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

of posts may mark remnants of temporary shelters,
windbreaks, or processing facilities. The primary area
of the Late Prehistoric occupation lies along a gentle
north-facing slope that bridges the outwash terrace
and floodplain. Although Broome Tech lacks clear evidence
of dwellings that may have structured the use of
space, the single large storage pit appears to have
anchored occupants’ activities. The majority of the
shallow amorphous hearths are concentrated in an arc
immediately to the south of this storage facility. On
average, the centers of these surface hearths were only
4 m away from the center of the storage pit.
The most striking aspect of the Late Prehistoric occupation
of Broome Tech is the presence of a discrete midden
that encompasses nearly all of the area covered by
the Late Prehistoric occupation. The midden is dark
black in color with rich deposits of carbonized plant
remains, calcined bone, and artifacts that, taken together,
represent undifferentiated refuse cast as a sheet
midden across this relatively small component. The
midden covers approximately 201 m 2 , although the
western boundary is uncertain. All of the Late
Prehistoric features fall within the limits of the midden,
suggesting a relatively small, tightly focused activity
area.
DISCUSSION
Synthesizing data on features, plant remains, and
spatial organization highlights the rather dramatic differences
in the subsistence and settlement behaviors
practiced at Thomas/Luckey and Broome Tech.
Thomas/Luckey is a Late Prehistoric village situated
on the floodplain of the Chemung River. Residents built
longhouses that may have sheltered groups of related
women and their immediate families. These households
grew over time, requiring the expansion of
Structure 1. Although satellite sites were undoubtedly
an important element in the settlement system, this
village represents a year-round occupation that may
have spanned several generations. Villagers tended
maize, beans, sunflower, and, quite likely, squash in
Native gardens that would have thrived in the
Chemung Valley’s rich alluvial deposits. Residents
collected nuts —favoring hickory—and gathered wild
starchy and possibly oily seeds to supplement horticultural
products. Annual harvest surpluses were stored in
grass-lined subterranean storage facilities concentrated
in two areas: immediately to the south of the longhouse,
and within the structure’s eastern end. The array of
features documented indicates that villagers engaged
in a high diversity of activities, and that the location
(inside vs. outside) of these activities varied seasonally.
The absence of middens near the longhouse indicates
that trash was cleaned and redeposited away from the
longhouse. The structured removal of refuse should be
expected at sites intended for long-term use. The labor
involved in the construction of longhouses, the careful
planning and preparation of features, and the removal
of garbage all support a long-term occupation.
In contrast, the Late Prehistoric occupation at
Broome Tech represents a seasonally reoccupied camp
located on the Chenango Valley floodplain. The relatively
small site size and apparent lack of structures
suggest that this site more likely represents a large
camp rather than a hamlet or village. The location of
the site, only 85 m from the former oxbow meander
around Nash Island, would have provided an ideal
spot for fishing. Although the only direct evidence for
Broome Tech fishing is a few net sinkers, Brumbach
(1986:62) argues that in the Northeast:
Fragile bones, acid soils, and discard behavior
probably account for the small amounts of
remains regularly recovered. Fishing gear, such
as net sinkers, hooks and gorges, are also rare or
absent altogether. Instead, the use of weirs or natural
obstructions like falls, reefs, or shallows
would have been more efficient methods of capturing
large numbers of small to medium-sized
fish.
Therefore, even in the absence of overwhelming
direct evidence for fishing, it is plausible that Broome
Tech served as a seasonal fishing camp. The narrows
formed by Nash Island would have channeled spawning
fish, further condensing this seasonally concentrated
resource and facilitating capture.
Historically, bass, brook trout, eel, pickerel, shad,
and suckers are known to have frequented the Upper
Susquehanna during spawning runs (Versaggi
1987:81). Occupation during at least the fall is indicated
by the presence of relatively large amounts of nutshells,
primarily butternut and hickory, available in
October (Versaggi 1987:95). Fall occupation would
have corresponded with trout and eel runs (Versaggi
1987:91). It is also possible that the site was reoccupied
in the spring when perch, shad, suckers, and bass
could have been targeted. Occupants constructed a
very narrow range of feature types that likely reflect
the more restricted set of activities that occurred at the
site. Features are dominated by a series of shallow
amorphous surface hearths that required minimal
investment of labor. Juxtaposed against this is the single
Chapter 9 Pits, Plants, and Place: Recognizing Late Prehistoric Subsistence and Settlement Diversity in the Upper Susquehanna Drainage 187