Northeast Subsistence-Settlement Change: A.D. 700 –1300

Native societies wrought by European exploration and
colonization (Comaroff 1985; Comaroff and Comaroff
1992; Roseberry 1988; Sahlins 1985, 1992; Stahl 1994;
Trigger 1985; Wolf 1982). If non-Western societies
changed as they articulated with the world system,
anthropologists must be wary of projecting historically
recorded “traditional” behaviors into a more distant
past (Stahl 1994; Trigger 1985). This has significant
ramifications for prehistoric investigations. The preeminent
Iroquois ethnohistorian William N. Fenton
applied a form of the direct historical approach to write
Iroquois history (Fenton 1949, 1952, 1962). Fenton’s
method of “upstreaming” pivoted on the assumption
that “major patterns of culture tend to be stable over
long periods” (Fenton 1949:236). This stress on the
immutable nature of structure is implicit in most traditional
applications of the direct historical approach
(but see Stahl 1994). Because this analogic form focuses
on the historical connection, historic patterns are often
uncritically projected onto the archaeological past
(Stahl 1993).
By conflating historic patterns with the earliest portion
of the Late Prehistoric period, we have shaped our
perceptions of the period in two fundamental ways:
First, the beginning of the Late Prehistoric period is
marked by the rapid appearance of a fully developed
horticultural economy; and second, once the practice of
horticulture appeared, subsistence economies
remained essentially static for more than half a millennium.
Rather than assume that Late Prehistoric subsistence
and settlement is unchanging, we must treat this
as a research question. This is precisely the theme the
editors of this volume challenge archaeologists to
address. Specifically, the problem posed is how did
subsistence-settlement strategies change (or remain
stable) in the Northeast during A.D. 700-1300?
Change can be usefully defined as a relational difference
between states. Change, therefore, implies variability;
with the absence of variability between states,
there is no change. Hence, a focus on change first
requires explicit attention to outlining variation. The
most commonly used sense of change in archaeology
implies a temporal difference between states. For
example, an interesting research problem for the
Northeast is how and why over time, people changed
their subsistence strategy from an exclusive focus on
hunting, gathering, and collecting to the incorporation
of gardening activities and ultimately a heavy reliance
on agriculture. However, temporal change is only one
source of variability in the archaeological record; other
relational differences may embody cultural, functional,
and/or spatial variation. Given the diverse factors
structuring archaeological variability, it is critical that
we focus on variation and explore the potentially multidimensional
factors underlying this diversity. By recognizing
a more dynamic Late Prehistoric period animated
by spatial and temporal variability we will ultimately
be better able to model the important transition
from food collector-hunter-gatherer to food producer.
Therefore, to gain a more variegated picture of Late
Prehistoric subsistence and settlement, we must begin
collecting appropriate data from a number of sites from
different temporal and regional contexts. In this vein, I
explore Late Prehistoric variability by comparing subsistence-settlement
systems for two sites located in different
Upper Susquehanna River tributary valleys
(Figure 9.1). Thomas/Luckey, a Late Prehistoric village
on the Chemung River floodplain, contains at least two
longhouses and over 150 pit features (Knapp 1996;
Miroff 2000). Broome Tech, a lower Chenango Valley
multicomponent site, contains an artifact-rich early
Late Prehistoric midden and associated features,
which, based on field impressions, was provisionally
identified as the remains of a seasonally reoccupied
camp (Knapp 1998). The selection of these two sites for
an initial comparison of Late Prehistoric variability
grew largely out of fortuitous circumstances presented
by two separate data recovery excavations that I directed
for the Public Archaeology Facility (PAF) at
Binghamton. Although the differences between these
sites may appear to be evident, this was not really the
case. From the onset, it was clear that Thomas/Luckey,
with its multiple longhouses, indicated the presence of
either a village or hamlet. The picture was murkier for
Broome Tech, where the presence of post molds, a relatively
large number of features, and an artifact-laden
midden seemed to preclude interpreting this site as a
camp. At the same time, the lack of structures, the presence
of a single large storage pit, and the site’s relatively
small size seemed incompatible with a hamlet or village.
This chapter, therefore, grew largely from my
attempts to understand and explain the differences
between these two sites.
At first blush, the differences between these two sites
may lead some to question the utility of a comparison
of a hamlet or village (Thomas/Luckey) with a site that
somewhat resembles a large seasonally reoccupied site
(Broome Tech). Why compare two sites that already
appear to differ? Isn’t this comparing apples and
oranges? What can be gained from such an exercise?
Yes, these sites are different. However, I believe that a
detailed comparison of these two Upper Susquehanna
Valley sites is a productive and necessary endeavor. We
must begin to explore the variation manifested in the
168 Knapp