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

important problems have also resulted from the
absence of optimal survey and excavation strategies
needed to locate such sites as well as a failure on the
part of archaeologists to understand the relationship
between small sites and the larger settlement system
(Lennox 1995a; Pihl 1997:100). Studies by Black (this
volume), Brumbach and Bender (this volume),
Diamond (1995), Feder (1990), Lacy (1999), Lennox
(1995), Means (1999), Miroff (this volume), Pendergast
(1997), Pilon and Perkins (1997), Smith (1997), and
Smith et al. (1997) represent notable exceptions.
The archaeology of the early Late Prehistoric period
is often characterized as one in which large multifamily
villages dominate the landscape. While the
occupation of these villages undoubtedly played an
important role in the settlement and subsistence systems
of these prehistoric populations, small and large
camps, resource processing stations, and horticultural
hamlets played a critical role in the survival of the
pre-Iroquoian populations of the Northeast.
According to Lennox (1995:6), “villages must have
been a hive of activity . . . with the demands…on local
resources being incredible . . . Satellite communities as
well as fishing and hunting camps and isolated activity
areas must have diffused this environmental drain
over a broader area . . . lessening the likelihood of failure.”
Descriptions of small fishing, food procurement,
and cabin sites in ethnohistoric descriptions of the
Huron (Sagard 1939; Tooker 1991:62-67; Trigger
1990:30-39), Mahican (Jameson 1959; see also
Brumbach and Bender, this volume), and Five
Nations Iroquois (Van den Bogaert 1988) further highlight
the important role that these small sites played
in the daily survival of Native populations.
While descriptions of early Late Prehistoric small
sites are regularly found in published articles and
unpublished CRM reports, it is important to note that
not all small sites contain the same sets of settlement
features nor do they function in the same way (Piles
and Wilcox 1978:1-2; Ward 1978). As studies by Smith
et al. (1997:87-96), Lennox and Hagerty (1995:8-76),
and Pihl (1997:97-111) have shown, small sites within
a limited geographic region can be quite diverse and
represent a wide range of functions, many of which
may be unknown to archaeologists. Only by comparing
the individual characteristics of these sites (e.g.,
spatial arrangement, types of artifacts, number and
types of features, site size, geographic location, etc.),
can archaeologists hope to gain a more complete
picture of the role of these small sites in complex
settlement systems.
EARLY LATE PREHISTORIC SETTLE-
MENT AND SUBSISTENCE STUDIES IN
THE ONEONTA-WORCHESTER AREA
Since the first half of the twentieth century, archaeologists
have recognized that the Oneonta-Worchester
area was extensively occupied by the pre-Iroquoian
populations of New York (Bailey 1961; Funk 1993;
Funk and Rippeteau 1977; Moorehead 1938; Parker
1922; Ritchie 1944:89-90). However, despite the large
number of sites identified, only a limited number of
early Late Prehistoric sites have been systematically
studied, and archaeologists have offered different
viewpoints regarding the occupation of the Oneonta-
Worchester area between A.D. 700 and 1300.
In the mid-1970s, Snethkamp (1975) and Weide
(1975) commented on the apparent absence of early
Late Woodland (A.D. 800-1300) occupations near the
confluence of the Schenevus Creek and the
Susquehanna River. According to Snethkamp
(1975:75), “should the apparent absence of Late
Woodland material be substantiated by thorough excavation,
we would have the interesting prospect that . .
. Late Woodland [occupations] did not occur in the area
of the junction of Schenevus Creek and the
Susquehanna River. This situation poses the question
of the effects of ecological and/or social limitations on
the distribution of Late Woodland . . . [occupations] . . .
in the upper Susquehanna.”
Versaggi (1987:303-305) suggests that during the
Middle Woodland period (A.D. 100-800), hunter-gatherers
tethered seasonal base camps to optimal locations
for extended periods. As a result, summer, multitask
foraging sites were not commonly occupied,
leaving the prehistoric occupants of the Susquehanna
Valley to exploit a wide range of resources through
the seasonal movement of residential bases. Over
time, the seasonal movement of these sites culminated
in the occupation of semisedentary villages during
the early Late Prehistoric period. However, Versaggi
(1987:305) concurs with Snethkamp (1975), stating
“east of the Unadilla, the upper Susquehanna contains
few sites of the late Woodland period.”
Drawing on data from a multi-year study of the
region, Funk (1993b:291) similarly argues that the
Oneonta-Worchester area was not extensively occupied
during the early Late Prehistoric period, stating
that although a wide variety of sites can be found in
the larger valley extending from Binghamton to
Otsego Lake, the portion of the valley encompassing
the Oneonta-Worchester area has not produced an
210 Rieth