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

shads and herrings of the family Clupeidae (the
alewife, also called grayback or branch herring, Alosa
pseudoharengus; blueback herring, Pomolobus aestivalis,
and the shad, Alosa sapidissima), the striped bass
(Morone saxatilis), and the (catadromous) American
eel (Anguilla rostrata) (Table 12.2) (Bigelow and
Schroeder 1953; Boyle 1969; Drahos 1954; Hildebrand
1963; Leggett and Whitney 1972; Vladykov and
Greeley 1963). Contrary to some misperceptions, the
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) was not native to the
Hudson River. While salmon probably did inhabit the
salty lower Hudson estuary during some part of their
life cycle, there is no evidence that they reproduced in
the river or its tributaries (Cheney 1897; Netboy
1968:336).
Hudson River Fish Productivity
Although it is not possible to reconstruct accurate
figures for the amount of fish in the Hudson River
drainage during the Middle Woodland period, figures
from nineteenth and twentieth century commercial
fishery catches can be employed to make inferences
concerning past productivity. Rostlund (1952) has
estimated the potential fish production of the historic
period Hudson River Valley at between 140 and 175
kg of fish annually per square kilometer (between 800
and 1000 pounds per square mile). Based on pre-
Contact conditions, when available spawning and
nursery areas would have been more than double that
of the twentieth century, it has been estimated elsewhere
that the Hudson River drainage could have
produced 1.4 million kg of shad, 2.4 million kg of
alewife and/or “summer” (blueback) herring (these
species are often not separated in commercial catch
statistics), 6.15 million kg of striped bass, and 680,000
kg of sea sturgeon annually (long-term commercial
catches for American eel and short-nosed sturgeon
are not available) (Brumbach 1978).
These figures add up to an estimated annual productivity
of 10.63 million kg of anadromous species
plus additional amounts of eel and freshwater fish in
the Hudson River. Obviously, the fish were not distributed
evenly throughout the river system. The
lower Hudson estuary would have been more productive
than the middle and upper stretches, especially
since schools of predominantly ocean fish can
also be found in the brackish water. However, in
terms of harvesting efficiency, the middle part of the
river, and especially the mouths and lower stretches of
the spawning tributaries, would have been the most
advantageous for a population using a technology
based on nets and weirs. While some of the species
are present year-round, the period of late March to
June, when the fish are ascending the rivers and
spawning, would be the most productive. Some of the
depleted and spent shad and herrings would be available
until cold weather in October and November
(Table 12.2). Adult eels, although present at all times,
are most easily taken from August to November during
their down-river migration.
There is no good way to parcel out the productivity
figures for the entire drainage system. Either calculating
an average productivity per square kilometer of
territory, or dividing total productivity by the linear
miles of the Hudson and the tributaries that hosted
fish runs, presents problems. However, despite the
obvious problems, if we divide the productivity figures
by the size of the Hudson drainage (exclusive of
the Mohawk River system) of 24,800 sq. km (Busby
1966:135-136), we obtain a figure of 429 kg of fish per
sq. km. This figure is more than double Rostlund’s,
mainly because he omitted the striped bass from his
calculations. In contrast to our estimates for the
migratory species, the contribution of freshwater fish
in the Atlantic coastal region is estimated at about
only 43 kg per sq. km (Rostlund 1952:250). These figures
emphasize the significance of migratory fish as
an abundant resource, and also help explain observations
that the historic Mohawk and some of the central
Iroquois concentrated their fishing activities on
rivers and lakes visited by anadromous species.
MIDDLE TO LATE WOODLAND
POTTERY, FEATURES, AND FOOD
PREPARATION
Prior to the introduction of the major horticultural
domesticates, the Middle Woodland population
focused on the reliable and abundant fish runs.
Certainly, other resources were exploited, but the predictable
temporal and spatial distribution of the
migratory species contributed to seasonal aggregations
at sites like Schuylerville and others. In addition
to the fish vertebrae, enriched soils, and locations
adjacent to favorable fishing locales, archaeological
materials in the form of features and poorly fired
ceramics can be interpreted as evidence for intensive
fish exploitation and processing.
At Schuylerville there are significant differences
between the features of the Transitional period (1200-
1000 B.C.) and those of the Middle Woodland occupation.
One of the Transitional period feature types
Chapter 12 Woodland Period Settlement and Subsistence Change in the Upper Hudson River Valley 233