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

encounterlike hunting/butchering stations occur
within the daily foraging radius of base camps as well
as around dispersed single- and multitask camps.
During the early Late Prehistoric, villages are encountered
in the valleys of major rivers (Versaggi 1996b).
Expected upland site types for the early Late
Prehistoric are relatively unknown. However, possible
site types include, activity areas associated with
short-term use of the uplands for hunting, gathering
and fishing, short-term habitation and resource processing
sites, and upland camps.
Funk (1993) outlined a settlement model for the
early Late Prehistoric similar to that described by
Versaggi. Funk defined several site types for the early
Late Prehistoric, including horticultural villages, horticultural
hamlets, small and temporarily occupied
camps, quarries and workshops, ceremonial sites,
cemeteries, and camps associated with cornfields at a
greater than expected distance from villages.
Horticultural villages are expected on floodplains,
outwash terraces, kame terraces, ridges and knolls on
and back from the river, and on upland saddles. They
are occupied year-round and contain structures, storage
areas/facilities, and evidence for numerous activities.
Horticultural hamlets are similar to villages, but
smaller. Small (0.5 ac or smaller), temporarily occupied
camps are expected on floodplains, valley walls,
and in the uplands. These include camps for hunting,
fishing, fowling, nut-harvesting, kill sites, and camps
associated with nonsubsistence activities. Quarries
and workshops are mainly identified on upland saddles.
Seasonally available food resources, such as
nuts, fish, or fowl, were obtained by work parties,
who would often temporarily camp at the location of
the resource. In the fall and winter, work groups left
to obtain acorns at oak tree stands or hunt for deer. In
the spring, summer, or fall, community members may
have traveled to productive fishing or fowling locations
(Funk 1993).
The Park Creek II site is interpreted as either a temporary
processing location, encounterlike hunting/butchering
station (Versaggi 1996b), or small
camp (Funk 1993). Temporary processing location
and encounterlike hunting/butchering station sites
are small, with the lowest number of artifacts, tools,
and intrasite clusters. There is mixed tool and intrasite
cluster diversity. Generally, these sites are expected
within the daily foraging radius. They are created
when scattered resources, such as plants or game, are
encountered, processed, and immediately returned to
the main camp (Versaggi 1996b). This category also
includes some small single- and multitask field camps
that could occur in the uplands of major drainages
(Versaggi 1987). Single-task field camps are intermediate
in size and contain large numbers of artifacts
and tools. However, there are fewer intrasite clusters,
indicating less redundancy. These intrasite clusters
are similar in composition, indicating that a single or
limited range of tasks were performed. Tool diversity
is low. These camps were occupied by a few people
for a short period of time, thus making it unnecessary
to organize and divide space. Multitask field camps
are intermediate in size, have fewer artifacts and
tools, and fewer intrasite clusters. There is mixed tool
and intrasite cluster diversity. Occupants moved frequently,
pursuing low density, dispersed resources.
Given the presence of features (hearths), the Park
Creek II site was probably used overnight and thus
was less ephemeral than most sites of these types.
While the characteristics of the fourteenth century
occupation (A4 horizon) fit those described for temporary
processing locations or single/multiple-task
field camps, a greater than expected diversity of activities
occurred during the early fifteenth century occupation
(A3 horizon). That this occupation does not
match expectations suggests that there is great diversity
among nonvillage sites and detailed local level
analyses of upland sites need to be added to existing
models.
To begin to model a more holistic picture of early
Late Prehistoric people’s settlement and subsistence,
future studies will benefit from comparing the types
and locations of artifacts, features, and structures at
village sites to those identified at nonvillage sites. One
recent study comparing lithics at an early Late
Prehistoric floodplain village with an upland camp in
the Susquehanna Valley revealed that an expedient
technology using locally available raw materials and
a bipolar reduction strategy may be more characteristic
of villages than remote camps, where a bifacial
strategy predominated (Montag 1998). A bifacial technology
may indicate curation when raw materials are
scarce, or may relate to the types of tools used for specific
tasks at different locations. Bifacial technology
may further relate to mobility, site type, or genderspecific
task groups (Montag 1998; Oskam 1999;
Versaggi 1996b). An expedient technology is commonly
related to mobility reduction (Parry and Kelly
1987). Analysis of village sites reveals that “sedentary”
people maintained both lithic technologies sideby-side
(Miroff 1997, 1999, 2000). A bifacial technology
is not unexpected at the Park Creek II campsite.
However, the relatively high percentage of expedient
tools used at the camp during the early fifteenth cen-
Chapter 10 Upland Land Use Patterns during the Early Late Prehistoric (A.D. 700–1300) 203