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

Table 11.7. Summary of Ceramic Attributes from Late Middle Woodland and Early Late Woodland Vessels.
Site Occupation Wall Thickness Wall Thickness Standard Primary Average
(Mean) (Range) Deviation Temper Temper Size
Fortin II Late Middle Woodland 11.04 mm 8.31-14 mm 1.83 Grit 0-1 mm
Street Late Middle Woodland 11.75 mm 10-13 mm 1.17 Grit 0-1 mm
Ouleout Site 1 Early Late Woodland 7.5 mm 6.2-8.5 mm 1.14 Grit 1-2 mm
Street Early Late Woodland 8.98 mm 6.19-11 mm 1.42 Grit 1-3 mm
Fortin II Early Late Woodland 9 mm 8-14 mm 2.11 Grit 1-3 mm
Hilltop Early Late Woodland 8.66 mm 6-10 mm 1.17 Grit 1-2 mm
1 Low vessel wall thickness probably related to small sample size.
ness, an increase the temper size and density, as well
as a gradual shift toward materials with a low thermal
expansion.
An analysis of the late Middle and early Late
Woodland ceramics from the Street, Fortin II, Hilltop,
and Ouleout sites shows a decrease in the vessel wall
thickness of these containers, from 11.75 mm to 7.5
mm during the late Middle and early Late Woodland
Periods (Table 11.7). The reduction in vessel wall
thickness directly affects thermal shock, since vessels
with thinner walls are less likely to crack when subjected
to longer cooking times (Braun 1983). Changes
in temper size and density were also noted and further
support the idea that Late Woodland populations
were producing containers that withstood the long
cooking time needed to transform maize from an
inedible to an edible food item.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study suggest that the late
Middle and early Late Woodland inhabitants of the
Oneonta-Worchester area occupied many small
camps, large camps, and industrial sites. The large
number of small camps suggests that the region probably
functioned as an important resource procurement
area. According to Knoerl (1978:114), the diverse
microenvironment that surrounded the Oneonta-
Worchester area (e.g., shoreline, swamp, bog, floodplain,
dry knoll) would have provided the prehistoric
occupants opportunities to exploit a vast array of
plant and animal species.
Although the sites in this study do not contain the
impressive features that are found on larger sites
downstream, they (and the activities that occurred on
them) were equally important to the overall settlement
and subsistence system. During this time, maize
probably represented a small part of the prehistoric
diet and was probably grown in small garden plots
(Dincauze 1990:30, as cited in Chilton 1999; Prezzano
1996). Consequently, food items collected during seasonal
foraging and hunting expeditions were needed
to satisfy the dietary needs of the group. Although
Funk and Rippeteau (1977:39) argue that early Late
Woodland groups probably completed foraging and
hunting activities during the spring and summer
months, the floral assemblages from these sites indicate
that the region’s resources were exploited yearround.
There is some evidence to suggest that more extensive
occupations, such as those identified at the Otego
Yard site (as well as the Otsdawa site [Funk 1993]),
were also present in the region during the early Late
Prehistoric period. From the limited excavations at
the Otego Yard site, this site probably did not possess
many of the typical characteristics (Ritchie 1994) that
we normally equate with early Late Woodland sites
dating to the eleventh century. Rather, the site probably
resembled smaller settlements, such as White
(Ritchie 1994) and Port Dickenson (Beauregard 1986;
Beauregard et al. 1993), which were occupied by small
kin-related groups whose primary economic pursuits
were based on hunting and gathering and not maize
horticulture.
Although Chilton (1999) cautions us that the quantity
of maize at a site cannot be interpreted as a direct
reflection of the importance of this particular plant in
a community, we are still left with the puzzling question
of why maize repeatedly appears in larger camp
and village sites downstream but rarely occurs on
sites in the Oneonta-Worchester area. I propose that
this question may be explained by one of two competing
hypotheses. First, it seems possible that in this
222 Rieth