbers per square mile per centuryx 100 (from Table 37). Sample of 491 components confined to valley floor (excludes "General Owasco and Iroquois").

>:::l

~ c: ~ ~ 0

a. E

5

.... Cl>

Cl.

4

0

(.) ~

0 ~ .... Cl>

Cl> ....

:::l

Cl)

~ ~ z

Qi

3

2

1

Cl.

"' g CT

~

~

(/)

"'

3: 0

.! ::I

(/)

.,c

c

-;

CD D..

a.

c

J:

~

~

0

x

: CD

"O

0 0

3: 0

"O "O

"O

~

Cl>

"'

::!!

c

"O

c

c

.!

CD

.!

E

0

(/)

"' 0

U:

~ -"' Cl>

D..

.,

c

:.::

:.::

-"'

0

-"'

c

.,

Cl>

0

CD

g ;

Cl)

m

0

0

E

-'

3: CD

iD

~

.,

.t: 0

< ;>,

..

w

.,c ~I 0 Cl>

iii D..

D..

Cultural Phases or Traditions

Figure 38. Graph showing frequencies of components assigned to phases in the Genesee Valley, measured in numbers per square mile per century x I 0 (from Trubowitz 1977, Table 17). Sample of 190 components on all major landforms. 311

STAGE/PHASE

Components

Components per Square Mile

Duration C-14 Years

Divisor

Components per Square Mile per Century XI 0 6.90

Iroquois

25

2.08

300

3

Owasco

15

1.25

300

3

4.20

7

0.58

700

7

0.80

Hopewellian

1

0.08

200

2

0.40

Adena-Middlesex

3

0.25

200

2

1.25

18

1.50

400

4

3.75

Point Peninsula

Meadowood Orient

4

0.33

300

3

1.10

Frost Island

16

1.33

200

2

6.70 2.50

Perkiomen

3

0 .25

100

1

Snook Kill

4

0.33

200

2

1.65

Batten Kill

10

0 .83

200

2

4 .15

Lamoka

44

3.67

700

7

5.24

Brewerton

35

2.92

700

7

4.17

Early Archaic

4

0.33

1,000

10

0.33

Paleo-Indian

1

0.08

1,000

10

0.08

Table 41. Data used to calculate numbers of components per phase per square mile per century in the 1-390 survey area, Genesee Valley. (Area surveyed= 12 square miles.) Derived from Trubowitz 1977, Table 1 7 .

Footnotes 1 Recent

investigations at the Hiscock site in western New York disclosed the bones of mastodon!, California condor, and probably elk and caribou in basal terminal Pleistocene levels dated between 10,000 and 11 ,000 B.P. Also found in the Pleistocene stratum were two fluted points, a probable scraper, and chert flakes. This is the first firm evidence for association of humans with mastodon! east of the Mississippi River (Laub, el al. 1988). 2 Data from the SONY Binghamton 1-88 Surveys were used by Versaggi ( 1987) in her doctoral research on settlement-subsistence in the Upper Susquehanna Valley.

312

CHAPI'ER14 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND SYNTHESIS by Robert E. Funk

Objectives and Approaches: A Synopsis In many respects, the Upper Susquehanna Valley proved to be an excellent laboratory for the study of prehistoric cultural variation. It was chosen for our project because it was relatively undisturbed by modern commercial and residential development, and because it is geographically situated between other basins that were then (in 1971) archaeologically better known. Evidence suggested that both early historic and more ancient prehistoric environments were highly favorable for occupancy by peoples using pre-industrial technologies. In addition, many sites and collections had already been reported, and we had every indication that undisturbed, deeply stratified sites existed beneath the expansive flood plain terraces. Therefore the valley offered a fine opportunity to investigate problems concerning 1) the geographic distribution and spatial variability of archaeological manifestations related to phases previously defined in adjoining drainages; 2) any aspects of prehistoric occupations that were peculiar to the region ; 3) the fine-grained chronological resolution of the cultural sequence, aided by a large array of radiocarbon dates; and 4) the delineation of interactions between culture and environment in the region. Our basic objective, subsuming those listed above, was to reconstruct the history of human adaptations in the valley. This required the adoption of an appropriate philosophical and methodological framework within which to pursue the research. Our fundamental assumptions were those of cultural materialism, or "techno-environmental determinism" (Harris 1968, 1980; Price 1982). Human cultures are viewed as complex systems interacting with, and ultimately dependent upon, their natural environmental settings. Through a process of selection, cultural traits, subsystems, and systems become adapted to particular natural and sociocultural milieus. Adaptation is potentially variable in both time and space and is theoretically recognizable in the diversity of objects, structures, and patterns preserved in the archaeological record. 1 That record is imperfect and fragmentary, largely because of deleterious.effects from cultural and natural agents operating through time. The archaeologist attempts to reconstruct some aspects of the past by the use of multifarious approaches and techniques, including ethnographic analogy, paleoenvironmental modeling, experimentation, and hypothesis testing. Implementation of an appropriate strategy in the effort to understand prehistoric cultural systems in the study area entailed 1) detailed analysis of the Upper Susquehanna environment, including floral and faunal subsistence potential, as a setting for human occupation; 2) a review of approaches to the classification, naming, and typing of artifacts, traits, and "cultures"; 3) the development of a reliable, detailed cultural sequence backed by a C- 14 chronology; 4) functional analyses of artifacts, features and ecofacts with the purpose of determining within-site patterning of activities, the classification of sites into types in order to place them within settlement systems operating within the total regional environment, and the explication of changing postglacial physiographic, climatic, floral, and faunal variables that may have been correlated with cultural change. Our major successes were in the diachronic realm; less information became available on the synchronic aspects of prehistoric occupations. This is because for both methodological and logistical reasons, our field work was largely devoted to surveys of alluvial terraces and excavation of stratified sites on those terraces. Such sites offered the greatest potential for the separation, identification, relative and absolute dating, and internal mapping of individual components. One drawback from the standpoint of acquiring ecological and settlement pattern data was that pollen, osseous remains and postmolds rarely survive in alluvial sediments. Unfortunately this is also true of most other depositional contexts in the Northeast. Approximately40 sites were located during State Museum surveys. Exploratorytesting (ranging from a few hand-dug squares to trenches comprising relatively small areas of sites) was carried out on 12 sites or loci therein (Messina, Munson, Shearer, Wessels, Crandall-Wells, Roselocuslandlocus2, Sternberg,JohnsenNo. 1, Johnsen No. 2, Egli, Camelot No. 2locus2) . Larger portions were excavated at 13sitesorloci(Fortin, loci 1 and2, Street, Mattice No . 2 , Camelot No. 1, Camelot No. 2locus 1, Enck No. 1, Enck No. 2, Kuhr No. 1, Kuhr No. 2, Gardepe, Russ, and Johnsen No. 3). Also reported here, but not excavated as part of the Susquehanna Project, are the Bemis site, the Otego Rockshelters, the Cottage site, and the Castle Gardens site. Our rationale forthe excavation procedures at the 13 primary sites and loci involved several considerations. Initial tests were aimed at locating intact subsurface deposits containing cultural remains. Subsequent wider excavations were directed to discovering stratigraphic relationships, exposing large contiguous areas of occupation floors , and obtaining large representative artifact samples. During and subsequentto major excavations, the usual procedure was to dig supplementarytrenches and test pits by hand or backhoe in order to determine site limits and sedimentary history. Explorations were terminated at any given site for a variety of reasons: 1) the field season ended, with consequent loss of the student excavation crew; 2) the site was not producing sufficient data to attain our research goals, and there were more promising sites to visit prior to season's end; 3) we had extracted the information we came for, and were ready to move on to another site. Generally, we tried to sample the largest possible areas (up to 100 percent) of the important sites or levels therein. 313

In addition, ten non-archaeological sites including bogs provided valuable data on postglacial environments, as did precultural sediments at the Mattice No. 2, Kuhr No. 1, Enck No. 2, Street, Munson, and Crandall-Wells sites. In Chapters 1 and 12 was stated the view that the occupations of any given region were usually continuous through time and through space as well. In classifying and mapping the distributions of artifact types, traits, or phases therefore we are dealing with the material products of cultural continua. Archaeological entities defined from such data appear discrete and distinctive for two reasons: a) we have obtained a small sample of a former universe of behavior and that sample becomes "real" to us; it becomes definitive, b) apparent discontinuities in distribution were created prehistorically by different rates of change in both the temporal and spatial dimensions. It is not always feasible to determine which factor was at work. Except under extremely unusual conditions, the single occupation (or episode of site utilization) is difficult to bring under observation. The archaeological component, then, does not necessarily represent a single occupation but rather a conceptual entity bounded by stratigraphic, chronological, and typological parameters - a subjective element is inescapable and a component at one site may not be strictly equivalent to a component at another site . Components are the building blocks for phases and comparable units such as foci, complexes or archaeological cultures. They all serve the purpose of facilitating control of some facets of prehistoric cultural continua and permit the construction of culture-historical frameworks. Because it is crucial to reduce the "noise" (loss of information) caused by the many physiochemical, biological, and cultural agents intervening between the present and the prehistoric past, it is desirable to define components and phases as narrowly and precisely as possible. This may be achieved most effectively by the investigation of isolated surface sites or stratified sites, whether single-component or multi-component. The Upper Susquehanna sequence and chronology is firmly based on data from a number of well-stratified sites including over 100 radiocarbon dates. It stands on its own, although obviously linked to developments in surrounding areas. In fact, the documentation of comparable sequences is rare elsewhere in the Northeast, the best examples being those described forthe Seneca, Hudson, and Delaware Valleys (Ritchie 1944, 1951, 1958, 1965a, 1969a; Funk 1976; Kinsey, et al. 1972). Analysis of data from a group of stratified floodplain sites led to derivation of several generalizations or principles. Most important: thehigherthenumberof discrete strata, including occupation zones, on a site (i.e., themorecomplexthestratigraphy), the less typological diversity per occupation zone. The lower the typological diversity, the closer we are to defining real prehistoric assemblages. In many cases this means that particular levels or zones are characterized by single point types or by a very limited range of types, and such data cumulatively show that regular, even invariable, sequences of point types and other traits characterize most parts of the Northeast - not just the Susquehanna Valley. This fact is in full contradiction to statements recently appearing in the archaeological literature (e.g., Snow 1980 : 162-163, 254; Hoffman 1983, 1985). Such detailed sequences based heavily on stratified sites contribute immeasurably to the evaluation of radiocarbon dates, to inferences about local continuity vs. discontinuity of resident groups, and to the determination of rates of culture change. Arguments based on such data are generally more powerful than those based on surface, disturbed, or mixed multicomponent sites.

Culture History, Continuity and Change The sequence of Upper Susquehanna "cultures" is phrased in terms of the previously published stages, types, complexes, phases, and traditions with some variations developed for other areas of New York. Certain caveats must be kept in mind. Since the data for some periods or developmental stages are so variable, we are sometimes in the position of identifying phases simply on the basis of projectile point types in surface collections or in subsurface contexts. This is especially true of the poorly known Early to Middle Archaic stage groups. It is a legitimate approach if used cautiously; much evidence suggests that single point types often characterizeindividualphasesaswellascomponents, butthewriterdoesnotrigidlysubscribetothe"onepoint,onehorizon"view of some writers (e .g ., Brennan 1967) . There are known instances of the overlap through time of two or more point types, as in the Laurentian and Point Peninsula traditions. The Upper Susquehanna sequence and chronology were described in Chapters 10, 12, and 13 and will not be repeated in detail here. The oldest radiocarbon-dated occupations go back a bout 9600 years but Paleo-Indian manifestations, still not directly dated in the valley, were probably at least 10,500 years old. There is no evidence of even older "Early Lithic" (pre-fluted point) materials. Only spotty data are available forthe Earlyto Middle Archaic periods (ca. 8000-4000 B.C.) . Considerable information has been recovered on the Late Archaic and Transitional occupations (4000 B.C . - 1000 B.C.), much less is known of Early Woodland and early Middle Woodland manifestations ( 1000 B.C. -A.D. 400), but a great deal more evidence has been obtained concerning late Middle Woodland through Late Woodland phases (A.D. 400-1600) . On mosttime levels the diagnostic traits and assemblages were indisputably affiliated with cultural expressions that have been described in other river basins, including the Seneca, Hudson, and Delaware Valleys. For example Brewerton, Lamoka, Batten Kill, Frost Island, Meadowood, Fox Creek, Kipp Island, Hunter's Home, Owasco, and Iroquois phase occupations are clearly indicated. There is, however, some evidence for regional variation in these phases; for instance the bannerstone seems to have been part of the Lamoka hunting armament, small triangular points differing from both the Levanna and Jack's Reef Pentagonal

314

types occurred in the Kipp Island phase inventory, and Early Owasco ceramics display affinities with the Clemson's Island phase of Pennsylvania. Less clearly delineated is the Charlotte phase, a possibly discrete Late Archaic expression similar in projectile point typology to the River phase of the Hudson Valley. Only slightly better known is the Late Archaic Vestal phase, which seems entirely confined in distribution to the Upper Susquehanna region in New York. Lacunae in our knowledge of certain phases and periods may be explained in several ways. One concerns sampling problems. Systematically organized surveys have been limited in number and scope and confined chiefly to valley floors; only 0 .3 percent (15 square miles) of the larger study area (4456 square miles) has been professionally surveyed. Thus, more surveys covering larger areas would bring to light additional sites of all time periods , doubtless including evidence of poorly known occupations such as Kirk, Adena-Middlesex, and Snook Kill. Also, both 100 percent surveys and random sampling methods have been applied in only a few situations, limiting our ability to arrive at valid quantitative assessments of the frequency and distribution of sites attributed to the full range of occupations. Other possible explanations for the lacunae can be summarized as follows : 1) On valley floors, some sites of all periods, but in particular those of Paleo-Indian and Early to Middle Archaic .age, have been eroded away by lateral movement of the river and its tributaries. Upland erosion , including sheet wash and coll uvial action , could have had similar effects. 2) Many sites have been destroyed by modern cultural activities, including the growth of towns and cities, road and railway construction, farming, and intensive collector exploitation. 3) In prehistoric reality, sites of some periods were less abundant than sites of other periods. This could be (a) a general phenomenon, reflecting "light" vs. "heavy" occupations with the implication of varying population size, or (b) it could be confined to particular habitats as a result of differences in settlement patterns . Settlement patterns in some periods may have differed greatly from those of other periods. For example, some groups may have spent more time in rugged or isolated upland locations than most other groups. The general lack of information on upland distributions would create the false impression of a hiatus in occupation of the general area. 4) Some apparent gaps, as in Early Archaic and early Middle Woodland periods, result from incomplete knowledge of diagnostic elements, especially stone items, in collections where they are often relegated to an "untyped" category or incorrectly assigned to known types. Although all of these explanations may prove to have some validity, No. 3a is regarded as the most important determinant of fluctuations in site density (see Chapters 10 and 13) . Despite the apparent breaks in the sequence, our assumption is that Native American occupation of the valley was continuous from 11,000 B.P. to the end of the Amerioan Revolution. This is suggested not only by the combined evidence of excavated and dated components and surface finds of diagnostic artifacts, but by comparative data from adjoining drainages. Despite the problems enumerated above, it is believed the data are sufficient to demonstrate true variation in the frequencies of sites representing different phases. It is uncertain whether this variation is due primarily to differences in settlement systems (site organization and diversity) from one place to another, or to overall differences in population density. In later pages, we will consider some of the factors that may account for the changes observed in the archaeological record. These changes are usually recognized by 1) successive replacement of projectile point types, an important diagnostic, by new types, 2) modification or replacement of other traits, such as pottery or burial assemblages, 3) shifts in subsistence habits and settlement systems. For some periods we must unfortunately rely very largely on point types as a measure of change, but have more data for others. There is no necessary correlation between change in point types, change in other artifact traits, or change in subsistence and settlement patterns. But on the other hand many archaeological phases or "cultures" do contrast sharply across a spectrum of traits and subsystems. Brewerton and Lamoka are good examples. Unfortunately the data for some phases or periods do not match the wealth of data on those two Late Archaic expressions. The analytic distinctiveness of the Vestal and Charlotte phases, among others, can be questioned because we know so little about them apart from projectile points. A case could be made that episodes of replacement of one point type by another were generally correlated with salient changes in other traits. This is supported by some of the empirical data. Implied here is the functional interrelationship of several cultural subsystems. Projectile points, literally at the" cutting edge" of the weapons systems that were used by hunter-gatherers, represent the technological and economic aspects of culture, where it articulates with the natural environment. Changes in the functional attributes of projectile points (as opposed to stylistic attributes) may signify correlative changes in other traits. Llkely examples of functional attributes include width of blade, hafting elements, and weight. 2 Interesting contrasts are evident in the mean weights of certain point types through time, although the contrasts are of uncertain functional significance (Figure 27) . The often strong contrasts between temporally adjacent phases in the regional sequence could be interpreted to reflect discontinuities of one kind or another. Because an area was continuously inhabited does not mean that there were no episodes of migration, displacement, or conquest (or combinations thereof) in addition to periods of in situ development. But as stated in Chapter 11 the evidence for these forms of change is weak for most periods. Except for the initial penetration of the Northeast by Paleo-hunters, convincing examples of prehistoric migration remain to be adduced. Possible examples of the operation of this mechanism consist of the replacement of the Brewerton phase by the Lamoka phase, and the replacement of "narrow point" phases by manifestations of the Susquehanna tradition. 315

Continuous occupation by resident groups was generally the rule. The most cogent explanation for observed contrasts between phases is that periods of change were relatively short and periods of stability were longer. The episodes of change-over made less of an archaeological impact than the periods of stable occupation (the "stationary states" of Chang 1967).

Functional Studies Analyses of wear patterns on chipped stone tools from the Upper Susquehanna sites (Chapter 12) tended to reinforce certain hypotheses. Thus, projectile points served not only as weapon tips but as knives, scrapers, even drills. Most identified types were multifunctional to some degree. Non-projectile point bifaces are accurately called "knives" but were also used for piercing and scraping. Following studies by Semenov ( 1964), Ahler (1971), and others, biface knives are assumed to have been used chiefly in cutting meat; hence bifaces in general are construed to represent the activities of hunting and butchering. End scrapers and side scrapers displayed wear patterns that suggested use on both soft materials such as hides, and on hard materials such as wood and bone. Less clear were the results of use-wear studies on "rough stone" tools. Briefly, the common ovate or oblong flaked" chopper" was probably not a digging tool (Lindner 1983) but may have been used for working hides or defleshing carcasses. Certain classes of scarred or pitted stones were distinguished on the basis of pit form and size; those with deep conical pits may have been "nutting" stones, whereas those with shallower, oval or irregular pits may have been anvilstones used in flint-knapping or in ceramic times to crush stone for grit temper. Netsinkers were almost certainly used for fishing . The great majority of features observed on pre-Owasco sites were hearths or fireplaces, though probably of several different functions; cooking food, heating stones to be used for boiling food in containers, providing warmth, serving as a focal point in rituals, and even possibly for sweat baths or heat treatment of chert. Some features consisting solely of charcoal or of clustered cracked rocks may have represented the dumped contents of containers used in stone-boiling, or the debris from cleaned-out hearths. Large pits are predominantly found on Late Woodland sites, where they were used primarily for the storage of corn and other crops and secondarily for refuse disposal. A list of activities was proposed forthe Susquehanna sites along with the available evidence in support of their existence. Those activities inferred for a group of investigated sites were employed in the interpretation of subsistence and settlement systems for the regional sequence (Table 31) .

Subsistence and Settlement Given that there were no archaeologically recognizable periods of depopulation in the Upper Susquehanna Valley since Paleo-hunter times, that most culture change resulted from in situ development and stimulus diffusion rather than migration or conquest, and that coexistence of different phases or complexes in the region was short-lived or nonexistent, we can summarize the subsistence and settlement patterns and some inferred settlement systems for different parts of the sequence. This analysis relied on data from 430 sites in the Upper Susquehanna drainage from the Tioughnioga River east and from Binghamton on the south to the river's northern headwaters. By far the highest number of sites was reported on valley floors, as compared to valley walls and uplands. This contrast is probably valid in terms of gross differences in the utilization of these major habitats, but the available data are biased for the reasons given in Chapter 13. The quantitative disparity would be reduced by more upland reconnaissance. Subsistence practices of Paleo-hunters differed in some respects from those of later peoples. Using an Old World-derived technology, they were adapted to the climatic, physiographic, floral and faunal conditions of the late-glacial and earlypostglacial environment. From comparative data caribou, fish, possibly the mastodont and other creatures including small mammals were the basis of Paleo-hunter livelihood. Berries and other plant foods were collected. The distribution of fluted points in the larger study area indicates that these people occupied the same land forms as subsequent groups, including low-lying terraces on or just above the present river floodplains . Major proglacial lakes such as Lake Otego had drained long before the Paleo-hunters appeared on the scene, and this was also true in the Hudson and most other northeastern drainages. Sites were located in the uplands as well as lowlands. Reconstructions of assemblages, tool kits and intrasite activities as well as full settlement systems are not possible until appropriate sites are discovered in the valley. Despite a similar lack of data on Early to Middle Archaic stage occupations it seems clear that hunting (of the deer? elk? moose? woodland caribou? small mammals?) and fishing were basic pursuits of those groups. Pitted stones in some assemblages may indicate that nuts and other wild vegetable foods were consumed, but the remains of nuts have not been recovered from the Russ-I ohnsen locality or any other sites of this age in the Northeast, They were however, important to the economy of Southeastern groups by at least 9000 B.P. (Chapman and Shea 1981). In the B zone forests of this period the principal mast food was the acorn which could have been obtained in the uplands as well as in the lowlands. A full range of settlement types was postulated for these elusive occupations, including large habitation sites, smaller hunting, fishing, and fowling camps, chert quarries and quarry-workshops, and burial loci . Only small to medium-sized camp

316

sites are definitely known in the study area. The distribution of Early Archaic projectile points, especially bifurcated-base points, shows that both uplands and valley floors were used and it is likely that seasonal rounds were a basic aspect of the settlement system. By the time of the Late Archaic and Transitional stages (4000-1000 B.C .) the pine-oak forests had been replaced by deciduous forests with associated fauna. A greater abundance and variety of mast foods, including hazelnuts, chestnuts, hickory nuts, beechnuts, walnuts and butternuts plus berries, tubers, and other sources of plant nutrients were available. Nuts and acorns as well as deer, bear, elk, raccoon, turkey, grouse, passenger pigeon, fish and shellfish have all been found in archaeological refuse of this period. Sharp seasonal contrasts in the abundance and distribution of these food resources strongly determined the structure of settlement patterns. Although known upland sites are few in number, most of the phases in the sequence are represented in the uplands and valley walls as well as the lowlands. All of the Late Archaic through Transitional phases probably followed the settlement system postulated for Lamoka (Figure 30) in most respects. But Snook Kill, Perkiomen, Frost Island, and Orient phase groups may have ventured less into the uplands than earlier or later groups, based on comparative data from the Hudson Valley (Funk 1976). The great majority of sites appear to have been camps, whether general habitation or special-purpose. Very large camps such as the Lamoka Lake site have not been discovered. Although postulated, chert quarries, quarry-workshops, and ceremonialmortuarysites are so far unknown. Many groups may have stayed on the valley bottoms through the year, often changing locations there, but some parties moved into the uplands in the winter. Floodplain sites were heavily used. They were generally located within convenient distances of animal and plant foods, fresh water, navigable watercourses, chert cobbles, firewood, etc. No post mold patterns of houses or other structures of this general period are known in the drainage. A Lamoka long house 20 meters long and 6 meters wide may be represented by a line of heavily used hearths at the Mattice No. 2 site. Early and Middle Woodland stage manifestations seem to have followed subsistence and settlement patterns much like those described for the preceding Late Archaic, despite the advent of technological innovations such as ceramics, the bow and arrow, and other traits. The sequence of Meadowood, Bushkill, Middlesex, Canoe Point, Fox Creek, and Kipp Island phases fails to display any obvious trends in economy, or settlement, although there were advances in ceramic technology and complexity and changes in the functional and stylistic attributes of some artifacts. House patterns, such as those reported for the Kipp Island site by Ritchie ( l 969a), are so far unknown in the study area. During the Frost Island through Kipp Island phase sequence as known in some parts of the Northeast burial ceremonialism was a major preoccupation. Wide trad~ relations in exotic lithic materials, marine shells, shark's teeth and finished artifacts reached a peak unrivalled in earlier or later times. Unfortunately data on mortuary ceremonialism are extremely sparse in the study area. In the upper valley, large camp or village sites made their first appearance in the uplands in connection with Hunter's Home and Carpenter Brook phase occupations. Unfortunately, few Hunter's Home sites are known and so it is not possible to sketch a full picture of this phase. The large, productive White site with its inventory of stone, ceramic, bone and antler objects and small, oblong house pattern was probably the scene of many and diverse activities. If these artifact traits reflect real and wide-spread changes at this time rather than simply accidents of representation and preservation on one site, then there was something of a "quantum leap" in comparison to the Kipp Island phase. Though relatively large, the Street site on the floodplain was probably a camp repeatedly occupied by small groups over several centuries. Later Owasco artifact, settlement, and subsistence patterns were foreshadowed in Hunter's Home, including perhaps maize horticulture (Ritchie and Funk 1973). Some Early Owasco tradition villages and camps are located in the uplands but the majority of all known Owasco sites lie on valley floors as defined here. The economic basis for these occupations was principally the cultivation of maize, beans, and squash with important contributions from deer, fish, nuts, acorns, and other wild foods . Owasco settlement types are characterized as villages, hamlets, large and small hunting, fishing, gathering or fowling camps, chert quarries, chert knapping workshops, and cemeteries (Table 31) . Some camp types, plus chert quarries and cemeteries remain to be demonstrated in the study area. Other specialized categories may have existed. Some villages were of unprecedented size, up to several acres, and probably represented single occupations, as at the Castle Creek and Otsdawa Creek sites and related sites in central New York. In earlier prehistory these villages were matched in size only by the Late Archaic Lamoka Lake, Brewerton, and Bent sites, and a handful of other sites. These sites were, however, the results of multiple occupation rather than one primary or exclusive occupation. It is likely that the seasonal round of older times was considerably modified after the introduction of horticulture. Longer periods of residence are indicated by the village data, with part or all of the population residing in villages throughout the year. Hunting, fishing, nut-harvesting and war parties may have left the hamlets and villages for varying periods of time (Figure 31). One might also consider the possibility that "free groups" existed who were semi-autonomous, generally living apart from the larger communities. Such groups may have each consisted of a few families, loosely tied by blood and marriage to the lineages and clans in the villages, but more or less independently choosing to live in hamlets and small camps, changing location throughout the year in order to exploit seasonally available resources.

317

The general pattern seems to have continued into the Chance phase, Iroquois tradition, as exemplified at the Bemis and Deowongo Island sites; however, no large villages are known for this or any subsequent occupation until the late 18th century. It does appear that a variety of site types continued to be used until the time of first European contacts. Efforts to determine relative population size throughout the Upper Susquehanna sequence, based on the numbers of components (and of projectile points) per phase per century, must be regarded as preliminary (Figures 32, 34-37). The relative frequencies of components almost certainly approximate prehistoric reality, but their significance is poorly understood. The highs and lows on the graphs (Figures 32, 34-37) could representtrue differences in population size, or contrariwise may be indicative of changes in site diversity and habitat utilization. In other words, population size may have remained stable over long periods but the areal distribution of that population may have varied from phase to phase. The effects of sampling factors must also be considered. It is suggested as a working hypothesis that aboriginal utilization of the Upper Susquehanna environmental zones (valley floors, valley walls, uplands) followed a fairly constant pattern from Early Archaic through terminal Middle Woodland times. In the absence of new data to the contrary, this implies only minimal variation through time in the number and diversity of site types. Even if occupation of the uplands was reduced in Snook Kill, Frost Island, and Orient times the importance of the figures for the valley floors would be strengthened, thus supporting the interpretation of a rise in Frost Island population instead of in site diversification. To summarize, the writer believes that populations were relatively meager from the Paleo-Indian through the Middle Archaic Neville "phase". There was a definite, overall increase in the early Late Archaic period that was sustained until the close of the Transitional period. Variation within this sequence is subject to dispute, but there is little doubt that the Brewerton, Lamoka, Vestal and Frost Island phases were more heavily represented than any prior groups. A subsequent population decline in Early Woodland and early Middle Woodland times was followed by a general increase in Late Woodland manifestations, though there is some evidence for loss of population after the Castle Creek phase occupation.

Trade Relations Although only meager evidence of trade relations was gathered by our investigations, there was enough to show diachronic patterns similar to those in other parts of the Northeast. Non-local cryptocrystallines such as Pennsylvania jasper were used by Paleo-Indians in the study area, a practice that may have continued into Early Archaic times. South Mountain (Pennsylvania) rhyolite was important among the minority of exotic lithics used by Frost Island phase flint-knappers . Meadowood points are frequently of western Onondaga chert, although this material was also a minor variety in most other phases. Pennsylvania jasper reappeared as a minor material in the Middle Woodland period. Purple-weathering argillite from the Delaware Valley was occasionally used by Fox Creek phase groups. Ohio fireclaywas used to make the blocked-end tube from the Gardepe site, as in other Middlesex manifestations. Since all of these groups relied chiefly on local materials, there is little likelihood that extensive migrations or long-distance expeditions were the mechanisms by which exotics appeared in local assemblages. Rather it is postulated that in certain periods resident peoples shared in widespread interactions with other groups, on a broader scale than in most periods, interactions that were maintained over large distances by patterned trade networks. The stimuli behind such trade probably varied from time to time. Paleo-Indians lavished great care on the manufacture of projectile points and other bifaces, preferring certain cherts and jaspers not simply for aesthetic reasons but because they recognized the practical value of superior lithic material in making good weapons. Similar considerations may have influenced their descendants among Early Archaic peoples. Subsequent Archaic groups were apparently more parochial, going less far afield for their lithic sources. Why the surge of rhyolite in the Frost Island phase? The Lower Susquehanna Valley is generally assumed to have been the homeland of the Susquehanna Tradition. Hence affiliated Upper Susquehanna Valley groups (and their relatives elsewhere in upstate New York) may have carried rhyolitewith them in their initial northward journey. Subsequently, they may have kept in touch with the peoples who remained in the lower valley, thus occasionally acquiring new supplies of rhyolite (as well as steatite from the same general area) through trade or travel. There is no reason to believe thatthe flaking qualities of rhyolite were superior to those of local cherts, and no ceremonial associations are known. Therefore it is implied that some sort of social maintenance mechanism was at work, based on the ethnic affinities of groups sharing common modes of artifact production as encapsulated in the concept of the Susquehanna tradition. Granger (1978) has proposed that the aesthetic and technological attributes of western Onondaga chert gave it symbolic power in the Meadowood phase both as a mortuary offering (in the form of "cache" blades) and as a form of wealth. This would help to explain why thin blades, often in caches, and Meadowood points of western Onondaga chert are so widely distributed outside the core area of the Meadowood phase in New York, New England, southern Ontario and other places. The use of Ohio fireclay, Harrison County, Indiana chert, and other exotic materials in Adena-Middlesex phase contexts has generated various explanations. Clearly, however, wide contacts of different groups over large areas are indicated. Many objects carried in finished form from the Ohio Valley are found in the Northeast and on the Middle Atlantic coast, giving rise to the appealing but recently disputed hypothesis that Adena religious specialists fled eastward during the rise of the Hopewell theocracy in the Ohio Valley (Ritchie and Dragoo 1960; Grayson 1968; R. Thomas 1970; Dragoo 1976) . 318

Continued mortuary ceremonialism in the early post-Hopewellian era accompanied the thriving trade in exotic materials, such as shells, copper, and shark's teeth, during Kipp Island times. Were local cherts with good knapping qualities (e.g., Onondaga and Esopus cherts) traded from the Susquehanna Valley to groups in Pennsylvania and Ohio, or to residents of intervening areas, in return for jasper, argillite, and Flint Ridge chalcedony? Was some other desirable commodity, perhaps of perishable material, traded? Ritchie (personal communications) ha~ pointed out the difficulty of explaining the great quantities of Ohio-manufactured grave goods in Middlesex cemeteries as the result of trade rather than migration. Completely unresolved is the question of what was traded back to Ohio.

Postglacial Al.luvial Regimens as Determinants of Settlement Patterns Environmental analyses not only establish a backdrop or setting for human occupations, but provide data necessary to the ecological understanding of cultural systems. They also have the potential to inform us about possible causal interrelationships between natural and cultural phenomena. With these considerations in mind, we undertook the palynological sampling of bogs and other non-cultural organic sediments as well as archaeological deposits in order to reconstruct postglacial vegetation change in the study area, and also carried out studies of fluvial sediments in order to understand the formation and chronology of floodplain sites as well as the relation of changing river regimens to prehistoric settlement patterns (Chapters 7 and 8). Sites obviously occur on a variety of landforms. These landforms are of diverse origins and ages. They are almost all the result of processes operative under late-glacial and early Holocene conditions. Most important of these processes are direct ice action (erosion, transport, and redeposition of rock and soil), glaciofluvial action (meltwater deposition and erosion), colluviation (mass wasting, solifluction, slope-wash), alluviation (river and stream deposition), and stream meandering and erosion. Late-glacial or deglacial landforms include broadened, oversteepened, or scoured-out valleys, lodgement and ablation tills, hanging tributary deltas, kame terraces and deltas, kames, eskers, drumlins, kettles, moraines, lake bed deposits, and outwash plains. Within the study area, the glaciallandforms can all be considered to be of roughly the same age (no younger than ca . 14, 000 B.P.). During the postglacial period (10,000 B.P. to present) the river and its tributaries commenced modification of the glacial landscape, incising through till, outwash, kames, and lacustrine beds, eroding them laterally, extending alluvial fans and deltas, building alluvial terraces through point-bar and overbank accretion, and also destroying older alluvium through meandering. Five basic terrace levels were defined by Robert J. Dineen (Chapter 7) . The highest and oldest is probably outwash but may possibly be a very earlypostglacial floodplain deposit, ca . 13, 000-14, 000 years old . Subsequent to the formation of theoutwash terrace the river incised downward to near its present base level. This happened ca. 12,000-10,000 B.P. A new terrace, T3, commenced forming at the Russ-Johnsen locality as the river migrated to the south and east. T3 had stopped accumulating to any significant extent by ca. 6000 B.P. T3 has been identified at several other localities in the study area. Atthe Russ-Johnsen, Enck, and Mattice-Camelot localities T2 is slightly lower in elevation than T3 and was created by the continuing lateral movement and slight entrenchment of the river. Terrace T2 is ubiquitous in the reach from Emmons to Wells Bridge. It is lower in relief than the outwash and T3 remnants at the Enck, Kuhr, Camelot, Mattice, and other localities. Charcoal samples from archaeological deposits within the T2 sediments have been C- 14 dated from 4800 to 2200 B.P. The total life span of T2 probably ran from about 6000 to 2000 B.P. In most cases Terrace Tl is at still lower elevations than T2 and is probably only about 2000 to 200 years old; the lowest terrace, TO, is very recent and in the initial stages of formation . Terrace levels and ages between Emmons and Wells Bridge show some points of correlation with the features studied by Scully and Arnold (1981) near Sidney (Figure 39). Clearly, the highestandoldestterraces have been available for aboriginal occupancy from the time of their formation 14 ,000 - 10,000 years ago. Where two or more terraces occur in succession at an archaeological site, as at Russ-Johnsen, the ages of surface artifacts on the younger terraces tend to the recent part of the time range represented by surface artifacts on the higher terraces . As previously noted, there is no evidence that Paleo-Indians of the fluted point tradition, or possible predecessors, occupied the valley during the lifetimes of glacial meltwater lakes, including Lake Otego. Fluted points occur on outwash and other landforms well within the former lake boundaries on valley floors. Further, these artifacts are found only on the surfaces or in plow zones of those landforms as well as the enigmatic 14,000 year old outwash terrace. No occupation zones have been disclosed within the outwash matrix by our investigations. Thus it is hypothesized that pre-fluted point occupations comparable to those postulated by some writers (Krieger 1964; MacNeish 1976; Bryan 1978, 1986; Stanford 1983) did not exist in the Upper Susquehannq. Valley. Confirmation of this hypothesis would have broad ramifications for Native American origins in the whole Northeast, because it is very unlikely that such early occupations would be absent from a major river basin yet present in others throughout the Northeast. This is especially true of the valley that is suspected to have been a major route of migration from south to north. Paleo-Indian traces remain to be found in undisturbed subsurface deposits within the valley. They are most likely to occur in T3 sediments and possibly in colluvium on the margins of valley floors and in the uplands.

319

The Early and Middle Archaic stage materials that predominated below plow zone in T3 at Russ and Johnsen ranged in age from the early Kirk "phase" (ca. 7000B.C.)totheNeville "phase" (ca . 5000 B.C.). SomeLa.teArchaicitemsfoundinapparently undisturbed sediments just below plow zone may signify that slight accretion was still taking place ca. 2000 B. C.; this is not entirely unexpected, since some temporal overlap with the T2 terrace probably occurred, especially during unusually high floods that draped sediment over both T2 and T3. Cultural materials found buried within T2 range from the Brewerton through the La.moka, Vestal, Charlotte, Batten Kill, Snook Kill, Frost Island, Orient and Meadowood phases. The Tl terrace contained materials attributed to Middle and Late Woodland stage occupations. Of course, artifacts deposited within Tl during its formation could be, and have been, found on the surfaces of the older T2, T3, or outwash terraces. Types associated with T2 would not be found within or on T 1 unless eroded out of T2 and redeposited in the younger sediments, but would not be out of place on top of T3 or outwash. Those buried in occupation zones in T3 would not occur within or on T2 or T 1 unless eroded out of T3 and redeposited in the younger sediments, but could be, and have been, found on the surface of the outwash terraces. Also, materials of all known ages including Paleo-Indian are to be found on landforms outside the alluvial terraces, including Pleistocene features such as kame terraces, outwash plains, kames, etc. Only meager traces of Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic stage occupations are known on these glacial landforms although they have a larger areal expanse than the alluvium. As previously suggested, this is probably due to genuinely small numbers of sites as well as sampling deficiencies because it is unlikely that all ofthe missing sites were confined to the Early Holocene flats, either presently buried under deep sediments or destroyed by river meandering. The Russ-Johnsen locality is proof that some early sites are buried in such terraces. It is certain that some deposits corresponding to T3 have been eroded away throughout the study area in the last 10, 000 years. Although remnants of T3 were identified at Enck, Kuhr and other locales, subsurface traces of occupation did not appear in our tests within those deposits. It is true that T2andT1 are predominant in areal extent, although they represent no more than the last 6000 years. At this stage of research, it is impossible to determine to what extent very early sites associated with T3 or glacial landforms have been destroyed by riverine erosion, thus adversely influencing the study of aboriginal settlement patterns. It is also uncertain what effect the cycles of formation and erosion of flu vial terraces may have had on cultural change and on the survival of archaeological data pertinent to that change, in the Susquehanna Valley or in other parts of the Northeast. Surfaces attractive to occupancy were provided by fluvial terraces since the draining of Lake Otego, and the constant metamorphosis of riverine channel-border terrain presumably did not create problems of a culture-ecological nature at any particular time. Variations in the breadth and depth of the river and its tributaries may have caused some slight modifications in fauna! and floral associations. Broad, shallow rivers have more mussels and warm-water fish than narrow, deep, rivers. But the importance of such environmental change to aboriginal cultures remains to be determined. The different terrace configurations appear to manifest several contrasting episodes of erosion vs. aggradation, rather than a continuous process of accumulation. At ca. 10,000-12,000 B.P. occurred an episode of incision that notched the Wells Bridge Moraine to a base level that has since been lowered only slightly. Subsequent terrace formation has resulted from the river's lateral motion in addition to further slight downcutting. Therefore, the correlation of terrace age with thickness signifies in part that the terraces with a "head start" have had more time to accumulate over bank sediment than more recent terraces. But the consistent appearance of four contrasting Holocene terraces throughout the study area suggests that there have been corresponding episodes of change in the regimens of the river. These may have been climatically induced (Knox 1983). Thus we might seek evidence of climatic change at the following approximate times: 10, 000 B. P., 6000 B. P., 2000 B.P., and 200 B. P. Clues to such change may be sought in the pollen record.

Other Possible Correlations between Natural and Cultural Phenomena Climate, including precipitation, and soils are prime determinants of vegetation cover. Animal species are in turn dependent on plant communities for shelter and sustenance. The economic and social organization, demography, and settlement patterns of prehistoric human groups were shaped largely by the nature, abundance, and geographic distribution of food resources, since the Middle Woodland stage by arable soils, and to a lesser extent by physiographic variables including outcrops of chert, jasper, and other inorganic resources. Changes occurring in these variables - such as gain or loss in density of deer populations-would have significant, if not profound, effects on regional cultural systems. Changes in cultural systems might be witnessed as shifts in subsistence and settlement patterns, in projectile point styles, even in ceremonial practices. Possible global correlations between environmental and cultural change, with causal implications, were suggested by Wendland and Bryson (1974) for the postglacial era. Some are tenuous because the dated discontinuities were separated by several centuries. 3 Other correlations seem very close indeed. The postglacial palynological succession as summarized for the Northeast in Chapter 4 is reinforced by the new data from the Upper Susquehanna Valley. No significant departures from the standard zonation were detected in the analyses by Donald M. Lewis (Chapter 8), Michael Melia ( 1975), or Leslie Sir kin (1978) . Some anomalous C-14 dates for bogs do not detract from the general compatibility of the chronology with those in other areas (cf. Ogden 1977; Davis 1983). 320

Fa unal associations with the vegetation sequence were also summarized in Chapter 4. Very sketchy data are available for the earliest pollen zones (A and B) throughout the Northeast, but beginning with the C- l zone considerable information has been provided by archaeofaunas. The incision of the Unadilla and Susquehanna Rivers into Pleistocene terraces at ca. 8000 B.C. apparently coincided with the precipitous decline in spruce and fir in late A zone times, although the boundary between zones A and Bis usually set at about 7300 B.C . Wendland and Bryson (1974) chart a major, worldwide climatic discontinuity at 8080 B.C . (see Figure 39). Presumably the incision resulted from a loss of sediment load, in turn resulting from the advent of warmer and drier conditions at the close of the Greatlakean glacial episode. A subsequent major discontinuity is set by Wendland and Bryson at 7 350 B. C .; this is the temper al boundary between the PreBoreal and Boreal pollen zones in Europe and the A and B zones in northeastern North America. No major changes in terrace formation are known for this period in our study area, where the process of terrace T3 deposition (Scully and Arnold's early T 1) seems to have been more or less continuous. This process was notinterrupted by the transition from the Bto C-1 pollen zones around 5700 B.C .; it also bypassed environmental episodes noted by Wendland and Bryson at 6540, 5790, and 4960 B.C . To the best of our knowledge, the terrace T3-T2 discontinuity occurred at ca. 4000 B.C ., in the middle of the period of the C-1 pollen zone and coeval with a minor climatic discontinuity at 4100 B.C. in the Wendland-Bryson scheme. Again, the formation of terrace T2 (Scully and Arnold's late T 1) does not appear to have been partitioned in conformity to any of several dated climatic episodes (Figure 39). However, the T2-Tl changeover, roughly coeval with Scully and Arnold's Tl-F3 boundary, is synchronous with a major discontinuity indicated by Wendland and Bryson at A.D. 270. This is the approximate time of inception of the C-3a subzone in our study area. Terrace T 1 has not been subdivided and its accretion was apparently not interrupted by climatic variations that may have been associated with a Wendland-Bryson episode at A.D. 1100. However, it was a bout this time that Scully' s F2 terrace was initiated. Obviously, fluctuations in river regimens are only partly correlated with pollen zone transitions and with worldwide episodes of environmental change. Many local climatic, hydrological, and geomorphological factors exerted influence on the deposition and erosion of alluvial sediments, and may at times have overridden broader continental or global conditions. A tenuous worldwide correlation is evident (Figure 39) between climatic (and vegetation) change at 7350 B.C. and cultural change at 7580 B.C., with the dates suggesting a reversal of supposed causal order (Wendland and Bryson 1974). Another seeming reversal of dates occurs between culture change (5280 B.C.) and climatic change (4960 B.C .). A close correlation in proper order is seen between climatic change (4100 B. C.) and culture change (3950 B.C.) . Another is indicated by a climatic episode at 2290 B.C. and a cultural episode at 2280 B.C. Somewhat greater lag seems to be reflected in a climatic episode at 810 B.C. andaculturaloneat 560 B.C . Thenextconcordanceoccursin bothcolumnsataboutA.D. 1100. Obviouslymanypostglacial cultural discontinuities of major regional, areal, or even continental importance are not recorded in the Wendland-Bryson chart. According to Wendland and Bryson (1974) , a minor cultural episode took place ca. 8920 B.C. This roughly marks the earliest dates for fluted point occupation in the Northeast (leaving aside the controversial 10,580 B.C . date on caribou bone from DutchessQuarryCaveNo. 1). The date of 7580 B.C. for a cultural discontinuity (Ibid.) roughly equates with thetime oftransition from Paleo-Indian to Early Archaic, give or take several centuries. Early Kirk phase manifestations are dated to this time. At 5280 B.C . Neville, Stanly, and other Middle Archaic complexes were in full swing. At around 3920 B. C . the "Early Laurentian" or Proto-Laurentian expressions led off the Late Archaic. Another discontinuity indicated at 2280 B.C . was calculated incorporating the Lamoka Lake C-14 dates and others for the Northeastern Archaic in the global sample (Wendland and Bryson 1974: Fig. 3) . Hence the date can also be taken to signify the inception of the ubiquitous narrow point tradition in the Northeast. A cultural date of 1160 B.C . roughly equates with the appearance of the first pottery and other elements characterizing the Early Woodland stage. The succeeding cultural episode at 560 B.C. happens to correspond to the middle of the Early Woodland period in the Northeast. By A.D. 690 the Middle Woodland period across the eastern U.S. was drawing to a close, and the first corn horticulture was probably introduced shortly thereafter to the food economy. At A.D. 1120 the Late Woodland cultural stage, characterized by intensive horticulture, sizeable villages, and internecine warfare, was well underway. Using the data of Wendland and Bryson ( 1974), one might propose causal connections between certain climatic and cultural episodes in the Upper Susquehanna Valley and adjoining regions. The major climatic change at 8080 B.C . occurred at the time of the A-4 pollen zone, the end of the Greatlakean glacial readvance, the incision of the Susquehanna River into the outwash terrace at Wells Bridge, and the transition from late Paleo-Indian to Early Archaic cultural adaptations. At 7350-7580 B.C . the A zone vegetation gave way to the B zone vegetation, terrace T3 was under formation and Early Kirk phase occupations spread throughout the eastern U.S. The major climatic shift at 6540 B.C. was coeval with the ascendancy of the bifurcated-base complexes. The minor discontinuity at 5790 B.C . corresponds to the appearance of the Stanly-Neville projectile point tradition, andthenextdateof4960B.C.fallswithinthesamegeneralperiod.Theclimaticepisodeat4lOOB.C.matchestheinitialformation of terrace T2 and the first appearance of Proto-Laurentian groups in the Northeast. By the next major climatic discontinuity at 3110 B.C. Brewerton, Vosburg, Vergennes and related phases were well-established. At 2290 B.C. narrow point complexes including 321

Lamoka, Sylvan Lake, Squibnocket, ant Lackawaxen were dominant. Another minor climatic shift at 1620 B.C. may correlate with the end of the narrow point tradition occupations and the beginning of the Broadspear-Susquehanna tradition. A major episode at 810 B.C . is roughly contemporaneous with the appearance of the Meadowood phase. The A.D. 270 date is timeequivalent to the T2-Tl transition and to the end of the early Middle Woodland phases (Canoe Point, Squawkie Hill) and the beginning of the Fox Creek phase and other middle Point Peninsula phases. Finally, the major environmental episode at A.D. 1100 may correlate with the advent of the Owasco tradition, intensive horticulture, and large settlements at about the same time. If these correlations truly reflect causative relationships, intermediate links between environmental change and culture change may remain obscure for an indefinite period. The Wendland-Bryson dates for discontinuities represent a highly distilled set of temporal estimates based on a very large sample of C-14 determinations. Local and idiosyncratic factors have been averaged out. It is inadvisable to regard their dates for climatic episodes as corresponding one-to-one with any set of cultural phenomena. Some of the dates have no apparent correlates in the Northeast. Those dates should be regarded as indicators of approximate times that complex shifts in natural systems, including biota, were set in motion. The reverberations of these processes would not be felt immediately in the cultural sector; there might even be a considerable time lag. Presumably a stable new ecosystem would result and persist longer than the period of change. Thus each succeeding date in the Wendland-Bryson scheme denotes a new disturbance of the total system, with consequent readjustment followed by another stable period. With this in mind, the dates for climate episodes on the chart may not necessarily be closely matched with dates for cultural change resulting from those episodes. Thus for example the climatic date of 3110 B.C., instead of relating directly to Late Laurentian expressions, could signify the initiation of processes which led to the development of Lamoka and other narrow point phases some 400-500 years later. However this time lag seems excessive. In most cases the lag was probably much shorter. If environmental change ultimately drives cultural change, the precise manner in which this was accomplished in the study area may elude us for a long time. It is difficult, for example, to generate plausible explanations for the shift from small, notched projectile points to the Broadspears in terms of the cultural-ecological changes resulting from fluctuations in natural phenomena. It is far easier to visualize overall shifts in subsistence-settlement patterns as a consequence of changes in the distribution and density of key plants and animals, water sources, etc. The search for determinants of the specific form of artifact traits such as projectile points may prove fruitless since other variables enter the picture, e.g., stylistic drift around a set of functionally restricted attributes which are the important and adaptively sensitive variables in the exploitative system. Examples of such variables could be basic hafting elements, weight, or multifunctional potential (some point types appear to have been useful as knives apart from their killing function). Good data on Holocene animal and plant communities (Semken 1983; Davis 1983) would be of inestimable value in establishing causal links between climatic and cultural change. Not only is it difficult to accurately reconstruct past vegetation from pollen records, but data on prehistoric faunas are extremely scanty (Chapter 4) . A few faunal assemblages have been described from limestone sinks in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and other eastern states (Guilday, Martin and McCrady 1964; Guilday, HamiltonandMcCrady 1966, 1969, 1971; Guilday 1967, 1968). Butdatafromsuchsinks, evenifpresentinthe Upper Susquehanna drainage, would lack the chronological resolution of the pollen spectra. Also important would be detailed quantitative data on vegetal and fauna! utilization by prehistoric populations. The chief problem is, of course, the poor preservation of organic remains in temperate woodland environments. Funk and Rippeteau ( 1977) hypothesized a causal relationship between climatic change, evinced ca. 2500-2200 B.C. by the C-1/C-2 pollen transition, and the apparent sharp rise in site frequencies during the Late Archaic period. They suggested that the increase in site densities reflected a rise in population size in response to a greater abundance and diversity of food resources offered by the oak-hickory forest inferred from C-2 pollen. This hypothesis is here set aside for an indefinite period, first because the hemlock decline that defines the C-1/C-2 boundary may not have been caused by climatic change (Miller 1973; Davis 1983), and second because it is presently impossible to demonstrate that the resource potential of the C-1 subzone differed substantially from that of the C-2 subzone.

Geographic Variation, Diffusion, and Adaptation The interpretations offered above apply chiefly to Upstate New York as well as the Upper Susquehanna region. They are also relevant in many respects to the adjoining areas of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, southern Ontario, and New England. Although detailed comparisons with other regions are not in order here, some broad correlations of cultural manifestations across the Northeast are presented in Figure 40. The fact that there were many correspondences in artifact style and distribution, in chronology, in subsistence-settlement and other traits strongly suggests widely shared responses to similar postglacial environmental and sociocultural conditions. Ongoing research has demonstrated that important regional differences did exist. In part these differences may be explained as the result of regionally distinctive ecological factors. For example the climatic, physiographic, and biotic conditions that characterize the coastal areas of New York and New England are in contrast to conditions in upstate New York or interior New England (cf. Ritchie l 979b). Food resources available to groups living along the coast or in estuaries differed from resources 322

available to inland peoples. There may be a correlation between this dichotomy and the lengthy persistence of two contrasting cultural traditions. One on the Atlantic coast began in the Late Archaic period and was characterized by a long history of small stemmed projectile points, a quartz cobble lithic technology, certain mortuary-ceremonial traits, and in Woodland times ceramic modes. The other tradition was represented in the classic sequence of upstate New York and western New England. In this tradition small stemmed points were almost entirely confined to the Late Archaic stage, there was little evidence of Late Archaic burial ceremonialism except in the Frontenac phase, and Woodland stage cultures displayed developmental trends different from those of southern New England in ceramics, projectile points, and settlement patterns (Ritchie l 969a, l 969b; Dincauze 1975; John Pfeiffer and Kevin McBride, personal communications 1983). Perusal of Fig. 40 shows that no phase or complex was universally distributed across the Northeast. No matter how distinctive and coherent some expressions, such as Lamoka or Meadowood, they were best-defined in a heartland or core area, not only in particular places but also over limited spans of time. Outside these core areas they became attenuated, and their distinctive or diagnostic traits became progressively less common as distance increased. In some cases the loss of traits was rather abrupt over short distances. This does not mean that a vacuum existed outside the core area of Lamoka, for example. There were resident populations in surrounding territory whose material culture may have been less distinctive, thus minimizing their archaeological visibility. In the case of Lamoka, the material traces of geographically adjacent and contemporaneous groups have been referred to as the Sylvan Lake, Lackawaxen, and Squibnocket phases. The outlying congeners of Meadowood are less clear at this time; there was apparently some temporal over lap with the Orient phase of Long Island (although these two phases seem stratigraphically separate in upstate New York), and Meadowood lithic elements occurred thinly and sporadically in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New England, and the lower St. Lawrence Valley. Regional equivalents of Meadowood in southern New England may have been characterized by small stemmed points instead of Meadowood points, by Vinette 1 pottery, and certain other traits. Other traditions such as Laurentian were more widespread, but actually consisted of regional variants - in this case Brewerton, Vergennes, Vosburg, and a variant in southern Connecticut. Lamoka itself could be regarded as an unusually distinctive regional expression of a wider "narrow point" tradition. Nevertheless, even the Laurentian and "narrow point" traditions ultimately faded away at some distance from their heartlands. Also in certain situations even diagnostic traits appeared to transgress temporal boundaries between phases. Thus such Laurentian diagnostics as gouges appeared as early as 5000 B.C . in the Maritime Archaic (McGhee and Tuck 1975) and ulus may have been present in the Middle Archaic of New England (Dincauze 1976). Several questions are implied here. Why did some archaeological" cultures" tend to be unusually distinctive, set apart from their neighbors, in a way not evident for many others? Why do these and others seem to have been so well bounded - even abruptly so-in time and space? Why were clusters of traits so often repetitively associated across wide distances and long periods of time? On the other hand, why did such clusters or configurations often break up or disperse gradually, often demonstrably in a clinal distribution, over large distances or even longer periods of time - in some instances with the persistence of individual traits well outside the heartland of the original complex or phase? And why, within such areas of relatively uniform distribution, do we rarely perceive instances of enclaves (possible examples; the Glacial Kame, Middlesex, and Frontenac phases) representing radically contrasting groups on particular time levels? Final answers to these questions are not yet within our grasp, but tentative ones can be proposed. Returning to an earlier theoretical frame of reference, it is maintained that cultural traits and events are subjected to selective pressures from the natural and sociocultural environment. Individual traits, subsystems, or whole cultures may be either more or less well adapted to their eco-contexts. These systems can be stressed to varying degrees by ecological factors such as those mentioned before and their possible responses are large in number, but limited because 1) the human animal has only a finite range of adaptive potential, 2) particular cultures also possess a limited range of adaptive responses, i.e., their store of information, contained to some extent in oral traditions, though vast, does not include all possible aspects of behavioral adjustments between man and nature and in fact prescribes some aspects, while proscribing others. Cultures persist as stable entities over varying time periods. Such lasting configurations may in part reflect conservative tendencies given in the factors listed above. But people and cultures also display the capacity for very rapid change, sot that there are presumably fairly broad genetic restrictions on behavioral malleability. The capacity for change is partly determined by psychobiological factors , and partly by the existing cultural context. Archaeological" cultures," it must be remembered, are not necessarily representative of cultures and societies that would be defined by ethnologists. Most important in controlling the appearance and duration of cultural configurations or "stationary states" is their adaptive "fit" with ecological and socioeconomic contexts at any given time. Under a systemic view of culture, various kinds of feedback serve either to maintain or destabilize a particular cultural system. Natural environmental change offers a very large number of possible stimuli or types of feedback; so do extraneous sociocultural factors. It is also possible that certain kinds of internal cultural change can be destabilizing and lead to readaptation . These stimuli could be generated by idiosyncratic behavior that results from the interactions of several individuals, each responding with the data base of his own mind and from the perspective of his own personality. Occasionally this form of innovation might prove to be of preadaptive significance, leading to widespread change in a cultural system independently of environmental change. Ordinarily however such "mutations" would either be suppressed as 323

inappropriate behavior or prove maladaptive. Undoubtedly, behavioral variation, analogous in some respects to genetic variation, was a recurrent phenomenon and a constant problem, so that few systems experienced completely smooth trajectories. Thus the archaeological record is the frozen imprint of the "contained variability" characteristic of all evolving systems. This record preserves both shared or general characteristics and the local differences or peculiarities one would expect of cultural phenomena. What we recognize as an archaeological" culture" - for example the Lamoka phase - is a cluster of material traits and inferred activities or pursuits, denoting one or more subsystems of a relatively stable cultural system characterizing a particular time span and geographic area. The content or form, whether in an object or in other subsystem parts, is partly inherited from pre-existing segments of the continuum (the roots), and partly new to the system, through borrowing or innovation. In the case of Lamoka the new, distinctive elements ("style") included beveled adzes, painted and incised bone objects, etc. At the same time the total cultural system was well suited to the ecology of what is presently New York in the fifth millenium B.C. Thus what gives an artifact style may not necessarily give it functional competence, but clearly the total cultural system perceived, however dimly, beyond the archaeological entity (Lamoka) was successful in its milieu for at least 700 years. Outside the Lamoka heartland were other, related cultures, some better known than others but none appearing quite as unique to the archaeologist. They shared many traits with Lamoka, of a non-diagnostic or generalized character but representing much the same kind of adaptation ("nothing succeeds like success"). This commonality has been recognized by Ritchie ( l 969a: 144), Funk (1976), Dincauze (1975), Snow (1980), and others but the difficulty has been that so little is known of most regional variants of this "narrow point" tradition. Undoubtedly there were specific adaptations to coastal, riverine, lacustrine or other environments that complicate the picture; but once again we are confronted by the old semantic problem of unity-in-diversity. We observe much local or regional variation, yet a common thread runs through all the individual manifestations of the tradition. Much is made of local and regional variation in current Northeastern literature, with consequent downgrading of older archaeological concepts of uniform, broadly distributed cultural entities representing single adaptations. Butthe fact is that critics ofthe "old archaeology" still routinely employ such terms as Archaic, Early Woodland, and Middle Woodland, thereby implying a common understanding of how cultural units are identified and where they belong in the scheme of things. True, archaeologists usually prefer to use these terms as periods, rather than stages (Chapter 9); but the clear implication is that far-flung and diverse cultural units can be identified and assigned to larger, more abstract units which imply a generality of techno-economic adaptation. It should be obvious by now that our selection of a local vs. regional, areal, or even continental perspective is a matter of research goals. While adaptation takes place immediately and concretely on the local level, similar ecological conditions operative over a large area, despite local microvariation, lead to similarities in culture over the same area. To summarize the argument advanced here, the observed distribution of cultural manifestations in time and space results from a selective process. In any given part of the Northeast, a local culture undergoes change in response to the kinds of stimuli discussed above. The resulting configuration bears both old and new elements, and remains stable for varying periods but usually long enough to leave its imprint on the archaeological record. Stability is maintained so long as critical ecological factors themselves remain stable, or at least until stresses (internal or external) begin to impel the cultural system toward a new configuration. During periods of stability the adaptive success of particular systems leads to the rapid spread of these systems, or perhaps crucial subsystems, through large areas of wider Northeast. These systems because of their unique individual histories contain distinctive features, seen in artifacts as style, with the result that certain styles or style groups are carried along with the adaptively crucial subsystems and may acquire a pan-Northeast distribution. Given styles generally persist only as long as their total cultural system persists, but individual traits may occasionally be retained by subsequent or peripheral configurations (one example: Vinette 1 pottery). Some writers have suggested that styles are adaptive in the sense that they serve to maintain social boundaries, permitting groups of people to enhance their identities in contrast to other groups. This idea seems to have some validity in the ethnographic present, but leads to serious potential pitfalls in archaeological interpretation.Was the beveled adze consciously or unconsciously used by Lamoka people to validate their reality as an ethnic group? Was the blocked-end tube, found in Northeastern Middlesex burials, used by intrusive Adena-related groups from the Ohio Valley to validate their heritage in a new environment? These interpretations seem precarious. Some stylistic traits were so widespread that they would have been meaningless as symbols of band, tribal, or other levels of social organization. The occasional anomalies encountered in the archaeological record, in the sense of assemblages with characteristics that are seldom, if ever, repeated in subsequent discoveries, may be instances of the adaptive response (variation on a theme) that was short-lived, confined to a small locality or region, and hence "unsuccessful." The various traits or subsystems of cultural systems do not necessarily originate in the same geographic space at the same time. Usually they arise in different parts of a study area at different, albeit closely spaced, times and are synthesized into viable, functioning systems. Though widely occurring, some traits, trait-clusters or systems fail to become universally distributed over the Northeast, and some are sporadically found outside their primary areas, apparently "leap-frogging" intermediate terrain. Without simplistic 324

invocation of the age-area model, it is postulated that trait-clusters, style groups, or subsystems require minimum periods of time for diffusion throughout a given geographic area. A successful adaptation may spread rapidly, but not instantaneously. It may become universal within the ecological district of its origin, but may prove less appropriate and less effective in other ecological zones. Therefore its penetration of those zones will be halting and incomplete . As another consideration, a system or subsystem maynothavetimetoreachitsmaximumgeographiclimitsbeforeanewepisodeofinstabilitysetsinandanewconfigurationarises, rendering the earlier one obsolete in its area of origin. The first question, regarding distinctiveness, involves subjective judgments of an aesthetic and stylistic nature. For example, the Adena-Middlesex phase, defined by its unique mortuary-ceremonial artifact traits, contrasts vividly with all other Woodland manifestations. But such contrasts would probably not be apparent in the technological and economic subsystems as observed on the little-known habitation sites (cf. Prufer 1964; Custer 1984). Another problem lies in varying conditions of preservation. The bone and antler industries of the Lamoka phase might not appear so unusual if artifacts of these materials were better preserved on sites of contemporaneous "narrow-point" expressions in Pennsylvania, New York, or New England. A hint of what we might expect was provided by the bone and antler objects unearthed at Pipestave Hollow, a "narrow-point" habitation site on Long Island (Gramly l 977b). These items display unmistakable similarities to the Lamoka artifacts. On the other hand, if we magically waved away such important Lamoka diagnostics as beveled adzes, painted bone pendants, and bone daggers, the resultant complex of traits would be relatively undistinguished, leaving an impression of blandness concerning the "narrow-point" expressions across the Northeast. Nevertheless, one cannot escape the fact that richness and diversity of style as well as technical competence are more characteristic of some archaeological cultures than others. Frequently, they are precisely those cultures in which burial ceremonialism attained high levels of development. One aspect of this ceremonialism was the use of items and materials acquired through extensive trade networks or "interaction spheres." Relatively intensive and prolonged interactions between geographically disparate groups undoubtedly had a stimulating and enriching effect on all subsystems including craft production. The second question can be answered in several ways. These include more questions: Which prehistoric phases appear to be sharply delineated geographically from their neighbors? Was this contrast real or is it a false impression resulting from inadequate preservation or sampling? On what basis is.the contrast determined? The determination of ethnic and cultural boundaries, whether historic or prehistoric, can only proceed from comparisons of the qualitative and quantitative aspects of trait complexes found in the adjacent geographic areas under study. However, given the problems with reconstructing total cultural systems from material remains, archaeological "cultures" chiefly represent techno-economic subsystems. These data may never permit the delineation of the ethnic and cultural differences familiar to the ethnographer. Rarely do prehistoric phase distributions stop short along a narrow front. Relatively well-defined boundaries are sometimes discernible which may or may not coincide with natural ecological boundaries. In these cases there is a fringe or zone of overlap, within which contrasting cultures may have interacted orinterfingered. For example, the intensity of Laurentian occupation seems to decline rapidly, going from the mid-latitude areas of New York and New England to the coastal region. This is reflected in the changing frequency and distribution of diagnostic artifacts (Ritchie l 965a: 79-83; Funk 1976). Although sharply contrasting geographic boundaries may not be apparent, two possible factors come into play in determining the limits to particular adaptations. The first is the general advantage of southern latitudes in terms of biological potential, and the second is the high abundance and diversity of resources in coastal environments in contrast to those in the interior. Similarly, all of the familiar Late Archaic expressions in New York rapidly disappear north of the St. Lawrence Valley, where however a different environment is encountered in the Canadian Shield (Wright 1972). Within major ecozones one rarely observes sharp phase boundaries. Lamoka is an example. Considering the distribution of beveled adzes (Ritchie l 965a: Fig. 5), it is obvious that they cluster heavily in the Genesee drainage, and there is a rapid decline to the east, north, and south, so that very few beveled adzes occur in the Hudson-Mohawk Valley. Although these adzes are not common in the Upper Susquehanna study area, the regional narrow point groups are classified with the Lamoka phase. This is less tenable to the east, where evidence supports the existence of a separate, though closely related, Sylvan Lake complex (Funk 1976). There is every reason to believethatgeographicallyintermediate expressions (e.g ., in the Schoharie and Mohawk Valleys) will display clinal intergrades with both" cultures" and this is supported by work in the Schoharie Valley (Wellman and Hartgen 1975; Hartgen 1974). The general problem of why trait-clusters and configurations "hang together" over wide distances or long time periods, only to break up b'eyond some limit, has already been touched on. Traits that have functional and adaptive value within particular environmental contexts, and are integrated into adaptively successful systems, will tend to persist until either spatially imposed ecological limits are reached, or a "catastrophe" has precipitated readjustments in the system. The trailing-off phenomenon is interpreted as the result of finite limits on the ability of successful adaptations, and the distinctive artifact styles piggy-backed on them, to diffuse throughout given spatial areas in given times. The apparent rarity in the archaeological record of enclaves or islands of alien "culture" within large areas dominated by a contrasting "culture" attests to the power of selective forces previously referred to.4 As previously suggested, successful adapta-

325

tions tend to sweep elements of style along with them, to become disseminated over large areas. Radical variations in style would be suppressed despite local ecological variability. Elements of style are not always, though they may be, offunctional significance. On the other hand, new traits or the elaboration and modification of older traits have to begin at some time and place, and that has to be on the local level.

Problems and Prospects Although a great deal has been learned about prehistoric occupations in the Upper Susquehanna Valley, there are still ragged gaps in our knowledge. The cultural sequence and radiocarbon chronology is one of the most detailed in the whole Northeast. But even this sequence relies heavily on "index fossils" such as projectile points and pottery and little is known about the complete trait-inventories and culture history of some crucial periods. Despite the real increments in data, the mortuary customs, exchange systems, and subsistence-settlement systems remain very imperfectly known. Many of the interpretations offered here must be considered tentative, although some conclusions appear sound and others will very probably be confirmed by future research. The fundamental problem lies in the need to deal adequately with local and regional, as well as temporal, variation. Strategies appropriate to the task must be developed and applied to study of the prehistoric sites that remain in the ground. Such strategies demand resources in time, money, and manpower that are increasingly difficult to marshal. Unfortunately, the pool of sites is shrinking steadily. The Susquehanna Valley is becoming less and less ideal as a study area, because development in various forms continues rapidly. Much farmland, swamp and other terrain was disturbed or covered by the construction of 1-88. Residential and commercial building proceeds apace. Public construction, at least, has dwindled with the completion of 1-88 and we can anticipate mainly small projects such as bridge replacements in the near future. Unfortunately, archaeologists and historic preservation agencies have variable control over most activities on private, municipal, or county properties, where lie the chief threats to cultural resources. One of the potentially most damaging aspects of present-day farming is the widening use of the chisel plow, which turns the soil to depths of up to 20 inches. Even moderately deep and well-stratified sites will suffer greatly from this practice. In order to gatherthe data needed for full understanding of subsistence and settlement systems, large scale systematic surveys are required, not only in the Susquehanna Valley but in other drainage basins. These surveys would require large sums of money, far in excess of what is usually allocated to Northeastern archaeologists by the institutions that support their research. As part of the overall strategy 100 percent surveys of limited areas, comparable to that conducted on Cross Creek in Pennsylvania (Carlisle and Adovasio 1982) could be undertaken. But sampling surveys, stratified according to environmental zones, would undoubtedly be stressed because they offer the most economical mix of quantitative control and areal coverage . The most efficient procedure would be to arbitrarily divide the Upper Susquehanna into convenient, easily recognized sections by major and minor stream, landform, or even modern political boundaries and to deal with these units one at a time. Although much useful information can be produced by applying systematic sampling procedures in the Northeastern Woodlands (e.g., McBride and Dewar 1981 ; Wadleigh 1981), the surveys are of limited value without follow-up excavation of selected sites. The selection must be made in terms of specific problems in the context of a regional research design. In addition to systematic surveys, it would be useful to follow-up on the myriad site leads reported by amateur archaeologists, and to record their collections in accordance with a standarized methodology that included photographs, measurements, materials identifications, edge wear studies, copies of catalogs, etc. It is also desirable to undertake a thorough field check of all sites listed in Parker ( 1922) and in institutional files . This major project should also include input from natural scientists such as palynologists and geologists, hired specifically for the project and able to devote large blocks of time to it. Thus, the scope and magnitude of the project would require the administrative and organizational resources of several cooperating institutions. What are some of the specific questions one might address in such a research program? Still poorly understood is the nature of cultural variation within the Upper Susquehanna basin as compared to adjoining basins. Were there geographic characteristics that led to distinctive local or regional adaptations that contrasted with those in the other regions? Or were the predominant trends in the direction of uniformity (i.e., was the Upper Susquehanna essentially continuous with the environments surrounding it, leading toward clinal variation in "social distance" throughout the general area?). A possible factor in such variation is the Susquehanna's configuration as a major north-south conduit for travel, trade, and communication between the Mid-Atlantic province, including Chesapeake Bay, and the interior of upstate New York. To what extent would cultural developments in the Mid-Atlantic have an effect on those in the Upper Susquehanna? Would these Susquehanna developments differ significantly from those produced by the geographic influence of the Hudson Valley, also a major north-south connection with the Middle-Atlantic? An important difference between the two rivers is the existence of large areas of floodplain along the whole length of the Susquehanna; this landform is absent from the Hudson south of Albany County because the valley is a tidal estuary as far north as Troy.

326

Other questions: Were population size and distribution in the Susquehanna Valley during the Early Archaic, Early Woodland, or Middle Woodland periods radically different from those in adjacent drainages? What is the explanation for the apparent lack of prehistoric Iroquois villages in the study area north of the Pennsylvania border? Are clues to be found there bearing on the origins of the Susquehannock? How and when did maize horticulture arrive in the Upper Susquehanna region? Were there earlier forms of cultivation, e.g., of gourds, squashes or marsh.elder, as recently indicated for Late Archaic sites in the Southeast? Was the basin an important avenue of migration of Paleo-Indians from the south into recently deglaciated terrain? If so, why have substantial camp sites been so difficult to find? Did the basin offer a more favorable environment for Early Archaic people during the Pine-Oak period than other drainages in upstate New York, perhaps in part because butternut and walnut trees made early incursions into the drainage from the south? Many more research problems could be listed. Their solution ultimately rests on continued explorations in other major river and lake basins, not simply the Upper Susquehanna. It would also be desirable to eventually extend this type of program down the river to its junction with Chesapeake Bay. The major research program envisioned here may seem like an unattainable ideal. Its implementation would contribute immeasurably to our understanding of northeastern prehistory. Realistically, however, we might predict that future work in the valley will proceed on a much smaller scale within more limited goals. Some data will be salvaged by cultural resource surveys on small construction projects, such as road repairs, bridge replacements and sewage treatment plants. Universities and colleges in the valley including the State University of New York branches at Oneonta, Binghamton, and Cortland continue to support field school expeditions to local sites. Local museums such as the Hill Museum in Otego and the Roberson Museum in Binghamton also occasionally sponsor field work, and digs are sporadically organized by local chapters of the New York State Archeological Association, in particular the Chenango and Upper Susquehanna chapters. All of these efforts will provide valuable information on the prehistoric occupations of the Upper Susquehanna Valley. But much more is needed if we are to preserve and record a significant part of our rapidly vanishing heritage in the region.

Footnotes 1

Adaptive patterns with different histories can be generally very similar, ii the environmental settings and subsistence means are the same. Functional attributes are difficult to separate from attributes of style. Once this is done, it is even more difficult to determine the specific functions served by the various defined projectile point types. 3 Environmental discontinuities consisted of sedimentary breaks in bogs, peat deposits, pollen zones, and alluvial terraces. Cultural discontinuities were defined at the temporal boundaries between cultures in regional archaeological sequences. 4 As pointed out by William A. Ritchie (personal communication 1985), two apparent exceptions are the Glacial Kame and Middlesex phases. However, as suggested in Chapters I 0 and 12, these represent the mortuary subsystems of cultures whose other subsystems are very poorly known. The techno-economic aspects of those cultures may be expressed in relatively undistinguished Woodland occupations distributed over broad areas of the Northeast. 2

327

328

REFERENCES CITED Adovasio, J.M., J. Donahue, J.D. Gunn, and R. Stuckenrath 1981. The Meadowcroft Papers: A Reply to Dincauze. The Quarterly Review of Archaeology 2(3) : 14-15. Adovasio, J.M., G .F. Fry, J. Zakucia, andJ. Gunn 1974. The Boarts Site: A Lithic Workshop in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 44(1 -2) : 31-112. Adovasio, J.M., J.D. Gunn, J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath 1975. Excavations at Meadowcroft Rockshelter, 1973-74: A Progress Report. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 45(3) : 1-30. Adovasio, J.M., J.D. Gunn, andJ. Donahue 1977. Meadowcroft Rockshelter: Retrospect 1976. Pennsylvania Archaeologist47(2) : 1-93. Adovasio, J.M., J.D. Gunn, J. Donahue, R. Stuckenrath, J.E. Guilday, and K. Volman. 1980. Yes Virginia, It Really Is That Old: A Reply to Haynes and Mead. American Antiquity 45(3): 588-595 . Ahler, S.A. 1971 . Projectile Point Form and Function at Rodgers Shelter, Missouri. Missouri Archaeological Society Research Series No. 8 . Columbia. Anonymous 1893. Biographical Review of Otsego County. Biographical Review Publishing Company. Bost9n. Anonymous n.d . Fish and Wildlife ofthe Catskill Region, Part I. State U nversity of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Syracuse. Ashton, R. 1970. The Oatman Site: A Single Component of the Late Archaic in Washington County, New York. New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 48: 15-19. Auffenberg, W. and W.W. Milstead 1965. Reptiles in the Quaternary of North America. In The Quaternary of the United States, edited by H .E. Wright and D.G. Frey, pp. 557-568. Princeton University Press. Princeton. Ayres, K.M. , J. Barnes, R. Barnes, W. Cote, G. Mellgren, D. Prince, E. Runge, and J. Wilder 1955. The Indians of the Cochato Valley. Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society 16: 48-52. Bada, J.L., R.A. Schroeder, and G.F. Carter 1974. New Evidence of the Antiquity of Man in North America Deduced from Aspartic Acid Racemization. Science 184: 791-793. Bada, J. L., and P.M. Masters 1982. Evidence for a 50,000 Year Antiquity of Man in the Americas Derived from Amino Acid Racemization in Human Skeletons. In Peopling of the New World, edited by J.E. Ericson , et al, pp. 171 -179. Ballena Press. Los Altos. Bada, J.L., and R. Finkel 1982. Uranium Series Ages of the Del Mar Man and Sunnyvale Skeletons. Science 217: 755. Bailey, D.L. 1977. PIN 9028.00 , Route 23 , Chenango County, New York. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to New York State Department of Transportation by the State Education Department. 1981 . PIN 97 50. 58, Bridge Relocation, County Road 44, Delaware and Otsego Counties, New York. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to New York State Department of Transportation by the State Education Department. Ballard, G., and T. Whitney 1973. Hopewellian and/or Adena Traces in the Upper Susquehanna. Chenango Chapter, New York StateArcheological Association Bulletin 14(4). Bartram, J. 1751 . Observations on the Inhabitants, Climate, Soil, Rivers, Productions, Animals, and Other Matters Worthy of Notice, In His Travels from Pennsylvania to Onondaga, Oswego, and the Lake Ontario in Canada. London. (Reprinted Geneva, N.Y. 1895.) Beardsley, R.K., P. Holder, A.D. Krieger, B.J. Meggers, J.B. Rinaldo and P. Kutsche. 1956. Functional and Evolutionary Implications of Community Patterning. In Seminars in Archaeology: 1955, edited by R. Wauchope, pp. 129-157. Society for American Archaeology Memoir 11. Beauchamp, W.M. 1897. Polished Stone Articles Used by the New York State Aborigines. New York State Museum Bulletin 18, Albany. 1900. Aboriginal Occupation of New York. New York State Museum Bulletin 32, Vol. 7. Albany. 1905. Aboriginal Use of Wood in New York. New York State Museum Bulletin 89. Albany. 329

1916. 1925.

Moravian Journals Relating to Central New York 1745-1 766. Onondaga Historical Association. Syracuse. The life of Conrad Weiser, As It Relates to His Services as Official Interpreter Between New York and Pennsylvania and as Envoy Between Philadelphia and the Onondaga Councils. Onondaga Historical Association. Syracuse. Beauregard, A.D. 1984. PIN 9750.57, Nineveh-center Village, Broome County, Township of Colesville. Report submitted to New York State Department of Transportation by State University at Binghamton and State Education Department. Bebrich, C.A. 1967. Stratigraphic Distribution of Plant Remains. In Archaeological Investigations of Sheep Rock Shelter, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, Vol. 1, edited by J. Michels and I.F. Smith, pp. 147-168. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University. University Park. Bennett, W. 1958. A Prehistoric Iroquois Site in the Nine Mile Swamp. Chenango Chapter, New York StateArcheologicalAssociation Bulletin 1(2) : 1-7. Bennett, M. 1968. Swamp Sites No. 8(Sgf1-s). Chenango Chapter, New York State Archeological Association Bulletin ll(2) . Bernabo, J.C ., and T. Webb III 1977. Changing Patterns in the Holocene Pollen Record of Northeastern North America:A Mapped Summary. Quaternary Research 8: 64-96. Binford, L.R. 1962. Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2) : 217-225 . 1965. Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process. American Antiquity 31: 203-210. 1972. An Archaeological Perspective. Seminar Press. New York. Bischoff, J.L., and W.M. Childers 1979. Temperature CalibrationofAminoAcid Racemization: Age Implications for the Yuha Skeleton. Earth and Planetary ScienceLetters45 : 172-180. Bischoff, J.L. and R.J. Rosenbauer 1981 . Uranium Series Dating of Human Skeletal Remains from the Del Mar and Sunnyside Sites, California. Science 213 (4511) : 1003-1005. Bishop, S.C . 1936. Fisheries Investigations in the Delaware and Susquehanna Rivers. In A Biological Survey of the Delaware and Susquehanna Watersheds, pages 122-139. New York State Conservation Department, Biological Survey X. Albany. Blair, W.F 1965. AmphibianSpeciation. In TheQuaternaryofthe United States, edited byH.E. WrightandD.G . Frey, pp. 543-556. Princeton University Press. Princeton. Blau, H., J. Campisi, and E. Tooker 1978. Onondaga. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15: Northeast, edited by B.G. Trigger, pp. 491-499. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. Bloom,A.L. 1983a. Sea Level and Coastal Morphology of the the United States through the Late Wisconsin Glacial Maximum. In LateQuaternary Environments of the United States, Volume 1: The Late Pleistocene, edited by S.C. Porter, pages 215229. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis. 1983b. Sea Level and Coastal Changes. In Late-Quaternary Environments of the United States, Volume 2 : The Holocene, edited by H .E. Wright, Jr., pages 42-51 . University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis. Boas, F. 1940. Race, Language and Culture. MacMillan Company. New York. Bolian, C .E. 1980. The Early and Middle Archaic of the Lakes Region, New Hampshire. In Early and Middle Archaic Cultures in the Northeast, edited by D. Starbuck and C.E. Bolian, pages 115-130. Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology, No. 7 . George's Mills, New Hampshire. Bordes, F. 1966. Mousterian Cultures in France. In New Roads to Yesterday, edited by J.R. Caldwell, pp. 78-89. Basic Books, Inc. New York. 1968. The Old Stone Age. World University Library, McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York, Toronto. 1969. Reflections on Typology and Techniques in the Paleolithic. Arctic Anthropology 6( 1) : 1-21 .

330

Bourque, B. 1975. Comments on the Late Archaic Populations of Central Maine: The View from the Turner Farm . Arctic Anthropology 12(2): 35-45. Boyce, D.W. 1978. Iroquoian Tribes of the Virginia-North Carolina Coastal Plain. In Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 15: Northeast, edited by B.G . Trigger, pp. 282-289. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C . Boyd, E., R. Nelson, G. Prindle, M. Eccleston, and T. Whitney 1981 . The Davis Site Nbn-5-2 . Chenango Chapter, New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 19(3). Bradstreet, T.E. and R.B. Davis 1975. Mid-postglacial Environments in New England with Emphasis on Maine. Arctic Anthropology 12(2): 7-22 . Brasser, T.J. 1971 . A Basketful of Indian Culture Change. Mercury Series 22 . National Museum of Man. Ottawa. 1978. Mahican. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15: Northeast, edited by B.G . Trigger, pp. 198-212. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C . Braun, E.L. 1950. Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. Blakiston Company. Philadelphia. Brennan. L.A. 1963. A Short Evaluation of the Current State of Knowledge of New York Prehistory Stated in Terms of the Problems Raised by It. New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 28: 6-15 . 1967. The Taconic Tradition and the Coe Axiom. New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 39: 1-14. 1972. The Implications of Two Recent Radiocarbon Dates From Montrose Point on the Lower Hudson River. Pennsylvania Archaeologist42(1-2): 1-14. 1974. The Lower Hudson: A Decade of Shell Middens. Archaeology of Eastern North America 2(1): 81-93. 1977. The Lower Hudson: The Archaic. In Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironments in Northeastern North America, edited by W.S. Newman and B. Salwen. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288: 411 -430. Brooks, K.L. 1978. A Check List of the Flora of Delaware County, New York. Ms. in the author's possession. Brose, D.S. 1975. Review of Ritchie and .Funk's Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 45(4) : 56-57. 1978. Comment on "Temporal Models in Prehistory:An Example From Eastern North America," by J.B. Stoltman. Current Anthropologyl9(4): 729-731. Brown, C., J. Kelly, J. Penman, andJ. Sparling. 1973. Faunal Analysis of the Cole Quarry Archaic Site. New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 58: 25-39. Broyles, B.J. 1966. Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site (46Ka 27), Kanawha County, West Virginia. West Virginia Archeologist 19(1-43). 1971 . Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia . West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Report of Investigations, No. 3 . Morgantown. Brumbach, H.J. 1975. "Iroquoian" Ceramics in "Algonkian" Territory. Man in the Northeast 10: 17-28. 1978. Middle Woodland Fishing Economics: The Upper Hudson River Drainage. Ph.D. Dissertation, State University of New York at Albany. University Microfilms. Ann Arbor. 1986. Anadromous Fish and Fishing: A Synthesis of Data from the Hudson River Drainage. Man in the Northeast 32: 35-66. Bryan, A.L., editor 1978. Early Man in America from a Circum-Pacific Perspective. Occasional Papers No. 1, Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta. Edmonton. 1986. New Evidence for the Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas. Center for the Study of Early Man, Orono, Maine. Bryan, A.L. 1983. South America. In Early Man in the New World, edited by R. Shutler, Jr., pp. 137-146. Sage Publications. Beverly Hills. Bryan, A.L., D. Schmirrenberger and R. Gruhn 1979. Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Timlin Site, Locus 1-c, in 1979. Manuscript. University of Alberta, Edmonton.

331

Buckley, J. D. 1973. Isotopes' Radiocarbon Measurements X. Radiocarbon 15(2) : 280-298. New Haven. 1976. Isotopes' Radiocarbon Measurements XI. Radiocarbon 18(2) : 172-189. New Haven. Buckley, J.D., and E.H . Willis 197 2 . Isotopes' Radiocarbon Measurements IX. Radiocarbon 14(1): 114-139. New Haven. Buikstra, J.E. n .d . Mortuary Activity and Human Ecology: Preliminary Observations. In The Koster Site: A Preliminary Report, edited by J.A. Brown. Northwestern University Archaeological Program Special Report No. 1. Bullen, R. 1949. Excavations in Northeastern Massachusetts. Papers ofthe R.S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology 1 (3) . Philllps Academy. Andover. Butzer, K.W. 1971. Environment and Archaeology. Second edition. Aldine Press. New York. 1982. Archaeology as Human Ecology. Cambridge University Press. New York and London. Byers, D.S. 1959. The Eastern Archaic: Some Problems and Hypotheses. American Antiquity 24(3): 233-256. Cadwell, D.H. 1973. Late Wisconsin Deglaciation Chronology of the Chenango River Valley and Vicinity, New York. Ph.D. Dissertation, State University of New York at Binghamton. University Microfilms. Ann Arbor. 1978. Bedrock Control of Ice-marginal Positions in Central New York. Geology6: 278-280. 1981 . Glacial Geology of the Chenango River Valley between Binghamton and Norwich, New York. Guidebook for Field Trips in South -Central New York, edited by P. Enos. New York State Geological Association 53rd Annual Meeting, Binghamton, New York. Calkin, P.E. 1970. Strand Lines and Chronology of the Glacial Lakes in Northwestern New York. The Ohio Journal of Science 70(2): 78-96. Calkin, P.E. and K.E. Miller 1977. Late Quaternary Environment and Man in Western New York. In Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironments in Northeastern North America, edited by W.S. Newman and B. Salwen. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288: 457-471. Callender, C . 1978. Shawnee. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, Northeast, edited by B.G . Trigger, pp. 622-635. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C . Campbell, A. 1955. New Light on the Jansson-Visscher Maps of New England. The Map Collectors' Circle, Durrant House, London. Carlisle, R.C. and J.M. Adovasio, editors 1982. Meadowcroft: Collected Papers on the Archaeology of the Meadowcroft Rockshelter and the Cross Creek Drainage. Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh. Carlson, R.W. 1964. The Washakumaug Site. Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society 25: 29-35. Carter, D.B. 1977. Climate. In Geography of New York State, edited by J.H . Thompson, pp. 54-78. Syracuse University Press. Syracuse. Ceci, L. 1980. Maize Cultivation in Coastal New York: The Archaeological, Agronomical, and Documentary Evidence. North American Archaeologist 1(1) : 45-74. 1981 . Method and Theory in Coastal New York Archaeology: Paradigms of Settlement Pattern. North American Archaeologist 3(1) : 5-36. Champlain, S. de 1632. Les Voyages de la Nouvelle France Occidentale, Dicte Canada . Claude Collet. Paris. Chang, K.C. 1967. Rethinking Archaeology. Random House. New York. Chapman,J. 1976a. The Archaic Period in the Little Tennessee River Valley: The Radiocarbon Dates. Tennessee Anthropologist 1(1) : 1-12.

332

l 976b. The Rose Island Site. University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Report of Investigations No. 14. Knoxville. 1977 . Archaic Period Research in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley. The University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Report of Investigations No. 18. Tennessee Valley Authority. Knoxville. 1979. The Howard and Calloway Island Sites. Tennessee Valley Authority Publications in Anthropology No. 23. University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Report of Investigations No. 27. Knoxville. Chapman, J. andA.B. Shea 1981 . The Archeobotanical Record: Early Archaic Period to Contact in the Lower Llttle Tennessee River Valley. Tennessee Anthropologist6(1): 61 -84. Claflin, W.H ., Jr. 1931 . TheStalling'sisland Mound. Columbia County, Georgia. Papersofthe Peabody MuseumofAmericanArchaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University 14(1) . Cambridge. Cleland, C .E. 1966. The Prehistoric Animal Ecology and Ethnozoology of the Upper Great La.kes Region. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 29. Ann Arbor. Clench, W.J. 1966. Mollusca. In Fresh-water Biology, second edition, edited by W.T. Edmondson, pages 1117-1160. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. Coates, D.R. 1974. Reappraisal of the Glaciated Appalachian Plateau. In Glacial Geomorphology, edited by D.R. Coates, pp. 205243. Publications in Geomorphology, State University of New York at Binghamton. 1976. Quaternary Stratigraphy of New York and Pennsylvania. In Quaternary Stratigraphy of North America, edited by W.C. Mahaney, pp. 65-90. Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Inc. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. 1977. More on "Some Paleolithic Tools from Northeast North America." Current Anthropology 18(3) : 588. Coates, D.R. andJ.T. Kirkland 1975. Landforms as Morphostratigraphic Indicators of Multiple Glaciation. Abstract and Program, Geological Society of America, Northeastern Section, Annual Meeting, Syracuse, New York. Coates, D.R., S.O . Landry and W.D. Llpe 1971 . Mastodon Bone Age andGeomorphic Relations in the Susquehanna Valley. Geological Society ofAmerica Bulletin 82: 2005-2010. Coe, J.L. 1952. Culture Sequence of the Carolina Piedmont. In Archeology of Eastern United States, edited by J.B. Griffin, pages 301-311 . University of Chicago Press. Chicago. 1964. The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 54(5) . Philadelphia. Cole, J.R., R.E. Funk, L.R. Godfrey, and W. Starna 1978. On Criticisms of "Some Paleolithic Tools from Northeast North America": Rejoinder. Current Anthropology 19(3): 665-669. Cole , J.R. and L.R. Godfrey, editors 1977. Archaeologyand Geochronology ofthe Susquehanna and Schoharie Regions. Proceedings of the Yager Conference at Hartwick College. Oneonta. Cole, J.R. and L.R. Godfrey 1977. On "Some Paleolithic Tools From Northeast North America." Current Anthropology 18(3): 541-543. Colinvaux, P.A. 1978. On the Use of the Word "Absolute" in Pollen Statistics. Quaternary Research 9(1): 132-133. Colonial Records of Pennsylvania 1851, 1852. Connally, G.G. and L.A. Sirkin 1970. Late Glacial History of the Upper Wallkill Valley, New York. Geological Society of America Bulletin 81 : 3297-3306. 1971 . Luzerne Readvance Near Glens Falls, New York. Geological Society of America Bulletin 82: 989-1008. 1986. Woodfordian Ice Margins, Recessional Events, and Pollen Stratigraphy of the Mid-Hudson Valley. In The Wisconsinan Stage of the First Geological District, Eastern New York, edited by D.H. Cadwell, pages 50-72. New York State Museum Bulletin 455 . Albany.

333

Connor, P.F. 1960. The Small Mammals of Otsego and Schoharie Counties, New York. New York State Museum and Science Service, Bulletin 382. Albany. Conrad, N., D.L. Asch, N.B. Asch, D. Elmore, H . Gove, M. Rubin, J.A. Brown, M.D. Wiant, K.B. Farnswoth, and T.G. Cook 1984. Accelerator Radiocarbon Dating of Evidence for Prehistoric Horticulture in Illinois. Nature 308: 443-446. Cook, F. 1887. Journals of the Military Expedition of Major General John Sullivan Against the Six Nations of Indians in 1 779. Knapp, Peck and Johnson Printers. Auburn. Cook,G.W. 1973. Some Late Archaic Pitted Stone Assemblages from the Upper Susquehanna Valley, New York State. Second professional paper submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the Master of Arts degree, State University of New York at Albany. Cox, D.D. 1959. Some Postglacial Forests in Central and Eastern New York State as Determined by the Method of Pollen Analysis. New York State Museum and Science Bulletin 377. Albany. Cox,S. 1972. A Reanalysis of the Shoop Site. The Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. Cross, D. 1941. The Archaeology of New Jersey. Part I. New Jersey State Museum. Trenton. 1956. The Archaeology of New Jersey Part II: The Abbott Farm Site. Archaeological Society of New Jersey and New Jersey State Museum. Trenton. Crowl,G.H . 1980. Woodfordian Age of the Wisconsin Glacial Border in Northeastern Pennsylvania. Geology 8 : 51-55. Curran, M.L. 1979. Studying Human Adaptation at a Paleo-Indian Site: A Preliminary Report. In Ecological Anthropology of the Middle Connecticut Valley, edited by R. Paynter, pp. 14-26. Research Reports No. 18, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachussets at Amherst. 1984. The Whipple Site and Paleo-Indian Tool Assemblage Variation: A Comparison of Intersite Structuring. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12: 5-40. Curtin, E.V. 1978. Prehistoric Sites, Sequence, and Settlement in the Upper Susquehanna Drainage. In The Salvage Excavation of PIN s 9357 .08 and 9357 .12, I-88 Cultural Resources Survey Report, edited by A. Dekin. Submitted to New York State Department of Transportation by the State Education Department. n.d. The Mattice Lithics: A Preliminary Report. Manuscript on file at the New York State Museum, Anthropological Survey. Curtin, E.V. editor 1984. A Window into the Past at River Street, Owego, New York (SuBi 677). Report prepared for The Village of Owego by the Public Archaeology Facility, State University of New York at Binghamton. Cushing, E.J. 1965. Problems in the Quaternary Phytogeography of the Great Lakes Region. In The Quaternary of the United States, edited by H .E. Wright and D.G . Frey, pp. 403-416 . Princeton University Press. Princeton. Custer, J. 1984. Delaware Prehistoric Archaeology. University of Delaware Press. Newark. Damas, D., editor 1969. Contributions to Anthropology: Band Societies. Part I. National Museums of Canada, Bulletin 228. Ottawa. Damon, P.E., C .W. Ferguson, A. Long, and E.I. Wallick 1974 . Dendrochronologic Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale. American Antiquity 39(2): 350-366. Davis, M.B. 1965. Phytogeography and Palynology of Eastern North America. In The Quaternary of the United States, edited by H.E. Wright and D.G . Frey, pp. 377-402. Princeton University Press. Princeton. 1967. Late-Glacial Climate in Northeastern United States: A Comparison of New England and the Great Lakes. In Quaternary Paleoecology, edited by E.J. Cushing and H .E. Wright, pp. 11-44. Yale University Press. New Haven. 1969. Palynology and Environmental History During the Quaternary Period. American Scientist 57 (3) : 31 7-322. 1983. Holocene Vegetational History of the Eastern United States. In La.te-Quaternary Environments of the United States, Vol. 2: The Holocene, edited by H .E. Wright, Jr., pp. 166-181. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis.

334

Davis, M.B., R.W. Spear, andL.C . Shane 1980. Holocene Climate of New England. Quaternary Research 14(2) : 240-250. Davy, D.M. 1980. Borrowed Concepts: A Comment on Rhoades. American Antiquity45(2): 346-349. Deevey, E. 1939. Studies in Connecticut Lake Sediments. American Journal of Science 237: 691-724. Dekin, A.A., W.W. Mitchell, J.J. Knoerl, J.C. Wanser, R.L. Ewing, S.C. Prezzano, V.T. Mastone, E.V. Curtin , andL.C . Steponaitis 1978. The Salvage Excavation of PINs 9357 .08 and 9357 .12, I-88. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to New York State Department of Transportation by the State Education Department. Deller, D.B. and CJ. Ellis 1982. Archaeological Investigations at Thedford II, Crowfield, and other Paleo-Indian Sites in Southwestern Ontario, 1981 . Report Submitted to Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation. 1984. Crowfield: A Preliminary Report on a Probable Paleo-Indian Cremation in Southwestern Ontario. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12: 41-71. DeMicco, D.W. and R. Robertson 1978. Archaeological Survey and Cultural Resource Assessment of PIN 9056.01, Masonville, New York. Submitted to New York State Department of Transportation by New York State Education Department. Dice, L.R. 1943. The Biotic Provinces of North America. University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor. Dincauze, D.F. 1968. Cremation Cemeteries in Eastern Massachusetts. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 59(1) . Cambridge. 1971. An Archaic Sequence for Southern New England. American Antiquity 36(2) : 194-198. 1972. The Atlantic Phase: A Late Archaic Culture in Massachusetts. Man in theNortheast4: 40-61. 1975. The Late Archaic Period in Southern New England. Arctic Anthropology 12(2) : 23-24. 1976. The Neville Site: 8, 000 Years at Amoskeag. Peabody Museum Monographs, No. 4. Cambridge. 1978. Open Season on Sacred Cows. Archaeology of Eastern North America 6: 82-87. 198 la. The Meadowcroft Papers. The Quarterly Review of Archaeology 2 : 3-4. 1981 b . Meadowcroft: Answers and Questions. The Quarterly Review of Archaeology 2(3): 15. 1984. An Archaeo-Logical Evaluation of the Case for Pre-Clovis Occupations. Advances in New World Archaeology Ill, pp. 275-323. Academic Press. New York. Dincauze, D.F. and M.T. Mulholland 1977. Early and Middle Archaic Site Distributions and Habitats in Southern New England. In Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironmentsin Northeastern North America, edited by W.S. Newman and B. Salwen. Annals ofthe New York Academy of Sciences 288: 439-456. Dineen, R.J. 1986. Deglaciation ofthe Hudson Valley between Hyde Park and Albany, New York. In The Wisconsinan Stage of the First Geological District, Eastern New York, edited by D.H. Cadwell, pages 89-108. New York State Museum Bulletin 455 . Albany. Donehoo, G.P. 1928. AHistoryofthelndian Villages and PlaceNamesin Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Historical Commission. Harrisburg. Dragoo, D.W. 1959. Archaic Hunters of the Upper Ohio Valley. Annals of the Carnegie Museum 35: 139-245. 1963. Mounds for the Dead: An Analysis of the Adena Culture. Annals of the Carnegie Museum, Vol. 37. Pittsburgh. 1976. Adena and the Eastern Burial Cult. Archaeology of Eastern North America 4 : 1-9. 1977. Prehistoric Iroquoian Occupation in the Upper Ohio Valley. In Current Perspectives in Northeastern Archeology: Essays in Honor of William A. Ritchie, edited by R.E. Funk and C .F. Hayes Ill, pp. 41 -47. Researches and Transactions, New York State Archeological Association 17(1) . Albany and Rochester. Drew, D.L. 1979. Early Early Man in North America and Where to Look for Him: Geomorphic Contexts. Plains Anthropologist 24(86): 269-281. Driver, H .E. 1961. Indians of North America. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. Dumont, E.M. 1974. Rocklein I: The Archaic Component. Paper presented at 1974 Annual Meeting of the New YorkStateArcheological Association, Rochester. 335

Dumont, E.M. and L.A. Dumont 1979. Of Paradigms and Projectile Points: Two Perspectives on the Early Archaic in the Northeast. New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 75: 38-52. Dunbar, H .R. and K.C . Ruhl 1974. Copper Artifacts from the Engelbert Site. New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 61 : 1-10. Dunnell, R.C. 1978. Comment on "Temporal Models in Prehistory: An Example from Eastern North America", by J.B. Stoltman. Current Anthropologyl9(4): 732. Eaton, E.H. 1910. Birds of New York Part I. New York State Museum Memoir 12. Albany. Edwards, R.L. and K.O. Emery 1977. Man on the Continental Shelf. In Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironments in Northeastern North America, edited by W.S. Newman and B. Salwen. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288: 245-256. Eisenberg, L. 1978. Paleo-Indian Settlement Pattern in the Hudson and Delaware River Drainages. Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology No. 4 . Franklin Pierce College. 1991 . The Mohonk Rockshelter: A Major Neville Site in New York State. In The Archaeologyand Ethnohistoryof the Lower Hudson Valley and Neighboring Regions: Essays in Honor of Louis A. Brennan, edited by H .C . Kraft, pages 155176. Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology, No. 11 . Elliott,D. 1977. Otsiningo, an Example of an Eighteenth Century Settlement Pattern. In Current Perspectives in Northeastern Archeology: Essays in Honorof William A. Ritchie, edited by R.E. Funk and C .F. Hayes III, pp. 93-105. Researches and Transactions, New York State Archeological Association 17 ( 1). Albany and Rochester. Elliott, D. and W.D. Llpe 1970. The Engelbert Site. State University of New York at Binghamton. Engstrom, R.E. 1951 . A Preliminary Report on the N unkatusset Site. Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society 13: 5-9. Eschner, A.R. 1977. Water. In Geography of New York State, edited by J.H. Thompson, pp. 79-89. Syracuse University Press. Syracuse. Feder, K.L. 1984. Pots, Plants, and People; The Late Woodland Period of Connecticut. Archaeological Society of Connecticut Bulletin 47: 99-111. Feest, C.F .. 1978. Virginia Algonquians. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15; Northeast, edited by E.G. Trigger, pp. 253-270. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. 1978. Nanticoke and Neighboring Tribes. In Handbook of North American: Indians, Vol. 15; Northeast, edited by B.G . Trigger, pp. 240-252. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C . Fenneman, N.M. 1938. Physiography of Eastern United States. McGraw-Hill. New York. Fenenga, F. 1953. The Weights of Chipped Stone Points: A Clue to Their Functions. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology9: 309323. Fenton, W.N. 1940. Problems Arising from the Historic Northeastern Position of the Iroquois. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 100: 159-251. Washington, D.C . 1942. Contacts Between Iroquois Herbalism and Colonial Medicine . The Smithsonian Report for 1941. Washington, D.C . Fenton, W.N. and E.S. Dodge 1949. An Elmbark Canoe in the Peabody Museum of Salem. American Neptune 9: 185-206. Ferguson, A.L.L., and H .G . Ferguson 1960. The Piscataway Indians of Southern Maryland. Alice Ferguson Foundation. Accokeek. Ferguson, A.L.L., and T.D. Stewart 1940. An Ossuary near Piscataway Creek. American Antiquity 6( 1): 4-18. Fernald, M.L. 1950. Gray's Manual of Botany. Eighth Edition. American Book Company. New York.

336

Fernald, M.L. and A.C. Kinsey 1958. Edible Wild Plants of Eastern North America. Harper and Row. New York. Fiedel, S.J. 1987. Algonquian Origins: A Problem in Archaeological Linguistic Correlation. Archaeology of Eastern North America 15:1-11. Fisher, C. 1978. Oaks Creek Prehistoric Occupation Area, Otsego County, New York: PIN 9221.00 . Submitted to New York State Department of Transportation by the State Education Department. Fisher, D.W. 1955. Prehistoric Mammals of New York. The New York State Conservationist, Feb.-Mar.: 18-22. 1980. Bedrock Geology of the Central Mohawk Valley, New York. New York State Museum Map and Chart Series No. 33. Albany. Fisher, D.W., Y.W. Isachsen, and L.V. Rickard 1972. Geologic Map of New York State. New York State Museum and Science Service, Map and Chart Series 15. Albany. Fite, E.D., and A. Freeman 1969. A Book of Old Maps Delineating American History. Dover Publications, Inc. New York. Fitting, J.E. 1968. Environmental Potential and the Postglacial Readaptation in Eastern North America. American Antiquity 33(4): 441-445 . 1969. Settlement Analysis in the Great Lakes Region. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 25(4): 360-377. Fitting, J.E., J. DeVisscher, and E.J. Wahla 1966. The Paleo-Indian Occupation ofthe Holcombe Beach. Anthropological Papers, MuseumofAnthropology, University of Michigan, No. 27. Ann Arbor. Fleisher, P.J. 1977a. Deglacial Chronology of the Oneonta, New York Area. In Archaeology and Geochronology of the Susquehanna and Schoharie Regions, edited by J.R. Cole and L.R. Godfrey, pp. 41-50. Proceedings of the Yager Conference at Hartwick College. Oneonta., 1977b. Glacial Morphology of Upper Susquehanna Drainage. In Guidebook to Field Excursions, 49th Annual Meeting, New York State Geological Association, edited by Philo C. Wilson. State University of New York College at Oneonta. 1980. Geology of the Timlin Site, Hyndsville, New York. State University of New York at Oneonta. 1983. Glacial Stratigraphy and Chronology of the Upper Eastern Susquehanna Drainage. Draft manuscript. State University of New York at Oneonta. 1984. Landford Control of Ice-marginal Positions during Glacial Retreat (abstract) : Abstracts with programs, Geological Society of America, Northeastern Section, Providence, Rhode Island, p . 39. 1986. Glacial Geology and Late Wisconsinan Stratigraphy, Upper Susquehanna Drainage Basin, New York. In The Wisconsinan Stage of the First Geological District, Eastern New York, edited by D.H. Cadwell, pages 121-142. New York State Museum Bulletin455. Albany. Flick,A.C . l 929a. New Sources on the Clinton-Sullivan Campaign in 1779. Proceedings of the Twenty-ninth Annual Meeting of the New York State Historical Association ( 1928), Vol. 27. Albany. l 929b. The Sullivan-Clinton Campaign in 1 779, Chronology and Selected Documents. The University of the State of New York. Albany. Flint, R.F. 1971. Glacial and Quaternary Geology. Wiley and Sons. New York. Follmer, L.R. 1983. Sangamon and Wisconsinan Pedogenesis in the Midwestern United States. In Late-Quaternary Environments of the United States, Vol. 1: The Late Pleistocene, edited by H.E. Wright, Jr., pp. 138-144. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Ford, L.T., Jr. 1976. Adena Sites on Chesapeake Bay. Archaeology of Eastern North America 4: 63-89. Ford, R.I. (editor) 1986. An Ethnobiology Source Book: The Uses of Plants and Animals by American Indians. Garland Press. New York.

337

Fowke , G. 1894. Fowler, M. 1959. Free, S.L. n .d.

Archaeological Investigationsinlamesand Potomac Valleys. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C . Summary Report of Modoc Rock Shelter, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956. Report of Investigations No. 8, Illinois State Museum. Springfield. Fish and Wildlife of the Catskill Region. Part II, Wildlife Resources. State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Syracuse.

Funk, R.E. 1965.

The Archaic of the Hudson Valley: New Evidence and New Interpretations. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 35(3-4) : 139-160. 1966. An Archaic Framework for the Hudson Valley. Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University. University Microfilms. Ann Arbor. 1967. Garoga: A Late Prehistoric Iroquois Village in the Mohawk Valley. In Iroquois Culture, History, and Prehistory, edited by E. Tooker, pp. 81 -84. Proceedings of the 1965 Conference on Iroquois Research. New York State Museum, Albany. 1968. A New Middle Woodland Complex in Eastern New York. New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 44: 1-7. 1972. Early Man in the Northeast and the Late-Glacial Environment. Man in the Northeast 4 : 7-39. 1973. The Westheimer Site. In Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast, by W.A. Ritchie and R.E. Funk, pp. 123153. New York State Museum and Science Service Memoir 22 . Albany. 1976. Recent Contributions to Hudson Valley Prehistory. New York State Museum and Science Service Memoir 22 . Albany. 1977a. Early to Middle Archaic Cultures in Upstate New York. In Current Perspectives in Northeastern Archeology: Essays in Honor of William A. Ritchie, edited by R.E. Funk and C.F. Hayes III. Researches and Transactions of the New York State Archeological Association 17 (1) : 21 -29. Albany and Rochester. 1977b. On "Some Paleolithic Tools from Northeast North America." Current Anthropology 18(3): 543-544. 1977c. The Earliest Aboriginal Occupations of New York State. In Archaeology and Geochronology of the Susquehanna and Schoharie Regions, edited by J.R. Cole and L.R. Godfrey, pp. 32-40. Proceedings of the Yager Conference at Hartwick College. Oneonta. 1977d. Early Cultures in the Hudson Drainage Basin. In Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironments in Northeastern North America, edited by W.S. Newman and B. Salwen. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288: 316-332. 1978a. Poaj-Pleistocene Adaptations. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, the Northeast, edited by B.G. Trigger, pages 16-27. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C . 1978b. Hudson Valley Prehistory: Current Status, Problems and Prospects. In Neighbors and Intruders:An Ethnohistorical Exploration of the Indians of Hudson's River, edited by L.M . Hauptman and J. Campisi. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnology Service, Paper No. 39, pp. 3-87. Ottawa. 1979. The Early and Middle Archaic in New York as Seen from the Upper Susquehanna Valley. New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 75: 23-38. 1982. Introduction to The Vail Site: a Palaeo-Indian Encampment in Maine, by R.M. Gramly. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, Vol. 30. 1983. The Northeastern United States. In Ancient North Americans, edited byJ.D.Jennings, pp. 302-371 . W.H . Freeman Company. San Francisco. 1989. Some Contributions of Archeology to the Study of Cave and Rockshelter Sediments: Examples from Eastern New York. Manin theNortheast37 :35-l 12 . 1991 . Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Adaptations. In The Archaeologyand Ethnohistoryofthe Lower Hudson Valley and Neighboring Regions: Essays in Honor of Louis A. Brennan, edited by H .C . Kraft, pages 49-68. Occasional Papers in Northeastern Anthropology, No. 11 . Archaeological Services, Bethlehem, Connecticut. Funk, R.E., D.W. Fisher, and E.M. Reilly, Jr. 1970. CaribouandPaleo-IndianinNewYorkState:APresumedAssociation.AmericanJournalofScie nce268: 181-186. Funk, R.E. and H. Hoagland l 972a. An Archaic Camp Site in the Upper Susquehanna Drainage. New York State Archeologica 1 Association Bulletin 44: 1-7. l 972b. The Davenport Creamery Site, Delaware County, New York. New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 56: 11-22. 338

Funk, R.E., J.T. Kirkland, B.E. Rippeteau, and D.M. Lewis 1977. Geological ContextsofArcheological Sites on the Susquehanna River Floodplain. In Guidebook to Field Excursions, New York State Geological Association, 49th Annual Meeting, edited by P. Wilson. Oneonta, New York. Funk, R.E., and P. Lord, Jr. 1972. Two Stratified Alluvial Sites in the Upper Hudson Valley. PennsylvaniaArchaeologist42(1 -2) : 27-61. Funk, R.E., and J.E. Pfeiffer. 1988. Archeological and Paleoenvironmental Investigations on Fishers Island, New York: A Preliminary Report. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 51 : 69-110. Funk, R.E., and B.E. Rippeteau 1977. Adaptation, Continuity and Change in Upper Susquehanna Prehistory. Occasional Papers in Anthropology No. 3. George's Mills, New Hampshire. Funk, R.E., B.E. Rippeteau, and R.M. Houck 1973. A Preliminary Cultural Framework for the Upper Susquehanna Valley. New York State Archeological Association Bulletin54: 11-27. 1974. Recent Research in the Upper Susquehanna Valley, New York State. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 44(3): 1-31. Funk, R.E., and F.F. Schambach 1964. Probable Plano Points in New York State. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 34(2): 90-93. Funk, R.E., G.R. Walters, W.F. Ehlers, Jr., J.E. Guilday, and G.G. Connally 1969. The Archeology of Dutchess Quarry Cave, Orange County, New York. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 39( 1-4): 7-22. Funk, R.E., P.L. Weinman and T.P. Weinman 1967. The Knapp Site: A Small Multicomponent Camp on Lake George, New York. New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 41: 1-10 . Funk, R.E., T.P. WeinmanandP.L. Weinman 1969. The Kings Road Site: A Recently Discovered Paleo-Indian Manifestation in Greene County, New York. New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 45 : 1-23. Funk, R.E. and B. Wellman l 984a. The Corditaipe Site: A Small Isolated Paleo-Indian Camp in the Upper Mohawk Valley. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12: 72-80. 1984b. Evidence of Early Holocene Occupations in the Upper Susquehanna Valley, New York State. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12: 81-109 . Funk, R.E., B. Wellman, and R. Elliott 1989. A Major Quarry-Workshop Site Near Cherry Valley, New York. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 59(2) : 22-45. Gardner, W.M., editor 197 4. The Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex:A Preliminary Report 1971-73 Seasons. Occasional Publications 1 , Archeology Laboratory, the Catholic University. Washington, D. C . Gardner. W.M. 1975. Paleo-Indian to Early Archaic: Continuity and Change in Eastern North America during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene. Department of Anthropology, the Catholic University of America. Washington, D.C . Gaudreau, D.C . and T. Webb, III 1985. Late-Quaternary Pollen Stratigraphy and Isochrone Maps for the Northeastern United States. In Pollen Records of Late-QuaternaryNorthAmericanSediments,editedbyV.M.Bryant,Jr.andR.G .Holloway,pp. 247-280.American Association of Stratigraphic Palynology Foundation. George, R.L. and C .E. Davis 1986. A Dated Brewerton Component in Armstrong County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 56( 1-2) : 12-20. Gibson, S. 1968. The Oran-Barnes Site. Chenango Chapter, New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 10( 1) . Goddard, I. 1978. Delaware. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, Northeast, edited by B.G. Trigger, pages 213-219. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C . Goode, P.J., and E.B. Espenshade, Jr. 1950. Goode's School Atlas. Rand McNally and Company. New York. Gordon. R.B. 1983. History of Sea Level Changes along the Connecticut Shore. In Connecticut Archaeology:Past, Present, and Future. edited by R.E. Dewar, K.L. Feder, and D.A. Poirier, pages 61 -78. Occasional Papers in Anthropology, Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut. Storrs.

339

Gramly, R.M . 1977a . Deerskins and Hunting Territories: Competition for a Scarce Resource of the Northeastern Woodlands. American Antiquity42(4) : 601 -605. l 977b. Archaeological Investigations at Pipestave Hollow, Mt. Sinai Harbor, Long Island: A Preliminary Report. Anthropology 1 (1) : 20-32 . 1982. The Vail Site: A Palaeo-Indian Encampment in Maine. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences 30. Gramly, R.M. and R.E. Funk 1990. What Is Known and Not Known About the Human Occupation of the Northeastern United States Until 10 ,000 B.P. Archaeology of Eastern North America 18: 5-32. 1991 . Olive Branch: A Large Dalton and Pre-Dalton Encampment at Thebes Gap, Alexander County, Illinois. In The Archaic Period in the Mid-South , edited byC.H . McN utt, pages 23-33. Occasional Papers No. 16, Anthropological Research Center, Memphis State University. Gramly, R.M. andJ. Lothrop 1984. Archaeologicallnvestigations ofthe Potts Site, Oswego County, New York, 1982 and 1983. Archaeology ofEastern NorthAmerica 12 : 122-158. Granger, J.E., Jr. 1978. Meadowood Phase Settlement Pattern in the Niagara Frontier Region of Western New York State. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 65 . Ann Arbor. Graymont, B. 1972. The Iroquois in the American Revolution. Syracuse University Press. Syracuse. Grayson, D.K. 1970. Statistical Inference and Northeastern Adena. American Antiquity 35 ( 1) : 102-104. 1974. The Riverhaven No. 2 Vertebrate Fauna: Comments on Methods in Faunal Analysis and on Aspects of the Subsistence Potential of Prehistoric New York. Man in the Northeast 8 : 23-39. Greeley, J.R. 1936. Fishes of the Area with Annotated List. In A Biological Survey of the Delaware and Susquehanna Watersheds, pp. 45-88. New York State Conservation Department, Biological Survey X. Albany. Greene, C.W. 1936. Stocking Policy for the Waters of the Delaware and Susquehanna Watersheds and Discussion of Fish Management Policies. In A Biological Survey of the Delaware and Susquehanna Watersheds. Supplemental to Twenty-Fifth Annual Report, 1935, pp. 19-44. New York State Conservation Department. Albany. Griffin, J.B. 1931 . Griffin Excavation: Spanish Hill. Ms. No. 1, on File, Division of Archaeology, William Penn Memorial Museum. Harrisburg. 1943. The Iroquois in American Prehistory. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters, vol. 29. Norwood. 1952 . Culture Periods in Eastern United States Archeology. In Archeology of Eastern United States, edited by J.B. Griffin, pages 352-364. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. 1964. The Northeast Woodlands Area. In Prehistoric Man in the New World, edited by J.D. Jennings and E. Norbeck. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. Griffin,J.W. 1974 . Investigation s in Russell Cave. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Publications in Archeology 13. Washington, D.C . Grimes, J.R., W. Eldridge, B.G . Grimes, A. Vaccaro, F. Vaccaro, J. Vaccaro , N. Vaccaro and A. Orsini. 1984. Bull Brook II. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12: 159-183. Guilday, J.E. 1967. The Climatic Significance of the Hosterman's Pit Local Fauna, Centre County, Pennsylvania. American Antiquity 32(2) : 231-232 . 1968. Archaeological Evidence of Caribou from New York and Massachusetts. Journal of Mammalogy49(2): 344-345. Guilday, J.E., H .W. Hamilton, and A.D. McCrady 1966. The Bone Breccia of Bootlegger Sink, York County, Pa. Annals of Carnegie Museum, 38: 145-163. 1969. The Pleistocene Vertebrate Fauna of Robinson Cave, Overton County, Tennesee. Palaeovertebrata 2 : 25-75 . 1971 . The Welsh Cave Peccaries (Platygonus) and Associated Fauna, Kentucky Pleistocene. Annals of Carnegie Muse um 43: 249-320. 1964. New Paris No. 4: A Pleistocene Cave Depositin Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Bulletin of the National Speleological Society26(4): 121-194. 340

Hall, E.R. and K.R. Kelson 1959. The Mammals of North America. Ronald Press. New York. Halls, L.K. andJ.J. Stransky 1971 . Atlas of Southern Forest Game. Southern Experimental Station. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C . Halsey, F.W. 1901. The Old New York Frontier. Charles Scribner's Sons. New York. Halsey, F.W., Editor 1906. A Tour ofFour Great Rivers. Being a Journal of Richard Smith. The Hudson, Mohawk, Susquehanna and Delaware. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. Hamilton, W.J., Jr. 1943. The Mammals of Eastern United States. Comstock Publishing Company, Inc. Ithaca. Hammer,J. 1976. Identification and Distribution of Some Lithic Raw Materials from New York State. Man in the Northeast 11 : 39-62. Hanna, C .A. 1911. The Wilderness Trail. Two vols. Ames Press, Inc. New York. Harington, C .R., R. Bonnichsen, and R.E. Morlan 1975. Bones Say Man Lived in Yukon 27,000 Years Ago. Canadian Geographica1Iournal91 : 42-48. Harman, W.N. and L.P. Sohacki 1976. A Basic Limnologyof Otsego Lake (Summary of Research 1968-1975). Occasional Paper No. 3. S.U.N.Y. College at Oneonta Biological Field Station. Cooperstown, New York. Harris, M. 1968. The Rise of Anthropological Theory. Crowell. New York. 1980. Cultural Materialism : The Struggle For A Science of Culture. Vintage Books. New York Hartgen Archeological Associates 1988. Otego Yard Historic and Prehistoric Site. Report submitted to Power Authority of the State of New York concerning cultural resources on the Marcy South 345 KV Transmission Line. New York, New York. 1989. Ouleout Site. Report Submitted to Power Authority of the State of New York concerning cultural resources on the Marcy South 345 KV Transmission Line. New York, New York. Hartgen, K. 1974. Archeological Investigations in the Proposed Breakabeen-Blenheim Pumped Storage Project Area . Report submitted to Power Authority of the State of New York. Hawley,G. n .d . Unpublished Manuscript Journal. Congregational Library. Boston. Hayes, C .F. III 1962. Another Prehistoric Iroquois Site in the Bristol Hills , New York. Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences, Museum Service35 (1) : 6-9 1963. The Excavation of Two Iroquois Structures. Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences, Museum Service 36(10): 168-171. 1965. A Regional Approach to Archeology - A Cultural Sample from the Cornish Site. Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences, Museum Service38(5-6) : 45-54. Hayes, C.F. III, and L. Bergs 1969. A Progress Report on an Archaic Site on the Farrell Farm: The Cole Gravel Pit. New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 4 7 : 1-12. Hayes, V.N. 1968. The Temple Concord Site, Binghamton, New York. Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Binghamton. Haynes, C .V. 1967. Carbon-14 dates and Early Man in the New World. In Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Ca use, edited by P .S. Martin and H .E. Wright, Jr., pp. 267-286. Proceedings on the 7th Congress of the International Association for Quaternary Research, No. 6 . Yale University Press. New Haven. 1969. The Earliest Americans. Science 166: 709-715. 1977. When and from Where Did Man Arrive in Northeastern North America: A Discussion. In Amerinds and their Paleoenvironmentsin Northeastern North America, edited by W.S. Newman and B. Salwen. Annals ofthe New York Academy of Sciences 288: 165-166.

341

1982. 1988.

Were Clovis Progenitors in Beringia? In Paleoecology of Beringia, pp. 383-398. Academic Press. New York. Paleo-Indian Charcoal from Meadowcroft Rockshelter: Is Contamination a Problem? American Antiquity 45(3): 582-587. Haynes, C .V., DJ. Donahue, A.J.T. Jull and T.H . Zabel. 1984. Application of Accelerator Dating to Fluted Point Paleoindian Sites. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12:184-191. Heisey, H .W. 1971 . An Interpretation of Shenks Ferry Ceramics. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 41 (4) : 44-70 . Heisey, H.W., and J.P. Witmer 1964. The Shenk's Ferry People: A Site and some Generalities. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 34(1) : 8-34. Herrick, J.W. 1977. Iroquois Medical Botany. Ph.D. Dissertation, State University of New York at Albany. University Microfilms. Ann Arbor. Hesse, F.J. 1968. The Fredenburg Site: A Single Compone..t Site of the Fox Creek Complex. New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 44: 27-32 . 1975. The Egli and Lord Sites: the Historic Component - "Unadilla" 1753-1778. New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 63: 14-31. Hester, J.J. 1960. Late Pleistocene Extinction and Radiocarbon Dating. American Antiquity 26( 1): 58-77 . Hibbard, C.W., D.E. Ray, D.E. Savage, D.W. Taylor, and J.E. Guilday 1965. Quaternary Mammals of North America. In The Quaternary of the United States, edited by H .E. Wright and D.G. Frey, pp. 509-526. Princeton University Press. Princeton. Hill,R.B. 1938a. Classification of Aboriginal Cultures. In A Report on the Susquehanna River Expedition, edited by W.K. Moorehead and A.C . Parker. Andover Press. Andover. 1938b. The Willard E. Yager Collection. In A Report on the Susquehanna River Expedition, edited by W.K. Moorehead and A.C . Parker. Andover Press. Andover. Hinman,M. 1975. Onaquaga: Hub of the Border Wars. Valley Offset. Deposit, New York. Hladio, S. 1969. Floods on Susquehanna River at Oneonta, New York. U.S . Geological Survey Hydrological Investigations Atlas HA-350. Washington, D.C . Hodder, I. 1979. Economic and Social Stress and Material Culture Patterns. American Antiquity44(3): 446-454. Hoffman,C . 1983. Radiocarbon and Reality: The Fifth Millenium B.P. in Southern New England. Man in the Northeast 26: 33-53. Hole, F. and R.F. Heizer 1969. An Introduction to Prehistoric Archeology. (Second edition.) Holt, Rinehart, Winston. New York. Hosbach, R.E. 1973. The Mor-Nor Site. Chenango Chapter, New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 14(2). Houart, G .L. 1972. Koster: A Stratified Archaic Site in the Illinois Valley. Illinois State Museum Report of Investigations No. 22. Springfield. Hunt, G .T. 1940. The Wars of the Iroquois. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison. Irving, W.N. 1982. Pleistocene Cultures in Old Crow Basin: Interim Report. In Peopling of the New World, edited by J.E. Ericson, et al., pp. 69-79. Ballena Press. Los Altos. Irving, W.N. and C .R. Harington 1973. Upper Pleistocene Radiocarbon dated Artifacts from the Northern Yukon. Science 179: 335-340. Irwin-Williams, C . 1981 . Commentary on Geologic Evidence for Age of Deposits at Hueyatlaco Archaeological Site, Valsequillo, Mexico. Quaternary Research 16(2): 258. Jameson, J.F. 1909. Narratives of New Netherland, 1609-1664. Charles Scribner's Sons. New York. 342

Jennings, F. 1968. Glory, Death and Transfiguration: The Susquehannock Indians in the Seventeenth Century. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 112(1): 15-53. 1978. Susquehannock. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15; Northeast, edited by B.G. Trigger, pp. 362367. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. Johnson, G. 1881. History of Cecil County, Maryland. (Reprinted Regional Publishing Co., Baltimore 1972 .) Johnson, W.C. 1976. The Late Woodland Period in Northwestern Pennsylvania. In The Late Prehistory of the Lake Erie Drainage Basin, edited by David S. Brose, pp. 48-75. Cleveland Museum of Natural History. Jones, R.W. 1931. The Clemson Mound. Fifth Report of the Pennsylvania Historical Commision: 89-111. Harrisburg. Juli, H., and K. McBride 1984. The Early and Middle Woodland Periods of Connecticut Prehistory: Focus on the Lower Connecticut River Valley. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 4 7 : 89-98. Kaeser, E.J. 1968. The Middle Woodland Placement of Steubenville-like Points in Coastal New York's Abbott Complex. New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 44: 8-26. Karrow, P.F., B.G. Warner, and P. Fritz 1984. Corry Bog, Pennsylvania: A Case Study of the Radiocarbon Dating of Marl. Quaternary Research 21 (3): 326-336. Keeley, L.H. and M.H. Newcomer 1977. Microwear Analysis of Experimental Flint Tools: A Test Case. Journal of Archaeological Science 4 : 29-62 . Kennedy, C .C. 1966. Preliminary Report on the Morrison's Island-6 Site. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 206: 100-124. Ottawa. Kent, B.C. 1984. Susquehanna's Indians. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Anthropological Series No. 6 . Harrisburg. Kenyon, I. 1980. The Satchell Complex in Ontario: A Perspective from the Ausable Valley. Ontario Archaeology 34: 17-43. Kinsey, W.F., III 1959. Recent Excavations on Bare Island in Pennsylvania: The Kent-Hally Site. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 29(3-4) : 109-133. 1974. Early to Middle Woodland Cultural Complexes on the Piedmont and Coastal Plain. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 44(4): 9-19. Kinsey, W.F. III, H.C. Kraft, P. Marchiando, and DJ. Werner 1972. Archeology in the Upper Delaware Valley. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Anthropological Series, No. 2 . Harrisburg. Kirkland, J.T. 1973. Glacial Geology of the Western Catskills. Ph.D. Dissertation, State University of New York at Binghamton. University Microfilms. Ann Arbor. 1977. On "Some Paleolithic Tools from Northeast North America". Current Anthropology 18(3): 544-545. Kirkland, J.T. and R.E. Funk 1978. Archeological Predictions from the Distribution of Floodplain Sediments along the Upper Susquehanna River Valley, New York. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs l 0(7): 435 . 1979. Archeological Chronology and Postglacial Alluvial Regimes in the Upper Susquehanna River Valley, New York. Northeastern Geology 1(1): 60-68. Kirkland, J.T., R.E. Funk, D.M. Lewis, and B.E. Rippeteau 1976. Floodplain Sediments and Channel Stability Interpreted from Archeological Data in the Upper Susquehanna River Valley, New York. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 8(2): 211. Knoerl, J.J., editor 1977. Brackel Creek Project: Reconnaissance Survey and Site Examination of PIN 9034.00. Submitted to New York State Department of Transportation by the State Education Department. Knox, J.C. 1983. Responses of River Systems to Holocene Climates. In Late-Quaternary Environments of the United States, Vol. 2: The Holocene, edited by H.E. Wright, Jr., pp. 26-41. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis.

343

Kopper, J.S., R.E. Funk, and L. Dumont 1980. Additional Paleo-Indian and Archaic Materials from the Dutchess Quarry Cave Area, Orange County, New York. Archaeology of Eastern North America 8: 125-137. Kraft, H.C. 1970. The Miller Field Site, Warren County, New Jersey. Part 1. The Archaic and Transitional Stages. Seton Hall University Press. South Orange. 1973. The Plenge Site: A Paleo-Indian Occupation Site in New Jersey. Archaeology of Eastern North America 1 (1): 56-117. l 975a. Archaeology of the Tocks Island Area. Seton Hall University Press. South Orange. l 975b. The Late Woodland Pottery of the Upper Delaware Valley: A Survey and Reevaluation. Archaeology ofEastern North America 3: 101-140. 1976. The Rosenkrans Site, an Adena-Related MortuaryComplexin the Upper Delaware Valley, New Jersey. Archaeology of Eastern North America 4 : 9-50. 1977. The Paleo-Indian Sites at Port Mobil, Staten Island. In Current Perspectives in Northeastern Archeology: Essays in Honor of William A. Ritchie, edited by R.E. Funk and C .F. Hayes III. Researches and Transactions of the New York State Archeological Association 17 ( 1) : 1-19. Albany and Rochester. 1978. The Minisink Site: A Reevaluation ofa La.te Prehistoric and Early Historic Contact Site in Sussex County, New Jersey. Archaeological Research Center, Seton Hall University Museum. South Orange. 1986. The Lenape: Archaeology, History and Ethnography. New Jersey Historical Society, Newark, New Jersey. Krall, D. 1972. Till Stratigraphy and the Olean Ice Retreat in East-Central New York. Ph.D. Dissertation, Rutgers University. University Microfilms. Ann Arbor. Kraus , B.S. 1944. Acculturation: A New Approach to the Iroquoian Problem . American Antiquity9(3): 302-318. Krieger, A.D. 1964. EarlyManintheNewWorld. In Prehistoric Manin the New World, edited byJ.D.JenningsandE. Norbeck, pp. 2381 . University of Chicago Press. Chicago. Kroeber, A.L. 1939. Cultural and Natural Areas ofNative North America. University of California Publications inAmericanArchaeology and Ethnology, vol. 38. Berkeley. Kroeber, A.L. and C . Kluckhohn 1963. Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Random House, Inc. New York. Lahren, L. and R. Bonnichsen 1974. Bone Foreshafts from a Clovis Burial in Southeastern Montana. Science 186: 147-150. Landy, D. 1978. Tuscarora among the Iroquois. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15: Northeast, edited by B.G . Trigger, pp. 198-212. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C . Laub, R.S., N.G . Miller, and D.W. Steadman (editors) 1988. La.te Pleistocene and Early Holocene Paleoecology and Archeology of the Eastern Great La.kes Region. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, vol. 33. Buffalo. Laubenfels, DJ. 1977 Soil. In Geographyof New York State, edited by J.H . Thompson, pp. 104-110. Syracuse University Press. Syracuse. Laux, B. 1970. Otsego County Soil Interpretation Report and Mesa Scale Soil Map. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C . Lavin, L. 1983. Patterns of Chert Acquisition among Woodland Groups within the Delaware River Valley: A Lithological Approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, New York University. University Microfilms. Ann Arbor. 1984. Connecticut Prehistory: A Synthesis of Current Archaeological Investigations. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 4 7 : 5-40. Lavin, L. and D.R. Prothero 1981. Microscopic Analysis of Cherts within and Adjacent to the Delaware River Watershed. Man in the Northeast 21: 3-17. Lee, R.B. 1968. What Hunters Do for a Living, or How to Make Out on Scarce Resources. In Man the Hunter, edited by R.B. Lee and I. DeVore, pp. 30-48. Aldine. Chicago. 344

Lee, R.B. and I. DeVore, editors. 1968. Man the Hunter. Aldine. Chicago. Lenig, Donald 1965. The Oak Hill Horizon and Its Relation to the Development of Five Nations Iroquois Culture. Researches and Transactions of the New York State Archeological Association 15( 1) . Rochester. Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. W.H . Freeman and Company. San Francisco. Levesque, Abbe R., F.F. Osborne, and J.V. Wright 1964. Le Gisement de Batiscan . Eludes Anthropologiques, Musee National du Canada, No. 6. Ottawa. Lewis, T. M. N., and M. K. Lewis 1961 . Eva: An Archaic site. University of Tennessee Press. Knoxville. Lindner, C. 1983. Evidence Against Prehistoric Digging Tools of Sandstone in Central New York State. Man in the Northeast 26: 55-73. Lopez, J. 1956. The Pelham Boulder Site, Bronx County, New York. Eastern States Archaeological Federation Bulletin 15: 15. Loring, S. 1980. Paleo-Indian Hunters and the Champlain Sea: A Presumed Association. Man in the Northeast 19: 15-41 . Lounsbury, F. 1961 . Iroquois-Cherokee Linguistic Relations. Symposium on Cherokee and Iroquois Culture, edited by W.N. Fenton andJ. Gulick. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 180: 11-17. Washington, D.C. 1978. Iroquoian Languages. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15: Northeast, edited by B.G . Trigger, pp. 334-343. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. Lucy, C. 1959. Pottery Types of the Upper Susquehanna. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 29(1): 28-37 . Lundelius, E.L., Jr., R.W. Graham, E. Anderson, J. Guilday, J.A. Holman, D.W. Steadman, and S.D. Webb 1983. Terrestrial Vertebrate Faunas. In Late-Quaternary Environments of the Eastern United States, Volume 1: The Late Pleistocene, edited by S.C . Porter, pages 311-353. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis. MacDonald, G.F. 1968. Debert: A Paleo-Indian Site in Central Nova Scotia. National Museum of Canada, Anthropological Papers 16. Ottawa. MacNeish, R.S. l 952a. Iroquois Pottery Types. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 124. Ottawa. l 952b. The Archeology of the Northeastern United States. In Archeology of Eastern United States, edited by J.B. Griffin, pp. 46-58. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. 1976. Early Man in the New World. American Scientist 63(3): 316-327. 1983. Mesoamerica. In Early Man in the New World, edited by R. Shutler, Jr. pp. 125-135. Sage. Beverly Hills. Mason, R. J. 1967. The North Bay Component at the Porte des Morts Sites, Door County, Wisconsin. Wisconsin Archaeologist 48( 4) . 1981 . Great Lakes Archaeology. Academic Press. New York. Mason, R.J. and C . Irwin 1960. An Eden-Scotsbluff Burialin Northeastern Wisconsin. AmericanAntiquity26(1): 43-57. Mayer-Oakes, W. 1955. Prehistory of the Upper Ohio Valley: An Introductory Archeological Study. Annals of the Carnegie Museum, No. 34, Anthropological Series No. 2. Pittsburgh. McBride, K.A. and R.E. Dewar 1981. Prehistoric Settlement in the Lower Connecticut River Valley. Man in theNortheast22: 37-66. McCabe, J.T. 1975. Vegetal Resources of the Upper Susquehanna and Mohawk Drainage Systems. Unpublished Manuscript on file, Public Archaeology Facility, S.U .N.Y. Binghamton. McCracken, R.J. 1985. Susquehannocks, Brule and Carantouannais: A Continuing Research Problem. The Bulletin and Journal of Archaeology for New York State 91 : 39-51.

345

McGhee, R. and J. A. Tuck 1975. An Archaic Sequence from the Strait of Belle Isle, Labrador. Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper No. 34. National Museum of Man Mercury Series. Ottawa. McKern, W. C. 1939. The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Culture Study. AmericanAntiquity4(4): 310-313. McManamon, F. 1978. The Osterhoudt Site. In the Salvage Excavation of PINs 9357 .08 and 9357 .12, I-88, edited by A. Dekin. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to the New York State Department of Transportation by the State Education Department. McNett, C .W. Jr., S.B. Marshall, and E.E. McDowell 1975. Second Season of the Upper Delaware Valley Early Man Project. Department of Anthropology, the American University, Washington, D.C. (Mimeographed.) McNett, C .W. Jr., and B.A. McMillan 1974. First Season of the Upper Delaware Valley Early Man Project. Department of Anthropology, the American University, Washington, D.C . (Mimeographed.) 1977. The Shawnee-Minisink Site. In Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironments in Northeastern North America, edited by W.S. Newman and B. Salwen. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288: 282-296. Mead, J.I. 1980. Is It Really That Old? Comment About the Meadowcroft Rockshelter "Overview." American Antiquity 43(3): 579-582. Meinig, D.W. 1977a. The Colonial Period, 1607-1775. In Geography of New York State, edited byJ.H. Thompson, pp. 121-139. Syracuse University Press. Syracuse. 1977b. Geography of Expansion, 1785-1855. In GeographyofNewYorkState, edited byJ. H. Thompson, pp. 140-171 . Syracuse University Press. Syracuse. 1977c. Elaboration and Change, 1850's-1960's. In GeographyofNewYorkState,editedbyJ.H. Thompson, pp. 172-196. Syracuse University Press. Syracuse. Melia,M. 1975. Late Wisconsin Deg laciation and Postg lacial Vegetation Change of the Upper Susquehanna River Drainage in EastCentral New York. Master's Thesis, Department of Earth Science, State University of New York at Oneonta. Meltzer, DJ., andJ. I. Mead 1983. The Timing of Late Pleistocene Mammalian Extinctions in North America. Quaternary Research 19( l) : 130-135. Merriam, C.H. 1898. Life Zones and Crop Zones of the United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Division of Biological Survey Bulletin 10. Washington, D.C. Michels, J., and I.F. Smith 1967. Archaeological Investigations ofSheep Rock Shelter, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Vols. l and 2. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University. University Park. Michels, J., andJ.S. Dutt 1968. Archaeological Investigations of Sheep Rock Shelter, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania State University. University Park. Miller, N.G. 1973. Late-glacial and Post-glacial Vegetation Change in Southwestern New York State . New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin 420. Albany. Miller, R.R. 1965. Quaternary Freshwater Fishes of North America. In The Quaternary of North America, edited by H .E. Wright and D.G. Frey, pp. 569-582. Princeton University Press. Princeton. Mills,W.C. 1922. Exploration of the Mound City Group. Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 31 (4): 423-584. Mithun,M. 1984. The Proto-Iroquoians: Cultural Reconstruction from Lexical Materials. In Extending the Rafters: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Iroquoian Studies, edited by M.K. Foster, J. Campisi, and M. Mithun, pp 259-281 . State University of New York Press. Albany. Moeller, R. 1980. 6LF2 l: A Paleo-Indian Site in Western Connecticut. Occasional Paper No. 2, American Indian Archaeological Institute. Washington, Connecticut. 346

Mooney, J. 1928.

The Aboriginal Population of America North of Mexico. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 80(7) . Washington, D.C .

Moore, E.M. 1936. Introduction by Emmeline Moore. In A Biological Survey of the Delaware and Susquehanna Watersheds . Supplemental to Twenty-fifth Annual Report, 1935, pp. 9-18. New York State Conservation Department. Albany. Moorehead, W.K. 1918. A Brief Summary ofthe Archaeology of the Susquehanna. Second Report of the Pennsylvania Historical Commission : 117-126. Harrisburg. Moorehead, W.K. andA.C. Parker, editors 1938. A Report of the Susquehanna River Expedition . Andover Press. Andover. Morgan, L.H. 1962. The Leaque of the Iroquois. Corinth. New York. Morlan, R.E. 1980. Taphonomy and Archaeology in the Upper Pleistocene of the Northern Yukon Territory: A Glimpse of the Peopling of the New World. National Museum of Canada, Mercury Series. Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 94. 1983. Pre-ClovisOccupationNorthofthelceSheets. In Early Manin the New World, edited by R. Shutler,Jr., pp. 47-63. Sage. Beverly Hills. Morrison, S.E. 1971 . The European Discovery of America: The Northern Voyages A.D. 500-1800. Oxford University Press. New York. Mueller, J.W. 1974. The Use of Sampling in Archaeological Survey. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, No. 28. American Antiquity 39(2) . Muenscher, W.C . 1936. Aquatic Vegetation of the Susquehanna and Delaware Watersheds. In A Biological Survey of the Delaware and Susquehanna Watersheds, pp. 205-221 . New York State Conservation Department , Biological Survey X. Albany. Murray, L.W. 1921. Aboriginal Sites near "Teaoga" , Now Athens, Pennsylvania. American Anthropologist 23: 183-214, 268-297 . Murray, L.W., editor 1931 . Selected Manuscripts of GeneralJohn S . Clark Relating to the Aboriginal History of the Susquehanna . Publications of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology 1. Athens, Pennsylvania . New,J.G. 1973. Vertebrate Studies. In Fifth Annual Report, S. U.N . Y. College at Oneonta Biological Field Station, pp. 48-53 . Oneonta . 1976. Vertebrate Studies. In Eighth Annual Report, S . U.N. Y. College at Oneonta Biological Field Station, pp. 16-1 7 . Oneonta . New York Historical Manuscripts - Dutch 1978. Delaware Papers. Volumes 18, 19. Genealogical Publishing Company. Baltimore. New York State Conservation Department 1936. A Biological Survey of the Delaware and Susqehanna Watersheds. New York State Conservation Department, Biological Survey X. Albany. Nicholas, G .P. 1987. Rethinking the Early Archaic. Archaeology of Eastern North America 15: 99-124. Nicholas, J. 1967. Vegetation of Sterling Forest Since the last Ice Age. Sarracenia 1: 73-85 . 1968. late Pleistocene Palynology of Southeastern New York and Northern New Jersey. Ph.D. Dissertation, New York University. University Microfilms. Ann Arbor. O'Callaghan. E.B., editor 1846-1860. Documents Relating to the Colonial History of the State of New York. 15 Vols. Albany. Odell, T.T. 1936. lakes and Ponds of the Delaware and Susquehanna Watersheds. In A Biological Survey of the Delaware and Susquehanna Watersheds. New York State Conservation Department, Biological Survey X. Albany. Ogden,J.G . 1965. Pleistocene Pollen Records from Eastern North America. Botanical Review 31 (3) : 481-504.

347

l 977a. The Late Quaternary Paleoenvironmental Record of Northeastern North America. In Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironmentsin Northeastern North America, edited by W.S. Newman and B. Salwen. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288: 16-34. l 977b. The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon Dating. In Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironments in Northeastern North America , edited by W.S. Newman and B. Salwen. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288: 167-173. Palmer, R. 1954. The Mammal Guide. Doubleday and Company, Inc. Garden City, N.Y. Parker, A.C . 1910. Iroquois Uses of Maize and Other Food Plants. New York State Museum Bulletin 144. Albany. 1922. TheArcheological History of New York State. New York State Museum and Science Service, Bulletins 235-238. Albany. 1924. The Great Algonkian Flint Mines at Coxsackie. Researches and Transactions, New York State Archeological Association 4(4) . Rochester. 1968. Iroquois Uses of Maize and Other Food Plants. In Parker on the Iroquois, edited by W.N. Fenton. Syracuse University Press. Syracuse. Parmalee, P.W. and W.E. Klippel 1974. Freshwater Mussels as a Prehistoric Food Resource. American Antiquity 39(3): 421-434. Peterson, J.B. 1980. The Middle Woodland Ceramics of the WinooskiSiteA.D. 1-1000. New Series, Monograph No. 1, The Vermont Archaeological Society. Burlington. Peterson, J.B., and M.W . Power 1982. The Winooski Site and the Middle Woodland Period in the Northeast. Report Submitted to the Interagency Archeological Services, Mid-Atlantic Region, National Park Service. Pfeiffer, J. 1980. The Griffin Site: A Susquehanna Cremation Burial in Southern Connecticut. Man in the Northeast 19: 129-133. 1984. The Late and Terminal Archaic Periods of Connecticut's Prehistory. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut47 : 73-88. 1986. Dill Farm, Locus 1: Early and Middle Archaic Components in Southern New England. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 49: 19-36. Pfeiffer, S. 1977. The Skeletal Biology ofArchaic Populations of the Great La.kesRegion. Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 64. National Museum of Man Mercury Series. Ottawa. Power, M.W., F.L. Cowan, and J.B. Peterson 1980. Artifact Variability at the Multicomponent Winooski Site. Man in the Northeast 19: 43-55 . Prezzano, S.C., editor 1978. State University at Binghamton Archaeological Survey, 1977 Highway Program: PIN 9221.00, SuBi 651 (Oaks Creek), Otsego County, New York. Submitted to New York State Department of Transportation by the State Education Department. Prezzano, S.C., and R.L. Ewing 1983. PIN 9357. 08(01), Colliersville Connector, Otsego County, New York. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to New York State Department of Transportation by the State Education Department. Prezzano, S.C., and N. Versaggi 1979. PIN 9016.09, Routes 12 and 79, Broome County, New York. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to New York State Department of Transportation by the State Education Department. Price, BJ. 1982. Cultural Materialism: A Theoretical Overview. American Antiquity 4 7 (4) : 709-7 44. Prufer, O.H. 1964. The McGraw Site: A Study in Hopewellian Dynamics. Scientific Publications of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, new series , Vol. 4, No. 1. Cleveland. Puniello, A. J. 1980. Iroquois Series Ceramics in the Upper Delaware Valley, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In Proceedings of the 1979 Iroquois Pottery Conference, edited by C. F. Hayes III, pp. 147 -155. Research Records No. 13, Rochester Museum and Science Center. Rochester. Raemsch, B.E . 1968. Artifacts from Mid-Wisconsin Gravels near Oneonta, New York. Yager Museum Publications in Anthropology Bulletin 1: 1-8. Oneonta. 348

1969. 1970. 1977.

Archaeology Studies in Central N .Y. New York Glaciogram 4( 1). Preliminary Report on Adequentaga. Yager Museum Publications in Anthropology Bulletin 2: 1-19. Oneonta. Some Early Man Cultures of the Catskill Region. In Archaeology and Geochronology of the Susquehanna and Schoharie Regions, edited byJ.R. ColeandL.R. Godfrey, pp. 1-16. Hartwick College. Oneonta. Raemsch, B.E. and W.W. Vernon 1977. Some Paleolithic Tools from Northeast North America. Current Anthropology 18(1) : 97-99. Raemsch, B.E. , W.W. Vernon, and G.F. Carter 1978. On Criticisms of "Some Paleolithic Tools from Northeast North America" . Current Anthropology 19( 1) : 15 7 -160 . Randall , A. 1972. Records of Wells and Test Borings in the Susquehanna River Basin, New York. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Bulletin 69. Albany. Redman, C .L. 197 4 . Archeological Sampling Strategies. Addison-Wesley Modules in Anthropology, No. 55. Reading, Massachusetts. Regensburg , R. A. 1971. The Savich Farm Site: A Preliminary Report. Massachusetts Archaeological Society Bulletin 32( 1-2): 20-23 . Rhoades, R.E. 1978. Archaeological Use and Abuse of Ecological Concepts and Studies: The Ecotone Example. American Antiquity 43: 608-614 . Rhoades, R.E. and D.A. Phillips, Jr. 1980. Borrowed Concepts: Reply to Davy. American Antiquity 45(2) : 349-351 . Rippeteau, B.E. l 973a. The Principles and Theory of Radiocarbon Dating. Ph.D. Dissertation, Case Western Reserve University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. l 973b. Late Archaic, Transitional, and Early Woodland Tree Ring Corrected Dates in the Northeastern United States. Man in theNortheast6: 61-67 . 197 4 . Using C-14 Calendrical Corrections and Conventions. Archaeology of Eastern North America 2 ( 1): 29-37. 1977. New Data and Models for 8, 000 Years of Archaic Societies and Their Environments in the Upper Susquehanna Valley, New York State. In Amerinds and their Paleoenvironments in Northeastern North America, edited by W.S. Newman and B. Salwe!li. Annals ofthe New York Academy of Sciences 288: 392-399. 1978. The Upper Susquehanna Valley Iroquois: An Iroquoian Enigma. In Essays in Northeastern Anthropology in Memory ofMarian E. White, edited by W.E. Engelbrecht and D.K. Grayson. Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology No. 5, pp. 123-151. Franklin Pierce College. Rindge, N.H. Rippeteau, B.E., and K. Gutierrez 1976. PIN9024.00, County Road35, Chenango County, New York. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to New York State Department of Transportation by the State Education Department. Ritchie, W.A. 1928. An Algonkian Village Site near Levanna, New York. Research Records No. 1, Rochester Municipal Museum. Rochester. 1929. Hammerstones, Anvils and Certain Pitted Stones. Researches and Transactions, New York State Archeological Association, 7(2) : 1-2 9 . Rochester. 1932 . The Lamoka Lake Site. Researches and Transactions, New York State Archeological Association 7 (4) . Rochester. 1934. An Algonkin-lroquois Contact Site on Castle Creek, Broome County, N. Y. Research Records of the Rochester Municipal Museum, No. 2 . Rochester. 1936. New Evidence Relating to the Archaic Occupation of New York. Researches and Transactions, New York State Archaeological Association 8( 1) . Rochester. l 938a. A Perspective of Northeastern Archaeology. American Antiquity4(2): 94-112 . l 938b. A Unique Prehistoric Workshop Site. Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences, Museum Service, April: -1-6. 1939. Excavations in a Prehistoric Village Site near Bainbridge, New York. Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences, Museum Service, April-May: 86-90. 1940. Two Prehistoric Village Sites at Brewerton, New York. Research Records of the Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences, No. 5 . Rochester. 1944. The Pre-Iroquoian Occupations of New York State. Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences, Memoir 1. Rochester. 1945. An Early Site in Cayuga County, New York. Research Records of the Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences, No. 7 . Rochester. 1946. A Stratified Prehistoric Site at Brewerton, New York. Researches and Transactions, New York State Archaeological Association 11 (1) . Rochester. 349

1947.

Archaeological Evidence for Ceremonialism in the Owasco Culture. Researches and Transactions, New York State Archaeological Association 11 (2) . Rochester. 1949. The Bell-Philhower Site, Sussex County, New Jersey. Indiana Historical Society, Prehistoric Research Series 3(2). Indianapolis. 1951. A Current Synthesis of New York Prehistory. American Antiquity 18(3): 249-258 . 1952. The Chance Horizon, an Early Stage ofMohawk Iroquois Cultural Development. New York State Museum, Circular 29. Albany. 1953. A Probable Paleo-Indian Site in Vermont. American Antiquity 23(3) : 249-258. 1954. Dutch Hollow, an Early Historic Period Seneca Site in LJvingston County, New York. Researches and Transactions of the New York State Archaeological Association 13( 1) . Rochester. 1955a. The Northeastern Archaic -A Review. (Mimeographed.) New York State Museum. Albany. 1955b. Recent Discoveries Suggesting an Early Woodland Burial Cult in the Northeast. New York State Museum and Science Service Circular 40. Albany. 1956. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in Northeastern North America. In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the New World, edited by G .R. Willey. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 23: 72-80. New York. 1957. Traces of Early Man in the Northeast. New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin 358. Albany. 1958. An Introduction to Hudson Valley Prehistory. New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin 367. Albany. 1959. The Stony Brook Site and its Relation to Archaic and Transitional Cultures on Long Island. New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin 372. Albany. 196la. Iroquois Archaeology and Settlement Patterns. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 180: 25-38. Washington, D.C . 1961 b. A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin 384. Albany. l 965a. The Archaeology of New York State. Natural History Press. Garden City, New York. l 965b. The "Small Stemmed Point" in New England. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 35(3-4): 134-138. l 965c. The Development of Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast and their Socio-economic Correlates. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 3, Proceedings of the 21st Southeastern Archaeological Conference, pp. 25-29. Cambridge. 1968. The KI Site, the Vergennes Phase, and the Laurentian Tradition. New YorkStateArcheologicalAssociation Bulletin 42 : 1-5. l 969a. The Archaeology of New York State. Second edition. Natural History Press. Garden City, New York. l 969b. The Archaeology of Martha 's Vineyard: A Framework forthe Prehistory of Southern New England. Natural History Press. Garden City, New York. l 969c. The Perch Lake Mounds. New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 46: 1-10. 197 la. The Archaic in New York. New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 52: 2-12 . 1971 b. A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. Revised edition. New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin 384. Albany. 1979a. The Otter Creek No. 2 Site in Rutland County, Vermont. New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 76: 1-21. l 979b. Some Regional Ecological Factors in the Prehistory of Man in the Northeast. New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 75: 14-23. 1980. The Archaeology of New York State. Second edition (reissue) . Harbor Hill Books. Harrison, N .Y. Ritchie, W.A. and D.W. Dragoo 1960. The Eastern Dispersal of Adena. New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin 379. Albany. Ritchie, W.A. and R.E. Funk 1969. Comments on "Archaeology Studies in Central New York" by B.E. Raemsch. New York Glaciogram 4(1) . 1971 . Evidence for Early Archaic Occupations on Staten Island. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 41 (3) : 45-59. 197 3. Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. New York State Museum and Science Service Memoir 20. Albany. 1984. Paleo-Indians in New Perspective: Comments on the Assembled Papers. Archaeology of Eastern North America: 12: I-4 . Ritchie, W.A., D. Lenig, and P.S. Miller 1953. An Early Owasco Sequence in Eastern New York. New York State Museum and Science Service Circular 32. Albany. Ritchie, W.A. and R.S. MacNeish 1949. The Pre-Iroquoian Pottery of New York State. American Antiquity 15(2) : 97-124.

350

Robbins, M. 1960. Wapanucket No.6. An Archaic Village in Middleboro, Massachusetts. Cohannet Chapter, Massachusetts Archeological Society. Attleboro. 1980. Wapanucket, An Archaeological Report. Massachusetts Archaeological Society. Attleboro . Roberts, A. 1980. A Geographic Approach to Southern Ontario Archaic. Archaeology of Eastern North America 8 : 28-45. 1984. Paleo-Indian on the North Shore of Lake Ontario. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12: 248-265 . Roosa, W.B. and D.B. Deller 1982. The Parkhill Complex and Eastern Great Lakes. Ontario Archaeology 37: 3-15. Rouse, I.B. 1958. The Inference of Migrations from Anthropological Evidence. In Migration in New World Culture History, edited by R. H. Thompson. University of Arizona, Social Science Bulletin 27: 63-68 . Tucson. Sahlins, M.B. and E.R. Service. 1960. Evolution and Culture. University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor. Salwen, B. 1969. A Tentative "In-Situ" Solution to the Mohegan-Pequot Problem. In An Introduction to the Archaeology and History of the Connecticut Valley Indian, edited by W.R. Young, pp. 81 -88. Springfield Museum of Science Publications, New Series 1 (1) . Springfield, Massachusetts. 1978. Indians of Southern New England and Long Island: Early Period . In Handbook ofNorth American Indians, Vol. 15: Northeast, edited by B.G. Trigger, pp. 160-176. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C . Sanger, D. 1975. Culture Change as an Adaptive Process in the Maine-Maritimes Region. Arctic Anthropology 12 (2) : 60-75 . Schoff, H .L. 1937. A Report of the Excavation of the Ancient Indian Burial Mound near Muncy, Lycoming County, Pa. Pennsylvania Archaeologist? (1) :3 -5. Schokkenbroek, A.M. 1970. A Study of New York State Gouges. M.A. Thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo. Schwartz, C .W. 1941 . Home Range of the Cottontail in Central Missouri. Journal of Mammalogy 22: 386-392. Schwartz, D. 1985. A Reevaluation of the Late Woodland Cultural Relationships in the Susquehanna Valley in Pennsylvania. Man in the Northeast 29: 29-54. Scoggan, H.J. 1979. The Flora of Canada . Part 4 . National Museums of Canada, National Museum of Natural Sciences, Publications in Botany 7 (4) . Scully, R.W. 1977. Stratigraphy and Pedology of Holocene Alluvum in South-Central New York. Master's Thesis, Cornell University. Scully, R.W. and R.W. Arnold 1981 . Holocene Alluvial Stratigraphy in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York. Quaternary Research 15 (3) : 327-344. Selander, R.K. 1965. AvianSpeciationin the Quaternary. In The Quaternary of North America, edited by H .E. WrightandD.G. Frey, pp. 527-542. Princeton University Press. Princeton. Semenov, S.A. 1964. Prehistoric Technology. Barnes and Noble. New York. Semken, H .A., Jr. 1983. Holocene Mammalian Biogeography and Climatic Change in the Eastern and Central United States. In LateQuaternary Environments of the United States, Volume 2 , the Holocene, edited by H .E. Wright, Jr., pages 182-207. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis. Service, E.R. 1979. The Hunters. Second Edition. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey . . Severinghaus, C .W. 1978. Resource Attributes. Ms prepared for the Public Archaeology Facility, S.U.N.Y. Binghamton. Severinghaus, C.W. and E.L. Cheatum 1956. The Life and Times of the White-tailed Deer. In The Deer of North America, edited by W.P. Taylor. The Stackpole Company, Harrisburg. 351

Shelford, V. 1963. The Ecology of North America. University of Illinois Press. Urbana. Shutler, R. Jr., editor 1983. Early Man in the New World. Sage. Beverly Hills. Sirkin, L.A. 1967. Late-Pleistocene Pollen Stratigraphy of Western Long Island and Eastern Staten Island, New York. In Quaternary Paleoecology, edited by E.J. Cushing and H .E. Wright, Jr., pp. 249-274. Yale University Press, New Haven. 1977. Late-Pleistocene Vegetation and Environments in the Middle Atlantic Region. In Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironmentsin Northeastern North America, edited by W.S. Newman and B. Salwen. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288: 206-217 . 1978. Palynology of the Susquehanna River -Schenevus Creek Region, Colliersville to Worcester, New York (preliminary report). Appendix A. In The I-88 Archeological Report for 1977, edited by A. Dekin. Report prepared by the State University of New York at Binghamton and submitted to the Department of Transportation by the State Education Department. Smith,A.L. 1950. Uaxactun, Guatemala: Excavations of 1931-1937. Publication 588, Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C. Smith, B.D. 1975. Middle Mississippi Exploitation of Animal Populations. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers 57. Ann Arbor. Smith, C .S. 1950. The Archaeology of Coastal New York. Anthropological Papers, American Museum of Natural History 43 (2) . New York. Smith,J. 1624. The Generall Historie of Virginia New England and the Summer Isles. Michael Sparkes, London. 1907 The Generall Historie of Virginia New England and the Summer Isles. James Maclehose and sons. Glasgow. Smith, R.H . 1954. A History and Definition of Game Ranges in New York State. Final Report, Pittman-Robertson Project W-23-R. New York State Conservation Department, Division of Fish and Game. Albany. Smith, R.R. and R.K. Rabeler 1976. A Checklist of the Vascular Flora of Pine Lake. Hartwick College. Oneonta. Smith, S.S. n .d . A Checklist of Higher Plants for Otsego County, New York State. Ms on file, Botanical Survey, New York State Museum and Science Service. Albany. Snethkamp, P., C.A. Ebright, and J.B. Serena 1982. The Blue Marsh La.ke Proiect: Archaeological Studies of the La.te Archaic in the Pennsylvania Piedmont. Volumes 1and2. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior by the State University of New York at Binghamton. Snow, D.R. 1977. Archeology and Ethnohistory in Eastern New York. In Current Perspectives in Northeastern Archeology: Essays in Honor of William A. Ritchie, edited by R.E. Funk and C .F. Hayes III, pp. 107-112. Researches and Transactions, New York State Archeological Association 17 ( 1) . Albany and Rochester. 1978. Late Prehistory of the East Coast. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, Northeast, edited by B.G . Trigger, pp. 58-69. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C . 1980. The Archaeology of New England. Academic Press. New York. 1984. Iroquois Prehistory. In Extending the Rafters: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Iroquoian Studies, edited by M.K. Foster, J. Campisi, and M. Mithun, pp. 241-257. State University of New York Press. Albany. Snow, D. R., editor 1985. The Mohawk Valley Project: 1982 Field Season Report. The Institute for Northeast Anthropology, State University of New York at Albany. Spaulding, A.C . 1960. The Dimensions of Archeology. In Essays in the Science of Culture in Honor of Leslie A. White, edited by G .E. Dole and R.L. Carneiro. Crowell. New York. Spear R.W., and N.G. Miller 1976. A Radiocarbon Dated Pollen Diagram from the Allegheny Plateau of New York State. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 57: 369-403.

352

Spiess, A.E. 1984. Arctic Garbage and New England Paleo-Indians: The Single Occupation Option. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12: 280-285. Squier, E.G. 1851 . Antiquities of the State of New York. George H . Derby and Company. Buffalo. Stafford, T.W., A.J.T. Jull, T.H . Z.abel, DJ . Donahue, R.C . Duhamel, K. Brendel, C .V. Haynes Jr., J.L. Bischoff, L.A. Payen, and R.E. Taylor 1984. Holocene Age of the Yuha Burial: Direct Radiocarbon Determinations by Accelerator Mass Spectrometry. Nature 308: (446-447). Stagg, R.M., W.W. Vernon and B.E. Raemsch 1973. Wisconsin and Pre-Wisconsin Stone Industries of New York State and Related Tools from a Shop Site near Tula, Mexico. Presented at IX International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences. Chicago. Stalker, A.M . 1977. Indications of Wisconsin and Earlier Man from the Southwest Canadian Prairies. In Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironmentsin Northeastern North America, edited by W.S. Newman and B. Salwen. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288: 119-136. Stanford, D. 1983. Pre-Clovis Occupation South of the Ice Sheets. In Early Man in the New World, edited by R. Shutler, Jr., pp. 65-72 . Sage. Beverly Hills. Staples, A.C . and R.C. Athearn 1969. The Bear Swamp Site: A Preliminary Report. Massachusetts Archaeological Society Bulletin 30: 1-8. Starbuck, D.R. 1984. A Middle Archaic Site, Belmont, New Hampshire. New Hampshire Department of Public Works and Highways. Concord. Starbuck, D., and C. Bolian, editors 1980. Early and Middle Archaic Cultures in the Northeast. Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology No. 7 . George's Mills, New Hampshire. Starna, W.A. 1976. Late Archaic Lifeways in the Middle Mohawk Valley: A Framework for Further Studies. Ph.D. Dissertation, State University of New York at Albany. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1977 a. Late Archaic Lifeways and Archaeological Variation . In Archaeology and Geochronology of the Susquehanna and Schoharie Regions, edited by J.R. Cole and L.R. Godfrey, pp. 74-83. Hartwick College, Oneonta. l 977b. On "Some Paleolithic Tools from Northeast North America" . Current Anthropology 18 (3) : 545. 1978. Comment on "Temporal Models in Prehistory: An Example from Eastern North America", by J.B. Stoltman. Current Anthropology 19 (4): 737-738. 1980. Mohawk Iroquois Populations: A Revision. Ethnohistory 27(4) : 371 -382. Starna, W.A. and H . Gutierrez 1980. Excavations atthe Street Site, Otsego County, N.Y : A Preliminary Report. New York StateArcheological Association Bulletin and Journal 79: 1-7. Steen-Mcintyre, V., R. Fryxell, and H.E. Malde 1981 . Geologic Evidence for Age of Deposits at H ueyatlaco Archeological Site, Valsequillo, Mexico. Quaternary Research 16 (1) : 1-17. Steponaitis, L.C . and W.W. Mitchell 1973. Subsistence Settlement Strategies: A Predictive Model for the Upper Susquehanna River Valley. In the 1-88 ArchaeologicalReportforl977,editedbyA.De kin.PublicArchaeologyFacility,S.U.N.Y.Binghamton.Submitted to the New York State Department of Transportation by the State Education Department. Stevens, P., K.A. Youngs, and R. Englert 1984. A Cultural Resource Survey Report of PIN 9750.69 (BIN 2-22841-0), River Street over the Delaware and Hudson R.R., City of Oneonta, Otsego County. Submitted to New York State Department of Transportation by the New York State Education Department. Steward, J.H . 1942. The Direct Historical Approach to Archaeology. American Antiquity 6 : 337-344. 1949. Cultural Causality and Law: A Trial Formulation of the Development of the Early Civilizations. American AnthropologistSl (1) : 1-27. 1955. Theory of Culture Change. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

353

Stewart, M.C . 1973. A Proto-historic Susquehannock Cemetery Near Nichols, Tioga County, New York. New York StateArcheological Association Bulletin 58: 1-21. 1977. Pits in the Northeast: A Typological Analysis. In Current Perspectives in Northeastern Archeology: Essays in Honor of William A. Ritchie, edited by R.E. Funk and C.F. Hayes III, pp. 149-164. Researches and Transactions of the New York State Archeological Association l 7 ( l). Albany and Rochester. Stillman, J. 1963. Beaver Creek Survey. Chenango Chapter, New York StateArcheological Association Bulletin 4 (4). Stoltman, J.B. 1978. Temporal Models in Prehistory: An Example from Eastern North America. Current Anthropology 19 (4) : 703-7 46. Storck, P.L. 1975. A Preliminary BibliographyofEarly Manin Eastern North America 1839-1973. Archaeology, Monograph4. Royal Ontario Museum. Toronto. 1979. A Report on the Banting and Hussey Sites: Two Palaeo-Indian Campsites in Simcoe County, Southern Ontario. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada 93. Ottawa. 1984. Glacial Lake Algonquin and Early Palaeo-lndian Settlement Patterns in Southcentral Ontario. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12: 286-298. Stothers, D. 1977. The Princess Point Complex. Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper No. 58. National Museum of Man Mercury Series. Ottawa. Stuckenrath, R. 1977. Radiocarbon: Some Notes from Merlin's Diary. In Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironments in Northeastern North America, edited byW.S. Newman and B. Salwen. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288: 181-188. Sullivan, J.A. & Others, editors 1921-1965. The Papers of Sir William Johnson . 14 Volumes. Albany. Swanton, J.R. 1952. The Indian Tribes of North America. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 145. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Swigart, E.K. 197 4 . The Prehistory of the Indians of Western Connecticut. Occasional Paper No.l, The American Indian Archaeological Institute, Inc. Washington, Connecticut. Taylor, L. 1962 . The Gregory Site. Chenango Chapter, New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 13 ( 1). Taylor, L. andJ. Barney 1969. The Harrington Rockshelter. Chenango Chapter, New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 10 (4) . Taylor, L., J. Barney, and T. Whitney 1970. The Miller Site. Chenango Chapter, New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 11 (3) . Taylor, R.E., L.A. Payen, C.A. Prior, P.J. Slota, R. Gillespie, J.A.J. Gowlett, R.E.M. Hodges, A.J. Jull, T.H . Zabel, D.J. Donhaue and R. Berger 1985. Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry: None Older than 11,000 C-14years. AmericanAntiquity50 (1): 136-140. Thomas, P.A. 1980. The Riverside District, the WMECO site, and Suggestions for Archeological Modeling. In Early and Middle Archaic Cultures in the Northeast, edited by D. Starbuck and C.E. Bolian, pages 73-96. Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology, 7 . George's Mills, New Hampshire. Thomas, P. and B. Robinson 1980. The John's Bridge Site: VI'-FR-69 Area I Phase III Data Recovery. Department of Anthropology, University of Vermont, Report No. 28. Burlington. Thomas , R.A. 1969. Exotic Influences in the Delmarva. Abstract. Eastern StatesArcheological Federation Bulletin 26-27 : 14-15. 1970. Adena Influence in the Middle Atlantic Coast. In Adena: The Seeking of an Identity, edited by B.K. Swartz, Jr. Ball State University. Muncie. Thomas, R.A. and N.H. Warren 1970. A Middle Woodland Cemetery in Central Delaware: Excavationsatthe Island Field Site. Bulletin oftheArchaeological Society of Delaware, new series, 8: 1-33.

354

Timlin, J. and B.E. Raemsch 1971 . Pleistocene Tools from the Northeast of N orthAmerica:The Timlin Site. Yager Museum Publications in Anthropology Bulletin 3: 3-21. Tompkins, R.C . and L. DiMaria 1979. Excavations at Muddy Brook Rockshelter, 1975-1976: A Progress Report. New YorkStateArcheologicalAssociation Bulletin 75 : 58-64. Tooley, R.V. 1980. The Mapping of America. Vol. 2. Holland Press Cartographica. London. Trigger, B.G . 1970. The Strategy of Iroquoian Prehistory. Ontario Archaeology 14: 3-48. 1978. Early Iroquoian Contacts with Europeans. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15: Northeast, edited by B.G . Trigger, pp. 344-356. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C . Trigger, B.G., editor 1978. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15: Northeast. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Tringham, R., et al. 197 4 . Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage:A New Approach to LithicAnalysis. Journal ofField Archaeology 1(1-2) : 171-196. Trubowitz N.L. 1977. Highway Archaeology and Settlement Study in the Genesee Valley. Occastional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology, No. 8 . George's Mills , New Hampshire. 1978. The Persistence of Settlement Pattern in a Cultivated Field. In EssaysinAnthropologyin Memory ofMarian E. White, edited by W.E. Engelbrecht and D.K. Grayson. Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology 5: 41 -66. Rindge, New Hampshire. 1979. The Early Archaic in Western New York. NewYorkStateArcheologicalAssociation Bulletin 75 : 52-58. Trubowitz, N.L. and P. Snethkamp 1975. New Evidence of the Frost Island Phase in the Lower Genesee Valley. New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 65 : 19-26. Tuck,J.A. 1971. Onondaga Iroquois Prehistory. Syracuse University Press. Syracuse. 197 4 . Early Archaic Horizons in Eastern North America. Archaeology of Eastern North America 2 ( 1) : 72-80 . 1977. A Look at Laurentian. In Current Perspectives in Northeastern Archeology: Essays in Honor of William A. Ritchie, edited by R.E. Funk and C.F. Hayes III. Researches and Transactions, New York State Archeological Association 17 (1): 31-40. Albany and Rochester. 1978. Northern Iroquoian Prehistory. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15; Northeast, edited by B.G. Trigger, pp. 322-333. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C . Turnbaugh, W.A. 1974. A Lamoka Component in North Central Pennsylvania. Man in the Northeast 8 : 3-21. 1977. Man, Land, and Time. Lycoming County Historical Society, Williamsport, Pennsylvania. Unigraphic, Inc. Evansville. Turnbull, C . J. 1976. The Augustine Site: A Mound from the Maritimes. Archaeology of Eastern North America 4: 50-62. Turner, F.J. 1970. The Frontier in American History. Holt, New York. United States Department of Transportation 1984. 1-88 Flood Mitigation, West City Line to Main Street, Main Street to CR47 , Otsego County, PIN 9357 .43. U .S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and New York State Department of Transportation Design Report-Environmental Assessment. Verdeza, J. 1979. The Tamarack Site. Chenango Chapter, New York StateArcheological Association Bulletin 18(3). Versaggi, N. 1987. Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Models and the Archaeological Record: A Test Case from the Upper Susquehanna Valley of New York. Ph.D. Dissertation, State University of New York at Binghamton. University Microfilms. Ann Arbor. Versaggi, N., N . Carey, and P. Klosky 1986. Hunter to Farmer: 10, 000 Years ofSusquehanna Prehistory. Roberson CenterfortheArtsandSciences. Binghamton.

355

Versaggi, N.M., J. McDonald, A.P. Mair II, and S.C. Prezzano 1982 . The Southside Treatment Plant Site, SuBi-672, Village of Owego. Cultural Resources Survey Report Prepared for Village of Owego, New York, by the Public Archaeology Facility, State University of New York at Binghamton. Wadleigh, W.M. 1981. Settlement and Subsistence Patterns in the Northeastern Highlands of Connecticut. Man in the Northeast 22 : 67-85 . Wallace, P.A.W. 1945. Conrad Weiser (1696-1760) Friend of Colonist and Mohawk. University of Pennsylvania Press. Philadelphia. Washburn, W.E. 1978. Seventeenth-Century Indian Wars. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15; Northeast, edited by B.G. Trigger, pp. 89-100. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. Watts, W.A. 1983. Vegetational History of the Eastern United States 25 ,000 to 10, 000 Years Ago. In Late-Quaternary Environments of the United States, Volume 1: The Late Pleistocene, edited byS.C. Porter, pages 294-310. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Waugh, F.W. 1916. Iroquois Food and Food Preparation. Geological Survey Memoir 86, Anthropological Series 12 . Facsimile Edition 1973. National Museums of Canada . Ottawa. Weaver, J.E. and F.E. Clements 1938. Plant Ecology. Second edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York. Weber, J.C . 1973. Report of the I-88 Archeological Salvage Project, PIN' s 935 7 .02 through 935 7 . 14, including 935 7 .28. Cultural Resources Survey Report Submitted to New York State Department of Transportation by the State Education Department. n.d. Considerations on Conquest: Two Iroquois Cases. Unpublished Paper, Harvard University Department of Anthropology. Wedel, W.R. 194 7 a. Prehistory and the Missouri Valley Development Program: Summary Report on the Missouri River BasinArcheological Survey in 1946. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 107(6). Washington, D.C. 194 7b. The Missouri Basin Archeological Survey. Nebraska History 28( 1). 1948. Prehistory and the Missouri Valley Development Program: Summary Report on the Missouri River BasinArcheological Survey in 1947. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 111 (2). Washington, D.C. 1949. Some Provisional Correlations in Missouri River Basin Archeology. American Antiquity 14(4). 1950. Missouri River Basin Survey 1948 Season. Proceedings of the Sixth Plains Archeological Conference. University of Utah Department of Anthropology Paper 11. Salt Lake. Weide, M .L. 1975. Research Design in Northeastern Prehistory. Paper presented to Annual Meeting of Society for American Archaeology, Dallas, Texas May 8, 1975. Weide, M.L., editor 1975. I-88 Archaeological Project, 1974 Season. Cultural Resources Survey Report Submitted to New York State Department of Transportation by the State Education Department . 1976. 1-88 Archaeological Project, 1975 Season. Cultural Resources Survey Report Submitted to New York State Department of Transportation by the State Education Department. 1977. 1-88 Archaeological Project, 1976 Season. Cultural Resources Survey Report Submitted to New York State Department of Transportation by the State Education Department. Weinman, P.L. and T.P . Weinman 1969. The Moonshine Rockshelter. New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 4 7: 12-15. 1970. The John Himmer Rockshelter. New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 48: 19-23. Wellman, B. 1974. Prehistoric Site Survey in the Upper Schoharie Valley, New York State. Report prepared for the Power Authority of the State of New York. 1979. Prehistoric Site Locales and Some Environmental Variables in the Schoharie Valley, New York State. Presented to the 18th Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Anthropological Association. Laval University, Quebec City. 1982. A Survey of New York Fluted Points. Archaeology of Eastern North America 10: 39-40.

356

Wellman, B. and K. Hartgen 1975. Prehistoric Site Survey and Salvage in the Upper Schoharie Valley, New York State (Abstract). Eastern States Archaeological Federation Bulletin 34: 15. Wellman, B., S. Tabor, R. Elliott and P. Stevens 1983. PIN 9750.24, Alternate 2, West County Route 47 Bridge Relocation. Oneonta Township, Otsego County, New York. Cultural Resources Survey Report Submitted to New York State Department of Transportation by State Education Department. Wendland, W.N., and R.A. Bryson 1974. Dating Climatic Episodes of the Holocene. Quaternary Research 4( 1): 9-24 . Werner, DJ. 1972. The Zimmermann Site, 36-Pi- l 4 . In Archaeology in the Upper Delaware Valley, edited by W.F. Kinsey III, pages 55-130. Anthropological Series, No. 2, The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. Harrisburg. Weslager, C.A. 1948. The Nanticoke Indians:A Refugee Tribal Group ofPennsylvania. Pennsylvania Historical and Muse um Commission. Harrisburg. 1972. The Delaware Indians: A History. Rutgers University Press. New Brunswick. 1978. The Delaware Indian Westward Migration . The Middle Atlantic Press, Wallingford, PA. West, F.H. 1983a. The Antiquity of Man in America. In Late-Quaternary Environments of the United States, Vol. 1: the Late Pleistocene, edited by S.C. Porter, pp. 364-382. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis. 1983b. Bone Age Beringia. Review of Taphonomy and Archaeology in the Upper Pleistocene of the Northern Yukon Territory: A Glimpse of the Peopling of the New World, by R. Morlan. Quarterly Review of Archaeology, 4(1): 13-15. White, L.A. 1949. The Science of Culture: A Study of Man and Civilization . Farrar, Straus and Company. New York. 1959. The Evolution of Culture: The Development of Civilization to the Fall of Rome. McGraw -Hill Company. New York. White, M.E. 1961. Iroquois Culture History in the Niagara Frontier Area of New York State. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 16. Ann Arbor. 1963. Settlement Pattern Change and the Development of Horticulture in the New York-Ontario Area. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 23(1-2): 1-2. 1976. I.ate Woodland Archaeology in the Niagara Frontier of New York and Ontario. In The Late Prehistory of the Lake Erie Drainage Basin, edited by D.S. Brose, pp. 110-136. Case Western Reserve University. Cleveland. Whitehead, D.R. 1973. I.ate-Wisconsin Vegetational Changes in Unglaciated Eastern North America. Quaternary Research 3(4): 621-631. 1979. late-Glacial and Postglacial Vegetation History of the Berkshires, Western Massachusetts. Quaternary Research 12(3): 333-357. Whitney, T. 1965. The Swamp Site. Chenango Chapter, New York State Archaeological Association Bulletin 7 (2) . 1967. The Eaton Site. Chenango Chapter, New York State Archaeological Association Bulletin 9 (1) . 1968. Swamp Sites No. 5 . Chenango Chapter, New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 9(4) . 1969. Swamp Sites No. 6. Chenango Chapter, New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 10 ( 3) . 1970a. Swamp Sites No. 7. Chenango Chapter, New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 11 (2). 1970b. Swamp Sites No. 8 . Chenango Chapter, New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 11 ( 2) . 197la. The Gravesen Site. Chenango Chapter, New York StateArcheologicalAssociation Bulletin 12(1) : 1-6. 197lb. The Gravesen Site, Report No. 2 . Chenango Chapter, New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 12(4) . 1972. The Stewart-Fuller Site. Chenango Chapter, New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 13(4). 1974. The Indian Occupations of Chenango County to 1975. Chenango Chapter, New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 15(3). 1975. The Jamba Site. Chenango Chapter, New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 16(2). 1976. The Lindsey Site. Chenango Chapter, New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 16(4). 1977. Fluted Points from the Chenango Area. Chenango Chapter, New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 17(1). Whitney, T. and S. Gibson 1972. The White Site Nbn 2-3. Chenango Chapter, New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 13(2). 357

1977. Unusual Indian Burials. Chenango Chapter, New York StateArcheological Association Bulletin 17(2). Whitney, T. and E. Wilcox, Jr. 1971. Swamp Sites No. 10. Chenango Chapter, New York State Archeological Association Bulletin 12(2). Wilkins, G .R. 1978. Prehistoric Mountaintop Occupations of Southern West Virginia. Archaeology of Eastern North America 6 : 13-40. Willey,G.R. 1966. An Introduction to American Archaeology. Volume 1: North and Middle America. Prentice Hall. New York. Willey, G.R. and P. Phillips 1958. Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. Williams, A.B. 1936. The Composition and Dynamics of a Beech-Maple Climax Community. Ecological Monographs 6 : 317-405 . Williams, S. and J.B. Stoltman 1965. An Outline of Southeastern United States Prehistory with Particular Emphasis on the Paleo-Indian Era. In The Quaternaryofthe United States, edited byH .E. Wright, Jr. andD.G . Frey, pp. 669-683. Princeton University Press. Princeton. Willoughby, C . 1935. Antiquities of the New England Indians. Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Wissler, C. 1938. The American Indian. Third Edition. New York. Witthoft , J. 1952. A Paleo-Indian Site in Eastern Pennsylvania: an Early Hunting Culture. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society96(4) : 464-495 . Philadelphia. 1953. Broad Spearpoints and the Transitional Period Cultures. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 23(1) : 4-31 . 1959. Ancestry of the Susquehannocks. In Susquehannock Miscellany, edited by J. Witthoft and W.F. Kinsey III, pp. 1960. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. Harrisburg. Witthoft, J. and W.A. Hunter 1955. The Seventeenth-Century Origin of the Shawnee. Ethnohistory 2(1): 42-57. Witthoft, J., and W.F. Kinsey III, editors 1959. Susquehannock Miscellany. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission . Harrisburg. Wittry, W.L. 1959. The Raddatz Rockshelter, Sk 5, Wisconsin. Wisconsin Archeologist 40(2) . Wolman, M.G . and L.B. Leopold 1957. River Floodplains: Some Observations on Their Formation . U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 293-c. Washington, D.C . Wray,C .F. 1948. Varieties and Sources of Flint Found in New York State. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 18( 1-2): 25-45 . Wright, J.V. 1966. The Ontario Iroquois Tradition . National Museum of Canada Bulletin 210. Ottawa. 1972. The Shield Archaic. National Museum Canada, Museum of Man, Publications in Archaeology No. 3. Ottawa. 1978. The Implications of Probable Early and Middle Archaic Projectile Points from Southern Ontario. Canadian Journal ofArchaeology2 : 59-78. 1984. The Cultural Continuity of the Northern Iroquoian-Speaking Peoples. In Extending the Rafters: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Iroquoian Studies, edited by M.K. Foster, J. Campisi , and M. Mithun, pp. 283-299. State University of New York Press. Albany. Wright , J.V., and J.E. Anderson 1963. The Donaldson Site. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 184. Ottawa. Wyatt,R. 1977. The Archaic on Long Island. In Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironments in Northeastern North America, edited by W.S. Newman and B. Salwen. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288: 400-410. Yarnell, R.A. 1964. Aboriginal Relationships between Culture and Plant life in the Upper Great Lakes Region. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 23. Ann Arbor.

358

AUTHORS AND INVESTIGATORS INDEX (VOL. I)

A Adovasio, J.M. 142, 181, 222, 258, 264, 326, 329, 332 Ahler, S.A. 38, 229, 230, 235, 316, 329 Anderson, A. 181 Anderson, E. 345 Anderson, J.E. 267, 358 Anonymous 59, Table 3 (60), 329 Arnold, R.W. 319, 321, 351, Fig. 39 (pocket) Asch, D.L. 334 Asch, N.B. 334 Ashton, R. 196, 211, 329 Athearn, R.C . 211, 353 Auffenberg, W. 53, 329 Ayres, K.M. 188, 329

B Bada, J.L. 142, 329 Bailey, D.L. 245, 329 Ballard, G . 20, 174, 200, 329 Barnes, J. 329 Barnes, R. 329 Barney, J. 208, 293, 354 Bartram, J. 20, 329 Beardsley, R.K. 28, 280, 329 Beauchamp, W.M. 20, 62, 88, 210, 2.36, 294, 329 Beauregard, A.D. 191, 206, 330 Bebrich, C.A. 264, 330 Bennett, M. 330 Bennett, W. 20, 330 Benton, Jesse 22, 142, 183, 204 Berger, R. 354 Bergs, L. 193, 195, 211, 223, 266, 267 , 344 Bernabo, J.C. 95, 330 Binford, L.R. 28, 330 Bischoff, J.L. 142, 330, 353 Bishop, S.C. 330 Blair, W.F. 53, 330 Blau, H. 91, 330 Bloom, A.L. 45, 330 Boas, F. 216, 330 Bodnar, J. 181 Bolian, C .E. 180, 181, 330, 353 Bonnichsen, R. 181, 210, 341, 344 Bordes, F. 125, 219, 330 Bourque, B. 196, 224, 331 Boyce, D.W. 330 Boyd,E. 20,205,206,269,331 Bradstreet, T.E. 51, 52, 331 Brasser, T.J. 62, 88, 216, 219, 331 Braun, E.L. 45-48, 51, 331 Brendel, K. 353

Brennan, L.A. 61, 126, 129, 175, 180, 184, 190, 264, 265,314,331 Brooks, K.L. 16, 62, 331 Brose, D.S. 19, 135, 331 Brown, C . 54, 58, 61, 266, 267, 331 Brown, J.A. 334 Broyles, BJ. 23, 126, 129, 175, 180-182, 184, 187, 264, 331 Brumbach, H.J. 15, 59, 221, 331 Bryan, A.L. 142, 143, 319, 331 Bryson, R.A. 320, 321, 322, 357, Fig. 39 (pocket) Buckley, J.D. 159, 332 Buikstra, J.E. 210, 332 Bullen, R. 188, 332 Butzer, K.W. 52, 53, 332 Byers, D.S. 221, 332

c Cadwell, D.H. 16, 43, 100, 122, 332 Calkin, P.E. 173, 190, 332 Callender, C . 87, 332 Campbell, A. 85, 86, 332 Campisi, J. 330 Carey, N. 355 Carlisle, R.C. 142, 181, 258, 264, 326, 332 Carlson, R.W. 188, 332 Carter, D.B. 44, 45, 332 Carter, G .F. 142, 329, 349 Ceci, L. 332 Champlain, S . de 85, 332 Chang, K.C . 220, 316, 332 Chapman, J. 23, 30, 180, 182, 184, 187, 199, 210, 316, 332,333 Cheatum, E.L. 56, 331 Childers, W.M. 142, 330 Clafin, W.H., Jr. 224, 333 Clark, J.S. 16 Cleland, C.E. 52, 53, 185, 333 Clements, F.E. 46, 51, 356 Clench, W.J. 61, 333 Coates, D.R. 21, 43, 53, 100, 122, 333 Coe, J.L. 23, 126, 129, 175, 181, 187, 196, 224, 333 Cole, J.R. 21, 143, 333 Colinvaux, P.A. 333 Colonial Records of Pennsylvania 333 Connally, G.G 115, 120, 121, 122, 173, 333, 339. Connor, P.F. 48, 54, 334 Conrad, N. 265, 334 Cook,F. 294,334 Cook, G.W. 15, 235, 334 Cook, T.G. 334 Cote, W. 329 Cowan, F.L. 208, 348 359

Cox, D.D. 35, 51-53, 115, 120, 121, 124,334 Cox, S. 173, 334 Cross, D. 204, 334 Crowl, G .H. 43, 44, 334 Curran, M.L. 258, 334 Curtin, E.V. 19,61, 171 , 192, 199, 207 , 270,274,334, 335 Cushing, EJ. 51, 52, 334 Custer, J. 225, 226, 228, 268, 325, 334

D Damas, D. 19, 281 , 334 Damon, P.E. 334 Davis, C .E. 190, 339 Davis , M.B. 51,52, 120, 124,320,322,334,335 Davis, R.B. 51, 52, 331 Davy, D.M. 56, 335 Dean, K. 16 Deevey, E. 51 , 115, 124, 335 Dekin,A.A. 19, 22, 192, 245, 246, 275 , 335 Deller, D.B. 175, 210, 283, 335, 351 DeMicco, D.W. 245 , 335 DeVisscher, J. 337 DeVore, I. 51 , 345 Dewar, R.E. 326, 345 Dice , L.R: 46, 48, 335 DiMaria,L. 175,181,355 Dincauze,D.F. 53, 134, 142, 175, 180, 181 , 187, 188, 196, 197,211,212,219,222,225, 264,281, 323,324,335 Dineen, RJ. 15, 16, 22 , 44, 95 , 97, 100, 115, 120, 122, 124, 173, 319, 335, Fig. 39 (pocket) Disinger, F. 22 Dodge, E.S. 62, 336 Donahue, DJ. 342, 353, 354 Donahue, J. 329 Doncker, H . 86 Donehoo, G.P. 88, 335 Dragoo, D.W. 19, 199, 210, 212 , 219, 226 , 227, 318, 335, 350 Drew, D.L. 143, 335 Driver, H.E. 215, 219, 335 Duhamel, R.C . 353 Dumont, E.M. 180, 184, 264, 335, 336 Dumont, L.A. 180, 184, 264, 336, 344 Dunbar, H.R. 21, 209, 336 Dunnell, R.C . 135, 336 Dutt, J.S. 181, 346

E Eaton, E.H. 47, 48, 336 Ebright, C.A. 352 Eccleston, M. 331 Edwards, R.L. 45 , 336 Ehlers, W.F., Jr. 339

Eisenberg, L. 213, 336 Eldridge, W. 340 Ellis, CJ. 175, 210, 283, 335 Elliott, D. 20, 21, 87, 88, 90, 91 , 192, 193, 207, 209, 210,219, 270, 271,282,294,336 Elliott, G. 290 Elliott, R. 339, 357 Elmore, D. 334 Emery, K.O. 45, 336 Englert, R. 353 Engstrom, R.E. 188, 336 Eschner, A.R. 43, 336 Espenshade, E.B., Jr. 45 , 339 Ewing , R.L. 245, 335, 348

F Farnsworth, K.B. 334 Feder, K.L. 228, 336 Feest, C .F. 87, 91, 336 Fenenga,F. 232 , 234,336 Fenneman, N.M. 43, 336 Fenton, W.N. 62, 294, 336 Ferguson, A.L.L. 87, 336 Ferguson, C.W. 334 Ferguson, H.G. 87, 336 Fernald, M.L. 51, 62, 336, 337 Fiedel, SJ. 221, 337 Finkel, R. 142, 329 Fisher, C. 245, 337 Fisher, D.W. 43, 52, 53, 337, 338 Fite, E.D. 85, 337 Fitting, J.E. 52, 53, 185, 242, 258, 337 Fleisher, PJ. 16, 44, 95, 97, 100, 112, 143, 283, 337, Fig. 39 (pocket) Flint, R.F. 45, 337 Follmer, L.R. 45, 337 Ford, L.T., Jr. 226, 337 Ford, R.I. 337 Fowke, G . 228, 338 Fowler, M. 135, 190, 338 Free, S.L. 54, 57, 58, 338 Freeman, A. 85, 337 Fritz, P. 343 Fry, G.F. 329 Fryxell, R. 353 Funk, R.E. 15, 19, 20-23, 27, 30, 33, 34, 38, 43 , 47, 48, 51 -54, 58, 59, 61, 95, Fig. 7 (96) , 97 , Fig. 9 (99) , 109-112, 114, 115, 125, 129, 141 , 143, 173, 175, 180-182, 184, 186-188, 190, 191, 193196, 198-200, 204, 206-208, 210-213, 215, 219-229, 236,239,242,245,258,259,264270, 273, 274, 279-284, 287-291, 295, 298, 308,313,314,317,322,324,325, 333,338340,343, 344,350

360

G Gardner, W.M. 339 Gaudreau, D.C. 122, 124, 339 Gehring, C . 85, 86 George, R.L. 190, 339 Gibson, S. 20, 61, 207, 210, 339, 357 Gillespie, R. 354 Gillette, C .E. 15, 16, 22, 85 Goddard, I. 87, 339 Godfrey, L.R. 21, 143, 333 Goode, P.J. 45 , 339 Gordon, R.B. 45, 339 Gove, H. 334 Gowlett, J.A. J. 354 Graham, R.W. 345 Gramly, R.M . 56, 173, 175, 213, 325, 340 Granger, J.E., Jr. 225, 281, 318, 340 Graymont, B. 88, 90, 91, 340 Grayson, D.K. 48, 54, 56, 57, 61, 226, 268, 318, 340 Greeley, J.R. 48, 49, 59, Table 3 (60), 340 Greene, C .W. 59, 340 Griffin, J.B. 22,85,87, 134, 135, 138-140,216,228, 340 Griffin,J.W. 175, 210, 340 Grimes, B.G . 340 Grimes, J.R. 175, 340 Gruhn, R. 143, 331 Guilday, J.E. 52, 266, 322, 329, 339, 340, 342, 345 Gunn, J.D. 329 Gutierrez, H. 245, 349, 353

H Hall, E.R. 54, 341 Halls, L.K. 57, 341 Halsey, F.W. 20, 48, 88, 90, 91, 270, 273, 294, 341 Hamel!, G . 16, 20 Hamilton, H.W. 322, 340 Hamilton, W.J., Jr. 54, 341 Hammer, J. 341 Hanna,C.A. 86,87,88,341 Harington, C.R. 142, 341, 342 Harman, W.N. 59, 341 Harris, M. 27, 28, 313, 341 Hartgen Archaeological Associates 207, 269, 290, 341 Hartgen, K.S. 15, 19, 173, 188, 265, 325, 341, 357 Hawley, G . 341 Hayes, C.F., III 19, 193, 195, 211, 223, 266, 267, 341 Hayes, V.N. 191, 193, 197, 341 Haynes, C.V. 142, 175, 341, 342, 353 Heisey, H.W. 218, 342 Heizer, R.F. 127, 342 Herrick, J.W. 62, 342 Hesse, F.J. 15, 16, 20, 21, 33-35, 192, 195, 199, 204, 207,245,246,269,270,272-274,289,294, 342

Hester, J.J. 258, 342 Hibbard, C.W. 52, 342 Hill, R.B. 16, 21, 142, 182, 191-200, 204, 205, 209, 298, Table 38 (303), 305, 342 Hinman, M. 90, 342 Hladio, S. 97, 342 Hoagland, H . 15, 21, 33, 188, 195, 200, 265, 268, 274, 284,289,338 Hodder, I. 216, 342 Hodges, R.E.M. 354 Hoffman, C . 314, 342 Holder, P. 329 Hole, F. 127, 342 Hollowell, D. 181 Holman, J.A. 345 Hosbach, R.E. 20, 342 Houart, G .L. 342 Houck,R.M . 15,34,246,339 Huey, P. 16, 85 Hunt, G.T. 86, 218, 342 Hunter, W.A. 87, 358

Irving, W.N. 142, 342 Irwin, C. 210, 345 Irwin-Williams, C. 142, 342 Isachsen, Y.W. 337

J Jameson, J.F. 342 Jennings, F. 85-87, 343 Johnson, G. 86, 343 Johnson, W.C . 343 Jones, R.W. 343 Juli, H. 227, 228, 343 Jull, A.J.T. 190, 342, 353, 354

K Kaeser, E.J. 204, 343 Karrow, P.F. 43, 44, 343 Keeley, L.H. 38, 229, 235, 343 Kelly, J. 331 Kelson, K.R. 54, 341 Kennedy, C.C. 191, 210, 222, 266, 343 Kent, B.C . 85-88, 91, 198, 209, 218, 343 Kenyon, I. 195, 343 Kinsey,A.C. 51,62,337 Kinsey, W.F., III 19, 23, 33, 86, 173, 193, 195-200, 206, 208, 209, 211, 218, 224, 226-228, 268, 281, 314,343,358 Kirkland, J.T. 16, 21, 22, 34, 40, 43, 95, Fig. 7 (96), 97, Fig. 9 (99), 114, 333, 339, 343 Klippel, W.E. 348 Klosky, P. 355 Kluckhohn, C. 27, 344 361

Knoerl, JJ. 245, 335, 343 Knox, J.C. 320, 343 Kopper, J.S. 258, 344 Kraft, H.C. 16, 23, 33, 87, 138, 175, 180, 184, 195-199, 208,221 , 226-228,269,343,344 Krall, D. 344 Kraus, B.S. 216, 344 Krieger, A.D. 319, 329, 344 Kroeber, A.L. 27, 215, 219, 294, 344 Kutsche, P. 329

L La.Fleur, R. 143 Lahren, L. 210, 344 Landry, S.O . 333 Landy, D. 88, 344 Laub, R.S. 312, 344 Laubenfels, DJ. 45, 344 Laux, B. 45, 344 Lavin,L. 219,227 , 228,344 Lee, R.B. 51, 344, 345 Lenig, Donald 61, 208, 213, 228, 345, 350 Leopold, L.B. 97 , 101, 345, 358 Levesque, Abbe R. 226, 345 Lewis, D.M. 15, 16, 22 , 23 , 40, 47, 51 -53, 71, 109, 113115, 120, 121,320,339,343 Lewis, M.K. 190, 345 Lewis, T.M.N. 190, 345 Lindner, C. 235, 316, 345 Lipe, W.D. 21, 191-193, 207, 209, 210, 270, 271, 282 , 294,336 Long, A. 334 Lopez, J. 345 Lord, P.,Jr. 196, 198, 339 Loring, S. 173, 345 Lothrop, J. 173, 340 Lounsbury, F. 221, 345 Lucy, C . 85, 345 Lundelius,E.L.,Jr. 51,52,345

M MacDonald, G.F 175, 345 MacNeish, R.S. 23, 39, 142, 198, 200, 204, 205 , 207, 226,228,319,345,350 Mair, A.P., II 356 Malde, H .E. 353 Marchiando, P. 343 Marr, C . 16 Marshall, S.B. 346 Martin, P. 322 Mason, R.J. 210, 227, 345 Masters, P.M. 142, 329 Mastone, V.T. 335 Mayer-Oakes, W. 219, 345 McBride, K.A. 227, 228, 323, 326, 343, 345

McCabe, J.T. 54, 58, 345 McCracken, RJ. 85, 345 McCrady, A.D. 322, 340 McCullough, D.R. 345 McDonald, J. 356 McDowell, E.E. 191, 346 McGhee,R. 213 , 222 , 323,346 McKern, W.C. 22, 126, 133-135, 138-140, 346 McManamon, F. 274, 346 McMillan, B.A. 258, 283, 346 McNett, C.W., Jr. 258, 283, 346 Mead, J.I. 52, 142, 258, 346 Megapolensis, Rev. J. 58 Meggers, BJ. 329 Meinig, D.W. 49, 86, 346 Melia, M. 35, 44, 50-53, 95, 100, 115, 120, 121, 124, 258, 320, 346, Fig. 39 (pocket) Mellgren, G. 329 Meltzer, DJ. 52, 258, 346 Merriam, C.H . 47, 346 Michels, J. 181, 184, 264, 346 Miller, J.P. 345 Miller, K.E . 173, 190, 332 Miller, N.G . 16, 51-53, 71, 122, 124, 322, 344, 346, 352 Miller, P.R. 15 Miller, P.S. 61, 350 Miller, R.R. 53, 346 Mills, W.C . 228, 346 Milstead, W.W. 53, 329 Mitchell, R. 16 Mitchell, W.W. 51, 53, 56-58, 335, 353 Mithun, M. 217 , 221 , 346 Moeller, R. 175, 346 Mooney, J. 294, 347 Moore, E.M. 43, 347 Moorehead, W.K. 20, 61, 85, 294, 347 Morgan, L.H. 62, 346 Morlan, R.E. 142, 341, 347 Morrison, S.E. 85, 347 Mueller, J.W. 246, 347 Muenscher, W.C . 347 Mulholland, M.T. 53, 175, 335 Murray, L.W. 85, 347

N Nelson, R. 331 New, J.G. 16, 54, 58, 347 Newcomer, M.H. 38, 229, 235, 343 New York Historical Manuscripts - Dutch 85, 347 New York State Conservation Department 48, 347 Nicholas, G.P. 175, 185, 347 Nicholas, J. 115, 121 , 124, 347

362

0 O'Callaghan, E.B. 85, 86, 347 Odell, T.T 347. O'Donnell, W. 211 Ogden, J.G. 52, 95, 115, 138, 320, 347 Orsini, A. 340 Osborne, F.F. 226, 345

p Palmer, R. 56, 348 Parmalee, P.W. 348 Payen, L.A. 353, 354 Penman, J. 331 Petersen, J.B. 188, 206, 228, 348 Pfeiffer, J.E. 181, 191, 197, 210-212, 219, 220, 225, 228,279,323,339,348 Pfeiffer, S. 211, 348 Phillips, D.A., Jr. 56, 349 Phillips, P. 125-127, 132, 133, 135, 140, 141, 358 Power, M.W. 206, 228, 348 Prezzano, S.C. 245, 335, 348, 356 Price, B.J. 27, 28, 313, 348 Prince, D. 329 Prindle, G. 331 Prior, C.A 354 Prothero, D.R. 344 Prufer, O.H. 325, 348 Puniello, A.J. 221, 348

R Rabeler, R.K. 62, 352 Raemsch, B.E. 21, 43, 142, 348, 349, 353, 354 Randall, A. 43, 100, 112, 349 Ray, D.E. 342 Redman, C .L. 35, 246, 349 Regensburg, R.A. 196, 212, 349 Reilly, E.M., Jr. 15, 338 Rhoades, R.E. 56, 349 Rickard, L.V. 337 Rinaldo, J.B. 329 Rippeteau, B.E. 15, 16, 22, 27, 53, 95, 138, 209, 215, 221,245,295,308,322,339, 343,349 Ritchie, W.A. 13, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23, 27, 30, 33, 38, 39, 48,52-54,58,59,61,62,75, 127, 134, 135, 138-140, 173-176, 180, 181, 185, 187, 188, 190-200, 204-208, 210-213, 216, 219, 221-229, 231,235,236,239,242,248,258,264-270, 273, 274, 279-282, 284, 287-291 , 293, 309, 314,317,318,319,323-325,327,349,350 Robbins, Maurice 211, 351 Roberts, A. 173, 351 Robertson, R. 245, 335 Robinson, B. 180, 188, 264, 354 Romer, W. 86 Roosa, W.B. 175, 351

Rosenbauer, R.J. 142, 329 Rouse,I.B. 217,218,351 Rubin, M. 334 Ruhl, K.C. 21, 209 Runge, E. 329

s Sahlins, M.B. 28, 351 Sainz, D. 181 Salwen, B. 88, 216, 218, 228, 351 Sanger, D. 217, 224, 351 Savage, D.E. 342 Schambach,F.F. 21, 174, 175, 181 , 204,339 Schnurrenberger, D. 331 Schoff, H .L. 351 Schokkenbroek, A.M. 192, 351 Schroeder, R.A. 329 Schwartz, C.W. 57, 351 Schwartz, D. 218, 351 Scoggan, H.J. 120, 351 Scully, R.W. 101, 319, 321, 351 Selander, R.K. 53, 351 Semenov, S.A. 38, 229, 234, 235, 316, 351 Semken, H.A., Jr. 51, 52, 53, 322, 351 Serena, J.B. 352 Service, E.R. 28, 51, 351 Severinghaus, C.W. 56, 351 Shane, L.C . 335 Shapiro, M. 27, 204 Shea, A.B. 316, 333 Shelford, V. 54, 56, 57, 352 Sheviak, C. 15, 40 Shutler, R., Jr. 142, 352 Sirkin, L.A. 51 -53, 95, 115, 120-122, 173, 258, 320, 333,352 Skinner, A.R. 20 Slota, P.J. 354 Smith, A.L. 138, 352 Smith, B.D. 56-58, 352 Smith, C .S. 227, 352 Smith, I.F. 181, 184, 198, 264, 346 Smith, J. 85, 352 Smith, R.H . 44, 45, 49, 352 Smith, R.R. 62, 352 Smith, S.S. 15, 40, 47 , 51 , 62, 352 Snethkamp, P. 197, 225, 268, 352, 355 Snow, D.R. 19, 132, 134, 136, 137, 180, 184, 221, 225, 228,314,324, 352 Sohacki, L.P. 59, 341 Sparling, J. 331 Spaulding, A.C. 220, 352 Spear, R.W. 122, 124, 335, 352 Spiess, A.E. 258, 283, 353 Squier, E.G. 20, 273, 353 Stafford, T.W. 142, 353

363

Stagg , R.M. 21, 353 Stalker , A.M. 142, 353 Stanford, D. 319, 353 Staples, A.C. 211, 353 Starbuck, D.R. 180, 265, 353 Starna, W.A. 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 47 , 51, 62, 135, 173, 193,294,333, 353 Steadman, D.W. 344, 345 Steen-Mcintyre, V. 142 , 353 Stehli, I. 194 Steponaitis, L. C . 51 , 53, 56-58, 335, 353 Steponaitis, V. 207, 208, 273 Sterud, E.L. 192 Stevens, P. 353, 357 Steward, J.H. 28, 353 Stewart, M.C . 21, 209, 210, 238, 270, 282 , 294, 354 Stewart, T.D. 336 Stillman, J. 20, 354 Stoltman, J.B. 134-137, 354, 358 Storck, P.L. 173, 175, 354 Stothers, D. 354 Stransky, J.J. 57,341 Stuckenrath, R. 138, 329, 354 Sullivan, J.A., & Others 354 Swanton, J.R. 215 , 354 Swigart, E.K. 193, 198, 354

T Tabor, S. 357 Talbot, N .E. 207 Taylor, D.W. 342 Taylor, L. 20, 142, 182, 191 -199, 204, 205, 208, 293, 298, Table 38 (303), 305, 354 Taylor, R.E. 142, 353, 354 Thomas, P.A. 180, 188, 264, 265 , 354 Thomas, R.A. 226, 228, 318, 354 Timlin, J. 21, 142, 355 Tompkins, R.C . 175, 181 , 355 Tooker, E. 330 Tooley, R.V. 85, 355 Trigger, B.G. 86, 138, 216-219, 221, 228, 355 Tringham, R. 229, 355 Trubowitz,N.L. 19, 173, 197,211,268,308,309,311 , 312,355 Tuck, J.A. 61, 175, 190,208,209,213, 221 , 222 , 228, 270 , 323,346,355 Turnbaugh, W.A. 191, 192, 198-200, 204, 206, 222, 355 Turnbull, C.J. 212, 226, 355 Turner, F.J. 355

u United States Department of Transportation 355

v Vaccaro, A. 340 Vaccaro, F. 340 Vaccaro , J. 340 Vaccaro, N. 340 Verdeza, J. 20, 355 Vernon, W.W. 21, 43, 142, 349, 353 Versaggi, N.M. 22, 171 , 184, 207 , 208, 213, 245, 268, 270,271,273,279,295 , 312,348, 355,356 Visscher, N.I. 86 Volman, K. 329

w Wadleigh, W.M. 326, 356 Wahla, E.J. 337 Wallace, D. 15 Wallace, P.A.W. 87, 273, 294, 356 Wallick, E.I. 334 Walters, G.R. 339 Wanser, J.C . 335 Warner, B.G. 343 Warren, N.H. 354 Washburn, W.E. 218, 219, 356 Watts, W.A. 356 Waugh, F.W. 62, 356 Weaver, J.E. 46, 51, 356 Webb, S.D. 345 Webb, T., III 95, 122, 124, 330, 339 Weber, J.C . 19, 22, 191 , 192, 218, 245, 246, 270, 293, 356 Wedel, W.R. 356 Weide, D.R. 16 Weide, M.L. 19, 22 , 173, 192, 245 , 346, 275, 356 Weinman, P.L. 61, 129, 196, 339, 356 Weinman, T.P. 61, 129, 196, 339, 356 Wellman, B. 15, 16, 19, 22, 33, 34, 112, 173, 182, 188, 213 , 245,265,325 , 339,356-357 Wendland, W.M. 320-322, 357, Fig. 39 (pocket) Werner, D.J. 343, 357 Weslager, C.A. 87, 357 West., F.H. 142, 357 Whaling, M. 174, 178 White, L.A. 28, 357 White, M.E. 19, 281 , 357 Whitehead, D.R. 115, 357 Whitney, T. 20, 21, 173-178, 181 , 195, 196, 200, 207, 209, 210,245,269,270,273 , 274,294,295, 329, 331,354,357, 358 Wiant, M.D. 334 Wilcox, D.R. 16, 194, 204 Wilcox, E., Jr. 20, 358 Wilder, J. 329 Wilkins, G.R. 173, 358 Willey, G .R. 125-127, 132, 133, 135, 140, 141 , 358 Williams, A.B. 51, 56, 57 364

Williams, L. 204 Williams, S. 358 Willis, E.H. 332 Willoughby, C . 358 Wissler, C . 215, 358 Witmer, J.P. 218 Witthoft,J. 85-87, 173, 196-198, 209, 218, 219, 268, 287,358 Wittry, W.L. 190, 358 Wolman, M.G . 97, 345, 358 Wray, C .F. 358 Wright,J.V. 180, 218, 221, 226, 228, 325, 345, 358 Wyatt, R. 220, 358

y Yager, W. 20 Yarnell, R.A. 62, 358 Youngs, K.A. 353

z Zabel, T.H. 342, 353, 354 Zakucia, J. 329

365

SITES AND LOCALITIES INDEX (VOL. 1) All locations in New York State unless otherwise indicated

A Abbott Farm site, New Jersey 204, Fig. 40 (pocket) ABCsite 211 Adequentaga site 21, Fig. 1 (24) Adirondack Mountains 45, 48, 58 Afton site Table 16 (146), Plate 15 (203), 204, 289, Fig. 40 (pocket) Allegheny County 43, 190 Allegheny Plateau 19, 43, 44, 48, 70, 219, 280, 308 AlleghenyValley 19, 190 Antes Creek, Pennsylvania 191 Anzicksite, Montana 210 Apl-6 site Fig. 1 (24), Table 16 (146), 204, Table 31C (263), 271 -273, 291, Fig. 40 (pocket) Appalachian Plateau 100 Arbuckle-Lozier site (see Shearer site) Assawompsett Lake, Massachusetts 211 Augustine Mound site, New Brunswick 212

B Bainbridge site 20, Fig. 1 (24), Table 8 (73), Table 16 (144), 207, 208, Fig. 29 (260), Table 31C (263), 270-273, 281, 291, Fig. 40 (pocket) Bannerman site 187, 190, Fig. 27 (233) Barren Island site 199, Fig. 27 (233), Fig. 40 (pocket) Bates site Fig. 1 (24), Table 16 (144), Table 17 (168), 207, 208, Fig. 29 (269), Table 31C (263), 270-274, 278, 281, 291, Fig. 40 (pocket) Batiscan site, Quebec 226 Batten Kill River 196 Bear Mountain 280 Bear Swamp site, Massachusetts 211 BearWallowsites, West Virginia 173 Belmont Bog 122, 124 Bemis site Fig. 1(24),39, Table 13 (130), Table 16 (144), Fig. 23 (155), 208, 209, 231, Fig. 27 (233), 234, 238, Fig. 29 (260), Table 31C (263), 270-273, 275, Table 32 (276), 293, 313, 318, Fig. 40 (pocket) Benny Wells site Fig. 1 (24), Table 16 (152), 283 Bent site 31 7, Fig. 40 (pocket) Binghamton 13, 15, 21, 22, 30, 43, 87, 88, 91, 142, 181, 185, 191-193, 197,200,204,208,209,246, 266,270,273,281,282,289,316,327 Black Rock site 290, Fig. 40 (pocket) Bliss site, Connecticut 191, 210-212, 279, Fig. 40 (pocket) Blue Ridge Mountains, Virginia 46 Boland site 207, 208, 272-274, 291 Bowman Mound site, Virginia 228 Bradford county, Pennsylvania 86 Brandywine Creek, Pennsylvania 97

Brewerton sites 190, 210, 284, 31 7, Fig. 40 (pocket) Brier Creek 49, 97, Fig. 11 (102) Bristol Hills 19 Broome county 20, 53, 174, Table 18 (176) Broome Tech site (see Otsiningo) Brown site, Pennsylvania 190 Brown Knoll site Fig. 1 (24), Table 8 (73), 192 Bull Brook sites, Massachusetts 175, 283, Fig. 40 (pocket) Butternut Creek Table 18 (176), 208, Table 20 (247), 293

c Calder Hill 49, Table 7 (72), Table 8 (73), 100, 101, Fig. 11(102),108-110, 114 Calder Hill Ravine Rockshelter site Fig. 1 (24), Table 16 (146), 206 Camelot No. 1 site Fig. 1 (24), 33, Table 3 (73), 95, 97, Fig. 9 (99), Fig. 11 (102), 103, 105, 109-111, Table 13 (130), Table 16 (146, 148), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Table 17 (160), 197-199, 224, 231, 242, Fig. 29 (260), Table 31B (262), 267, 274, 275, Table 32 (276), 287, 313, 319, Fig. 10 (pocket) , Fig. 40 (pocket) Camelot No. 2 site Fig. 1 (24), Table 8 (73), 95, Fig. 9 (99), Fig. 11 (102), 105, 109-112, Fig. 13 (113), 114, Table 13 (130), Fig. 16 (146), Table 16 (148, 150), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Table 17 (160), 186, 191-194, 196-199, 205, 206, 225, 231, Fig. 27 (233), 234, Fig. 29 (260), Table 31A (261), Table 31 B (262), 265-267, 271, 275, Table 32(276),284,287,288,313,319,Fig. 10 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Camelot Pond 35, 95, 110, 124, Table 17 (160) Canadarago Lake 20, 43, Plate 6 (69), Table 8 (73), 174, Table 18 (176), 208, 248, 282, 293 Canadian Shield 325 Canasawacta Creek 208 Canaseraga Creek 309 Carantouan village site (Pennsylvania) 85 Carolinas 85, 126, 181, 196, 224 Carthage, Tunisia 216 Castle Creek site 20, Fig. 1 (24), Table 16 (144), Table 17 (170), 207, 208, 209, Fig. 29 (260), Table31C (263), 270-274, 278, 281, 291, 317 Castle Gardens site 21, 23, Fig. 1 (24), 33 Table 16 (148, 150), Table 17 (166), 192-194, Fig. 27 (233), 238, Table31A(261), 267, 274, 279, 285, 287, 313 Catskill Mountains 43-45, 48, 54, 57-59 Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania 97 Chamberlain Hill Fig. 1 (24), 35, 49, Table 8 (73), 124, Table 17 (166)

366

Champlain Valley 173, 188, 190, 212 Charlotte Creek 33, 43, 49, 50, 70, Table 8 (73), 100, 101, Fig. 11(102),111, Fig. 13 (113), 114, 188, 195, 200, Table 20 (24 7), 284 Chemung River 43, 49, 85, 90, 209, 245 Chenango county 20, 53, 174, Table 18 (176, 178), 200, 207,283 Chenango River Valley 20, 43, Plate 5 (69), 81, 87, 90, 174, Table 18 (178), 181, 184, 191, 206, 208, 209, 245, Table 20 (247), 248, 273, 290, 295 Cherry Valley 88 Cherry Valley Creek 43, 174 Chesapeake Bay 13, 19, 20, 43, 85, 86, 91, 227, 326, 327 Choconut village site (see Chugnutts) Chugnuttsvillagesite 20, 88, Fig. 5 (89), 90, 294 Clark site 190 Claud No. 1 site 197, 268, Fig. 40 (pocket) Clum site Fig. 1(24),191 Coastal Plain 46 Cobleskill 142 Cobleskill Creek 100, 105 Coffin site 196, 198, Fig. 40 (pocket) Cole Gravel Pit site 58, 193, 211, 223, 266, 267 Colliersville Plate 4 (68), Table 8 (73), 192, 204 Conestoga Creek, Pennsylvania 87 Conestoga village site, Pennsylvania 87 Conesus Lake 308, 309 Conihuntovillagesite (Cunnahunta) 20, 86, 88, Fig. 5 (89), 90, 209, 294 Corditaipesite 283, Fig. 40 (pocket) Corn(Veen-Conner)site Fig. l (24), Table8(73), 193, 287 Cortland county 53 Cottage site 21, 23, Fig. 1 (24), 33 Table 16 (146), Table 17(166), 199,200,205,268,289,313,Fig. 40 (pocket) Crandall-Wells sites 23, Fig. 1 (24), Table 8 (73), llO, 124, Table 17 (160), 173, 313, 314 Cross Creek, Pennsylvania 326 Croton-Ossining region 281 Crowfield-Willaeyssite, Ontario 210 Cunnahunta (see Conihunto) Cuylerville site 226

D Dansville 308 Davenport 21 Davenport Creamery site 21, Fig. 1(24),33, Table 13 (130), Table 16 (146, 148, 150, 152), Fig. 22 (154), Table 17 (168), 198, 200, Plate 10 (201), 204, Fig. 29 (260), Table 31C (263), 268, 272, 289, Fig. 40 (pocket)

Davis site Fig. 1 (24), Table 16 (146), Table 17 (168), 205, 206, Fig. 29 (260) , Table 31CV (263), 269, Fig. 40 (pocket) Debert site, Nova Scotia 175 Deer Blind Rockshelter site 1''ig. 1 (24), Table 7 (72), Table 16(150), Fig. 23(155), 191, Table31A(261), 265, 284, Fig. 40 (pocket) Delaware Bay 85, 86 Delaware county 20, 33, 53, 62, 174, Table 18 (178), 191 Delaware Valley 19, 33, 48, 49, 85-87, 173, 174, 180, 184, 187, 193, 195-200,206,208,211,221, 222,225-227,266,268,269,275,283,314, 318, Fig. 40 (pocket) Delmarva Peninsula 226 Dennissite 196, 198, 199,226,Fig. 27(233),Fig. 40 (pocket) Deowongo Island site 20, Fig. 1 (24), Plate 6 (69), Table 8 (73), Table 16 (144), 208, 209, Fig. 29 (260), Table 31C (263), 270-273, 293, 318, Fig. 40 (pocket) D&Hsite 213 Dill Farm site, Connecticut 181, Fig. 40 (pocket) Doerschuk site, North Carolina 187 Dogan Point site 190, 265 Dutchess Quarry Cave No. 1 site 175, 321, Fig. 40 (pocket) Dutchess Quarry Cave No. 8 site Fig. 40 (pocket)

E Eagle Hill Camp Bog 122 East Creek site 193 East Worcester 246 Egli site 21, Fig. 1 (24), 33, Table 8 (73), Table 13 (130), Table 16 (142, 144, 146), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Table 17 (166), 204, 207, 208, Table 31C (263), 269-273, 275, Table 32 (276), 291, 294, 313, Fig. 40 (pocket) Emmons 49, 50, Table8 (73), 97, 101 , Fig. 11 (102) , 103, 114, 173, 245, 246, 248, Table 29 (257), 295,319 Emmons Bridge site Table 17 (170) Enck Farm 35,50, Table8(73),97, 101, Fig.11 (102), 105, 108-110, 112, Fig. 13 (113), 114, 319, 320, Fig. 10 (pocket)_ Enck No. 1 site Fig. 1 (24), Table 8 (73), 97, 98, 108, 115, 124, Table 13 (130), Table 14 (131), Table 16 (148), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Table 17 (160162), 197, Table 31B (262), 271, 275, Table 32 (276), 313, Fig. 40 (pocket) Enck No. 2 site Fig. 1 (24), Table 8 (73), 95, Fig. 9 (99), 109, Table 13 (130), Table 16 (146, 148, 150), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Table 17 (162), 173, 192-194, 196, 199, 231, Fig. 27 (233), 234, 242, Fig. 29 (260), Table 31A (261), Table 31B (262), 266, 267, 272, 275, Table32 (276), 285, 287, 313,314

367

Endicott 20 Engelbert site 21, Fig. 1 (24), Table 16 (144, 150), Table 17 (168), 192, 193, 207-210, Table31C (263), 270, 271, 282, 291, 294, Fig. 40 (pocket)

F F & F Airpark Table 8 (73) Fayum, Egypt 216 Fall Line 43 Felix site 269, Fig. 40 (pocket) Finger Lakes 19, 30, 212, 222, 223, 280, 282, Fig. 40 (pocket) Fish Club Cave site 190, 265 , Fig. 40 (pocket) Fishers Island 219 Flax Island Creek 49, TableB (73), 97, Fig. 11(102),107, 108, Fig. 13 (113) Flint Mine Hill site 282 Ford site 204, Fig. 27 (233), 289, Fig. 40 (pocket) FortAnn 275 Fort Herkimer 90 Fort Nassau 85, 86 Fort Niagara 90 Fort Orange 86 FortStanwix 88, 90, 91 Fortin site Fig. 1(24),33, 39, Table8 (73),95, Fig. 6 (96), 97, Fig. 9 (99), Fig. 11 (102), 103, 105, 111, 112, Fig. 13 (113), 114, Table 13 (130), Table 16 (144, 146, 148, 150), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Table 17 ( 158), 192-199, 204-208, Fig. 27 (233), 234, 236-238, 241 , 242, Fig. 29 (260), Table31A(261), Table31B(262), Table31C (263), 266, 267, 269-275 , Table 32 (276), 285, 287, 288, 291, 313, Fig. 10 (pocket) , Fig. 40 (pocket) Franklin Mountain 49, 50, Plate 1 (65) , Plate 2 (67), Table 7 (72), Table 8 (73), 75 Fredenburg site 21, Fig. 1 (24), Table 7 (72), Table 16 (146), Table 17 (168), Plate 11 (202), 204, Fig. 29 (260), Table 31C (263), 269, 271, 272, 274, 289, Fig. 40 (pocket) Frontenac Island site 195, 211, 219, 223, Fig. 40 (pocket)

G GardepePond 35, 50, TableB (73), 107, 120 Gardepe site Fig. 1 (24), Table 8 (73) , Fig. 6 (96), 103, 105-107, Fig. 13 (113), 114, 115, 124, Table 13 (130), Table 16 (146, 148, 152), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Table 17 (164), 173, 182, 199, 200, 205, 206, 231, Fig. 27 (233), 238, 248, 259, 268, 288, 313, 318, Fig. 10 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Genesee Valley 19, 49, Fig. 25 (157), 173, 185, 193, 195, 197,222,223,226,266,267,268,308,309, Fig. 38 (311), Table44 (312) , 325, Fig. 40 (pocket)

Gifford Creek 49, Table 8 (73), 97, 111, Table 29 (257) Gilbertsville 20 Gillingham No. 1 Rockshelter site Fig. 1 (24) , Table 7 (72), Table 16 (144, 148, 152), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), 188, 191, Table31A(261) , 265, 284, Fig. 40 (pocket) Gillingham No. 2 Rockshelter site Fig. 1 (24), Table 7 (72) Glaciated Allegheny Plateau 43, 45, 46, 47, 100 Goodyear Lake 209, Table 20 (247) Goodyear Lake site Fig. 1 (24), 208, 209, Table 20 (247) Gravesen site Fig. 1 (24), Table 8 (73), Table 16 (148), Table 17 (168), 195, 196, Table 31B (262), 271, 272, 287, Fig. 40 (pocket) Great Bear Swamp 124 Green site Fig. 1 (24) Green Mountains, Vermont 48 Griffin-Howard site, Connecticut 212 , Fig. 40 (pocket) Grindstone Island site 200, Fig. 40 ()pocket) Gulf of St. Lawrence 138

H Hardaway site, North Carolina 187 Harrington Rockshelter site Fig. 1 (24), 208, 293 Harrisena Farm site 180, 184 Harrison County quarries, Indiana 318 Harry's Farm site, New Jersey 180, 184, Fig. 40 (pocket) Hendrick Farm Fig. 1 (24), 173 Hendrick No. 4 site 213 Hilltop site 20, Fig. 1 (24), Plate 3 (67), Table 7 (72), Table 16 (144), 207, 274, 282, 291, Fig. 40 (pocket) Himmer Rockshelter site 196, Fig. 40 (pocket) Hiscock site 312 Holcombe site, Michigan 242 Hollowell site 181, 187, Fig. 40 (pocket) Hoosick sites 225 Houghton Bog 122 Hudson-Champlain Region 46, 265 Hudson Lake sites Fig. 1(24),192, 275 Hudson Valley 19, 29, 30, 33, 44-47, 49, 59, 61, 75, 8688, 90, 91, 120-122, 124, 129, Fig. 25 (157), 173, 175, 180, 181, 184, 185, 187, 190, 191, 193-199, 204-206, 211, 221-223, 227, 228, 232, 259, 265-268, 280, 281, 284, 287-290, 298, 299, Fig. 33 (300), Table 36 (301) , Table 37 (302), Table 39 (304), Fig. 35 (306), Fig. 36 (307) , 308, 314-317, 325, 326, Fig. 40 (pocket)

lcehouse Bottom site, Tennessee 187, 210 Indian Lake 45 Ingaren village site, Pennsylvania 88, 294

368

J Jamba site Fig. 1 (24), Table 16 (144), Table 17 (168), Table 18 (178), 207, 208, Table 31C (263), 270, 272,273,283,291 Jamestown, Virginia 85 John's Bridge site, Vermont 188, 264, Fig. 40 (pocket) Johnsen No. 1 site Fig. 1(24),39, Table8(73), 105-107, Table 13 (130), Table 16 (146, 148), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), 197, 199, 200, Table 31B (262), 267, 271, 275, Table 32 (276), 313, Fig. 10 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Johnsen No. 2site Fig. 1(24),34, Table8(73), 105-107, Table 13 (130), Table 16 (148), 182, 193, Table 31B (262), 313, Fig. 10 (pocket) Johnsen No. 3 site 15, Fig. 1 (24), 31, 34, 39, Table 8 (73), 105-107, Table 13 (130), Table 14 (131), Table 16 (152), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Table 17 (164-166), 180, 182, 184, 187, 258, 259, Fig. 29 (260), Table31A(261), 271, 272, 278, 283, 284, 313, 320, Fig. 10 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Juniata River, Pennsylvania 87

K KI site, Vermont 190, 265, 279, Fig. 40 (pocket) Kings Road site 129, Fig. 40 (pocket) Kipp Island site 61, 269, 290, 317, Fig. 40 (pocket) Knox site 190 Koster site, Illinois 210 Kuhr Farm 50, Table8 (73), Fig. 11(102),107-109, 112, Fig.13(113), 114, 173,319,320,Fig.10 (pocket) Kuhr No. 1 site Fig. 1 (24), Table8 (73), 95, 97, Fig. 9 (99), 105, 107, 108, 115, 124, Fig. 19 (128), 132, 133, Table 13 (130), Table 14 (131), Table 16 (144, 146, 148, 150), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Table 17 (182), 186, 192-194, 197, 198, 200, 206, 231, Fig. 27 (233), 234, 238, 242, Fig. 29 (260), Table 31A (261), Table 31B (262), 266268, 271, 272, 275, Table32 (276), 285, 287, 288, 313, 314, Fig. 10 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Kuhr No. 2 site Fig. 1 (24), Table 8 (73), 95, Fig. 9 (99), 105, 107, 108, Table 13 (130), 132, 133, Table 16 (146, 148, 150, 152), Fig. 22 (154), Table 17 (162), 191-195, 205, 206, 234, 237, 238, Table 31A(261), Table 31B (262), 266, 267, 272, 274, 275, 278, 279, 284, 285, 313, Fig. 10 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket)

L Labrador, Canada 138, 213 Lake Erie-Lake Ontario Lowland 44-46, 173, 209, 280, 308 Lake George 19, 180, 184, 190 Lake Misery Fig. 1 (24), 35, 115, Fig. 16 (118), 120, 121, 124, Table 17 (166)

Lake Montauk site 211, 225, Fig. 40 (pocket) Lake Ontario Plain 45, 46 Lake Winnepesaukee, New Hampshire 181 Lamb site 175 LamokaLakesite 192, 193, Fig. 27 (233), 266, 278, 279, 281, 285, 317, 321, Fig. 40 (pocket) Lancaster county, Pennsylvania 86 Laurens Kettle 120 Le Havre de Grace, Maryland 43 Little Tennessee River, Tennessee 184 Livingston county 308 Long Island 45, 47, 49, 53, 54, 59, 61, 62, 75, 211, 225, 232, 268, 323, 325, Fig. 40 (pocket) Long Sault Mound site 212 Lookout site Fig. 1 (24), Table 7 (72), 207 Lordsite 294 Lotus Point site 190, Fig. 40 (pocket) Loyalsock Creek, Pennsylvania 200 Lycoming Creek, Pennsylvania 192 Ly-6 site, Pennsylvania 198 Ly-37 site, Pennsylvania 200, Fig. 40 (pocket) Ly-62 site, Pennsylvania 198, Fig. 40 (pocket) Ly-76 site, Pennsylvania 191, Fig. 40 (pocket)

M Madisoncounty 21, 174, Table 18(176) Manitoba, Canada 46 Maple Terrace site 21, Fig. 1 (24), Table 16 (146), Table 17 (168), 199, 288, Fig. 40 (pocket) Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts 19, 200, 212, 226-228 Maryland Kettle 120 Mattice No. 1 site 21, Fig. 1 (24), llO, 192 Mattice No. 2 site Fig. 1 (24), 34, 97, 105, 110-112, 124, Table 13 (130), Table 16 (150), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Table 17 (160), 173, 192-194, 231, Fig. 27 (233), 234, 238, 242, Fig. 29 (260), Table31A(261), 266, 267, 271 , 273-275, Table 32(276),279,285,313,314,317,319,Fig. 10 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Mattice Swamp Meander 35, Table 8 (73), Fig. 11 (102), 109-112, Fig. 13 (113) Maxon, Derby site 273, 291 McCulley No. 1 site 21, Fig. 1(24),33, Table 13 (130), Table 16 (152), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Table 17(168), 188,Plate9(189), 191, 192, 195,Fig. 29 (260), Table 31A(261), 265, 272, 274, 275, Table 32 (276), 278, 284, Fig. 40 (pocket) McCulleyNo. 2site Fig. I (24), Table 16(148), 195, 196, Table 31 B (262), Fig. 40 (pocket) Meadowcroft Rockshelter site, Pennsylvania 142, 181, 264, 265 Meadowdale Bog 124 Menands Bridge site 199 Messina site 23, Fig. 1 (24), Table 8 (73), 313 Mid-Atlantic Province 13, 19, 30, 219, 220, 222-226, 326

369

Milford Center Kettle 120 Mill Creek 35, 43, 49, 50, Table 7 (72), Table 8 (73), 97, Fig. II (102), 103, 109-111 Miner Farm site Fig. 1 (24), Fig. 13 (113), 174, Table 18 (178),269,274,289 Minisink Valley 88 Mohawk Valley 19, 31, 49, 58, 75, 85, 86, 88, 90, 91, Fig. 25 (157), 173, 193, 209, 212, 223, 270, 275, 283, 290, 325, Fig. 40 (pocket) Mohonk Rockshelter site 213, Fig. 40 (pocket) Morrison's Island- 6 site, Quebec 191, 210, 266, Fig. 40 (pocket) Mount Vernon 87 Mount Zion 49, Table 7 (72) MudLakeEast Fig. I (24),35, 115, Fig. 15(117), 120, 121, 124, Table 17 (166) MuddyBrookRocksheltersite 181, 184, 264, 265, Fig. 40 (pocket) Munson site Fig. 1(24),115, 124, Table 13 (130), Table 16 (144, 146), Table 17 (160), 199, 209, 313, 314 Munsungan Lake sites, Maine 181, Fig. 40 (pocket)

N Nahrwold No. 2 site 268, Fig. 40 (pocket) New Brunswick, Canada 138, 212, 226 Newfoundland, Canada 138 New Hampton Bog 122 Neville site, New Hampshire 181, 184, 187, 188, 219, 222, 264, Fig. 40 (pocket) Niagara 88, 90 Niagara Frontier 19, 45, 87, Fig. 25 (157), 195, Fig. 40 (pocket) Nichols 21, 182, 185, 209, 210, 270 Nine Mile Swamp Fig. 1 (24), Plate5 (69), 174, Table 18 (178), 248, 283, 288 Nineveh site Fig. I (24), 191, 206 North Bowdoin Rockshelter site 181, 264, 265, Fig. 40 (pocket) Norwich 20, Table 7 (72), 142, 174, 269, 270, 283 Nova Scotia, Canada 138, 175

0 Oatman site 196, Fig. 40 (pocket) Oberlander No. 1 site 190, 195, 222, 266, Fig. 40 (pocket) Old Place site 181 Old Lyme, Connecticut 191, 197, 210, 212 Onaquaga village site 20, Fig. 1(24),48, 61, 86, 88, Fig. 5 (89), 90, 91, 209, 294, Fig. 40 (pocket) Oneida county 21 O'Neil site 197, 198, 200, 268, 288, Fig. 40 (pocket) Oneonta 13, 20, 21, 33, 34, 43, 49, 50, Plate 1 (65), Table7(72), Table8(73),97, 100, 101,Fig. ll (102), 103, 111, 112, 115, 142, 182, 185, 192, 207,208,213,246-248,269,282,289,327 Oneonta Bypass Bog Fig. 1 (24), 35, Table 8 (73), 115,

Fig. 17 ( 119), 120, 121 Oneonta Creek 49, 50, 100 Otego 16, 20, 21, 49, 50, Table 7 (72), Table 8 (73), 101, 103, 107, 142, 182, 188, 192, 195,204,206, 207,213,265,269,270,281,284,287,327 Otego Creek 34, 43, 49, 50, 70, Table8 (73), 100, 101, Fig. 11(102),111, 114, Table 17(170), 195, 245, 246, Table 20 (247) OtegoRocksheltersites 23, Fig. 1(24),249, 271, 272, 278,284,289,313 Otsdawa Creek 49, 100, Fig. 11 (102) Otsdawa Creek site Fig. 1 (24), Table 7 (72), Table 16 (144), 207, 209, 274, 281, 291, 317, Fig. 40 (pocket) Otsego county 20, 33, 45, 48, 53, 54, 62, 174, Table 18 (176, 178), 182, 195, 207 OtsegoLake 20,43,54,58,59,85,86,90,248,275, 285,291 Otsiningovillagesite 20, Fig. 1(24),86-88, Fig. 5 (89), 90, 91, Table 16 (142), 209, 294 Otter Creek No. 2site, Vermont 190, 210, 265, Fig. 40 (pocket) Ouleout Creek 43, 49, 70, 88, 207, Table 20 (247) Ouleout site 207, 269, 290 Osterhoudt site Fig. 1(24),192, Table31A(261), 271, 274, 285, Fig. 40 (poocket) Outpost site Fig. 1 (24), 207 Owego 61, 207, 247, 268, 270 Owego (Owegy) village site 86, Fig. 5 (89), 90, 294 Owens-Corning site Fig. 11 ( 102), Table 17 (166)

p Parham Ridge site 196, Fig. 40 (pocket) Patrick site, Tennessee 187 Peixtan village site, Pennsylvania 87 Perch Lake Mounds sites 282 Piedmont 43, 46, 126, 181, 196, 221, 224 Pipestave Hollow site 325, Fig. 40 (pocket) Pleasant Brook site Fig. 1 (24), Plate 7 (180), Table 18 (178) Plenge site, New Jersey 138, Fig. 40 (pocket) Plymouth Colony, Massachusetts 88 Pompeii, Italy 216 Port Dickinson site 273 Potomac River 46, 48, 86, 87 Potts site 173, 283, Fig. 40 (pocket) Pratt site, Massachusetts 212 Protection Bog 214

Q Queen Esther's Town, Pennsylvania 88

R Reagen site, Vermont 138, 175, Fig. 40 (pocket) Renier site, Wisconsin 210 370

Rhododendron Swamp 120 Richmond Hill site 180, 181, 187, Fig. 40 (pocket) Ridge and Valley Province 43, 46, 280 Riverhaven No. 2 site 268, Fig. 40 (pocket) River Street site (see Owego River Crossing) Robersonsite Fig. l (24) , 184 Robinson site 187, 195, 222 , 266, Fig. 40 (pocket) Rocklein site, New Jersey 180, 184, 264, Fig. 40 (pocket) Rock Run site, Pennsylvania 192, Fig. 40 (pocket) Rogers shelter site, Missouri 230 Rose site Fig. 1 (24), 34, Table 8 (73) , Fig . 11 (102) , 105, 109, 111, 114, Table 13(130), Table 16(146, 148), Fig. 22 (154) , Table 17 (160), 198, 205, 231, Fig. 27 (233), Fig. 29 (260) , Table 31 B (262) , Table31C (263) , 268, 269, 271, 272, 275, Table 32 (276), 288, 313, Fig. 40 (pocket) Rose Island site, Tennessee 182, 187 Roundtop site 20, 21 , Fig. 1 (24), Table 16 (144), Table 17 (168) , 207, 208, Fig. 27 (233), Fig. 29 (260) , Table31C (263), 269, 271 -274, 278, 291, Fig. 40 (pocket) Russ site Fig . 1(24) , 31, 34, 35, 37, 39, 43, 44, Table8 (73), Fig. 6 (96) , 97, 100, 103, 105-107, 112, Fig. 13 (113), 114, Table 13 (130) , Table 16 (142, 144, 146, 148, 150, 152) , Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Table 17 (164), 173, 181, 182, 184-187, 193, 194, 196, 198, 199,205,206, 230, 231, 235, 242 , 249, 259, Fig. 29 (260), Table 31A (261), 271 , 274, 275 , Table 32 (276), 278,279,283 , 313,316, 319, 320,Fig. 10 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) RussellBeachSwamp 35, 115, Fig. 17(119) , 120, 121 Russell Cave site, Alabama 210

s Sackett (Canandaigua) site 291, Fig . 40 (pocket) Saint Albans site, West Virginia 181 , 182, 187, 264 Saint Lawrence Valley 45, 61, 85, 86, 138, 190, 212, 222 , 228,323,325 Saint Mary's, Maryland 86 Sand Hill Creek 49, Table 8 (73), Table 29 (257) Sayre, Pennsylvania 97 , Fig. 8 (98) Scaccia site 226, 268, Fig. 40 (pocket) Schenevus Creek 43 , Plate 4 (68), 70, Table 8 (73) , 100, 105, 192, 246, Table 20 (247) , 275 Schoharie Creek 19, 21, 29, 75 , 85 , 88, 90, Fig. 25 (157) , 173, 188, 190, 200,204,227 , 236,239,265, 268,269,289,325 Schoharie county 43, 48, 54, 282 Seneca drainage 19, 61 , 197, 200, 268 , 288, 314 Setauket 45 Shacktown Mountain 283 Shafer site 188, 222, Fig. 27 (233), 265, Fig. 40 (pocket) Shagabak site 196 Shamokin village site, Pennsylvania 87

Sharon Springs 275, 287 Shawangunk Mountains 120 Shawnee-Minisink site, Pennsylvania 283, Fig. 40 (pocket) Shearer site 23, Fig. 1(24),313 Sheep Rock Shelter site, Pennsylvania 181, 184, 264, 265 Sheshequin village site, Pennsylvania 88 Shoop site, Pennsylvania 173, Fig. 40 (pocket) Sidney 13, 21, 33, 34, 49 , 50, 182, 185, 204, 209, 246, 269, 270,319 Sidney Airport site 213 Silver Lake Table 8 (73), Table 18 (176), 182 , 195, 287 Snook Kill site 196, Fig. 40 (pocket) South Mountain, Pennsylvania 275, 278, 318 South Shelter No. 1 site Fig. 1 (24), Table 7 (72) South Shelter No. 2 site Fig. 1 (24), Table 7 (72), Table 31A (261) South Shelter No. 3 site Fig. 1 (24) , Table 7 (72), Table 16 (150), 191, Table31A(261), 265 Spanish Hill, Pennsylvania 85 Staten Island 47, 53, 175, 180, 181, 187, 264 Sterling Forest 124 Sternberg site Fig. 1 (24), Table 8 (73), 97, Fig. 11 (102), Table 13 (130), Table 16 (144, 146), Fig. 23 (155) , Table 17 (164) , 205, 207 , Table 31C (263), 269, 275, Table 32 (276), 313, Fig. 40 (pocket) Stewart-Fullersite Fig. I (24),Fig. 23(155) , 181 , Fig. 40 (pocket) Street site 15, 23, Fig. 1 (24) , 97, Fig. 11 (102) , 105, 111 , 112, Fig. 13 (113), 114, Table 13 (130) , Table 14 (131), Table 16 (144) , Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155) , Table 17 (158-160), 205, 207 , 208, Fig. 27 (233), 234, 236-238, 241, 242, Fig. 29 (260), Table 31A (261), Table 31B (262) , Table 31C (263), 266, 267, 269, 271 -275, Table 32 (276), 285, 287, 288, 291, 313, Fig . 10 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Summit Lake 43 , 285 , 291 Sunbury, Pennsylvania 87 SylvanLakeRocksheltersite 188, 190, 196, 222, Fig. 27 (233), 265, 266, Fig. 40 (pocket)

T Taber child site, Alberta 142 Temple Concord site Fig. 1 (24), Table 16 (148, 150), 191 , 193, 197 Timlin site 142, 143, 173 Tioga village site, Pennsylvania 88, Fig. 5 (89), 90, 294 Tioga county 20, 86, 173, Table 18 (176) Tioughnioga River 21, 43, 81, 181, 246, Table 20 (247), 248,316 Turnbull site 290, Fig. 40 (pocket)

371

u Uaxactun, Guatemala 138 Unadilla 20, 49, 97, Table 18 (178) Unadilla village site 20, 21, 88, Fig. 5 (89), 90, 294 Unadilla River Valley 20, 43, 49, 81 , 90, 195, 207-209, 245, Table 20 (247), 248, Table 31A (261), 295, 321 Upper Great Lakes 46, 53, 62, 173, 225 Upper Llttle York Lake site Fig. 1 (24), 285 Upper Onaquaga village site 20

v Vail site, Maine 175, Fig. 40 (pocket) Valsequillo site, Mexico 142 Van Ness site Fig. 1 (24), 290, Fig. 40 (pocket) Van Smith sites Fig. 1 (24), Table8 (73), 192, 213, Table 31A (261), Table 31B (262), 270, 272, 293 Vestal, Town of 53 Vinette site 226, Fig. 40 (pocket) Vly Bog Fig. 1 (24), 35, 50, 52, Table 7 (72), 115, Fig. 14 (116), 120-122, 124, Table 17 (166)

w Ward's Point site 181 , 187, Fig. 40 (pocket) Washington Boro, Pennsylvania 85-87 Washinta Falls, Pennsylvania 87 Waverly 21, 43, 85 Weaver Lake site Fig. 1 (24) , 208, Fig. 40 (pocket) Weinman site 190, Fig. 27 (233), Fig. 40 (pocket) Weirs Beach site 180, Fig. 40 (pocket) Wells Bridge 31, 35, 43, 44, 49, 50, Table8 (73), 97, 100, 101, Fig. 11(102),105-107, 112, 173, 181, 182, 185, 245, 248, Table 29 (257), 283, 295,319,321

Wessels site 23, Fig. 1 (24), Table 16 (144), 313 West Athens Hill site 229, 230, 282, 283, Fig. 40 (pocket) West Creek 143 West Creek site 282, 287 Westheimersite 200, 204, 227, Fig. 27 (233), 236, 239, 242, 268, 269, 288, 289, Fig. 40 (pocket) West Oneonta 49, Table 18 (178), 209 West River site, Maryland 226 West Shelter No. 1 site Fig. 1 (24), Table 7 (72), Table 16 (146, 150), 191, 204, Table31A(261) West Shelter No. 2 site Table 7 (72) White site Fig. 1 (24), Table 7 (72), Table 16 ( 144), Table 17 (168), 207, 210, Fig. 29 (260), Table 31C (263), 269, 271-274, 279, 290, 317, Fig. 40 (pocket) Whitney Point 181 Williamsport, Pennsylvania 191, 192, 198 Willow Point site Fig. 1(24),53, 208, 281 Winnie Hill site Fig. 1 (24), Table 7 (72), Table 16 (148), 195, 196, Table 31B (262), 271, 272, 287, Fig. 40 (pocket) WMECO site, Connecticut 265, Fig. 40 (pocket) Worcester Bog 124 Wyalusing village site, Pennsylvania 88 Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania 87, 88, 90

y Yuha burial site, California 142 Yukon 142

z Zawatski site 190 Zimmermann Rockshelter site 196 Zimmerman site, Pennsylvania 197, Fig. 40 (pocket)

372

GENERAL SUBJECT INDEX (VOL. l)

A Abenaki confederacy 86 Abrading stones 23, 38, 187, 188, 196, 207, 208, 211, 212,239,278,287-290 Acceleratordating 142, 190 Activities, inferred 239-241, 278-279 Acorns 47, 81, 258, 259, 264-266, 268-270, 278, 279, 282, 283, 290, 291, 317, Fig. 39 (pocket) Adaptation, cultural 27-29, 313, 316-318, 320-326 Adena phase 140, Fig. 22 (154), 226, 227, 288, 318, 324 Adena-Middlesex phase 199, 200, 210, 212, 213, 226, 227, Table 23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (250), Fig. 29 (260), 268, 288, Table 34 (296), 298, Table 35 (297), Fig. 32 (299), Table 39 (304), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 35 (306) , Table 40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), Fig. 38 (311), Table 41 (312), 315, 317-319, 323-325, 327, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Adena points Table 16 (147), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), Fig. 26 (172), 199, 200, 226, 268, Table 33 (277), 288, 298, Fig. 33 (300), Table 36 (301), Table 37 (302), Table 38 (303), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 36 (307) Adzes 38, Fig. 24 (156), 187, 192, 197, 200, 208, 210, 212,236,239,240,241,278 Adzes, beveled Table 16 (147), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 24 (156), Table 17 (162), 192, 285, 324, 325 Agate Basin points 175 Agriculture 45, 49 Agwrondougus (Good Peter) 88, 90 Albany Conference 87 Alewives 59 Algonquin tradition 221, 228, Fig. 40 (pocket) Alleghenian Faunal Area of Transition 47, 48 Alluvial deposits 19, 33, 34, 44, 45, 50, Chapter 7 (95114), 319-320 Alluvial fans 50, 68, 71, 80, 81, 97, 98, 100, 101, 103, 107-111, 114,248,249,319 American Philosophical Society 15 American Revolution 90, 91, 315 Amino acid racemization 142 Amphibians Frogs 58, 71, 75 Mud puppies 58 Newts 58 Salamanders 58 Toads 58 Amulets, bar Fig. 24 (156), 200, 212 Andros, Governor 86 Anglo-Dutch War 86 Antouororonons 85 Anvilstones 23, 38, 182, 187, 188, 192, 193, 195-198, 206,207,223,235,236,239,240,259,Fig. 29

(260) , 278, 282, 316 Archaeological record 125 Archaic cultural stage 13, 21, 132-135, 138, Table 15 (139), 140, 143, 173, 174,238,249,274,283, 291,309,324 Arctic Life Zone 4 7 Argillite, purple-weathering Plate 12 (203), 204, 275, Table 33 (277), 318, 319 Artifact types (see Types, artifact) Assemblage, archaeological 126 Assortment, archaeological 126 Atlantic phase 212, Fig. 40 (pocket) Atlantic points Fig. 25 (157), Fig. 26 (172), 212, 224 Atlatl weights (see Bannerstones) Austral Life Zone 4 7 Awls, copper 20 Axes, grooved 20, Fig. 24 (156), 188, 210, 212, 278

B Baltimore, Lord 86 Band organization 19, 25 Bannerstones (atlatl weights) 20, Fig. 24 (156), 187, 188, 191, 192, 195,210-212,223,224,232,240, 259 Bare Island points Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), Fig. 26 ( 172), Table 38 (303) Bass, black 270 Bass, large-mouthed 48, Table 4 (60), Table 5 (61) Bass, rock Table 4 (60) Bass, small-mouthed Table 4 (60), Table 5 (61) Batten Kill phase Table 16 (149), Fig. 22 (154), 196, 211, 220, 222, 225, Table 23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), Fig. 29 (260), Table 31 B (262), 267, 272, 275, 287, Table 34 (296), Table 35 (297), 298, Fig. 32 (299), Table 39 (304), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 35 (306), 309, Table 40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), Fig. 38 (311), Table41 (312), 314, 320, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Beads, copper 20, 210, 212, 213 Beads, glass 20, Table 16 (143) Beans 31, 49, 80, 270, 271, 281, 291, 317, Fig. 39 (pocket) Bear, black 48, 52, Table 1 (54), Fig. 2 (55), 56, 57, 58, Table 7 (72), Table 8 (73), 74, 80, 258, 259, 264266, 268-271, 282, 284, 290, 317, Fig. 39 (pocket) Beaver 48, Table 1 (54), Fig. 2 (55), 57, Table8(73), 265, 266, 268-271, 282, 284, 290, 317, Fig. 39 (pocket) Beechnuts 264, 283, 317 Beekman Triangle points Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), Fig. 26 (172), 232, Fig. 27 (233) Beekmantown chert (see Fort Ann chert) 373

Berries 258, 259, 264, 281, 316, 317 Bifaces Functions, inferred 38, 229-232, 234 In process 188, 193, 195, 196, 198, 205, 212, 234, 236,239,240,242,Fig. 29(260),278,281,282 Killed 234 Knives Ovate orlanceolate 182, 184, 187, 188, 192, 193, 196-198, 200, Plate 10 (201), Plate 11 (202),205-208,210,232,234,239,240,259, 265,266,282,316 Susquehanna 23, Table 16 (149), 197, 206, 212, 213,234 Lamoka preforms 23, Table 16 (151), 234 Wear patterns 22 , 30, 38, 229, 230, 234-235 Bifuicated-base horizon 248, Table 23 (250), Table 27. (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), 264, Table 34 (296), Table 35 (297), Fig. 32 (299), Table 39 (304), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 35 (306), Table40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), 321, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Bifurcated-base points Table 16 (153), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Fig. 25 (157), Table 17 (164, 165), Fig. 26 (172), 180-182, Plate 8 (183), 184, 186-188, 207, Table 33 (277), 283, 284, Fig. 33 (300), Table 36 (301), Table 37 (302), Table 38 (303), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 36 (307), 317 Big Sandy points 190 Birch-beechpollenzone(C-3subzone) 52-54, 121, 124, 321 Birds Canvasback Table 2 (59) Condor, California 312 Crane Table 2 (59) Crow Table 2 (59) Dove Table 2 (59) Duck Table 2 (59), 264, 281 Eagle Table 2 (59) Gadwall Table 2 (59) Geese 48, Table 2 (59), 265, 281 Goldeneve Table 2 (59) Goose, Canada 48, Table 2 (59), 265 Goshawk Table 2 (59) Grebe Table 2 (59) Grouse 48, 58, Table 2 (59), Table 8 (73) , 264-266, 268, 270, 317, Fig. 39 (pocket) Hawk Table 2 (59) Heron Table 2 (59), 265 Loon Table 2 (59) Merganser Table 2 (59), 264, 268 Pochard Table 2 (59) Quail Table 2 (59), 265 Redhead Table 2 (55) Robin Table 2 (59) Shoveller Table 2 (59)

Swan Table 2 (59), 264 Teal Table 2 (59) Turkey 48, 58, Table2 (59), 71, Table7 (72), Table8 (73), 80, 259, 264-266, 268-270, 317, Fig. 39 (pocket) Birdstones Fig. 24 (156), 196, 199, 212, 225, 226 Bison 52 Block excavation 35-37 Boats blades 212 Boatstones 200 Bobcat 48, Table 1 (54), Fig. 2 (55), 58, 264, 268, 269 Boreal Forest 46, 48 Boreal Life Zone 4 7 Boreal pollen zone 321 Bouquet, Colonel Henry 87 Bowfin Table 5 (61) Bowmans Brook Phase Fig .40 (pocket) Brainard, Rev. David 88 Brant, GeneralJoseph 88 Brass, trade objects 209 Brewerton Corner-Notched points Table 16 (151), Fig. 23 (155), Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), Fig. 26 (172), 191, 231, 232, Table 33 (277), Fig. 33 (300), Table 36 (301), Table 37 (302), Table 38 (303) , Fig. 36 (307) Brewerton Eared-Notched points Table 16 (151), Fig. 23 (155) , Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), Table 17 (162), Fig. 26 (172), 191, 210, Table 33 (277), Fig. 33 (300), Table 36 (301), Table 37 (302), Table 38 (303), Fig. 36 (307) Brewerton Eared Triangle points Table 16 (151), Fig. 23 (155), Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), Table 17 (160), Fig. 26 (172), 191, 210, 232, Fig. 27 (233), Table 33 (277), Fig. 33 (300), Table 37 (301), Table 37 (302), Table 38 (303), Fig. 36 (307) Brewertonphase 21, 30, 32, 127, Table 16 (151-152), Fig. 22 (154), Table 17 (161), 188, 190-193, 195, 196,210,211,219,222-224,238,242,248, 249, Table 23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), Table 31A (261), 265, 266, 272, 274, Table32 (276), 278, 279, 284, 287, Table 34 (296), Table 35 (297), 298, Fig. 32 (299), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 35 (306), Table40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), Fig. 38 (311), Table41 (312), 314, 315, 318, 320, 321, 323, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Brewerton points Table 16 (151), Fig. 22 (154), Table 17 (164) , 181, 188, 191, 192, 207,208,222,224, 234, 248, Fig. 34 (305) Brewerton Side-Notched points Table 16 (151), 153, Fig. 23 (155), Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), Fig. 26 (172), 188,Plate9(189), 190, 191,231,232, Fig. 27 (233), Table 33 (277), 298, Fig. 33 (300), Table 36 (301), Table 37 (302), Table 38 (303), Fig. 36 (307) 374

Bristlecone pine calibration 221 Broadspear-Susquehannatradition 192, 210-212, 222 , 224,225,322 Broadspear points 322 Brodhead Net-Marked pottery 200 Brotherton Indians 90 Brule, Etienne 85 Bullhead 48, Table4 (60), Table5 (61), 264-266, 268-270 Bureau of Historic Site Services 16 Burial ceremonialism 210-213, 224-228, 241, 279, 282 Burial customs 210-213, 244, 279, 282-283, 290 Burial mounds 20, Fig. 25 (157), 200, 212, 282 Burnt Hill phase 204, Table 39 (304) , Fig. 35 (306) Bushkill phase Table 16 (147), Fig. 22 (154), Table 17 (163), 199, 200, 206, 226 , 227, Table 23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), Fig. 29(260), Table 31B (262), 268, 288, Table 34 (296), Fig . 35 (297), 298, Fig. 32 (299), Table 39 (304), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 35 (306), Table40 (310) , Fig. 37 (311), 317, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Butler, Walter 99 Butler, Colonel William 99 Butternuts 46, 47 , 264, 266-270, 282, 283, 288, 290 , 317,327

c Call phase 212 Canadian Biotic province 46, 48 Canandaigua phase or horizon Table 16 (145), Fig. 22 (154) , 207, 208, Table 23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), Fig. 29 (260), Table 31C (263), 270, 272, 279, 291, Table 34 (296) , Table 35 (297) , 298, Fig. 32 (299), Table 39 (304), Fig. 35 (306), Table 40 (310), Fig. 37 (311) , Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig . 40 (pocket) Canandaigua Plain pottery 207 Canoe Point phase Table 16 (147) , Fig. 22 (154), Table 17 (167, 169), 200, 204-206, 212, 226-228, Table 23 (250) , Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), Fig. 29 (260) , Table 31C (263), 268, 272, 289, Table 34 (296), Table 35 (297) , 298 , Fig. 32 (299), Table 39 (304), Fig. 34 (305) , Fig. 35 (306), Table 40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), 317, 322, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Canoomakers 85 Canvasback Table 2 (59) Capitanasses 85 Caribou 52, 258, 259, 283, 284, 312, 316, 321 , Fig. 40 (pocket) Carolinian Biotic Province 48 Carolinian FaunalArea 47 Carpenter Brook Cord-on-Cord pottery Table 17 ( 166), 207 Carpenter Brook phase or horizon Table 16 (145), Fig. 22 (154), Table 17 (159, 167, 169, 171) , 207, 208, 228, 249, Table 23 (250) , Table 27 (253) , Table

26 (254), Table 28 (256), Fig. 29 (260), Table 31C (263), 269, 270, 272, 273, 279, 282, 291, 298, (297),298, Fig . 32 (299), Table 39 (304) , Fig. 35 (306), 308, Table40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), 317, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Carte Figurative 85 Castle Creek phase or horizon Table 16 (145), Fig. 22 (154), 207-209, Table 23 (250) , Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), Fig. 29 (260), Table31C (263), 270, 272, 279, 291, 294, Table 34 (296) , Table 35 (297) , Fig. 32 (299), Table 39 (304), Fig. 35 (306), Table40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), 318, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Catfish Table 3 (60), Table 5 (61), 264, 266, 268 , 269 Causality, Cultural 27, 28 Cayuga tribe 86, 87, 90, Fig. 40 (pocket) Celts , polished stone 24, 38, Fig. 24 (156) , 187, 197 , 200, Plate 11 (202), 207, 212, 224, 225 , 239-241, 278 Central Onondaga chert 197 Ceramics (see pottery) Chalcedony, Flint Ridge 212, 319 Champlain Sea 173 Chance Incised pottery Table 16 (145), 208 Chance phase or horizon 20, 39, Table 16 (145), Fig. 22 (154) , 208, 209, 213, 221, 234, 249, Table23 (250), Table 27 (253) , Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), Fig. 29 (260), Table 31C (263), 270, 272, 275, Table 32 (276), 279, 293, Table 34 (296), 298, Table 35 (297) , Fig . 32 (299) , Table 39 (304), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 35 (306), Table 40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), 318, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Channel bars 103,Fig. 12(104), 105, 108, 109, 111, 112, 114 Charlotte phase 30, 141, Table 16 (149), Fig. 22 (154), Tablel7(159, 163), 195, 196, 211,223,224 , 238, 241, Table 23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), Fig. 29 (260), Table 31B (262), 267 , 272, 274, 275 , Table 32 (276) , 287, Table 34 (296), Table 35 (297), 298, 299, Fig. 32 (299), Fig. 34 (305) , Fig. 35 (306), Fig. 40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), 315, 320, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Charleston points Fig. 25 (157), Fig. 26 (172), 180, 184 Chenango Chapter, New York State Archeological Association 20, 174 Chenopodium 138, 269 Cherries 264, 270 Chert types Central Onondaga 197 Deepkill 174 Eastern Onondaga Plate 8 (183), Plate 9 (189), 198, Plate 10 (201) , Plate 12 (203), 275, Table 33 (277), 278

375

Esopus Plate8(183), 196, 275, 287, 319 FortAnn 175,275 Kalkberg 75, 275 Knauderack 275 Norrnanskill 174, Table 18 (178), 230, 275 , Table 33 (277), 278 Onondaga chert 75, 74, 181, Table 18 (176, 178), 197, 198, 200, Plate 11 (202), 275, 319 Oriskany 275 Western Onondaga 174, 192, 275, Table 3 (277), 278,318 Chestnuts 46, 47, 264, 317 Chiefdoms 125 Chipmunk Table 1 (54), Fig. 2 (55), 57, Table 8 (73), 264, 270 Choppers, stone 23, Fig. 24 (156), 184, 187, 188, 192, 197,207, 211 , 235,236,239-241,265,278, 283,285,287,288-290,316 Chronology Framework Chapter 10(141-213), 313-315 Projectile point Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 ( 155) Radiometric 19, 23, Fig. 24 (156), Table 17 (158-171) Relative 19, 126-129, 132, 133 Tempo 221 Chub 48, Table 4 (60), Table 5 (61), 270 Civilization 125 Claiborne, William 86 Clams, salt water 61, Table 6 (62) Clark, General John 85 Clemson's Island phase 315 Climate change 22, 29, 31, 44, 45, 51 -53, 95, 97, 112, Fig. 13 (113), 114, Chapter 8 (115-124), Fig. 39 (pocket) Clinton, General James 90 Clinton, Governor George 88, 90 Clovis Fluted points 175 Clovis phase 142 Coeaxiom 126, 129, 184 Coexistence, cultural 22, 216, 219-221 Columbus 85 Complexes, cultural 125 Components, archaeological 22, 29, 125-132 Condor, California 312 Coniferous forest 46 Conoytribe 87, 294, Fig. 40 (pocket) Conquest 22,31,215,216,218,220 Contact period 21, 22, 138, Table 15 (139), Table 23 (250), Table 28 (256), Table 31 C (263), Table 34 (296), Table 35 (297), Fig. 32 (299), Table 39 (304), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 35 (306), Table 40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), Fig. 39 (pocket) Continental Army 88 Corn (see Maize)

Cottontail (see Rabbit) Cranes Table 2 (59) Crayfish 71, Table 8 (73), 7 4 Creamware 39 Crematories 282 Cresap points 199 Crow Table 2 (59) Crowfield point horizon 175 Cryptocrystalline stones: see Chert,Jasper, Chalcedony Cucurbits (see Squashes) Cultigens 30-32, 74, 140, 269, 271, 289 Cultural change 27-29, 31, Chapter 11 (215-228) , 314316, 320-326 Cultural continuity Chapter 11(215-228),314-316, 320326 Cultural evolution 22, 23, 27, 28, 313-314, 322-326 Cultural materialism 22, 27, 313 Cultural resource management 22 Culturalresource surveys 15, 22, 245-247., 308-309, 326327 Cultural stability Chapter 11 (215-228), 314-316, 322326 Cultural sequence and chronology Chapter 10 (141-213), 313-315 Cultural subsystems 28, 315 Culture, definitions of 27, 125 Culture-historical approach 13, 22, 29, 125, 313-314 Culture history 19, 22, 23, 29, 125 Cumberland points 175 Cumberland-Barnes point horizon 175

D Dalton phase 213 Dalton points 175, 213 Debitage 23, 38, 39 Deciduous Forests 46, 47 Deepkill chert 174 Deer, white-tailed 48, 52, Table. (54), Fig. 2 (55), 56-58, 71, Table 7 (72), Table 8 (73), 74, 75, 80, 258, 259, 264-271, 280-282, 284, 290, 316, 317, Fig. 39 (pocket) Deglaciation 22, 43-45 Delaware confederacy (see Lenape) Devonian rocks 43 Diagnostic traits 140 Dibble cultivation (see Swidden horticulture) Dicarb Radioisotope Laboratory 194 Direct historical approach 28 Dog Table 1 (54), 57, 265, 266, 268-270 Dog or wolf 265 Domains, archaeological 133 Domesticates (see Cultigens) Dove Table 2 (59) Drills, chipped stone 23, 182, 187, 188, 193, 195-197, Plate 11 (202), 205-208, 211, 212, 224, 239,

376

278,287,290 Drumlins 70, 319 Dry Brook Fishtail points Table 16 (149), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Fig. 24 (156), 197, 198, 231, 232, Fig. 27 (233), 268, Table 33 (277), 288, 298, Table 38 (303), Fig. 34 (305) Duck Bay phase Fig. 40 (pocket) Ducks Table 2 (59), 264, 281

E Eagles Table 2 (59) Early Archaic cultural stage 19, 30, 31, 126, 135, Table 15 (139), 140, Table 17 (165), 175, 180-182, 184-188, Plate 8 (183), 200, 210, 222, 224, 231, 234, 246, 248, 249, 258, 259, Fig. 29 (260), 264, 275, Table 32 (276), 278, 283, 284, 295, 298, 309, Fig. 38 (311), Table41(312),314318, 320, 321, 327, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Early Hunters (see Paleo-Indian tradition) Early Lithic cultural stage 142, 143, 173, 314 EarlyPaleo-Indianculturalstage 138, Table 15(139), 173175, Table 23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), Table 34 (296), Table 35 (297), Fig. 32 (299), Table 39 (304), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 35 (306), Table 40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), Fig. 38 (311), Table4L (312), Fig. 40 (pocket) EarlyWoodlandculturalstage 31, 75, 126, 134, 138, Table 15 (139), 140, Table 17 (164, 171), 196, 198-200, 212, 219, 220, 225-227, 231, 268, 288,295,299,314,317,318,321,324,327, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Earthworks 20 Eastern Onondaga chert Plate 8 ( 183), Plate ( ( 189), 198, Plate 10 (201), Plate 12 (203), 275, Table 33 (277), 278 Eden points 175 Eel 48, 59, Table 3 (60), Table 5 (61), 270 Eleventh Pennsylvania Regiment 88 Elk 48, 52, Table 1 (54), Fig. 2 (55), 57, 58, 71, 258, 264266, 268-270, 284, 312, 316, 317, Fig. 39 (pocket) Enterline fluting technique 175 Environmental change 29, 31 Environmental zones 22, 31, 34, Chapter 5 (65-81), Fig. 4 (66), 245, 248, Table 21 (249), Table 22 (249), Table 23 (250) Eskers 50, 70, 319 Esopus chert Plage 8 (183), 196, 275, 287, 319 Euroamerican sites 24, 245 Excavation methods 35-37 Exchange (see Trade)

F Farmer Ceramic I and II cultural stages 138, Table 15 (139), 140 Fauna 22, 47-49 Faunal resource potential 22, Chapter 4 (51-62), Fig. 39 (pocket) Features Analysis 40 Classification 23, 40, 236-238 Description 23 Function 22, 236-239, 241, 278, 316 Field methods 33-38 Fisher Table 1 (54), Fig. 2 (55), 265, 269 Fishes Alewives 59 Bass, black 270 Bass, large-mouthed 48, Table 4 (60), Table 5 (61) Bass, rock Table 4 (60) Bass, small-mouthed Table 4 (60), Table 5 (61) Bowfin Table 5 (61) Bullhead 48, Table4(60), Table5(61), 264, 266, 268-270 Catfish Table 3 (60), Table 5 (61), 264, 266, 268, 269 Chub 48, Table 4 (60), Table 5 (61), 270 Eel 48, 59, Table 3 (60), Table 5 (61), 270 Herring 59, Table 3 (60) Killifishes Table 3 (60) Lamprey Table 3 (60) Minnows Table 3 (60) Pickerel 48, Tables 3, 4 (60), Table 5 (61) Pike Table 5 (61), 266, 269, 271 Sculpin 48, 53, Tables 3, 4 (60) Shad 48, 59, Table 5 (61), 264, 265, 269-271 Sheepshead Table 5 (61) Sturgeon Table 5 (61) Sucker 48, Tables 3, 4 (60), Table 5 (61), 264, 266, 268,270 Sunfish Table 3 (60), Table 5 (61), 266 Trout 48, 53, Tables 3, 4 (60), Table 5 (61) Whitefish 48, Table 3 (60) Fission-Trackdates 142 Five Nations Iroquois 85, 86, 88, 90, 91, 209, 294 Flint, Harrison county, Indiana 212, 318 Floodplain sites, stratified 31, 33-35, 39, Chapter 7 (95114) Floral resource potential 22, 23, Chapter4 (51-62), Fig. 3 (63) Fluted points 21, 138, Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), Fig. 26 (172), 173-175, Table 18 (176-179), 210, 213, 229, 249, 283, Table 38 (303), Fig. 34 (305), 312, 316, 319, 321, Fig. 398 (pocket) Fluvial geomorphology 22, 35, 44, Chapter 7 (95-114), 115, Fig. 39 (pocket) Folsom Fluted points 175

377

ForagerCulturalstage 138, Table 15(139), 140 Forager Early Ceramic stage 198 Forager Florescent I cultural stage 138, Table 15 (139), 140, 188, 190-198 Forager Florescent II cultural stage 138, Table 15 (139), 140,200 Forager Formative stage 138, Table 15 (139), 140 Forbes, Rev. Eli 88 Forests, classification 46, 53-54 Fort Ancient culture 87 FortAnnchert 175,275 Fourmile phase 204, 228, Table 39 (304), Fig. 35 (306), Fig. 40 (pocket) Fourth Pennsylvania Regiment 88 Fox, gray 47, 48, Table 1 (54), Fig. 2 (55), 58, 264-266, 269 Fox, red 48, 52, Table 1 (54), Fig. 2 (55), 58, Table 8 (73) , 259 Fox Creek phase 140, Table 16 (147), Fig. 22 (154), Table 17 (167, 169), 200, 204-206, 219, 227, 228, 239, 249, Table 23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), Fig. 29 (260), Table 31C (263), 269, 272, 274, 278, 289, 295, Table 34 (296), Table 35 (297), Fig. 32 (299), Table 39 (304) , Fig. 34 (305) , Fig. 35 (306), Table 40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), 314, 317, 318, 322, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Fox Creek points Table 16 (147), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), Table 17 (166, 167, 168), Fig. 26 (172), 200, Plate 10 (201), Plate 11 (202), Plate 12 (203), 204, 205, 219, 227, 232, Fig. 27 (233), 269, Table 33 (277), 289, 298, Fig. 33 (300), Table 36 (301), Table 37 (302), Table 38 (303), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 36 (307) Fox Creek Lanceolate points Plate 12 (203), 204 Fox Creek Stemmed points Plate 11 (202), 204 French and Indian War 87 Frey, Rev. Henry 88 Frogs 58, 71, 75 Frontenac phase 190, 193, 195, 210, 211, 219, 223, 323, Fig. 40 (pocket) Frost-free days 45 . Frost Island phase 30, 32, Table 16 (147), Fig. 22 (154), Table 17 (159, 161 , 163), 196, 197, 198, 199, 210,212,213,221,224,225,234,242,246, 248, 249, Table 23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), Fig. 29 (260), Table 31B (262), 267, 268, 272, 274, 275, Table 32 (276), 278, 279, 287, 288, 295, Table 34 (296), Table 35 (297), 298, Fig. 32 (299), Table 39 (304), Fig. 34 (305), Table 35 (306), 308, 309, Table40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), Fig. 38 (311), Table41(312),314, 317, 318, 320, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Fulton Tukey Tail points Table 33 (277)

Functional analysis 22, 38, Chapter 12 (229-243), 315, 316 Fur trade 85-87

G Gachoos 85 Gadwall Table 2 (59) Garoga phase or horizon Table 16 (145), Fig. 22 (154), 208, 209, 213, Table 23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), Fig. 29 (260), 270, 293, Table 34 (296), Table 35 (297), 298, Fig. 32 (299), Table 39 (304), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 35 (306), Table40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Geese 48, Table 2 (59), 265, 281 Genesee Group 43 Genesee points Table 16 (149), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155) , Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), Table 17 (168),Fig . 26(172), 192, 194, 195, 197,211, 224, 232, Fig. 27 (233), 275, Table33 (277), 287, 298, Fig. 33 (300), Table 36 (301), Table 37 (302) , Table 38 (303), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 36 (307) Glacial Kame phase 323, 327, Fig. 40 (pocket) Glaciation 22, 43 Champlain Sea 173 Drift 43 Drumlins 70, 319 Eskers 50, 70, 319 Great Lakean advance 52, 321 Hanging deltas 100 Karnes 40, 50, 70, 100, 173, 283, 284, 294, 319, 320 Kame deltas 43-45, 50, 70, Table 9 (76), 80, 81, 173, 248,284,291,319,320 Kame terraces 50, 70, Table 9 (76), 80, 81, 111, 209, 248,281,283,284,287,289,291,319 Kettles 50, 106, Fig. 13 (113), 319 Lake Albany 173 Lake Otego 44,95,97, 100, 112, 173,283,319, 320, Fig. 39 (pocket) Lake Whittlesey 173 Moraines 50, 70, Table 9 (76), Table 11 (99), 100, Fig. 39 (pocket) Outwash 43-45, 50, Table 9 (76), Table 11 (79), 80, 81,97, 100, 103, 105, 106, 107, 110, 143, 173, 248,249,281,283,284,285,287,289,290, 291, 294, 319-321 Proglacial lakes 44, 95, 97, 100, 112, 283, 316 Valley Heads outwash 43, 53, 100 Wells Bridge Moraine 43, 44, 50, Table 8 (73), 100, 101, 103, 105, 114,248,320 Wisconsinanglaciation 43, 100, 143 Woodfordian stage 43

378

Glen Meyer phase 218 , Fig. 40 (pocket) Glottochronology 21 7, 221 Goldeneve Table 2 (59) Good Peter (Agwrondougus) 88, 90 Goose, Canada 48, Table 2 (59), 265 Gorgets, two-holed, polished stone 20, 24, Fig. 24 ( 156), Fig. 25 (157), 198-200, Plate 12 (203), 212, 225227, 289 Goshawk Table 2 (59) Gouges, polished stone 20, 24, Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 26 (172), 188, 190-192, 195, 197, 210, 211 , 222224, 236, 240, 241, 284, 323 Gourds 31, 327 Grave goods Fig. 25 (157), 210-213 Great Lakean glacial advance 52, 321 Grebe Table 2 (59) Greene points Table 16 (145), Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), 204, 227, 232 , Fig. 27 (233), Fig. 33 (300), Table 36 (301), Table 37 (302), Table 38 (303), Fig. 36 (307) Greenhalgh, Wentworth 86 Greenland Eskimos 216 Grouse 48, 58, Table 2 (59), Table 8 (73), 264-266, 268, 270, 317, Fig. 39 (pocket) Ground slate points or knives Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 26 (172), 190-192, 211 Grubbers 187, 239, 240, 278 Gunflints 209

H Habitability scores Table9 (76-77), Table 10 (78), 80, 81, 248, Table 30 (258-259) Hamilton Group 43 Hammerstones 20, 23, 187, 188, 191, 193, 196, 197, 207,210,212,235,236,239,240,259,Fig .29 (260), 265, 278, 281, 282 Hammer-anvilstones 23 Hanging deltas 100 Hardaway-Dalton horizon Table 23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), Table 34 (296), Table 35 (297), Fig. 32 (299), Table 39 (304), Fig. 34 (305), Table 40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), Fig. 39 (pocket) Hardaway points 175, 182, 186-188, Fig. 34 (305) Hardaway-Dalton points 283, Table 38 (303) Hare 48, Table 1 (54), Fig. 2 (55), 57, 58, 266 Hartley, Colonel Thomas 88 Hartwick College 20, 21 Hawks Table 2 (59) Hawthorne apple 270 Hawley, Rev. Gideon 88, 90 Hazelnuts 47, 264, 269, 270, 283, 317 Heads, human, of stone 20 Hemlock-White Pine-Northern Hardwoods Forest 45, 46, 49

Hendrickson, Captain Cornelius 85 Herkimer, General Nicholas 88 Herons Table 2 (59), 265 Herring 59, Table 3 (60) Heye Foundation, Museum of the American Indian 20 Historic Euroamerican artifacts 24, 39, 209, 294 Beads, glass 20, Table 16 (143) Brass objects 209 Creamware 39 Gunflints 209 Kaolin pipes 209 Yellowware 39 Holocene epoch 34, 50, 53, 100, 101, 103, 105-108, 111, 112, 121, 142,248,249,258,272,278, 283,284,319,320,322 Hopewell culture 133, 228, 318 Hopewellianculture 20, Fig. 25 (157), 200, 212, 213, 227, 228, 282, 309, Fig. 38 (311), Table 41 (312), 319 Horizon, archaeological 125, 133, Fig. 25 (157), Fig. 26 (172) Horizon style, archeological 125, 133, Fig. 25 (157), Fig. 26 (172) Horticulture (see Snidden horticulture) House patterns 90, 207, 208, 210, 211, 242, 272-274 Hudsonian Life Zone 4 7 Hunter's Home phase Table 16 (145), Fig. 22 (154), Table 17 (159, 161, 169), 200, 205-207, 210, 213, 228, 249, Table 23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), Fig. 29 (260), Table 31C (263), 272, 274, 290, 291, 293, 295, Table 34 (296), Table 35 (297), Fig. 32 (299), Table 39 (304), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 35 (306), 308, Table 40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), 314, 317, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Huron tribe 85, 86, 216, Fig. 40 (pocket)

In-situ development 22, 30, 215-218, 220, 228 Interfluves (see Upland environmental zone) Interstate-81 21 Interstate-88 15, 19, 21, 35, 191, 246, 272 , 309, 312, 326 Interstate-390 Survey 19, 308-309 Intrusive Mound phase 228 Inverhuron phase Fig. 40 (pocket) Iroquoia 209 Iroquoian languages 85, 88, 221 Iroquoian settlements 30-32, 208 Iroquoian tribes 85 Iroquois 21, 30, 31, 86, 87 , 90, 91, Table 17 (169), 174, 196, 208-210, 213, 216, 219, 228, Table23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), 269, 270, 279, 281, 293-295 , 309, Fig. 38 (311), Table 41 (312), 314, 318, Fig. 40 (pocket)

379

J Jack's Reef Corner-Notched points Fig. 23 (155), 182, Plate 10 (201), 204-207, 228, 231, 232 , Fig. 27 (233), Table 33 (277), 289, 298, Fig. 33 (300), Table 36 (301), Table 37 (302), Table 38 (303), Fig. 36 (307), 314 Jack's Reef Corded pottery 205-207 Jack's Reef Corded Collar pottery 207 Jack's Reef points Table 16 (145, 147), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157) , Table 17 (158, 164, 168), Fig. 26 (172), 208, 220, 228, 232, 236, Fig. 34 (305) Jack's Reef Corded Punctate pottery Table 17 (158), 207 Jack's Reef Dentate Collar pottery 205 Jack's Reef Pentagonal points Fig. 23 (155), 174, 191, 204-207, 228, 231, 232 , Fig. 27 (233), Table33 (277), 289, 298, Fig. 33 (300), Table 36 (301), Table 37 (302), Table 38 (303), Fig. 36 (307), 314 Jasper, Pennsylvania 173, 174, Table 18 (176, 178), 198, 225, 275, Table 33 (277), 278, 318, 319 Johnson, Sir Guy 86 Judgement sampling 35 Juglans sp. (Butternut or walnut) 264, 265, 267

Table40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), 314, 317, 318, 322, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Kirk Corner-Notched points Table 16 (153), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), Fig. 26 (172), 180-182, Plate 8 (183) , 184, 186, 188, 283, 284, Table 38 (303), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 36 (307) Kirk phases Table 17 (165, 167), 184, 186, 187, 210, Table 23 (250, Table 27 (253) , Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), 258, Fig. 29 (260), Table 31A (261), 264, 272, 283, Table 34 (296) , Table 35 (297), Fig. 32 (299) , Table 39 (304), Fig. 34 (305), 308, Table40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), 315, 320, 321, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Kirk points 107, Table 16 (153) , 180-182, 184, 186-188 Kirk Stemmed points Table 16 (153), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), Table 17 (166), Fig. 26 (172), 180-182, 184, Table 38 (303), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 36 (307) Kirkland, Rev. Samuel 88 Kleynties 85 Knauderack chert 275 Koens-Crispin phase 212, Fig. 40 (pocket) Koens-Crispin points Fig. 26 ( 172), 196, 224 Kutztown State University, Pennsylvania 15

K Kalkberg chert 75, 275 Karnes 45,50,70, 100, 173,283,284,294,319,320 Kame deltas 43-45, 50, 70, Table 9 (76), 80, 81, 173, 248,284,291,319,320 Kame terraces 50, 70, Table 9 (76), 80, 81, 111, 204, 248, 281,283,284,287,289,291,319 Kanawha phase Table 16 ( 153), Fig. 22 ( 154), Table 23 (250), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), Fig. 29 (260), Table 31A (261), 284, Table 34 (296) , Table 35 (297), Fig. 32 (299), Table 39 (304), Fig. 34 (305), Table 40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Kanawha points Table 16 (153), Fig. 22 (1540, Fig. 23 (153), Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), Table 17 (164, 165), Fig. 26 (172), 180-182, 184, Plate 8 (183), 184, 187, 232, Table 38 (303), Fig. 34 (305) Kaolin pipes 192, 209 Kettles, glacial 50, 106, Fig. 13 (113), 319 Killifishes Table 3 (60) King Charles I 86 King Philip's War 88 Kipp Island Criss-cross pottery 207 Kipplslandphase 39, 127 , Tablel6(145 , 147),Fig. 22 (154), Table 17 (159, 169), 200, 204-206, 212, 213, 227, 228, 248, 249, Table 23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), Fig. 29 (260), Table31C (263), 269, 272, 274, 278, 289, 295, Table 34 (296), Table 35 (297), Fig. 32 (299), Table 39 (304), Fig. 34 (305, Fig. 35 (306),

L Laboratory methods 22, 38-40 Lackawaxen phase 193, 211, 322, 323, Fig. 40 (pocket) Lacustrine sedimentation 44, 95, 319 Lagoon phase 200, 212, 226-228, Fig. 40 (pocket) Lagoon points Fig. 22 (154), 200, 212, 220, 226 Lake Albany 173 Lake Forest 46 Lake Iroquois 173 Lake Otego 44, 95, 97, 100, 112 , 173, 283, 319, 320, Fig. 39 (pocket) Lake Whittlesey 173 Lamoka phase 19, 21, 30, 32, 107, 111, Table 16 (151), Fig. 22 (154), Table 17 (159, 161, 163, 169), 190, 192-197, 210, 211, 219, 221-226, 238, 242, 248, 249, Table 23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), Fig. 29 (260), Table 31A (261), 266, 272-275, Table 32 (276), 279, 284, 285, Fig. 30 (286), 287, 288, 295, Table 34 (296), Table 35 (297), 298, Fig. 32 (299), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 35 (306), 309, Table 40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), Fig. 38 (311) , Table41 (312), 314, 315, 317, 318, 320, 322-325, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Lamoka points 20, 30, Table 16 (151) , Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), Table 17 (158, 160, 162, 164, 166, 167, 168), Fig. 26 (172) , 181, 190-195, 198,Platel0(201),205, 207,208,213, 223,224,231,232,Fig.27

380

(233), Table 33 (277), 285, Table 38 (303), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 36 (307) Lampleys Table 3 (60) Larger study area 43-49, 65-81, 245-246 Late Archaic cultural stage 21, 30, 31, 47 , 95, 135, 138, 140, 143, Table 17 (161, 167) , 173, 181, 182, 185, 186, 188, 190-197,210,213,219,221, 222,223,231,238, 242,246, 259, Fig. 29 (260) , 264, 267, 278, 279, 281, 284-287, 295, 298,308,314,315,317,318,320-323,325 , 327, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Late Paleo-Indian cultural stage Table 15 (139), 175, 210, Table 23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 28 (256), Fig . 40 (pocket) Lateral bars 103, Fig. 12 (104), 105-112, 114, Fig. 13 (113) Late Woodland cultural stage 19-21 , 31 , 45 , 47, 135, 138, Table 15 (139) , 140, 191, 192, 200, 206-209, 219-221,228,238, 246, 249, 269,273, 274, 278-281 , 291 , 295,298,299,314, 316,318, 320, 321 , Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Laurentian, Early 21 Laurentian tradition 19, 30, 133, Table 17 (161), 184, 188, Plate 9 (189) , 190-192, 196, 210, 211, 220225, 231, 234, 265, 271 , 275, 279, 284, 295 , 298,314,322 , 323, 325 League of the Iroquois 88, 209 LeCroypoints Fig. 25(157),Fig. 26(172) , 180, 181, 187, 210 LeCroy phase Fig. 40 (pocket) Lehigh points 196, 212, 224 Lenape (Delaware) Confederacy 86-88 Leray chert 175 Levanna Cord-on-Cord pottery Table 17 (170), 207 Levanna points Table 16 (145 , 147), Fig . 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Fig . 24 (156) , Fig. 25 (157) , Table 17 (158, 160, 164, 168), Fig. 26 (172), 191, 195, 204208, 220, 228, 231, 232, Fig . 27 (233), 236, Table 33 (277), 290, 291, 298, Fig. 33 (300), Table 36 (301), Table 37 (302), Table 38 (303), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 36 (307), 314 Lexicostatistic dating (see Glottochronology) Lion, mountain Table 1 (54) , Fig. 2 (55) Little Falls dolomite 175 Little Ice Age 209 Living floors, analysis (see Occupation zones) Local group 125 Local habitats 22, 31, Chapter 5 (65-81), 248-249, Table 24 (251), Table 25 (252), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), Table 29 (257), 281 Long Bay points Fig. 24 (156), 204, 228, Table36 (307) Loons Table 2 (59) Lynx 52, Table 1 (54), Fig. 2 (55), 58, 259

M MacCorkle points 180, 181 Madison points Fig. 22 ( 154), Fig. 23 (155), Fig. 24 ( 156), Fig. 25 (157), Table 17 (170), Fig. 26 (172), 209, 232 , Fig. 27 (233) , Table 33 (277), 294, 298, Fig. 33 (300) , Table 36 (301), Table 37 (302), Table 38 (303) , Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 36 (307) Mahican confederacy 86, 88, 294, Fig. 40 (pocket) Maize 31, 32, 49, 80, 88, 91, Fig. 13 (113), Table 16 (143), Table 17 (164), 206, 209, 269-271, 274, 281, 290, 291, 293, 294, 316-317, 327, Fig. 39 (pocket) Mammals See Bear Beaver Bison Bobcat Caribou Chipmunk Deer Dog Dog or Wolf Elk Fisher Fox, gray Fox, red Hare Lion, mountain Mammoth Marten Mastodont Mink Moose Mouse Muskox Muskrat Otter Porcupine Rabbit Raccoon Rat Shrew Skunk Squirrel, flying Squirrel, gray Squirrel, red Vole Wolf Wolverine Woodchuck Mammoth 52, 258 Mansion Inn blades 212 Maquaas 85 MaritimeArchaictradition 133, 213 , 222, 323 Marten 52, Table 1 (54) , Fig. 2 (55), 259, 264

381

Massawomekes 85 Mast foods 46, 47, 53, 74, 80, 112, 266, 267, 271, 279, 287,317 Mastodont 43, 52, 53, 258, 312, 316, Fig. 39 (pocket) McKern-Griffin-Ritchie Scheme 22, 134-135, 138, Table 15 (139), 140 Meadowood cache blades Table 16 (147), Fig. 25 (157), Table 17 (158), Fig. 26 (172), 198, 199, 212, 225,288,318 Meadowood phase 21, 75, Table 16 (147), Fig. 22 (154), Table 17 (159, 169), 198-200, 210, 212, 213, 225-227, Table 23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), Fig. 29 (260), 268, 273, 278, 282, 288, Table 34 (296), Table 35 (297), Fig. 32 (299), Table 39 (304), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 35 (306), 309, Table40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), Fig. 38 (311), Table41(312),314, 317, 318, 320, 322, 323, Fig. 39 (pocket) , Fig. 40 (pocket) Meadowood points Table 16 (147), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), Table 17 (158, 168), Fig. 26 (172), 192, 195-199, 208, 212, 225, 231, 232, Fig. 27 (233), Table33 (277), 288, Fig. 33 (300), Table 36 (301), Table 37 (302), Table 38 (303), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 36 (307), 318, 323 Meander bars 103, Fig. 12 (104), 105, 110, 114 Meanders 50, 95 Meander scars 31 , 34, 50 Meltwater lakes (see Proglacial lakes) Mergansers Table 2 (59), 264, 268 Merrimack points 181 , 219 Middle Archaic Cultural Stage 19, 30, Table 15 (139), 140, Table 17 (161), 175, 180-182, 184-188, Plate 8 (183), 210, 219, 222, 224, 231, 234, 246, 248, 249, Fig. 29 (260), 264, 265, 278, 283,284,295,298,314-316,318,320,321, 323, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Middleburg Readvance 100 Middleport phase Fig. 40 (pocket) Middlesex phase (see Adena-Middlesex phase) Middle Woodland cultural stage 13, 19, 21, 30-32, 34, 106, 112, 135, 138, Table 15 (139), 140, Table 17(161, 164, 165, 167, 169, 171), 186, 191, 196, 199, 200, Plate 10 (201), Plate 11 (202), Plate 12 (203), 204-207, 210, 212, 213, 219221 , 226-228, 234, 238, 242, 246, 249, Fig. 29 (260),268,273,274,281,288,291,295,298, 299,308,309,314,315,318,320-322,324, 327, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Migration 22, 29-31, 215-218, 220 Milling stones 23, 187, 192, 197, 206, 208, 236, 239, 240,259,Fig.29(260),271,278,282,283 Mincquaes (Minquaas) 85, 86

Mink 48, Fig. 1 (54), Fig. 2 (55), 58 Minnows Table 3 (60) Modoc Side-Notched points 190 Mohawk tribe 85, 86, 88, 209, Fig. 40 (pocket) Mohegan tribe 88 Moles 47, 48, 264 Mollusks Clams, salt water 61, Table 6 (62) Mussels, fresh water 53, 61, Table6 (62), 265, 266, 269-271, 291, 293 Mussels, salt water 61, Table 6 (62) Oysters, Virginia 61, Table 6 (62), 264, 265 Moorehead phase 224, Fig. 40 (pocket) Moose 52, Table 1 (54), Fig. 2 (55), 58, 258, 259, 282, 284, Fig. 39 (pocket) Moraines 50, 70, Table 9 (76), Table 11 (99), 100, Fig . 39 (pocket) Morrow Mountain points 180-182, 187, 188, 264 Mortars 187, 240, 259, Fig. 29 (260), 266 Mortuary ceremonialism (see Burial ceremonialism) Mounds, annular 282 Mounds, burial (see Burial mounds) Mouse 48, Table 1 (54), Fig. 2 (55), 264, 270 Mousterian points 143 Mud puppies 58 Mullers 187, 198, 235, 236, 239, 240, 259, Fig. 29 (260), 266 Musk-ox 52, 53, 284 Muskrat 48, Table 1 (154), Fig. 2 (55), 56, 71, Table 7 (72), Table8 (73), 74, 75, 265, 266, 268, 269, 270,282 Mussels, fresh water 53, 61, Table 6 (62), 265, 266, 269271, 291, 293 Mussels, salt water 61, Table 6 (62)

N Nanticoke tribe 87, 91, 294, Fig. 40 (pocket) Narrow point tradition 30, 133, 190, 193, 194, 211, 219, 220,222,225,227,228,232,298,315,321, 322-325 Netsinkers, notched 20, 23, Table 17 (160), 187, 188, 192, 197, 198, 199, 200, Plate 10 (201), 206, 208, 235, 236, 239, 240, 259, Fig. 29 (260), 264,266-271,274,278,279,281,283,287, 288,293,316 Neutral tribe 86 Neville phase Table 16 (153), Fig. 22 (154), 187, 213, Table 23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Fig. 29 (260), Table 31A (261), 264, 265, 278, 279, 284, Table 34 (296), Table 35 (297), Fig. 32 (299), Table 39 (304), Fig. 34 (305), Table 40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), 318, 320, 321, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Neville points Table 16 (153), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), Table 17 (165), Fig.

382

26(172), 180-182,Plate8(183), 184, 186, 188, 213, Table 38 (303), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 36 (307), 321 Newts 58 New York State Anthropological Survey 21 NewYorkStateArcheologicalAssociation 15, 16, 21 New York State Biological Survey 16 NewYorkStateGeologicalSurvey 15, 16, 95 New York State Museum 15, 16, 21, 22 , 33-35, 38, 173, 189, 192,229, 245 New York State Science Service 38 Normanskill chert 174, Table 18 (178), 230, 275 , Table 33 (277)' 278 Normanskill points Table 16 (149) , Fig . 22 (154) , Fig. 23 (155), Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157) , Table 17 (158, 159, 162),Fig. 26(172), 192, 194, 195, 198, 213, 223, 224, 231 , 232 , Fig. 27 (233) , 234, 267, Table 33 (277), 287, 298, Fig. 33 (300) , Table 36 (301) , Table 37 (302), Table 38 (303) , Fig. 34 (305), Fig . 36 (307) Norse settlements 216 Nuts 74, 75 , 81 , 258, 259, 271, 278, 281, 283 , 290, 291 , 293 , 316, Fig . 39 (pocket) Acorns 47 , 81 , 258 , 259, 204-266, 268-270, 278, 279, 282, 283, 290, 291, 317 , Fig. 39 (pocket) Beechnuts 264, 283 , 317 Butternuts 46, 47, 264, 266-270, 282 , 283, 288, 290 , 317,327 Chestnuts 46, 47, 264 , 317 Hazelnuts 47, 264, 269, 270, 283 , 317 Walnuts 46, 47, 264, 266-269, 283 , 288, 290, 317, 327 Nutting stones 23 , 38, 235, 236 , 239, 240, 259, 271 , 279,282,316

0 Oak-Chestnut Forest 45, 46, 47, 49 Oak-Hemlock Chesnut pollen zone (See Birch-beech pollen zone) Oak-Hemlock pollen zone (c-1 subzone) 52-54, 108, 109, 112 , Fig.13(113), 121, 124,Figs. 14, 15, 16 (116, 117, 118), 264, 265, 321 Oak-Hickory pollen zone (c-2 subzone) 52-54, 112, Fig. 13 (113) , 114, 121, 124, Figs. 14-16(116-118) Oak Hill phase or horizon Fig. 22 (154), 208, 209, 213 , 228, Table 23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254) , Table 28 (256), Fig . 29 (260) , 270 , 293, Table 34 (296) , Table 35 (297) , 298, Fig. 32 (299) , Table 39 (304), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 35 (306), Table40 (310) , Fig. 37 (311) , Fig. 39 (pocket) , Fig. 40 (pocket) Occupation zones, analysis 40, 95 , 126-132, Fig. 19 (128), Table 13 (130), Table 14 (131) , 241 -243 Ohio banded slate 212 Ohiofireclay 199, 212, 241 , 318

Oneida tribe 86-88, 90, 91, 209 Onondagachert 75, 174, 181, Table 18(176, 178), 197, 198, 200, Plate 11 (202), 275, 319 Onondaga Reservation 91 Onondaga tribe 85, 87, 91 , 209 Orient Fishtail points Table 16 ( 149), Table 17 ( 160, 170) , Fig. 22 (154) , Fig. 23 (155), Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), Fig. 26 (172), 181, 195-199, 208 , 224, 225 , 232, Fig. 27 (233) , 268, Table 33 (277), 288 , 298, Fig. 33 (300), Table 36 (301) , Table 37 (302) , Table 38 (303) , Fig. 34 (305) , Fig. 36 (307) Orient phase 30, 75, Table 16 (149) , Fig. 22 (154) , Table 17(161 , 171), 196, 198, 199,210,224, 225 , 246, 248, Table 23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256) , Fig. 29 (260) , Table 31B (262), 268, 272, Table 32 (276), 288 , 295, Table 34 (296) , 298, 299, Table 35 (297), Fig . 32 (299), Table 39 (304), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 35 (306), 308, 309, Table 40 (310) , Fig. 37 (311), Fig. 38 (311), Table41(312) , 317, 318, 320, 323, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Oriskany chert 275 Otter 48 , Table 1 (54) , Fig. 2 (55), 71, Table8 (73) , 266, 268, 269 , 282 Otter Creek points Table 16 (153), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), Table 17 (164, 168, 169), Fig. 26 (172) , 188, Plate9 (189) , 190, 191, 222, 231, 232, Fig. 27 (233), 265, Table 33 (277), 284, Fig. 33 (300) , Table 36 (301) , Table 37 (302), Table 38 (303), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 36 (307) Outwash 43-45, 50, Table 9 (76), Table 11 (79), 80, 81, 97 , 100, 103, 105, 106, 107, 110, 143, 173, 248,249, 281,283 , 284,285 , 287 , 289,290, 291 , 294, 319-321 Owasco Corded Horizontal pottery Table 17 (158, 170), 207,208 Owasco Platted pottery Table 17 ( 170), 207, 208 Owasco tradition 19-21, 31, 32, 45, 48, 133, 138, Table 17(159, 161, 169, 171), 191,204,205,207210 , 213, 228, 238 , 249 , Table 23 (250) , Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), 269, 272-275, Table 32 (276), 278, 279, 281, 290, 291 , 293 , Fig. 31 (292) , 295, Fig. 34 (305) , 308, 309, Fig. 38 (311), Table41(312),314, 315, 317, 322, Fig . 40 (pocket) Owls Table 2 (59) Oxbows 50, 103, Fig. 12 (104, 110) Oysters 61, Table 6 (62), 264, 265

p Pahaquarra phase 208, 269, Fig. 40 (pocket) Palatines 88

383

Paleo-environmental reconstruction 22, 23 , 29, Chapter 7 (95-114), Chapter 8 (115-124), 319-322 Paleo-hunter cultural stage 138, Table 15 (139), 140, 173175, Table 17 (173-175) , Table 18 (176-179), 315,316 Paleo-Indian tradition 21, 30, 31 , 51 , 129, 135, 138, Table 15 (139), 143, 173-175, Table 18 (176179), 185, 186, 210, 213,222,229, 242,246, 249,258,278, 280,281,283 , 295 , 298,309, 314,315,316,318, 319,370, 321 , 327,Fig.39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Palmer points 175, 181, 182, 187, 188, 283, Table38 (303) , Fig. 34 (305) , Fig. 36 (307) Passenger pigeon 48, 58, Table 2 (59), 264, 266, 281, 317 Patuxeut tribe 86 Paxton Boys 87 Pendants, polished stone 24, 138, Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), 205, 207 , 208, 212, 213 Penn, William 87 PequotWar 218 Perch Tables 3, 4 (60), Table 5 (61), 266 Periods, cultural 134-140 Perkiomen phase 30, Table 16 (149), 224, 225, 249, Table 23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254) , Table 28 (256) , 287 , Table 34 (296), Table 35 (297) , Fig. 32 (299) , Table 39 (304) , Fig. 34 (305), 309, Table40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), Fig. 38 (311), Table 41 (312), 317, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Perkiomen points Table 16 (149) , Fig. 22 (154) , Fig. 23 (155), Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157) , Fig. 26 (172), 196, 197, Plate 10 (201), 224, 225, Table 33 (277), 287, Fig. 33 (300) , Table 36 (301), Table 37 (302), Table 38 (303), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 36 (307) Pestles 195, 196, 198, 208, 210, 212, 236 , 239, 240, 259, Fig. 29 (260) , 266, 269, 278, 290 Pestles, effigy 195, 223 Petalas blades Plate 10 (201) Phases, archaeological 125, 126, 132-133 See Adena Adena-Middlesex Atlantic Badin Batten Kill Bowmans Brook Brewerton Burnt Hill Bushkill Call Canandaigua Canoe Point Carpenter Brook Castle Creek

Chance Charlotte Clemson's Island Clovis Dalton Duck Bay Fourmile Fox Creek Frontenac Frost Island Garoga Glacial Kame Glen Meyer Hardaway-Daleon Hunters Home Intrusive Mound lnverhuron Kanawha Kipp Island Kirk Koens-Crispin Lackawaxen Lagoon Lamoka LeCroy Meadowood Moorehead Neville Oak Hill Orient Pahaquarra Palmer Perkiomen Pickering Princess Point River Satchell Saugeen Savannah River Shenks Ferry Snook Kill South Hill SquawkieHill Squibnocket Stanly Stark Sylvan Lake Uren Vergennes Vestal Vosburg Watertown Webb Pickerel 48, Tables 3, 4 (60), Table 5 (61) Pickering phase 218, Fig. 40 (pocket)

384

Pieces esquillees 23, 187 Piedmont tradition 211, 222, 223 Pike Table 5 (61), 266, 269, 271 Pine-Oak pollen zone (Bzone) 52, 53, 107-109, 112, Fig. 13 (113), 114, 115, Figs. 14-16 (116-118), 121, 124,258,259,316,321,327 Pipes, elbow Fig. 24 (156), 213, 226 Pipes, platform Fig. 24 (156), 200, 206, 207, 212, 213 Pipes, tubular 20, Fig . 24 (156), 200, 212, 226 Piscataway tribe 86, 87 Pitted stones 23, 192, 193, 197, 198, 200, Plate 10 (201), 206,207,235,239,240,259,265,266,269, 271,278,279,282,283,299,316 Plano points 138, 175 Plants, edible 62, Fig. 3 (63) Pleistocene epoch 43, 53, 100, 142, 173, 248, 259, 283, 284,312,320,321 Plott Short Stemmed points 199 Plummets Fig. 24 (156), 188, 190, 192, 222 Plymouth Colony 88 Pochard Table 2 (59) Podzols 45, 46 Podzolic soils 45, 46 Point Peninsula Corded pottery Table 17 (158), 207 Point Peninsula Plain pottery 200, 204-206, 288 Point Peninsula Rocker-Stamped pottery Plate 12 (203), 204,206 Point Peninsula tradition 140, Fig. 25 (157), Fig. 26 (172), 184, 191, 200, 204, 205, 219, 226-228, 278, 309, Fig . 38 (311), Table 41 (312), 314, 322, Fig. 40 (pocket) Pollen analyses 15, 22, 35, 40, Chapter 8 (115-124) Pollen horizons, correlative 121, Fig. 18 (122-123) Pollenzones 51,53,95, 112,Fig.13(113), 114,Chapter 8 (115-124), 320-322, Fig. 39 (pocket) Pontiac Rebellion 87 Poor, General 90 Populations, size 31, 185-186, 294, 295, Table 34 (296), Table 35 (297), 298-299, Fig. 32 (299), Fig. 33 (300), Table 36 (30 l), Table 37 (302), Table 38 (303), Table 39 (304), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 35 (306), Fig. 36 (307), 308, 309, Table40 (310), Fig. 37, 38 (311), Table41(312),318 Porcupine 48, Table 1 (54), Fig. 2 (55), 264-266 Port Maitland points 205 Post-Colonial land use 49 Postglacial environmental change 22, 29, 31, Chapter 7 (95-114), Chapter 8 (115-124), 319-322 Pottery types Canandaigua Plain 207 Carpenter Brook Cord-on-Cord Table 17 (166), 207 Chance Incised Table 16 (145), 208 Jack's Reef Corded 205-207 Jack's Reef Corded Collar 205 Jack's Reef Corded Punctate Table 17 (158), 207

Jack's Reef Dentate Collar 205 Kipp Island Criss-cross 207 Levanna Cord-on-Cord Table 17 (170), 207 Owasco Corded Horizontal Table 17 (158, 170), 207, 208 Owasco Platted Table l 7 ( l 70), 207, 208 Point Peninsula Corded Table 17 (158), 207 Point Peninsula Plain 200, 204-206, 288 Point Peninsula Rocker-Stamped Plate 12 (203), 204, 206 Vinette Complex Dentate 206 Vinette Dentate Table l 7 (158), 205-207 Vinette 1 134, 140, Table 16 (147), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 25 (157), Table 17 (160, 162, 168), Fig. 26 (172), 198-200, 206, 212, 225-227, 288, 323, 324 Wickham Incised 206 Wickham Corded Punctate 207 Wickham Punctate Table 17 (158), 205-207 Pre-Boreal pollen zone 321 Pre-Fluted point cultures 21, 142-143, 173, 314, 319, Fig. 39 (pocket) Pre-Wisconsinan drift 43 Princess Point phase Fig. 40 (pocket) Proglacial lakes 44, 95, 97, 100, 112, 283, 316 Projectile point types See Adena Agate Basin Atlantic Bare Island Beekman Triangle Bifurcated-base Big Sandy Brewerton Comer-Notched Brewerton Eared-Notched Brewerton Eared Triangle Brewerton Side-Notched Broadspears Charleston Clovis Fluted Cresap Crowfield Cumberland Dalton Dry Brook Fishtail Eden Folsom Fluted Fox Creek Lanceolate Fox Creek Stemmed Fulton Turkey Tail Genesee Greene Hardaway Hardaway-Dalton Jack's Reef Comer-Notched

385

Jack's Reef Pentagonal Kanawha Kirk Kirk Corner-Notched Kirk Stemmed Koens-Crispin Lagoon Lamoka LeCroy Lehigh Levanna Long Bay MacCorkle Madison Meadowood Merrimack Modoc Side-Notched Morrow Mountain Mousterian Neville Normanskill Orient Fishtail Otter Creek Palmer Perkiomen Plano Plott Short Stemmed Port Maitland Quad Raddatz Rossville Saint Albans Sand Hill.Stemmed Savannah River Scottsbluff Snook Kill Snyders Stanly Stark Steubenville Stemmed Susquehanna Broad Swanton Sylvan Stemmed Vestal Vosburg Corner-Notched Wading River Wayland Notched Wells Bridge Corner-Notched Proto-Algonquian language 221 Proto-Iroquoian language 221 Proto-Laurentian horizon 30, 31, 140, Table 16 (153), Fig. 22 (154), Table 17 (169), 188, 190, 222 , Fig. 29 (260),265,274,279,321 Pseudo-Scallop Shell Impressed pottery 200 Public Archaeology Facility, State University of New York at Binghamton 22

Pumpkinseed Table 4 (60)

Q Quad points l 75 Quail Table 2 (59), 265 Quarries, chert 280, 282, 284 Quarry-workshops 280, 282-284, 287

R Rabbit 47, 48, Table 1 (54), Fig. 2 (55), 57, 58, Table 7 (72), Table8 (73), 265 , 269 Raccoon 48, Table 1 (54), Fig. 2 (55), 56-58, 71, Table? (72), Table8 (73), 74, 259 , 264-266 , 268-270, 317 Raddatz points 190 Rat 48, Table l (54) , Fig. 2 (55) , 57, 264, 265 Redheads Table 2 (59) Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 143 Reptiles Skinks 58 Snakes 58 Turtles 48, 58, Table 8 (73) , 74, 75 , 259, 264-266, 268-270, 271 , Fig. 39 (pocket) Research Foundation of the State University of New York 15 Research Philosophy 27-31 , 313-314 Reservation Period 91 Revolutionary War 49. 88, 90 Rhyolite, South Mountain 142, 225, 275, Table 33 (277) , 278,318 Rice, Rev. Asaph 88 Ritchie-Fitting hypothesis 185 River bars 103, Fig. 12 (104) River gradient l 00, 101, Fig. 11 (l 02) , 105, 107 Riverphase 30, 195, 196, 211 , 223, 298, 299,Table39 (304), 315, Fig. 40 (pocket) Roberson Center for the Arts and Sciences 22 Robin Table 2 (59) RolandB. Hill Museum 16, 20, 21, 182 Rossville points Fig. 22 ( 154), Fig. 24 (156), 200, 220, 226, Table 33 (277), 278, 288, Table 36 (301), Table 37 (302), Table 38 (303) , Fig. 36 (307) Rough stone tools 23, 38, 187, 206, 235-236, 239-241

s SaintAlbanspoints Fig. 25(157) , Fig. 26(172), 180, 182 Salamanders 58 Sampling methods 13, 19, 22, 29, 31, 35, 141, 246, 294, 295,308,309,313,315,326 Sand Hill Stemmed points Table 16 (147), Fig . 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Table 17 (164) , 199, 200, 231, 232 , Fig. 27 (233), 268, Table 33 (277), 288, 298, Table 38 (303), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 36 (307) Sasquesahanough 85 Satchell phase 195, Fig. 40 (pocket) Saugeenphase 134, 226, 227 , Fig. 40 (pocket) 386

Savannah River phase 221 , 224 Savannah River points 196, 224 Schachtigoke Community 87, 88 Schultz period 86 Scottsbluff points 210 Scrapers, end 23,38, 174, 182, 184, 187, 188, 191, 197,200,205-208,212,224,225,235,241, 239,278,285 Scrapers, side 23, 38, 174, 182, 187, 188, 196, 208, 278 Sculpin 48, 53, Tables 3, 4 (60) Sea-level change 45 Seasonality 23, 74, 270-271 Sedimentation rates 97, Fig. 8 (98), Fig. 9 (99) Selection, cultural 27-29 Seneca tribe 85-87, 90, 127, 309, Fig. 40 (pocket) Sennecas 85 Sergeant, Rev. John 88 Seton Hall University 16 Settlement patterns 19, 23, 29, 45, Chap. 13 (245-309), 319-320 Settlementsystems 23,30,47, 127, 133,Chap. 13(245309), 315 Settlement types (see Site types) Shad 48, 59, Table 5 (61), 264, 265, 269-271 Shawnee tribe 87, 294, Fig. 40 (pocket) Sheepshead Table 5 (61) Shenks Ferry phase 192, 218 Shoop-Debert point horizon 175 Shoveller Table 2 (59) Shrews 48, 57, 264 Sinewstones 200, 206-208, 236, 239, 241, 278, 281, 289,290,293 Site types 279-283 Sites, distribution of 20, Fig. 1 (24) , 29, 245-248, Table 20 (247), Table 21 (249), Table 23 (250), Table 24 (251) , Table 25 (252), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256) , Fig. 28 (257), 279-283 Skinks 58 Skunk 48, Table 1 (54), Fig. 2 (55), Table8 (73), 264 Slates, ground (see Ground slate points or knives) Sloane, Sir Hans 20 Small stemmed point tradition (see Narrow point tradition) Smaller study area 49-50, 245 Smith, Captain John 85 Smith, Richard 90 Snakes 58 Snook Kill phase Table 16 (149), Fig. 22 (154) , Table 17 (163), 196-199, 210-212, 220, 222, 224, 225, Table 23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), Fig. 29 (260), Table 31B (262), 267, 272, 287, Table 35 (297), 298, Fig. 32 (299), Table 39 (304), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 35 (306), 309, Table40 (310), Fig. 37 (311), Fig. 38 (311), Table41 (312), 315, 317, 318, 320, Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket)

Snook Kill points 129, Table 16 ( 149), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157) , Table 17 (168) , Fig. 26 (172), 194-197, 211 , 224, ?.32, Fig. 27 (233), 267, Table 33 (277), 287, 298, Fig. 33 (300), Table 36 (301), Table 37 (302), Table 38 (303), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 36 (307) Snyders points Fig. 24 (156), 200, 228, Fig. 33 (300), Table 36 (301), Table 37 (302) , Table 38 (303), Fig. 36 (307) Society for the Propagation of the Faith 88 Soils 22, 45-46, 74, 75 , 80 South Hill phase 30, 190, 191, 222 , Table 23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), Table 31A(261), 265, 272, Table 32, 276, 278, 279, 284, Table 34 (296), 298, Table 35 (297), Fig. 32 (299), Table 39 (304), Fig. 34 (305), Table 40 (310), Fig. 39 (pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Soapstone vessels Table 16 (149), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), Table 17 (162, 170), Fig. 26 (172), 191, 196-198,200,208,212,225,240, 268, 278,279,282,318 Spatio-temporal continua 29 Spencer, Rev. Elihu 88, 90 Sprout Forests 46 Spruce-Fir pollen zone (A zone) 52, 53, 107, 108, 112, Fig. 13(113), 115,Figs.14-17(116-119), 120-122, 124,321 Squashes 31, 49, 80, 138, 265, 269, 271, 291, 317, 327, Fig. 39 (pocket) SquawkieHillphase 140, 200, 212, 228, 309, 322, Fig. 40 (pocket) Squibnocket phase 193, 211, 220, 322, 323, Fig. 40 (pocket) Squirrel Table 1 (54), 264-266, 268, 269 Squirrel, flying 48, 57, Fig. 2 (55), 264 Squirrel, gray 48, Table 1 (54), Fig. 2 (55), 56, 57, Table 8 (73), 265, 266 Squirrel, red 48, Table 1 (54), Fig. 2 (55) Stages, cultural: 134-140 See: Colonial Contact Early Lithic Historic Terminal Archaic Mckern-Griffin-Ritchie scheme: Early Archaic Early Paleo-Indian Early Woodland Late Archaic Late Paleo-Indian Late Woodland Middle Archaic Middle Woodland Paleo-Indian Transitional

387

Proposed new scheme: Farmer Ceramic Forager Early Ceramic Forager Florescent I Forager Florescent II Forager Formative Paleo-hunter Stanly phase 187, 264, Fig. 40 (pocket) Stanly points Fig. 25 ( 157), Table 17 ( 165), Fig. 26 ( 172) , 180, 181, 187, 188,321 Stark phase 188, 264, 265, Fig. 39 (pocket) , Fig. 40 (pocket) Starkpoints 180, 181, 188 State UniversityofNewYorkatAlbany 13, 15, 21 State University of New York at Binghamton 15, 16, 19, 21, 22,33,35, 173, 191, 199, 245 , 273, 327 State University of New York at Buffalo 21 , 308-309 State University of New York, College at Cortland 191, 327 State University of New York, College at Oneonta 13, 15, 16,22,35, 143,327 Stationary states, cultural 220, 316, 323 Steatite (see Soapstone) Steubenville points 219 Stimulus diffusion 31 Strike-a-lights 197, 205-208, 212, 289 Stockbridge Indians 90 Sturgeon Table 5 (61) Subsistence - settlement patterns 23, 29, 31, 35, 44, 283294, 316-318, Fig. 39 (pocket) Sucker 48, Table 3, 4 (60) , Table 5 (61), 264, 266, 268, 270 Sullivan-Clinton expedition 88, 90, 294 Sullivan, General John 90 Sunfish Table 3 (60), Table 5 (61), 266 Survey methods 19, 22, 33-35, 185, 246, 247, 299, 308, 309 Susquehanna Broad points Table 16 (149), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), Table 17 (158, 160, 162), Fig. 26 (172), 191, 192, 194199, 206, 208, 212, 220, 224, 225, 231, 232, Fig. 27 (233), 268, Table 33 (277), Fig. 33 (300) , Table 36 (301), Table 37 (302) , Table 38 (303), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 36 (307) Susquehanna Expressway (see Interstate 88) Susquehanna knives 23, Table 16 ( 149), 197, 206, 212, 213,234 Susquehanna tradition 30, 140, 198, 199, 212 , 219-222, 224,225,231,315 Susquehannock 21 , 85 , 87 , 91, Table 17 (169), 209, 210, 218, 278, 282, 294, 327, Fig. 40 (pocket) Swans Table 2 (59), 264 Swanton points Fig. 23 (155) Swidden horticulture 19, 45-46, 49, 91 , Fig. 13 (113) , 138, 140, Fig. 25 (157), 209, 270, 281, 290, 291 , 317,321 , 322,327

Sylvan Lake phase 30, 193, 196, 211, 222, 223 , 266 , 298, 299, Table 39 (304) , Fig. 35 (306), 322, 323, 325, Fig. 40 (pocket) Sylvan Stemmed points 232 , Fig. 27 (233), Fig. 313 (300), Table 36 (301), Table 37 (302), Fig. 36 (307)

T Tarahumara Indians 68 Teal Table 2 (59) Techno-environmental determinism 2, 7 , 313 Temporalmodels 134-140 Terminal Archaic cultural stage 32 , 106 Terraces , alluvial 19, 33-35, 50, 70, 80, 81, 95, 97, 100114, 319, 320, Fig. 10 (pocket) Teshoas 206, 236, 278 Tioga County Historical Society 21 Toads 58 Trade 318-319, 325 Traditions, cultural 125, 140 Hopewell 133, 228, 318 Iroquoian 21, 30, 31 , 86, 87, 90, 91, Table 17 (169), 174, 196, 208-210, 213, 216, 219, 228, Table 23 (250) , Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), 269, 270, 279, 281, 293-295, 309, Fig. 38 (311), Table 41 (312), 314, 318, Fig. 40 (pocket) Laurentian 19, 30, 133, Table 17 (161), 184, 188, Plate9 (189), 190-192, 196, 210, 211, 220-225, 231 , 234,265,271 , 275,279, 284,295 , 298, 314,322,323,325 Maritime Archaic 133, 213, 222, 323 Narrow Point 30, 133, 190, 193, 194, 211, 219, 220, 222,225,227 , 228, 232,298,315,322-325 Owasco 19-21,31,32 , 45 , 48, 133, 138,Tablel7 (159, 161, 169, 171), 191 , 204, 205, 207-210 , 213, 228, 238, 249, Table 23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), 269, 272275 , Table32 (276), 278, 279, 281 , 290, 291 , 293, Fig. 31 (292) , 295, Fig. 34 (305), 308, 309, Fig. 38 (311), Table 41 (312), 314, 315, 317, 322, Fig. 40 (pocket) Paleo-Indian 21, 30, 51, 129, 135, 138, Table 15 (139), 143, 173-175, Table 18 (176-179), 185, 186, 210,213 , 222 , 229, 242 , 246, 249,258, 278,280,281,283,295,298,309,314,31 5 , 316, 318, 319, 320, 321, 327, Fig. 39(pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Point Peninsula 140, Fig. 25 (157), Fig. 26 (172), 184, 191,200,204,205,219,226-228, 278, 309, Fig. 38 (311), Table41(312),314, 322, Fig. 40 (pocket) Susquehanna 30, 140, 198, 199, 212, 219-222 , 224, 225,231 , 315 Traits, cultural 125, 133 Transects, survey 34 Transitional cultural stage 30-32, 35, 75 , 106, 134, 135,

388

138, Table 15 (139), 140, Table 17 (171), 191, 197-199, 220, 221, 238, 246, 249, Fig. 29 (260), 278,279,287-288,298,314,317,318,~~39

(pocket), Fig. 40 (pocket) Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1768, 1784) 88, 90, 91 Treaty of Paris (1763, 1783) 88, 90 Triple Cities Chapter, New York State Archeological Association 21 Trout 48, 53, Tables 3, 4 (60), Table 5 (61) Tubes, blocked-end Table 16 (147), Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), Fig. 26 (172), 199, 200, 212, 268, 288, 324 Tundra pollen zone (Tzone) 52, 115, 120, 122 Turkey 48, 58, Table 2 (59), 71, Table 7 (72), Table 8 (73), 80, 259, 264-266, 268-270, 317, Fig. 39 (pocket) Turtles 48, 58, Table8 (73), 74, 75, 259, 264-266, 268270, 271, Fig. 39 (pocket) Tuscarora tribe 48, 87, 88, 90, 91, 294 Types, artifact 23, 125 Tzakol-Tepeu sequence 138

u Unifacetools 23, 38, 174, 182, 184, 187, 188, 191, 196, 197,200,205-208,212 , 224, 225,235,239, 241,278,285,288,293 Ulu 20, Fig. 24 (156), 188, 190, 210, 323 University of Nevada, Reno 16 UniversityofAlberta 143 University of Arizona 16 Upland environmental zone 68-81 Upper Mercer, Ohio flint 174 Upper Paleolithic 213 Upper Susquehanna Chapter, New York State Archeological Association 21 Uranium-series dates 142 Uren phase 218, Fig. 40 (pocket) Use-wear, on artifacts 22, 30, 38, 229-232, 234-236, 316

v Valley floor environmental zone 68-81 Valley Heads outwash 43, 53, 100 Valley wall environmental zone 68-81 Van den Bogaert 86 Vascular plants 62 Vegetation, postglacial 22, 31, 45-47, 51-54, 58, Chapter 8 (115-124), 320-322, Fig. 39 (pocket) Vergennes phase 188, 190, 191, 210, 222, Fig. 29 (260) , Table 31A (261), 265, 298, Fig. 32 (299), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 35 (306), Fig. 37 (311), 321, 323, Fig. 40(pocket) Verrazzano 95 Vestal phase 30, 107, 141, Table 16 (149, 150), Fig. 22 (154), Table 17 (159, 161, 163, 165), 192-197, 211, 223, 224, 238, 241, 242, 248, 249, Table ·

23 (250), Table 27 (253), Table 26 (254), Table 28 (256), Fig. 29 (260) , Table 3 lA (261) , Table 31B (262), 267, 272 , 274, 275, Table 32 (276), 279, 285, 287, 295, Table 34 (296), 298, 299, 309, Fig. 37 (311), 315, 318, 320, Fig. 39 (pocket) , Fig. 40 (pocket) Vestal points Table 16 (149, 151), Fig. 22 (154), Fig. 23 (155), Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157) , Table 17 (158, 160, 162, 164, 166, 167) , 191 -198,224,231 , 232, Fig. 27 (233), 234, 267, Table 33 (277), 287, 298, 299, Table 38 (303), Fig. 34 (305), Fig. 36 (307) Village Farmer cultural stage 138, 140, Table 15 (139), 207-209 Vinette Complex Dentate pottery 206 Vinette Dentate pottery Table 17 (158), 205-207 Vinette 1 pottery 134, 140, Table 16 (147), Fig. 22 (154) , Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), Table 17 (160, 162, 168), Fig. 26 (172), 198-200, 206, 212, 225227, 288, 323, 324 Vinette 2 pottery Fig. 22 (154) Vole 48, Table 1 (54) , Fig. 2 (55), 264 Vosburg Comer-Notched points Table 16 (151), Fig. 23 (155), Fig. 24 (156), Fig. 25 (157), Fig. 26 (172), 190, 191, 210, 232, Fig. 27 (233), Table33 (277), 298, Fig. 33 (300), Table 36 (301), Table 37 (302), Table 38 (303), Fig. 36 (307) Vosburgphase 188, 190, 191,299, Table39(304),Fig. 35 (306), 321, 323, Fig. 40 (pocket)

w Wading River points Fig. 24 ( 156), Fig. 25 ( 157), Fig. 26 (172) Walnuts 46, 47, 264, 266-269, 283, 288, 290, 317, 327 Wars of the Iroquois 86, 209, 218 Washington, General George 88 Watertown phase 197, 212, Fig. 40 (pocket) WaylandNotchedpoints 212 Wear patterns, artifactual (see Use-wear) Webb phase 228 Weiser, Conrad 87 Wells Bridge Comer-notched points Table 16 (153), Fig. 23 (155), 182, Plate 8 (183), 184, 231, 232 Wells Bridge Moraine 43 , 44, 50, Table8 (73) , 100, 101 , 103, 105, 114,248,320 Western Onondaga chert 174, 192, 275, Table 3 (277), 278, 318 Whetstones (see Abrading stones) Wickham Corded Punctate pottery 207 Whitefish 48, Table 3 (60) White Johnstone Settlement 88 Wickham Incised pottery 206 Wickham Punctate pottery Table 17 (158), 205-207 Wisconsinan glaciation 43, 100, 143 Wolf 52, Table 1 (54), Fig. 2 (55), 58, 266, 268

389

Wolverine 52 Woodbridge, Rev. Timothy 88 Woodchuck 48, Table 1 (54), Fig. 2 (55), 57, Table 8 (73), 74, 75, 265, 266, 268-270 Woodfordian glacial stage 43

y Yager Museum 20 Yaocominotribe 86 Yellowware 39

z Zeisberger, Rev. David 88

Contents Figure 10. cf. Chapter 7, Part B Figure 39. cf. Chapter 14 Figure 40. cf Chapter 14

Figure 39

SUSQUEHANNA

UPPER fil

ENVIRONMENTAL

zz

:r