The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

College of The Liberal Arts

IROQUOIAN FOOD TECHNIQUES AND TECHNOLOGIES:

AN EXAMINATION OF SUSQUEHANNOCK VESSEL FORM

AND FUNCTION

A Thesis In

Anthropology

by

Alisa Natalie Strauss

Copyright 2000 Alisa Natalie Strauss

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

May 2000 We approve the thesis of Alisa Natalie Strauss.

Date of Signature

______Dean R. Snow Professor of Anthropology Head of the Department of Anthropology Chair of Committee Thesis Advisor

______George R. Milner Professor of Anthropology

______Kenneth G. Hirth Professor of Anthropology

______Lakshman Yapa Associate Professor of Geography

ABSTRACT

This study determines the functional ceramic typology used by the

Susquehannock Indians, and Iroquoian people who lived in what is now central

Pennsylvania from AD 1575-1665. This is accomplished though the use of three independent sources of data. The ethnoarchaeological record is examined to find functional ceramic classes recognized cross-culturally by peoples who make hand-built pottery vessels like those of the Susquehannock. The historic record is used to create an ethnohistoric description of the types of foods used by the Susquehannock and their neighbors as well as the vessels used in the preparation, consumption, and storage of these foods. Together, the ethnoarchaeological and ethnohistorical data are used to form a set of hypotheses about the functional classes of pottery existing in the Susquehannock collection. An examination of the sample of six hundred Susquehannock pots reveals several things. First, the stylistic ceramic typology used by archaeologists to assign temporal affinity is valid. Second, there is a strong correlation between lip diameter and total vessel volume for Susquehannock pots; this allows broken pots to be included in the analysis of function along with the almost four hundred whole or reconstructed pots.

Finally, and most significantly, a functional typology is discerned within the

Susquehannock pottery sample. The sizes of functional classes within the sample strongly correlate with the classes seen in the ethnoarchaeological and ethnohistorical records supporting the idea that they were used for the same purposes. An examination of the presence of exterior soot, interior food residues, and burial data all support this conclusion.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER TWO: HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE SUSQUEHANNOCKS 5 The Ceramic Collections 5 Archaeology of the Susquehannocks 7 Amateur Archaeology of the Susquehannocks 8 Professional Archaeology of the Susquehannocks 14 The Schultz Site 15 The Washington Boro Site 18 The Strickler Site 21 Susquehannock History 23 People of the Long, Rocky River 23 Environment 25 Population Estimates 28

CHAPTER THREE: POTTERY FORM AND FUNCTION 30 Pottery Form and Function: Statement of the Problem 30 The Ethnoarchaeology of Pottery Form and Function 35 Papago 36 Kalinga 37 Maya Highlands 38 Fulani 39 Tuxtlas 40 Shipibo-Conibo 41 Dogon 42 Njemps, Tugen, and Ambon-Lease 43 Ethnoarchaeological Vessel Function: Summary and Conclusions 47

CHAPTER FOUR: ETHNOHISTORIC DATA ANALYSIS 50 Introduction 50 Ethnohistoric Sources 51 Foods Used by the Peoples of the Northeast 57 Corn or Maize 58 Beans 64 Squash 64 Fruits 65

iv Berries 66 Nuts 67 Sunflower Seeds 69 Green Vegetables 69 Fungi and Lichens 70 Roots 70 Meats 71 Fish 74 Fowl 75 Oils 76 Beverages 77 Vessels Used in the Northeast 78 Bags 79 Baskets 79 Bottles and Gourds 80 Bowls 81 Trays 82 Utensils 82 Barrels 83 Underground Pits 84 Pots and Kettles 84 Reconstructing Household Vessel Assemblages 88 Early Period (1536-1632) 89 Middle Period (1634-1756) 93 Late Period (1819-1900) 96 Summary and Conclusions 100 Vessel Size Categories 102 Expected Frequencies of Vessel Categories 103 Expected Frequencies of Vessel Categories over Time 104 Ethnohistorical and Ethnoarchaeological Vessel Use: A Comparison 105

CHAPTER FIVE: CERAMIC DATA ANALYSIS 108 Ceramic Sample and Variable Coding 109 Stylistic Typology 109 Examination of Variables 112 Estimation of Volume 116 Determination of Functional Classes 123 The Uses of Functional Classes 135 Frequencies of Functional Classes over Time 145

CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 153

REFERENCES 158

v APPENDIX A: CERAMIC VARIABLE CODING SCHEME 175 APPENDIX B: MECHANICAL PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS 179 APPENDIX C: FOODS PREPARED BY NORTHEASTERN INDIANS 180 APPENDIX D: VESSELS USED BY INDIANS OF THE NORTHEAST 202

vi LIST OF TABLES

2-1 Estimated number of ceramic pots and European kettles by site and actual 6 numbers of pots examined in this study.

2-2 Directory of Collectors. 11

2-3 Directory of Collectors. 12

3-1 Hand-made pottery vessel forms used in a variety of cultures. 44

3-2 Vessel classes and their functions as determined from an examination of 49 the ethnoarchaeological record.

4-1 Peoples and places referred to in references used. 55

5-1 Matrix showing the Pearson correlation coefficients for the metric variables 114 in this study.

5-2 Matrix showing the Spearman’s correlation coefficients for the metric 115 variables in this study.

5-3 Average percentage of total volume found within the collar area. 124

5-4 The relationships between orifice diameter, lip diameter, and body 125 diameter for the five most frequently occurring pottery types in the sample.

5-5 Measures of center for the six Susquehannock vessel classes. 134

5-6 Frequency of occurrence of exterior soot within functional classes. 136

5-7 Frequency of occurrence of interior residue within functional classes. 137

5-8 Frequency of occurrence of either exterior soot or interior residue alone 138 within functional classes.

5-9 Percentage of pots used as cooking vessels by class. 139

5-10 Numbers of pots found in burial and non-burial contexts by village and 140 functional class.

5-11 Percentages of pots in each vessel class found in burial and 141 non-burial contexts by site.

5-12 Percentage of pots from burials that are Extra-Small or Small. 142

5-13 Percentage of pots from burials used as cooking vessels by class over time. 144

5-14 Occurrence of Susquehannock pottery vessel classes over time. 147

5-15 Vessel class frequency within assemblage by phase. 148

5-16 Timeline of events which affected Susquehannock society. 152

vii LIST OF FIGURES

2-1 Locations of the village sites included in this study. 6

3-1 Various pottery forms found in the southeast. 34

3-2 Susquehannock pottery forms. 36

3-3 Papago pottery forms. 37

3-4 Kalinga rice cooking pot and vegetable/meat cooking pot. 38

3-5 Mayan vessel forms. 39

3-6 Fulani pottery types. 40

3-7 Ollas and cazuela made by Tuxtlas potters. 41

3-8 Shipibo-Conibo ceramic forms. 42

3-9 Dogon vessel forms. 43

3-10 Njemps, Tugen, and Ambon-Lease vessel forms. 44

5-1 Frequency of pottery types at Schultz. 111

5-2 Frequency of pottery types at Washington Boro. 111

5-3 Frequency of pottery types at Strickler. 112

5-4 The two volume measurements taken for the vessels in this study. 117

5-5 Correlation between total volume and lip diameter for all whole Schultz 118 Incised pots.

5-6 Correlation between total volume and lip diameter for all whole Blue Rock 118 Valenced pots.

5-7 Correlation between total volume and lip diameter for all whole 119 Washington Boro Incised pots.

5-8 Correlation between total volume and lip diameter for all whole Strickler 119 Rounded pots.

5-9 Correlation between total volume and lip diameter for all whole Strickler 120 Flared pots.

5-10 Correlation between total volume and lip diameter for all whole Strickler 120 Thickened pots.

5-11 Correlation between total volume and lip diameter for all whole 121 Toy/Miniature pots.

viii 5-12 Distribution of total volume for all pots from all sites. 127

5-13 Distribution of total volume for all Schultz site pots. 127

5-14 Distribution of total volume for all Washington Boro site pots. 128

5-15 Distribution of total volume for all Strickler site pots. 128

5-16 Silhouettes showing the form of Susquehannock double-neck pots. 129

5-17 Distribution of total volume in the Extra-Small class. 131

5-18 Distribution of total volume in the Small class. 131

5-19 Distribution of total volume in the Medium class. 132

5-20 Distribution of total volume in the Medium-Large class. 132

5-21 Distribution of total volume in the Large class. 133

5-22 Distribution of total volume in the Extra-Large class. 133

ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are four people without whom none of this would have been possible. I must thank them first, in no particular order. My parents, Joan Strauss and Dr. Alvin

Strauss, have always supported me in my efforts to learn more about the world around me and to follow my dreams. My interest in anthropology most likely stems from the hundreds of trips to museums and prehistoric sites that I would never have taken if not for my parents’ interest. Also, my mother has listened to every detail of the ups and downs of my graduate career and has always provided words of encouragement. Thanks mom!

Without the encouragement and advice of Dr. Joseph Michels I would not be where I am today. His confidence in my abilities as a scholar and an archaeologist made the completion of this thesis possible. Dr. Michels challenges us all to be better, more professional scholars through his example.

I must also thank Dr. James Hatch, my dissertation advisor, for constantly challenging me to be the best archaeologist I could be. Over the years, he has done this both directly and indirectly, but in the end, he was truly encouraging and was extremely interested in and supportive of all my work. I regret that it was not until a couple years ago that we actually began to communicate on a deeper level as friends and colleagues, not just as advisor and student. I miss him. I just wish he could see the final version of this thesis because he was so excited to see it done.

I would also like to thank the people who helped me in my research efforts. Both

Stephen Warfel and Janet Johnson went out of their way to accommodate me while I was

x examining the Susquehannock pots at The State Museum of Pennsylvania. Robert

Gingerich at the North Museum was equally glad to have me examining the pottery at the

North Museum and made sure my research needs were satisfied. I would also like to thank William Fabanich for periodically helping me collect data for no reason other than he was interested in the subject, liked seeing the artifacts, and knew it made me happy to work faster. It was much more fun coding data with a friend.

My committee, Dr. Dean Snow, Dr. Ken Hirth, Dr. George Milner, and Dr.

Lakshman Yapa must be also thanked. The discussions with them and the detailed, incisive comments from them helped me to write a better thesis. I am fortunate to have had a committee of such high-caliber scholars working with me.

Elisabeth Heard, Vidhya Swaminathan, Lynette Hoelter, and Julie Ello also need to be thanked for the support they have given me over the past several years. They know more than they ever wanted to about Susquehannock pottery yet still continue to provide mental, emotional, and in Lis and Vid’s cases, editorial support. Also, Seth Strauss has been wonderfully encouraging in his own brotherly way. And I mean as a person, not just as someone who periodically custom builds computers for me to do my research and writing with. Seth’s always been there for me.

Last, but certainly not least, I want to thank Dr. Eric Warm for all the kindness, caring, encouragement, and support he has given me. Eric has been the light at the end of the tunnel and without him finishing graduate school would have taken longer and been much less enjoyable.

xi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

This study determines the functional ceramic typology used by the

Susquehannock Indians. This is accomplished through an examination of the food economy and habits of Iroquoian peoples as they existed during the initial and later periods of contact with European colonists. The total time period that is examined is not a long one. The ceramics in this study are from Susquehannock sites dating to AD 1575-

1625 and AD 1645-1665. The ceramic industry of the Susquehannock was a thriving one at AD 1550. By about AD 1690, brass, glass, and stoneware containers, available from

European sources, had completely replaced ceramic vessels in native assemblages. The first period examined, AD 1575-1625, is representative of the traditional, pre-contact

Susquehannock way of life. Therefore, that ceramic assemblage will be used to determine the relationship between form and function to answer the question raised by

Hally’s (1986:291) statement that vessel function is directly related to vessel form and that the “Southeast and perhaps most of the eastern United States” shared a single food use pattern: Is the lack of morphological variation in Iroquoian ceramics indicative of a lack of functional variation within those assemblages? Ceramics from the later period,

AD 1645-1665, are examined to determine whether the changes in Susquehannock food habits and economy resulting from European contact are reflected in the ceramic assemblage. It is known that intense levels of interaction with European colonists resulted in significant changes in the food economies and cultures of the Iroquoian peoples (e.g. Heidenreich 1971; Snow 1989; Webster 1983). However, prior to this study

1 it has been assumed that native vessels were progressively replaced with European ones but no research had been conducted on how changes in food habits affected the ceramic assemblages of the native inhabitants.

To accomplish the goals of this study, several types of data are examined.

Chapter Two begins by discussing the Susquehannock ceramic collection. It then provides the reader with the archaeological history of the sites from which the collections originate. Who the Susquehannock were and the various appellations assigned to them are then presented. Finally, the chapter concludes with descriptions of the region in which the Susquehannock lived and their population sizes over time.

Previous archaeological work dedicated to determining the relationship between form and function in ceramic vessels are discussed in the first half of Chapter Three.

This discussion is followed by a cross-cultural examination of the ethnoarchaeological record. In this survey, all pottery vessels are examined that are made in the same way as

(by hand, without a wheel) and having a similar form to those of the Susquehannocks.

The ethnoarchaeological data is used to create a functional ceramic typology based on size which is later compared to the Susquehannock pottery sample.

The ethnohistoric record has been examined to find references to the different types of containers involved in food habits in the Northeast. Chapter Four presents information about how foods were prepared and readied for consumption by Iroquoian peoples. The means by which people stored, cooked, served, et cetera, their foods after they acquired them are examined. The investigation of food preparation techniques helps to reveal what changes occurred over time in this sphere of life. The ethnohistoric record

2 is also examined in order to find references to the different types of containers involved in food habits. The types of containers included in this analysis are all those involved with the storage, preparation, serving, and consumption of foodstuffs. References to the usage of vessels made of bark, ceramic, wood, stone, reed, and any other materials recorded as being used in relation to food preparation, consumption, and storage are examined. In addition, all recorded uses of pottery are noted, whether the ceramic vessel was used in food preparation, or for some other purpose. The ethnohistoric data is then used in the formation of hypotheses that structure the examination of the Susquehannock ceramics.

In Chapter Five, the Susquehannock pottery sample is analyzed by looking at variation in those aspects of vessel morphology related to the mechanical performance of the pots. These data are then used in the creation of a functional ceramic typology.

Support for this typology is found in the results of the ethnohistoric and ethnoarchaeological data analyses, as well as in the examination of the presence of exterior soot and interior residue on the vessels. In addition, how the functional ceramic typology does or does not correlate with the typology currently in use was examined.

The current typology, based on decorative variation, was created for the purpose of distinguishing between temporal periods. At present, archaeologists working with

Susquehannock ceramics recognize one predominant ceramic type being produced per time period even though they note that more than one type may be constructed or used during each phase (Kent 1993). Each of these types can include vessels that can vary

3 greatly in size. The relation between the functional ceramic typology created in this study and that already in existence, which is based on stylistic differences, is explored.

In conclusion, Chapter Six presents an overview of the Susquehannock functional ceramic typology determined in this study through the use of ethnoarchaeological, ethnohistorical, and archaeological data. The functional types are named and their uses described. In addition, directions for future research on functional ceramic typologies in the Northeast are suggested.

4 CHAPTER TWO: HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE SUSQUEHANNOCKS

THE CERAMIC COLLECTIONS

The Susquehannocks lived in south-central Pennsylvania from AD 1550 to 1743, and the village sites examined here lie along the Susquehanna River in Lancaster County about nine miles southwest of the city of Lancaster (Figure 2-1). Specifically, the sites from which ceramics have been examined are the village sites of Schultz (36La7),

Strickler (36La3), and Washington Boro site (36La8), and their associated cemeteries.

These sites were chosen both because of the large numbers of vessels that have been recovered from them and the excellent temporal control over the dates of ceramic production. Six hundred ceramic vessels, almost four hundred of which are either whole or have been reconstructed, have been examined enabling a thorough analysis of vessel form.

Table 2-1 shows an estimation of the total number of vessels recovered from all the Susquehannock sites within a ten-mile stretch of the Susquehanna River and the dates for those sites. As can be seen by examining Table 2-1, the numbers of ceramics from the Schultz, Washington Boro, and Strickler sites are quite large. In addition, the first two sites, Schultz and Washington Boro, provide information on traditional to early contact lifeways. This can be seen by the dates determined for the sites and by the

5

Figure 2-1. Locations of the village sites included in this study (from Kent 1984:20). Strickler is La3, Schultz is La7, and Washington Boro is La8. Other sites are Oscar Liebhart (Yo9), Byrd Liebhart (Yo179), Murry(La183), Conestoga Town (La 52), Roberts (La1), and Shenks Ferry (La2).

Table 2-1. Estimated number of ceramic pots and European brass kettles by site (after Kent 1993:292)and actual number of pots examined in this study. Sites being examined in this study are in bold lettering. NUMBER NUMBER OF NUMBER OF TIME SITE OF POTS BRASS KETTLES POTS IN STUDY ca. AD 1550 Engelbert 17 0  1575-1600 Schultz 210 1 199 1600-1625 Washington Boro 200 4 234 ca. 1630 Haverstick 23 3  1630-1645 Roberts 6 1  1645-1665 Strickler 169 145 167 1665-1674 Oscar Leibhart 28 10  1676-1680 Byrd Leibhart 45 25  1690-1750 Conestoga Town 0 42  1718-1743 Conoy Town 0 3 

6 numbers of brass kettles found. Compared to the later contact period site, Strickler, one can see a marked difference in the use of European vessels. While only one percent of the vessels recovered from Schultz and Washington Boro are of European origin, at the

Strickler site, forty-six percent of the vessels recovered are brass kettles. This increase in the frequency of European vessels is indicative of the affects on the Susquehannock of acculturation resulting from increased contact with Europeans between the times that

Schultz and Washington Boro were inhabited and Strickler was established.

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE SUSQUEHANNOCKS

Because the Susquehannock Indians were a powerful group who did not permit

Europeans to settle in their country, we lack the types of descriptive histories on them that are present for some other northeastern North American peoples (Grumet 1995:305).

We do have some historical documents that describe the Susquehannocks and their lifeways. However, most of the historical references to these people are in the form of records that document military encounters or trade and diplomatic relations of the

Susquehannocks with others, both European and native, around them (Grumet 1995:305).

For this reason, much of what we know about the Susquehannock Indians comes from archaeological investigations. The area of interest here, the lower Susquehanna River valley was not only of importance because of its occupation by the Susquehannock

Indians but has also been described as “the Indian capital of Pennsylvania from Paleo-

Indian times to the beginning of the eighteenth century” (Kent 1993:11). Unfortunately,

7 this area could also be described as the “pot-hunter” capital of Pennsylvania as well. For this reason, the following overview of the archaeology of the Susquehannock Indians of the lower Susquehanna River begins with a discussion of the work of collectors as well as that of amateur archaeologists.

AMATEUR ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE SUSQUEHANNOCKS

From early on, collectors have played a significant role in the history of

Susquehannock archaeology. Collectors and amateur archaeologists have been digging at

Susquehannock sites since at least 1850. This section describes the works of amateurs and collectors over time that relates to Susquehannock sites and collections.

In 1929, when the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology was founded, many of its members were collectors (Hallowell 1930:1). A number of these collectors worked to try and keep records of where and when their artifacts were found. Examples of this can be seen by reviewing the first ten years of Pennsylvania Archaeologist, the bulletin of the

Society of Pennsylvania Archaeology. Such an examination also provides one with an indication of how long collectors have been active in central Pennsylvania. For example, one prominent Lancaster County collector, Gerald B. Fenstermaker, recalls that

From the time I was 8 years old my father took me for long walks through Lancaster County and carefully trained me in surface hunting and in locating camp sites. When I was 20 I found a site off the beaten path which revealed some quartzite spear heads as large as my hand. I was so enthusiastic over this find that I immediately determined to start a collection of archaeological objects from this region. Since then the collection has grown to immense proportions. It is now on exhibition at the Pennsylvania State Museum at Harrisburg. I hope to add representative specimens to the collection from time to time (1930:16).

8 Fortunately, the collection Fenstermaker refers to as being on exhibit at the State

Museum was purchased by the State and is still a part of the Museum’s permanent collections.

Fenstermaker was not done collecting with the sale of his first collection. He continued to excavate Susquehannock remains from both burial and non-burial contexts, and add the finds to his new collection. In 1937, in what has come to be referred to as the

“Fenstermaker Number,” the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology published an issue written entirely by Fenstermaker about his archaeological work. In this issue,

Fenstermaker outlines his 1934-1935 field work and describes the careful mapping and record keeping he used to record his excavation activities and the exact locations of his finds. He even describes a system he says he copyrighted himself in 1934 called “Field

Record” (Fenstermaker 1937:67). Unfortunately, no one knows what has happened to

Fenstermaker’s field records. We have lost a great deal of information about a large number of Susquehannock excavations as a result.

Not only have Fenstermaker’s field records been lost, but so have a large number of the artifacts themselves. Unlike his earlier Susquehannock collections which he sold to the State Museum in Harrisburg, much of Fenstermaker’s later collections have been dispersed, often times through sales at auctions. For example, the Denver Museum of

Natural History in Colorado has well over 600 Susquehannock artifacts collected by

Fenstermaker in its holdings. These were acquired some time ago through a large purchase and subsequent donation. What happened to the rest of Fenstermaker’s collections is not known at this point, however, it is known that a large number of

9 artifacts from his later collections were sold at auction recently (Kent 1998, personal communication).

This problem is, unfortunately, not unique. For instance,

It was in July, 1917, that the Indian collections of Charles Steigerwalt, Samuel H. Zahn, and H. L. Simon of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, were sold at the Henkel Auction Rooms. There were fifteen thousand pieces in the catalogue and each lot was carefully labeled as to locality. The collections were sold so cheaply that almost any interested person could have bought them and kept the local material here where it belongs and originated. Now it is scattered all over the country (Landis 1933:11).

Even collections and records from the excavations carried out by archaeologists working for the State Museum were not kept entirely together over the years. Two of the three books containing Cadzow’s field records from his excavations at the Keller site are missing. In addition, the author was recently contacted by a homeowner in Washington

Boro, PA who has in her possession a Susquehannock pot from Cadzow’s excavations

(with Cadzow’s museum number-label on it). The owner simply stated that the pot came with the house.

Pennsylvania Archaeologist even provided a forum for the dispersal of collections in its early years. The following letters, for example, come from a section of the April

1933 issue titled “Exchange Department.”

My dear Miss Dorrance: I am in an archaeological plight, and Dr. Stewart, of Lock Haven, has suggested that you might be able to help me out. My Indian collection is rather representative of Pennsylvania, except that I have, among my 95,000 pieces, hardly any red or yellow jasper arrows or spears. You can appreciate the craving of a collector’s soul for what he ought to have, and does not. Could you direct me to the exchange or the purchase of a few fine specimens? Very sincerely, Archibald Rutledge

10

I have three nice banner-stones from Ohio that I would like to trade for bannerstones, from Pennsylvania or any other fine Pa. pieces. W.C. Fuellhart, Tidoute, Pa.

Fortunately, not all collectors were working (intentionally or not) to disperse local collections. Some collectors spoke out against such occurrences. As a reaction against the sale of collections at auction, H. K. Landis called out for historical societies to “keep in touch” with collectors and to make sure that their lives’ works be preserved intact in the area from which they originated (Landis 1933:11). H. K. Landis then began to periodically publish the holdings and locations of more major collectors in an effort to let others know where the more significant private holdings of central Pennsylvania were located. The following lists (Tables 2-2 and 2-3) display a summary of Landis’ reports from 1934 and 1936.

Table 2-2. Directory of Collectors (after Landis 1934, emphasis added).

DESCRIPTION A B C D E F Arrow and Spear points 8500 577 4000 4000 3250 10,500 Knives, scrapers, skinners, etc. 500 21 125 25 70 200 Celts, gouges, chisels, clubs, balls 80 61 332 5 69 1180 Hammer stones, mauls 30 4 100 22 60 Pestles, mullers, etc. 5 4 55 1 25 62 Mortars, anvil stones, paint cups 2 10 3 5 10 Stone drills, awls, etc. 50 7 80 10 12 310 Bowls and pots, incl. fragments 25 187 7 35 128 Sinkers, plummets, etc. 20 1 10 100 Banner and ceremonial stones, all 120 12 73 2 20 179 Pendants, gorgets, beads, ornaments 205 262 24 ft 75 45 2225 Pipes and stems, etc. 5 297 6 14 211 Turtle backs and similar pieces 1 1 18 10 57 All kinds of broken pieces 3000 1000 500 1000 1000 Trader goods about 500 A—D. J. Eckman, Lancaster, PA B—David H. Landis, Windom, Lancaster, PA C—W. C. Frankfort and J. W. Frankfort, Ephrata, PA D—H. S. Becker, Ephrata, PA E—Landis Valley Museum, Lancaster, PA F—Dr. T. B. Stewart, Lock Haven, PA

11 Table 2-3. Directory of Collectors (after Landis 1936, emphasis added)

DESCRIPTION A-2 B-2 C-2 D-2 E-2 Arrow and Spear points 2049 4708 1374 8600 2025 Knives, scrapers, skinners, etc. 62 294 8 85 80 Celts, gouges, chisels, clubs, balls 102 80 26 105 45 Hammer stones, mauls 53 67 7 44 50 Pestles, mullers, etc. 49 16 1 17 Mortars, anvil stones, paint cups 7 5 4 2 Stone drills, awls, etc. 86 34 35 Bowls and pots, incl. fragments 20 31 8 1 Sinkers, plummets, etc. 1 1 10 10 Banner and ceremonial stones, all 9 2 53 21 57 Pendants, gorgets, beads, ornaments 309 79 65 712 Pipes and stems, etc. 22 30 25 Turtle backs and similar pieces 106 2 145 4 All kinds of broken pieces 500 575 250 2500 2500 Trader goods, pieces 6 12 A-2—State Teachers’ College Museum, Millersville, PA B-2—F. W. Arzbaecher, Reinholds, PA D-2—Christain H. Shenk, Lancaster, PA C-2—C. H. Martin, Lancaster, PA E-2—J. C. Stone, Holtwood, PA

In general, as time progressed Pennsylvania’s collectors and archaeologists became more concerned with preserving the archaeological record of the state. Early on in 1933, Donald Cadzow wrote a letter discussing the “sport” of opening Indian burials in

Pennsylvania (1933:16). He emphasized the need for Pennsylvanians to work to protect their archaeological resources and to help protect sites from “enthusiastic relic hunters”

(Cadzow 1933:16). He points out that

sites are actually historic “documents” which can be read by those trained to read them. Historical records, be they material objects or manuscripts, should be treated with reverence and consideration (Cadzow 1933:16).

Despite his call for an end to the pillaging of local sites, the “relic hunters” continued their work and, as mentioned earlier, the work of more conscientious collectors who could be described as amateur archaeologists was being strewn throughout the country

12 through auctions. Later, in 1937 when Cadzow became president of the Society for

Pennsylvania Archaeology, he called for members to work together with him to take on the responsibility of preserving Pennsylvania’s history and prehistory by taking advantage of the increasing interest in Pennsylvania archaeology. He tells members that their

responsibility can best be fulfilled by increased activity in [their] various communities, by awakening local interest in archaeology by taking an active part in seeing that sites are not destroyed, and that valuable data is properly recorded (Cadzow 1937:19).

Other articles in Pennsylvania Archaeologist showing the change over time in how members regard different collecting types of activities can be seen in the publication of a brief statement made by the Director of the Southwest Museum in Los Angeles, CA defining and describing the activities of the “pot hunter” (Hodge 1937:54). In it, not only is a pot hunter described, but we are told that the only way to stop pot hunters is to take away their market. Then we learn that the Southwest Museum will no longer buy artifacts from collectors except under very special, specific circumstances (Hodge

1937:54).

Even collectors were becoming more conscientious as can be seen in publication of articles concerned with the proper labeling of artifacts so that the information on them would not be lost in the future (Hill 1937:58), the establishment of permanent places for collections to be preserved and displayed (Landis 1938:79-80), and the extreme importance of cataloguing even small collections (Leslie 1938:90-91). Indeed, some even became self-reflective upon their hobby as exhibited in the article “Are We Pot

13 Hunters?,” in which the author discuses the activities of collectors and that of professional archaeologists to come to the conclusion that many need to reevaluate their activities because they may indeed be the pot hunters they so disdain (Delavan 1939:69-

70).

This brief overview of collector activities was presented with the purpose of showing the reader how fortunate people who are interested in the lives of the

Susquehannock Indians are that there is still adequate data for them to examine. Though this section may cause the archaeologist dismay when they read about how many artifacts have been taken out of context over the years to enhance the collections of private owners, and even more distress when they find out how common it has been, and still is, for potentially valuable artifacts to be sold to anyone willing to purchase them, they should take heart. A great amount of what can be classified as bona fide archaeological work has been done over the years on Susquehannock sites and this work has provided us with a large amount of data.

PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE SUSQUEHANNOCKS

Because the pottery examined here originates from three main Susquehannock sites, Schultz (also called Schultz-Funk), Washington Boro, and Strickler, those are the only sites that will be dealt with here. These sites span the time period during which the

Susquehannocks first settled in the lower Susquehanna River valley, when they began having increasing contact with European colonists, and when they were a powerful

14 political force in eastern North America. The rest of this section provides the reader with an overview of the archaeological history of the three sites with references where further information can be found. A number of works have summarized the archaeological history of these sites quite thoroughly (for examples see Casselberry 1971; Grumet 1995;

Kent 1993); to do so again here would be redundant. The ceramic data from each site that is examined in this study will be discussed later in the chapter on ceramic analysis.

THE SCHULTZ SITE

Schultz was a Susquehannock Indian village inhabited between about AD 1575-

1600 (Kent 1993:292). Located about 300 yards from the Susquehanna River, the site is situated atop a river terrace covered in fertile soil about 100 feet from a stream known as

Witmers Run (Kent 1993:319). A second, earlier site known as the Funk Shenks Ferry village lies nearby to the east. As a result, some archaeologists have referred to the entire area encompassing both sites collectively as the Schultz-Funk site. Both the Schultz and the Funk sites contain Susquehannock materials, however, the Schultz site is the location of the first entirely Susquehannock Indian village.

Donald A. Cadzow (1932, 1936) while working for the Pennsylvania Historical

Commission carried out the earliest recorded excavations at the Schultz site in 1931. He began his work by using a horse-drawn plow to create furrows across the surface of the site. He then examined the soil turned up in the furrows and located features in the soil by noting their darker color. The surface around each of the darker areas seen in the furrows was then cleared off with shovels and the feature was excavated. In this manner,

15 Cadzow excavated a total of 272 pits and thirteen burials that he describes in his report

(Cadzow 1936). No postmolds or other evidence of structures or stockades were found because of the methods used.

An analysis of the pottery found by Cadzow at Schultz led James B. Griffin

(1936) to correctly identify their relation to those made by the Iroquois of New York

State. However, Griffin chose to classify the pottery as Andaste (a classification that did not refer specifically to the Susquehannock which is no longer used by archaeologists

(Kent 1993:320)). It was Cadzow (1936) who first identified Schultz as a

Susquehannock village by attributing the ceramic wares found there to them.

The next set of investigations at Schultz was done by the Museum of the

American Indian, Heye Foundation in 1934. Led by S. W. Pennypacker, the expedition uncovered both storage pits and burials. They summarized the results of their fieldwork by stating that, with the exception of two perforated sharks’ teeth, “nothing very unusual was found” (Heye 1935:130).

During the next twenty-five years, several small-scale excavations were carried out at Schultz. In 1946, Arthur Futer, an amateur archaeologist from New Holland, PA, found a burial pot made by earlier Shenks Ferry Indians (Kent 1993:320). John Witthoft and Samuel Farver excavated a large pit in 1947 (Witthoft and Farver 1952). In 1950,

Witthoft and Henry Heisey found what they believed to be a Schultz period

Susquehannock grave northwest of the village (Kent 1993:320). Later, in 1960, the first

Susquehannock cemetery associated with Schultz was found near the grave Witthoft and

Heisey found ten years earlier (Heisey and Witmer 1962). These smaller excavations,

16 though they did not reveal a great amount of new data, were sufficient to make archaeologists want to conduct further excavations.

In 1967 the Pennsylvania Power and Light Company announced that it was going to buy land around and at the Schultz site and archaeologists recognized that the work they proposed to do on those lands could possibly destroy any archaeological remains present there (Kent 1993:320-321). As a result, excavations by Penn State University under the direction of Samuel Casselberry (1971) were carried out during the summer of

1968. Penn State University and the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission continued to excavate at Schultz under the direction of Ira Smith the following summer

(I. Smith 1970).

The more extensive excavations of the late 1960s revealed much more about the nature of the Schultz village than any of the previous work had. The work done during the 1968 and 1969 field seasons uncovered about 40% of the Schultz village site (Kent

1993:324). As a result, evidence of at least twelve longhouses was uncovered (Kent

1993:324), although Casselberry (1971:180) believes that twenty-six longhouses can be seen in the excavated area. In addition, evidence of a stockade that surrounded the village was found and it has been hypothesized that the stockade was rebuilt about three times (I. Smith 1970). In the 1969 season alone at total of 450 “Indian features” including 13 burials were excavated (I. Smith 1970).

A later season of field work in 1974 was carried out by the Pennsylvania

Historical and Museum Commission to learn more about the relationship between the later Susquehannock and the earlier Shenks Ferry Indian occupations. This effort

17 resulted in the excavation of two cemeteries, one of which was entirely Susquehannock

(Smith and Graybill 1977). All of the data collected over the years indicate that the

Susquehannocks lived at Schultz for a minimum of 15 years, though they most likely occupied the village for about 25 years (Kent 1993:333). Schultz was most likely abandoned because the inhabitants had used their local resources to the point of exhaustion. When they moved, they set up a new village at Washington Boro.

THE WASHINGTON BORO SITE

Between about AD 1600 and 1625, Washington Boro was the main village occupied by the Susquehannocks (Kent 1993:292). This is the village they lived at when they traveled down the Susquehanna River to meet Captain John Smith in 1608 (Smith

1907a). Collectors throughout the northeastern United States have known the location of this site since at least the mid-1800s (Kent 1993:333). There are several sites that are recognized as being separate by the state (i.e. they have separate site numbers) that make up the whole of the remains of the Washington Boro occupation. The primary sites of importance here are: Washington Boro, the main village site; Eschelman, a midden used by the village; and Keller and Ibaugh, cemeteries used by Washington Boro village.

Local residents started excavating Susquehannock burials at Washington Boro at about 1875 (Kent 1993:334) and have continued to look for Indian relics to, most likely, this day. Between 1925 and 1927, a large number of Susquehannock graves were opened by John Keller who was excavating to build a foundation for a new home (Kent

1993:334). Various other individuals also opened graves at around the same time (Kent

18 1993:334). Because it was found on Keller’s property, this cemetery came to be known as the Keller site. A large part of the Keller collection was bought by G. B. Fenstermaker who then sold it to the Pennsylvania State Museum, as part of his collection which is mentioned in the previous section. The large number of Susquehannock artifacts sold by

Fenstermaker to the museum attracted the attention of Cadzow, a state archaeologist.

Cadzow conducted the first documented archaeological investigations at the

Washington Boro village in 1931 (Cadzow 1936). At the time, he referred to the site as the Frey Farm village. Cadzow opened seventeen storage pits and a portion of a midden area to the east of the village (Cadzow 1936).

John Witthoft directed the next professional archaeological work in the area in

1949 while working for the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. Witthoft excavated the area now referred to as the Eschelman site. The stratigraphy of this site consisted of a layer of recent topsoil, underneath which lay a Susquehannock midden deposit, which in turn lay above prehistoric topsoil (Kent 1993:334). Large quantities of animal bone and pottery were found in the midden.

While digging a new cellar in 1955, Albert Ibaugh found a number of human skeletons which he brought to the attention of both the Pennsylvania State Museum and

Franklin and Marshall College. As a result, these two institutions then carried out excavations in 1955, 1957, and 1958 at what has come to be known as the Ibaugh site

(Kent 1993:334). Ibaugh is a cemetery site, and there is no doubt on the part of the investigators that it is associated with the Washington Boro village (Witthoft and Kinsey

1959:99-119; Kinsey 1959; 1960).

19 Because neither Cadzow’s nor Witthoft’s excavations had worked to find out how large Washington Boro village was, further work was conducted in 1972 by Barry Kent and Henry Heisey (Kent 1993:337). This work began by using a bulldozer to remove the topsoil and then flatshoveling to reveal the presence of any features. Though they found no evidence of a stockade, Kent and Heisey were able to discover a number of storage pits and postmolds from longhouses (Kent 1993:337). The next excavations carried out by Kent at the village site were rushed in nature. This was because the

undisturbed surface of the Washington Boro village area was purchased by a housing developer. By the time the developer finally agreed to permit any salvage excavations, only one house lot remained unbuilt upon, and that had had its topsoil stripped away in preparation for building (Kent 1993:337).

Fortunately, despite the adverse conditions, Kent was able to find the southern portion of

Washington Boro’s palisade, as well as evidence of an earlier, smaller stockade line

(Kent 1993:338).

The Washington Boro village, like its predecessor Schultz, appears to have been occupied for about twenty-five years. Again, most likely because they had worn out the resources surrounding the site, the Susquehannock Indians abandoned their village and moved to a new location. Archaeological evidence indicated that they moved from

Washington Boro to the Roberts site. Roberts is unusual in that it is located further away from the Susquehanna River than the Schultz, Washington Boro, and Strickler. Roberts village was significantly smaller than Washington Boro and Strickler, and the

Susquehannocks of the time may have been split up into two or more villages instead of having a single central settlement. Regardless, after living at Roberts (and probably

20 Billmyer simultaneously), the Susquehannocks again moved after a period of about twenty to twenty-five years to the Strickler site.

THE STRICKLER SITE

The most recent village site in this study, Strickler, was occupied between AD

1645 and 1665 (Kent 1993:292). Hieroseime Lalemant, a Jesuit missionary who lived with the Iroquois, provides one of the most detailed contemporary descriptions of the site.

Because the Iroquois he was with were concerned primarily with trying to conquer the

Susquehannocks, Lalemant’s account focuses on the defenses of the Strickler Site:

The three other Iroquois nations had no better success in an expedition undertaken by them against the [Susquehannocks], Savages of new Sweden with whom war broke out some years ago. Raising, accordingly, an army of eight hundred men, they embarked on Lake Ontario toward the beginning of last April, and directed their course to a great river, very much like out Saint Lawrence, leading without rapids and without falls to the very gates of the village of Andastogue. There our warriors arrived, after journeying more than an hundred leagues on that beautiful river. Camping in the most advantageous positions, they prepared to make a general assault, planning, as is their wont, to sack the whole village and return home at the earliest moment, loaded with glory and with captives. But they saw that this village was defended on one side by the stream, on whose banks it was situated, and on the opposite by a double curtain of large trees, flanked by two bastions erected in the European manner and even supplied with some pieces of Artillery (Lalemant 1664:77).

The largest of the Susquehannock sites, and the most fortified, Strickler village has been known of for hundreds of years. Like the Washington Boro site, collectors have known about the Strickler site for over a century. Though plowing certainly uncovered numerous artifacts over the years, it was not until the latter half of the 1800s that people began to actively hunt for artifacts at Strickler to sell (Kent 1993:348-49).

21 Around 1930, Gerald Fenstermaker showed Donald Cadzow where

Susquehannock burials could be found near a barn on Charles Strickler’s property.

Cadzow began excavations where indicated in 1931 and named the site Strickler after the landowner (Cadzow 1936). Cadzow’s work uncovered a number of burials and a variety of artifacts—both native and European—supporting the idea that Strickler was a later village site.

The next three decades witnessed major activity on the part of pot-hunters. The number of graves opened during this period is unknown (Kent 1993:349). Fortunately, amateur archaeologists were also working during this period. The Conestoga Chapter of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology excavated a trench in the eastern side of the site in 1959 that revealed the wall of a longhouse and several burials (Heisey and Witmer

1962:118). Also, over the course of several years, Arthur Futer carried out systematic excavations of one of Strickler’s cemeteries (Futer 1959). Most of the artifacts excavated by Futer, as well as his field records, are now part of the collections held by the North

Museum in Lancaster, PA. Henry Heisey, owner of a large portion of the village site, did the most recent amateur investigations at Strickler. Heisey excavated a number of graves in the cemetery on his property and his records and most of his finds are also now part of the North Museum’s holdings.

The next significant excavations at Strickler were done in 1967-1969 as part of a large salvage operation. The Pennsylvania Power and Light Company wanted to purchase lands covering a large portion of the Strickler site and would destroy the site with the activity they had in mind for the property (Kent 1993:349). Field work done in

22 1967 consisted primarily of exploratory work. In 1968, over 350 pits were excavated and part of the stockade line and a number of longhouses were discovered (Kent 1993:351).

The 1969 excavations uncovered another 200 pits and a large number of postmolds.

They also revealed a rectangular bastion at a corner in the stockade line (Kent 1993:352).

Also in 1969, over twenty burials were excavated just outside a gate in the stockade.

SUSQUEHANNOCK HISTORY

PEOPLE OF THE LONG, ROCKY RIVER

The same rocky formations that create excellent fish trapping conditions in the

Susquehanna River, are not as conducive to boating. Captain Smith noted in 1608 that there was a river that

commeth Northwest from among the mountaines, but though Canowes may goe a dayes journey or two up it, we could not get two myles up it with our boat for rockes. Upon it is seated the Sasquesahanocks (Smith 1907a:49).

Despite the fact that Smith could not sail up the Susquehanna River into the country of the Susquehannocks, they heard about his presence, probably because the they lived at the intersection of two major travel routes, and sent a group of men down to meet

Captain Smith. This is how the Susquehannock Indians came to first enter the western historical record in the year 1608. Though he had already met numerous peoples in the

New World he was exploring, Captain Smith was very much impressed with the

23 Susquehannock Indians as one can tell by reading his description of them at the time of their first encounter:

60 of those Sasquesahanocks came to see us with skins, Bowes, Arrows, Targets, Beads, Swords, and Tobacco pipes for presents. Such great and well proportioned men are seldome seene, for they seemed like Giants to the English, yea and to their neighbors, yet seemed of an honest and simple dispostion, with much adoe restrained from adoring us as Gods. These are the strangest people of all those Countries, both in language & attire; for their language it may well beseeme their proportions, sounding for them, as a voice in a vault. Their attire is the skinnes of Beares, and Woolves, some have Cassaks made of Beares heads & skinnes, that a mans head goes through the skinnes neck, and the eares of the Beare fastned to his shoulders, the nose and teeth hanging downe his breast, another Bears face split behind him, and at the end of the nose hung a Pawe, the halfe sleeves comming to the elbowes were the neckes of Beares, and the armes through the mouth with pawes hanging at their noses. One had the head of a Woolfs hanging in a chaine for a Jewell, his Tobacco pipe three quarters of a yard long, prettily carved with a Bird, a Deere, or some such devise at the great end, sufficient to beat out ones braines: with Bowes, Arrowes, and clubs suitable to their greatnesse (Smith 1907a:50).

This is how we first hear about the Susquehannock Indians in the historical record. It is also how the Susquehannocks received the name by which we refer to them today. We do not know what the Susquehannocks called themselves. The name

“Sasquesahanocks” used by Captain Smith and other English throughout the seventeenth century was most likely that used by the Native Americans traveling with him (Smith

1907a, 1907b). Susquehannock is an Algonquian word (Kent 1993:28) which means

“people or place at the roiling, muddy, long, or falling water” (Grumet 1995:306). In other words, the name Susquehannock is descriptive of the Susquehanna River upon which those people lived.

24 A number of other names were used to refer to the Susquehannock. The Dutch and Swedish colonists called them the Minqua (also Mingwe), a name given to them by the Leni Lenape Indians who inhabited the coastal area of what is now New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania (Kent 1993:28). French colonists, explorers, and missionaries used a number of variations of the Huron name for the Susquehannocks, Andaste, including those listed below.

• Andastraconnon • Andastis • Andastagueronnon • Andastaeronnon • Andastoehronon • Andastogehronnon • Andastaquez • Andastoeronnon • Andastogue • Andastoui • Andastoerrhonon • Andastoguetz • Andastaz • Andastogenronon • Andastroque

the French also referred to the Susquehannocks by their Iroquois name Gandastogue, as well as by Carantouanais, which is derived from the Iroquois. During later periods, the

English also referred to the Susquehannocks by names of Iroquois derivation like

Conestogas or Conessetagoes. Though we do not know what name they preferred to call themselves, for the sake of clarity, they will continue to be referred to here as the

Susquehannock Indians.

ENVIRONMENT

The area of the Lower Susquehanna River valley inhabited by the Susquehannock

Indians is one of the most fertile and productive in Pennsylvania (Grumet 1995:301;

Baker 1998:15) as well as one of the richest agricultural areas in the United States (Kent

1993:11). The Lower Susquehanna River valley lies in the Piedmont Lowlands, a

25 physiographic province characterized by gently rolling uplands, broad plains, and carbonate bedrock (Baker 1998:11; Kent 1993:11). Every known Susquehannock village site lies within an eight-mile strip of the Susquehanna River in southern Pennsylvania

(Webster 1983:220-1). Particularly, the sites examined in this study all lie within a shallow valley, Washington Boro valley, along the eastern shore of the Susquehanna

River bounded to the north and south by uplands known locally as Manor Hill and

Turkey Hill respectively (Baker 1998:11; Kent 1993:11). Because this valley is bracketed by Turkey Hill, which protrudes westward into the river valley, and Manor

Hill, the current of the Susquehanna River is slowed down on the eastern side, causing increased soil deposition. This soil deposition has produced the islands seen today in the river as well as wetland and floodplain areas along the edge of the river (Baker 1998:14).

These hills also worked to produce the elevated terraces along the river during the

Pleistocene glacial recessions when meltwater from glaciers upriver elevated river levels

(Baker 1998:14). All three of the sites examined here lie on river terraces less than half a mile from the Susquehanna River (Webster 1983).

Elevated river terraces were seen as ideal places for habitation by the Native

Americans of Pennsylvania for several reasons: First, terraces have basically level surfaces conducive to building on and their soils are highly productive and fertile.

Second, because terraces have a gravel substrate and are raised above the river, they are

“generally dry, breezy locations in summer, and elevated above the frost pockets and damp chill of the river in winter” (Baker 1998:20). Finally, because of their proximity to the river, terraces allow their inhabitants easy access to sources of water, foods like fish,

26 shellfish, and waterfowl, and communication via watercraft (Baker 1998:20). In fact, the

Washington Boro valley lies at the intersection of the Susquehanna River and the Great

Valley Section of the Ridge and Valley Province which places it at the intersection of the two most important travel routes used in Pennsylvania prehistory (Kent 1993:11).

In addition to having very fertile soils for growing foods, the Susquehannock inhabitants of Washington Boro valley also had a number of wild plant and animal resources available to them (Kent 1993:11). The forests of the area were predominantly oak and chestnut (Kent 1993:11; Baker 1998:22) though along stream edges and on terraces elms, silver maple, sycamore, tulip poplar, walnut, willow were common (Kinsey

1977:6). A variety of nut-bearing trees and the leaves, shoots, seeds of other plants provided a variety of food sources. In addition to using the wide variety of floral resources, the native inhabitants of the Susquehanna River valley also made use of almost every faunal option available.

Aboriginal animals that were important to the diet of the Susquehannock Indians include beaver, black bear, whitetail deer, elk, and raccoon (Baker 1998:22; Kinsey

1977:7). The Susquehannocks also had access to a number of different waterfowl species because they lived in the path of the Atlantic flyway used by migratory birds (Kinsey

1977:7). This allowed them to capture species including Canadian geese, whistling swans, mallard ducks, pintail ducks, and goldeneye ducks (Kinsey 1977:7). Other birds, like the wild turkey, lived in the area year-round and were also used as food resources

(Baker 1998:22; Kinsey 1977:7). Finally, the river itself was a rich provider of food resources in the form of anadromous and local fish species like shad, herring, sturgeon,

27 and shellfish (Kent 1993:11; Kinsey 1977:7). The Susquehanna River is rocky, “its entire bottom was visibly choked with often massive outcroppings…sometimes catching soil and creating islands…in other places…causing waterfalls” (Kent 1993:11). These conditions were not only scenic, but they also facilitated the trapping of fish (Kent

1993:11).

POPULATION ESTIMATES

We are concerned here with the history of the Susquehannocks during the time when they inhabited the villages of Schultz, Washington Boro, and Strickler. As discussed in the previous section, the Susquehannocks preferred to live atop river terraces. They also, like other eastern North American groups, moved their village site periodically when the resources and soils surrounding their village became less productive. Captain Smith not only provided the western historical record with its first description of Susquehannock warriors, but also the first description of their villages and populations. As a result, we know that in 1608 the Susquehannocks “can make neare 600 able men, and are pallisadoed in their Townes to defend themselves from the

Massawonekes their mortall enemies” (Smith 1907a:51).

Most of what we know of the populations of the Susquehannock Indians over time comes from archaeological investigations. All three of the sites under investigation here were pallisaded villages in which people lived in longhouses of the type common for other Iroquoian groups. There were probably 27 longhouses at Schultz which yields population estimates between 1,269 (Kent 1993:325) and 1,500 (Casselberry (1971:188).

28 The next site chronologically, Washington Boro, was the one inhabited at the time of

Captain Smith’s 1608 encounter with the Susquehannocks. Because of difficulties excavating evidence of longhouses, the village area encompassed by the outermost stockade line, about 250,000 square feet, was used to calculate a population estimate of

1,700 for Washington Boro (Kent 1993:338). Webster (1983:227, 231) using an estimate of 50 people per longhouse and 50 longhouses estimates Washington Boro’s population to have been 2500. Neither of these estimates are too far off from the population estimate calculated using John Smith’s observation that there were about 600 able men at

Washington Boro and an estimate of four warriors to every ten persons (Snow and Starna

1989:144)—a method that results in a population estimate of about 2,400. The latest site we are concerned with here is Strickler. There appears to have been about 90 longhouses at Strickler based on archaeological investigations (Kent 1993:360). Based on the number of longhouses and the overall square footage of the village itself, it has been estimated that the population of Strickler was about 2,880 people (Kent 1993:363).

Based on available evidence, we can see that the villages of the Susquehannock were prosperous enough to support relatively large populations. The population of the

Susquehannocks inhabiting the main village site along the lower Susquehanna River appears to have increased over time until the abandonment of the village of Strickler.

29 CHAPTER THREE: POTTERY FORM AND FUNCTION

POTTERY FORM AND FUNCTION: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Ceramics are one of the most frequently recovered types of artifacts from late prehistoric sites. In the northeastern United States, ceramics appear in the Early

Woodland period (ca. 1000-500 BC) and become increasingly more common through time (Brown 1986:599). Because of their relative durability and the variation they exhibit in form and decoration, ceramics have long been of interest to archaeologists.

Traditionally, archaeologists have used ceramic materials for the purposes of dating and determining cultural affinity (van der Leeuw 1991:33). To quote Neff

(1993:24), “Ceramic analysis often begins and ends with some taxonomic procedure designed to organize a mass of excavated material and facilitate comparison with other excavated assemblages.” While information about the general cultural affinity of a group and the time period during which a ceramic artifact was made is important, researchers have realized that much more information can be gleaned from the analysis of ceramic assemblages.

One of the approaches used to extract more information from ceramic assemblages, ceramic sociology, uses variation in decorative elements to determine the social organization of the people who produced the pottery (i.e. Deetz 1965; Hill 1970;

Longacre 1970, 1991; Arnold 1984; Ridings and Sampson 1990; Graves 1991; Hardin

1991). Another approach works to determine ceramic vessel function based on form,

30 and, conversely, to predict form on the basis of function. Braun (1983:107) notes that despite the fact that many archaeologists tend to focus on stylistic differences in ceramic assemblages because the analysis of such variation can be useful in making temporal assignments and determining cultural affiliations, “most pots are implements.” Braun points out that the form of a pottery vessel is constrained by its intended use (Braun

1983:108). He then introduces the term “mechanical performance characteristics” to describe those aspects of a vessel that make it more or less capable of performing a specific task, as a way to examine the types of tasks a vessel would serve more efficiently based on its morphology (Braun 1983:108). Specifically, Braun states that the three aspects of ceramic vessel performance encompassed by mechanical performance are: (1) how easily a material can be put into and removed from a particular vessel shape, (2) the ease with which the contents of a particularly shaped vessel can be manipulated in a specific manner (i.e. storing, heating, carrying), and (3) how well a vessel can withstand physical stresses placed on it during use (Braun 1983:108-109). A list of mechanical performance characteristics can be seen in Appendix B.

Using the same concept of mechanical performance characteristics set out by

Braun and an almost identical ethnoarchaeological data set to the one outlined in the next section, Howard (1981:9) compiled a list of expectations for different functional pottery types including form, size, and decoration frequency. The functional classes defined by

Howard are “cookpots,” “storage vessels,” “food preparation vessels,” “eating and drinking vessels,” and “ritual vessels.” Though she does not specifically state what the difference is between a cookpot and a food preparation vessel, based on her descriptions,

31 they appear to be very similar in form. A cookpot will be globular in profile and have a rounded base if it is used for cooking over an open fire; it will have a volume of one to five liters when used for family cooking. Food preparation vessels should have wide, open orifices to allow for easy access to the contents and easy cleaning; volumes are variable but tend to average around five liters. The frequency of decoration varies but is more common on the larger forms which may be more visible to people other than members of the immediate family. It appears that Howard chose to describe the orifice of the pot under the heading “food preparation vessels” and the body of the pot under the title “cookpots.” The two categories appear to serve the same function, preparing food for consumption, but vary in the number of people that they can feed. Storage vessels are expected to have more restricted orifices to prevent spillage, yet be made in simple shapes to facilitate extraction of the vessel’s contents. They range from five to fifty liters in volume and, if decorated, are usually done so in a way that identifies the owners or contents, though sometimes they are also decorated for display. Eating and drinking vessels tend to have simple, open forms with flat bases; feet and handles are common.

The last vessel type, “ritual vessels,” includes such a complex range of sizes and forms that Howard could not provide a summary description for the category. Though

Howard’s conclusions show that there are distinct forms a vessel should have to perform specific tasks, other studies of archaeological vessel function prove more relevant here because of the questions they produce.

Hally (1983, 1984, 1986), in a study of Barnett phase (AD 1450-1600) ceramics from northeast Georgia, uses Braun’s idea of mechanical performance characteristics to

32 explain morphological variation in ceramic vessels from a functional perspective. As in this study, Hally first conducted a search of the literature to determine the ways in which foods were processed—in his case, by the Mississippian peoples who inhabited the southeastern United States. He then examined the Barnett ceramic collection to determine the functional capabilities of the various pottery forms based on their mechanical performance characteristics (Hally 1983a, 1984, 1986). A list of mechanical performance characteristics examined by Hally is listed in Appendix B. Hally found that there were twelve (1983) to fifteen (1984) different vessel types used during the Barnett phase (Figure 3-1) which differed on the basis of form and size. He then also examined a collection of ceramics from the 200 year earlier Beaverdam phase in the same manner and found that, though the two assemblages are quite different stylistically, they shared a similar array of vessel forms (Hally 1984). As a result, Hally concluded that similar food storage, preparation, and consumption habits during the different temporal phases resulted in assemblages that have similar vessel forms though they vary stylistically

(Hally 1984, 1986). The results of Hally’s work support the idea that ceramic form varies by function.

However, Hally also states that this phenomenon should occur throughout most of the eastern United States because all the indigenous populations ate the same types of foods and prepared their foods for consumption in similar ways (Hally 1986:291). This conclusion causes archaeologists working in the Northeast to ask the question: If ceramic form varies as a result of its intended use, and the food habits in both areas were similar,

33 then why does the morphological variation observed in Southeastern ceramics not exist in the Iroquoian ceramics from the Northeast?

Figure 3-1. Various pottery forms found in the Southeast (after Hally 1986).

During the Late Woodland period of the northeastern United States, native inhabitants relied on the same foods for their sustenance as did their neighbors to the south and prepared them in basically the same ways. Maize was of primary importance to the diet (B. Smith 1992). Throughout the eastern United States the staple food was a form of corn soup to which other vegetables and sometimes meats or fats were added for flavor

(see Chapter Four for a discussion of foods used by Northeastern populations and Hally

1986 for the Southeast). With the exception of large animals served at feasts, meats were prepared by extensive boiling and either served separately or added to corn soups.

Is the lack of morphological variation in Northeastern Iroquoian ceramics indicative of a lack of functional variation within those assemblages? This is the central question that is addressed in this study. In order to address this question adequately, three primary sources of data are examined. One is the extensive literature existing on

34 the food habits of the indigenous peoples of the northeastern United States. Another is a collection of ceramics from a specific group of these people, the Susquehannock, who inhabited the lower Susquehanna River valley in Pennsylvania between AD 1575-1763.

The third, which will be examined first in the next section, is the ethnoarchaeological database which provides information on the relationship between form and function in pottery vessels for a variety of cultures from around the world.

THE ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY OF POTTERY FORM AND FUNCTION

The goal of this dissertation is to examine a large number of Susquehannock ceramics in order to determine what functional classes exist within the sample and to look at what changes over time in the ceramic assemblage indicate about changes in

Susquehannock society. In order to accomplish this goal, data on functional pottery classes used in other societies can help to discern what functional classes can be expected to occur within the Susquehannock collections.

This chapter focuses on the ceramics of living peoples who still use and make pottery like the Susquehannock did, by hand without the use of a potter’s wheel. The data examined here were collected by ethnoarchaeologists and describe culturally recognized vessel classes. The following discussion highlights ceramic vessels from ten cultures sharing the common trait of being similar to the pottery made by the

Susquehannock (Figure 3-2). Information on the sizes and/or capacities of the vessels discussed below is summarized in Table 3-1 at the end of this section.

35

Figure 3-2. Susquehannock pottery forms. Stylistic types from left to right are Schultz Incised, Washington Boro Incised, Strickler Cordmarked—Rounded Collar, Strickler Cordmarked—Flared Rim.

PAPAGO

In their description of pottery made by the Papago, who live in southern Arizona,

Fontana et al. (1962) describe several different culturally defined vessel classes, their sizes, and their functions (Figure 3-3). They were able to identify eleven different

Papago pottery terms “each ideally describing a different use and form” (1962:34).

Relevant forms include the su-u-te-ki-wa-i-kut, a vessel which is produced in two sizes, a larger form used for permanent water storage and a smaller one with a more open mouth, to facilitate the removal of its contents with a ladle, which is used as a drinking-water container (Fontana et al. 1962:34). The si-to-ta-kut is a vessel in which saguaro syrup or saguaro wine is stored. It also has two varieties, a small one for use by individual families, which is indistinguishable in size and form from the smaller class of water container, and a larger one which is used to make saguaro wine for large numbers of people at ceremonies (Fontana et al. 1962:37). The hi-to-ta-kut is used to boil beans and

36 also comes in more than one size. The most common variety of hi-to-ta-kut is the smaller, individual family bean-boiling pot; the large variant of this form is used to boil beans for large gatherings of people (Fontana et al. 1962:37). The last Papago pottery type that is similar to Susquehannock pottery forms is the i-o-la-ki-ta-kut, the bean-frying pot, a vessel used for making refried beans (Fontana et al. 1962:47).

Figure 3-3. Papago pottery forms: (a) water storage/container, (b) bean-boiling pot, (c) bean-frying pot, (d) lugged bean-frying pot (after Fontana et al. 1962:96-100).

KALINGA

In his work with Kalinga pottery from northern Luzon, Longacre (1981, 1991) has identified several functional classes of vessels (Figure 3-4). The ittoyom is a rice-cooking pot which comes in three sizes, small for use when cooking for one or two people, average used when cooking for four to six people, and large for use when cooking rice for a number of people (Longacre 1981:53; 1991:99). The oppaya is a vessel type used for cooking vegetables and meats. Oppaya come in four sizes, small, average, and large as described for the ittoyom, and in an extra large size, challay, with a capacity large enough to prepare meats or vegetables for a large feast of festival (Longacre 1981:53).

37

Figure 3-4. Kalinga rice cooking pot (a) and vegetable/meat cooking pot (b) (after Skibo 1992:149-150).

MAYA HIGHLANDS

Deal (1998) describes culturally meaningful classes of pottery vessels from the central Maya highlands and assigns his own name to each type in addition to providing the locally used Spanish, Charral, and Aguacatenango terms (Deal’s terms will be used here). Classes of interest here are the small wide-mouth jar, large wide-mouth jar, single- handled jar, and the large hemispherical bowl (Figure 3-5). Small wide-mouth jars are used for preparing corn gruels and cooking vegetables, except for miniature forms which are children’s toys (Deal 1998:185-186). The large wide-mouth jar is also used for cooking, the difference is that it is used for when meals are cooked for large groups of people, especially meals for ritual gatherings. Between gatherings, the large wide-mouth jar is used for the storage of dry goods (Deal 1998:192). The single-handle jar is used primarily to heat water for coffee and corn gruels. It is also sometimes used for mixing lime water or boiling other vegetables (Deal 1998:186-187). The large hemispherical bowl’s primary function is as a chicha (ritual beer) mixing bowl (Deal 1998:189).

38

Figure 3-5. Mayan vessel forms: small wide-mouth jar (a, b), single-handled jar (c-e), large hemispherical bowl (f, g), and large wide-mouth jar (h, i) (after Deal 1988:54-55).

FULANI

Work done in Nigeria by David and Hennig (1972) describes a number of different functional classes of pottery used by the Fulani (Figure 3-6). The largest pottery vessel type is called loonde when it acts as a water reservoir in a courtyard, and ngiiramwal if used within a hut to store dry goods (David and Hennig 1972:10). The next largest size group, fayande gaari, includes pots used for both storage and cooking

(David and Hennig 1972:11). Medium sized pots, called defruude, are used primarily for cooking the staple of the Fulani meal, usually sorghum porridge, though they are sometimes also used as storage vessels (David and Hennig 1972:11). The next smaller named class of pottery, hakoore, describes small cooking pots that are used to prepare sauces or stews eaten with the staple at a meal (David and Hennig 1972:11). The smallest pottery group serves a ritual function “the locally manufactured version of the ablution pot” (David and Hennig 1972:12).

39

Figure 3-6. Fulani pottery types: (a) loonde or ngirramwal, (b) fayande gaari, (c) defruude, (d) hakoore (after David and Hennig 1972:fig. 6).

TUXTLAS

The Tuxtlas in Mexico provide another example of culturally defined pottery classes. Arnold (1991) notes three types of vessels relevant here morphologically that are culturally recognized as functionally distinct classes (Figure 3-7). The first two of these is the olla de frijol, a pot used for soaking and cooking beans, and the olla de maiz, a pot used for preparing corn (Arnold 1991:45). Both the olla de frijol and the olla de maiz come in two size classes, “one for about 0.5 kg of beans and a second one which holds one kilogram” (Arnold 1991:46). The third type of vessel is the cazuela, a large vessel that can hold sufficient prepared food to feed up to about six people (Arnold 1991:63).

Cazuelas are used for preparing soups, cooking rice, and for frying meat, fish, or eggs

(Arnold 1991:45).

40

Figure 3-7. Ollas (a and b) and cazuela (c) made by Tuxtlas potters (Arnold 1991:46- 47).

SHIPIBO-CONIBO

Vessel classes from Peru are outlined in DeBoer and Lathrap’s (1979) study of

Shipibo-Conibo ceramics (Figure 3-8). The most basic cultural division in the Shipibo-

Conibo view of ceramics is between cooking ware and pottery not used in cooking

(DeBoer and Lathrap 1979:105). Cooking vessels, or kënti, come in three distinct size classes. Small kënti, kënti vacu, are used only for preparing medicines used to treat a variety of ailments (DeBoer and Lathrap 1979:105). Medium-sized kënti, kënti anitama, are the most common pottery form and are used to cook daily meals “which usually consist of boiled fish and plantains or manioc” (DeBoer and Lathrap 1979:105). Large kënti, kënti këntiani, are most frequently used to prepare alcoholic beverages, especially manioc beer because it is “consumed in large quantities” (DeBoer and Lathrap

1979:105). Non-cooking vessels come in a variety of shapes and sizes, however, the group that is of interest here are the chomo. Like kënti, chomo come in three sizes. All three sizes serve related functions, they are all used in the storage and transportation of

41 liquids. Large chomo are used to serve beer during fiestas, medium chomo are used to carry and store water, and small chomo are used like canteens to carry beverages during travel on the river (DeBoer and Lathrap 1979:110).

Figure 3-8. Shipibo-Conibo ceramic forms: kënti (a-c), chomo (d-f) (after DeBoer and Lathrap 1979:fig. 4.3).

DOGON

As part of a study of pottery life span among the Dogon of Mali, West Africa,

Bedaux and van der Waals (1987) define a number of vessel classes (Figure 3-9). In many cases, it is the size that creates the typological distinction between vessels having similar or identical forms. Woni/ni tonyo, which look like small tegeri, are the smallest vessels and are used primarily in ritual contexts (Bedaux and van der Waals 1987:142-

144). Types described as cooking vessels come in two sizes. Average sized cooking pots include the tegeri; the joni, which is similar in form to the tegeri but has a lid and lug handles; and the ninge dei, which is a smaller version of the dei sire. Larger cooking pots are called dei sire and pana dei. Dei no and dei juno are types used for carrying and storing water, and brewing and storing beer; they look like the dei dam with slightly more constricted openings. The largest pottery types are dei dam and dei pogo, and they are

42 described as vessels that are “not usually being moved around and which often have a fixed position in the compound” (Bedaux and van der Waals 1987:144), which makes them sound like storage vessels.

Figure 3-9. Dogon vessel forms: (a) tegeri, (b) tegere, (c) dei sire, (d) dei pogo, (e) dei dam (after Bedaux and van der Waals 1987:fig. 3).

NJEMPS, TUGEN, AND AMBON-LEASE

Finally, two studies in Pottery and the Archaeologist (Millett 1979) provide useful information on pottery types from western Kenya and eastern Indonesia that are similar in form to those made by the Susquehannock. Hodder (1979:16) includes size distributions for cooking pots used by the Tugen and the Njemps in his examination of pottery distribution in the Baringo district (Figure 3-10). In the area known as Ambon-

Lease, Spriggs and Miller (1979:28-31) identify two functional classes of pottery of interest here. They are the sempei, used to prepare sago porridge, and the tajela, used for cooking fish (Figure 3-10). Morphologically, the tajela has the same form as the sempei, however the tajela is smaller.

43

Figure 3-10. Njemps, Tugen, and Ambon-Lease vessel forms: cooking pots from Njemps (a) and Tugen (b); sempei/tajela form (c).

Table 3-1. Hand-made pottery vessel forms used in a variety of cultures. Volumes listed under vessel size are estimates calculated using information provided by the authors, in many cases they are approximations. For cases where insufficient data was provided to calculate volume, vessels size descriptions are those used by the authors.

Where/Who Reference Vessel Type Vessel Size Vessel Use made it Mexico/ Arnold (1991) olla de frijol 3-4 liters soaking and cooking Tuxtlas beans Mexico/ Arnold (1991) olla de frijol 7-8 liters soaking and cooking Tuxtlas beans Mexico/ Arnold (1991) olla de maiz 5-6 liters preparing corn Tuxtlas Mexico/ Arnold (1991) olla de maiz 17 liters preparing corn Tuxtlas Mexico/ Arnold (1991) cazuela 10-12 liters making soup, cooking rice, Tuxtlas frying eggs, fish, and meat-- large enough to feed 6 people Peru/Shipibo- DeBoer and kënti ani large brewing alcoholic beverages, Conibo Lathrap (1979) esp. Manioc beer Peru/Shipibo- DeBoer and kënti anitama medium cooking daily meals Conibo Lathrap (1979) Peru/Shipibo- DeBoer and kënti vacu small heating of medicines Conibo Lathrap (1979) Peru/Shipibo- DeBoer and chomo large serving beer Conibo Lathrap (1979) Peru/Shipibo- DeBoer and chomo medium water carrying, Conibo Lathrap (1979) storage Peru/Shipibo- DeBoer and chomo small carrying beverages while Conibo Lathrap (1979) traveling on the river

44 Kenya/ Hodder (1979) pot 1-6 liters cooking Njemps Kenya/ Hodder (1979) pot 1-4 liters cooking Njemps Kenya/ Tugen Hodder (1979) pot 2-5 liters cooking Ambon-Lease Spriggs and sempei 4-5 liters preparing sago porridge Miller (1979) Ambon-Lease Spriggs and tajela 7-8 liters cooking fish Miller (1979) Arizona/ Fontana et al. su-u-te-ki-wa-i- 17 liters drinking water container Papago (1962) kut —A Arizona/ Fontana et al. su-u-te-ki-wa-i- 65-119 liters permanent water storage jar Papago (1962) kut —B Arizona/ Fontana et al. si-to-ta-kut 1-10 liters saguaro syrup or wine Papago (1962) storage Arizona/ Fontana et al. si-to-ta-kut 9-25 liters saguaro syrup or Papago (1962) wine storage Arizona/ Fontana et al. hi-to-ta-kut 9 liters family bean-boiling pot Papago (1962) Arizona/ Fontana et al. hi-to-ta-kut 16-18 liters boiling beans for gatherings Papago (1962) of many people Arizona/ Fontana et al. i-o-la-ki-ta-kut 4-10 liters bean frying pot (for making Papago (1962) refried beans) Luzon/ Longacre oggatit ittoyom 1-3 liters rice cooking for 1-2 people Kalinga (1981, 1991) Luzon/ Longacre ittoyom 5-8 liters rice cooking for 4-6 people Kalinga (1981, 1991) Luzon/ Longacre lallangan 16 liters rice cooking for a number of Kalinga (1981, 1991) ittoyom people Luzon/ Longacre oggatit oppaya 0.5-2 liters vegetable/meat cooking for Kalinga (1981, 1991) 1-2 people Luzon/ Longacre oppaya 4-7 liters vegetable/meat cooking for Kalinga (1981, 1991) 4-6 people Luzon/ Longacre lallangan 14-15 liters vegetable/meat cooking for Kalinga (1981, 1991) oppaya large number of people Luzon/ Longacre challay 140 liters vegetable/meat cooking for Kalinga (1981, 1991) feasts Maya Deal (1998) small wide- 0.23-7.5 liters cooking vegetables, Highlands mouth jar preparing corn gruels, mini forms are toys Maya Deal (1998) single-handled 0.01-30 liters heating water for coffee, Highlands jar corn gruels, boiling vegetables, mini forms are toys Maya Deal (1998) large hemi- 2.79-30.8 liters ritual beer (chicha) mixing Highlands spherical bowl bowl Maya Deal (1998) large wide- 17.87-214 liters cooking meals for large Highlands mouth jar groups of people, storage of dry goods between gatherings Nigeria/Fulani David and loonde 30 to well over 100 water reservoir in Hennig (1972) liters courtyard

45 Nigeria/Fulani David and ngirramwal 30 to well over 100 dry goods storage Hennig (1972) liters Nigeria/Fulani David and fayande gaari 15 to 20 liters cooking and storage Hennig (1972) Nigeria/Fulani David and defruude 7 to 10 liters cooking pots (esp. of staple) Hennig (1972) also storage Nigeria/Fulani David and hakoore 3 to 5 liters small cooking pot, used to Hennig (1972) make sauces or stews Nigeria/Fulani David and smallest class about 1 liter ablution pot Hennig (1972) Mali/Dogon Bedaux and woni/ni tonyo about 1 liter ritual functions van der Waals (1987) Mali/Dogon Bedaux and tegeri 4-5 liters cooking pot van der Waals (1987) Mali/Dogon Bedaux and joni 5-6 liters cooking pot van der Waals (1987) Mali/Dogon Bedaux and tegere 15-16 liters storage, watering animals, van der Waals washing (1987) Mali/Dogon Bedaux and totonyi tegere 22-23 liters storage, watering animals, van der Waals washing (1987) Mali/Dogon Bedaux and ninge dei 4-5 liters cooking pot van der Waals (1987) Mali/Dogon Bedaux and dei sire 8-9 liters cooking pot van der Waals (1987) Mali/Dogon Bedaux and pana dei 14-15 liters cooking pot van der Waals (1987) Mali/Dogon Bedaux and dei no 22-23 liters water carrying, brewing and van der Waals storing beer (1987) Mali/Dogon Bedaux and dei juno 22-23 liters water carrying, brewing and van der Waals storing beer (1987) Mali/Dogon Bedaux and dei dam 31-32 liters "usually not moved" van der Waals storage? (1987) Mali/Dogon Bedaux and dei pago 102 liters "usually not moved" van der Waals storage? (1987)

46 ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL VESSEL FUNCTION: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

By looking cross-culturally at vessels similar to those made by the

Susquehannocks one will see that they are all, with the exception of very small and some very large vessels, used in the preparation of foods and beverages to be consumed. There also appears to be a distinct number of culturally defined pottery types distinguished from each other on the basis of function. Many of these functional types have identical or very similar morphology within a culture and vary only in size. This is suspected to be the case with Susquehannock pottery where only one ceramic type is prevalent during any one time period and variation in the assemblage is seen only in size.

When viewed as a whole, the ethnoarchaeological data indicates that there are six functional types of pottery vessels; they will be labeled here by size. The range of volume for vessels in each category is based on the previous ethnoarchaeological descriptions. Table 3-2 below summarizes the contexts in which these six vessel classes are used.

Extra-Small: This is the smallest pottery class and it ranges in size from about

0.01 to 1.0 liters in size. This class consists of vessels made as children’s toys or for use in ritual contexts (Bedaux and van der Waals 1987; David and Hennig 1972; Deal 1998).

Small: Vessels in this class range from about one to three liters in capacity.

These vessels are used primarily to cook foods for one or two people, though they may be used to prepare medicines or to carry water while traveling (Deal 1998; DeBoer and

Lathrap 1979; Hodder 1979; Longacre 1981, 1991; Spriggs and Miller 1979).

47 Medium: This category includes vessels ranging from about 3 to 12 liters in volume. The primary use for vessels in this class is as the family cooking pot. In addition to being used to prepare family meals, they may sometimes be used to prepare or store wines, beers, or syrups (Arnold 1991; Bedaux and van der Waals 1987; David and

Hennig 1972; Deal 1998; DeBoer and Lathrap 1979; Fontana et al. 1962; Hodder 1979;

Longacre 1981, 1991; Spriggs and Miller 1979).

Medium-Large: Vessels in this class range from about 14 to 25 liters in size.

The most frequently mentioned use for these vessels is as cooking pots for gatherings of people. Vessels in this class may also be used to carry and store water, to prepare and store beer, or as storage vessels (Arnold 1991; Bedaux and van der Waals 1987; David and Hennig 1972; Deal 1998; DeBoer and Lathrap 1979; Fontana et al. 1962; Longacre

1981, 1991).

Large: Pots in this class range in size from about 30 to 60 liters and serve three main functions. Large pots are used for cooking foods for gatherings, storing liquids

(both water and alcoholic beverages), and for dry-goods storage (Bedaux and van der

Waals 1987; David and Hennig 1972; Deal 1998; DeBoer and Lathrap 1979).

Extra-Large: This is the largest vessel class seen in the ethnoarchaeological record and it consists of pots ranging in size from about 65 to 214 liters. These pots are used to cook foods for large numbers of people, as permanent water storage vessels, and to store dry goods. Sometimes, the Extra-Large pot used to prepare large amounts of food in is used as a dry-goods storage vessel between feasts (Bedaux and van der Waals

48 1987; David and Hennig 1972; Deal 1998; DeBoer and Lathrap 1979; Fontana 1962;

Longacre 1981, 1991).

Table 3-2. Vessel classes and their functions determined from an examination of the ethnoarchaeological record.

VESSEL CLASS SIZE RANGE FUNCTION

Extra-Small 0.01-1liters children’s toys, ritual use

Small 1-3 liters cooking for 1-2 people, preparing medicines

Medium 3-12 liters cooking family meals

Medium-Large 14-25 liters cooking for smaller gatherings, preparing and storing beverages

Large 30-60 liters cooking for gatherings, liquid and dry storage

Extra-Large 65-214 liters feast cooking, storage

49 CHAPTER FOUR: ETHNOHISTORIC DATA ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

Though every field of study has unique difficulties that must be dealt with when analyzing data, data interpretation is uniquely troublesome for archaeologists because they must contend with

The forces that determined (1) what materials were buried; (2) what buried materials survive; and (3) which of these buried materials archaeologists subsequently recover (Stone 1988:68).

As a result, many researchers (for examples see Beaudry 1988a; Yentsch and Beaudry

1992; Little 1992) believe that archaeologists who study peoples that existed in the historic past have an analytical advantage: the historic archaeologist has access to written documents that may contain evidence directly related to the material remains they are studying.

In this study the historic record is used to create an ethnohistorical description of the types of foods used by the Susquehannock and their neighbors as well as the vessels used in the preparation, consumption, and storage of these foods. Not all archaeologists have the opportunity to examine contemporary written records dealing with the people whose artifacts they are examining. This study benefits because not only is there an exceptionally large collection of Susquehannock pottery available for study, but the

Susquehannock were an historic people, allowing a separate database to be examined in the attempt to determine Susquehannock pottery function.

50 Unlike historians who tend to view material remains as something that can support conclusions drawn from the written record, archaeologists tend to view the written record as a supplementary source of information on the material remains that they are studying (Beaudry 1988b:1). This study is no exception. This study treats the written and artifactual databases as separate entities. Each is examined independently, thus conclusions arrived at separately through separate analyses are more robust. No attempt will be made to use the historic record to “fill in the holes in the archaeological records and vice versa” (Beaudry et al. 1988:53) until after both types of data have been thoroughly explored independently.

This chapter will discuss the nature of the historic sources used, the information gathered on types of foods used and the means by which they were processed, as well as the types of vessels used in food processing and storage. Finally, the uses of ceramic vessels will be discussed in more depth since that is the focus of this research.

ETHNOHISTORIC SOURCES

Though the Susquehannock Indians had been effectively obliterated by the mid- eighteenth century (Kent 1993), much can be learned about the types of foods they ate, how they were prepared, and the types of vessels they used to prepare and store foods by examining the historic record. Many works exist that describe the foods and vessels used by the Indians of the Northeast, including the Susquehannock. While a complete discussion of the authors and texts used as sources of data for the ethnohistoric survey in

51 this study will not be provided here, the following paragraphs highlight some of the sources of information that were used in the ethnohistoric research. In addition, the bibliography for this dissertation lists all the historic sources examined for this study including both those sources which provided information on food and vessel usage by natives of the Northeast and those which did not.

Literary sources on the food habits and economy of the Indians of eastern North

America begin to appear in the sixteenth century. The earliest book printed in English about the area that is now known as the United States is A Briefe and True Report of the

New Found Land of Virginia, by Thomas Harriot. This work was published twice, first in

1588, and later in 1590, in an edition in which the 1588 text is accompanied by etchings and additional descriptions of the natives of North Carolina and their food habits and economy (Harriot 1590). Other sixteenth century texts that provide descriptions relevant here are those by the French explorers Jacques Cartier (1534, 1536) and John Francis de la Roche (1542), whose travels took them to parts of what is now the northeastern United

States and southeastern Canada.

The seventeenth century was witness to an increased interest by Europeans in activities in the New World and a corresponding increase in the number of writings produced that discuss the foods used by natives and how they were acquired and prepared. Some of the more significant accounts of the lives of the native inhabitants of what is now the northeastern United States include the two volumes of detailed descriptions written by Captain John Smith, who helped colonize Virginia, between 1607 and 1624 (Smith 1907a, 1907b), A Description of the New Netherlands, written by

52 Adriaen Van Der Donck in 1655, and A Brief Description of New York: Formerly Called

New-Netherlands, written by Daniel Denton in 1670. In addition, George Alsop’s A

Character of the Province of Mary-Land provides the reader with a uniquely detailed description of the Susquehannock Indians while they were still a prospering group.

Another valuable source of information on the food procurement and preparation techniques of the inhabitants of the Northeast is found in Gabriel Sagard’s 1632 account,

The Long Journey to the Country of the Hurons. A Jesuit missionary, Sagard lived with the Huron and met people from many other tribes during his stay in the New World and wrote down the things he saw in great detail. Other Jesuit documents proved to be valuable sources of information as well.

Captivity narratives provide another interesting source of information on the lives of natives of the Northeast. After somehow being freed, people often published accounts of their captivity experiences among different groups of Indians. Some of these captivity narratives that provide useful information include the accounts of Elizabeth Hanson

(Bownas 1724), Robert Eastburn (1756), John Gyles (1689), Father Isaac Jogues (1655),

Mary Rowlandson (1676), and Mary Jemison (Seaver 1856). Because of the great interest in captivity narratives by readers at the time, these stories often provided large amounts of detail about the lifeways of the captors.

Increasing interest along with a desire to attract colonists to the New World during the 1700s caused many to write descriptions of the territories in which they lived.

Useful sources of information from the eighteenth century include Charles Wooley’s

1701 text, A Two Years’ Journal in New York and Part of Its Territories in America, The

53 History and Present State of Virginia, originally published in 1705 by Robert Beverley, and Thomas Companius Holm’s 1702 work, Description of the Province of New Sweden.

Now Called by the English Pennsylvania, in America.

The nineteenth century brought with it the addition of works that can be called ethnographic to the list of sources on the Indians of the Northeast. Lewis Henry

Morgan’s 1851 work, League of the Ho-De-No-Sau-Nee or Iroquois, was not only groundbreaking because it was the first work written about a Northeastern group that can truly be described as ethnographic, but it has remained a valuable source of information on the Iroquois to the present day. Another valuable nineteenth century source of information can be found in writings of Arthur C. Parker, a man of Seneca Iroquois descent. Specifically, Parker’s 1910 work, Iroquois Uses of Maize and Other Food

Plants, provides a detailed account of the foods used by the Iroquois, how they were processed, and the types of vessels used for food preparation and storage.

Twentieth century sources of information include volumes that synthesize and/or reprint in entirety earlier eyewitness accounts of the means by which foods were prepared and acquired by the Indians who lived in the northeastern United States. For example,

Huronia: A History and Geography of the Huron Indians (Heidenreich 1971) and The

Huron: Farmers of the North (Trigger 1990) are volumes in which cites information is accurately cited from a number of earlier sources and synthesized with archaeological data to provide a more complete picture of Huron lifeways. In addition, several historical societies produced books about the natives who lived in their areas and in doing so, reproduced in full many early narratives by Europeans concerning the lifeways of the

54 natives they encountered (for examples see Wait 1966; Lankes 1964).

The following table lists all of the historic sources examined from which

information was obtained. This table shows not only when each work was originally

written, it also lists the peoples and places referred to in each document.

Table 4-1. Peoples and places referred to in references used. Author Year Place(s) Written People(s) Written Reference Written About About Alsop, George 1666 Maryland Susquehannock Alsop (1666) Beverley, Robert 1705 Virginia Beverley (1705) Biard, Pierre 1612 Canada Huron Biard (1612) Biard, Pierre 1616 Canada Huron Biard (1616) Bogaert, Harmer 1634- New York Mowhawk, Oneida Bogaert (1988) Meyndertsz van den 1635 Bownas, Samuel 1724 New Hampshire, Bownas (1724) Maine, Canada Bradford, William 1606- Plymouth, Mass. Bradford (1963) 1646 Brebreuf, Jean de 1635 Huron Brebreuf (1635) Brebreuf, Jean de 1636 New France Huron Brebreuf (1636) Brereton, John 1602 Virginia Brereton (1602) Bruyas, Jacques 1668 Iroquois Bruyas (1668) Cartier, Jacques 1534 New France Cartier (1534) Cartier, Jacques 1536 New France Cartier (1536) Champlain, Samuel de 1603- Canada, New York, Iroquois, Algonquin, Huron, Champlain (1880) 1632 Massachusetts, Antohonorons, Micmac, Maine Mowhawk, Mohican, Nipissing, Yroquois, Montagnais, Carantouan Champlain, Samuel de 1604- New France, Iroquois, Canadas, Algonquin Champlain (1907) 1618 Canada, New York Charlet, Estienne 1647 New France Charlet (1647) Chaumonot, Joseph M. 1640 New France Chaumonot (1640) D’Ablon, Claude 1672 Iroquois D’Ablon (1672) Danckaerts, Jasper 1679- New Netherland, Manhattan, Najak, Mowhawk Danckaerts (1913) 1680 New York, Maryland, New Jersey Denton, Daniel 1670 New York Denton (1670) Eastburn, Robert 1756 New York, Canada Eastburn (1756) Grassman, Thomas 1969 New York Mowhawk Grassman (1969) Gyles, John 1689 Maine, Canada Maliseet Gyles (1689) Hakluyt, Richard 1600 Virginia Hakluyt (1600)

55 Harrington, M.R. 1938 New Jersey Lenape Harrington (1938) Harriot, Thomas 1588 North Carolina Harriot (1590) Heckewelder, Rev. John 1819 Pennsylvania Heckewelder (1819) Heidenreich, Conrad 1971 Huron Heidenreich (1971) Holm, Thomas 1702 Pennsylvania, Lenape, Manteese, Erie, Holm (1807) Companius New Sweden Susquehannock, Iroquois Jogues, Isaac 1655 New York, Canada Mowhawk Jogues (1655) Jouvency, Joseph 1710 New France Jouvency (1710) Lalemant, Hierosime 1640 New France Huron, Iroquois Lalemant (1640) Lalemant, Hierosime 1665 New France Lalemant (1665) Lallemant, Charles 1626 Canada Lallemant (1626) Lankes, Frank J. 1964 New York Seneca Lankes (1964) Le Jeune, Paul 1634 New France Montaignais Le Jeune (1634a, b) Le Jeune, Paul 1637 New France Le Jeune (1637) Le Jeune, Paul 1639 New France Le Jeune (1639) Lescarbot, Marc 1610 New France Lescarbot (1610) Lindestrom, Peter 1654- New Sweden Deleware Lindestrom (1925) 1656 Megapolensis, Johannes 1644 New York, Mowhawk Megapolensis New Netherland (1644) Mercier, Francois le 1637 New France Huron Mercier (1637) Mercier, Francois le 1655 New France Huron, Iroquois Mercier (1655) Mercier, Francois le 1669 Iroquois Mercier (1669) Mercier, Francois le 1671 Iroquois Mercier (1671) Merril, Arch 1949 New York Seneca Merril (1949) Minard, John S. 1896 Allegany Co., NY Minard (1896) Morgan, Lewis H. 1851 Iroquois Morgan (1851) Morgan, Lewis H. 1881 Iroquois Morgan (1881) Parker, Arthur C. 1910 Iroquois, Seneca Parker (1910) Peasley, William 1635 Maryland Peasley (1635) Penn, William 1683 Pennsylvania Penn (1683) Peron, Francois du 1639 New France Peron (1639) Porter, Charles 1901 Iroquois Porter (1901) Quens, Jean de 1657 New France Iroquois Quens (1657) Ragueneau, Paul 1648 New France Huron Ragueneau (1648) Rasieres, Isaak de 1628 New York, Siwanoy, Shinnecock, Pequot, Rasieres (1628) New Netherland Manhattan, Wappeno Roche, John Francis de la 1542 Canada Roche (1542) Rowlandson, Mary 1676 Massachusetts, Wampanoag, Quanopin, Rowlandson (1676) Vermont, Saggamore, Narragansett New Hampshire Sagard, Gabriel 1632 Canada Algonquin, Ottowa, Petun, Sagard (1632) Susquehannock, Neutral, Coppermine, Epicerinys, Iroquois, Honqueronon, Ignierhonon, Micmac, Petite Nation, Missisauga, Wyandot, Montagnais, Nipissing, Quieunontateronon Seaver, James A. 1856 Pennsylvania, Seneca, Lenape, Mowhawk Seaver (1856) New York

56 Smith, John, Captain 1607- Virginia, Maryland, Susquehannock, Iroquois, Smith (1907) 1620 Pennsylvania Massachussett, Powhatan Speck, Frank G. 1933 Ontario, Canada, Cayuga Speck (1933) New York Strachey, William 1612 Virginia Strachey (1612) Thomas, Gabriel 1698 Pennsylvania, Thomas (1689) New Jersey Trigger, Bruce G. 1990 Ontario, Canada Huron Trigger (1990) Van Der Donck, Adriaen 1655 New York, Seneca, Manhattan, Huron, Van Der Donck New Netherland Susquehannock, Maquas, (1655) Weiser, Conrad 1737 New York Iroquois Wait (1966) Wassenaer, Nicolaes van 1609- New Netherland Mohican, Warenecker, Wassenaer (1959) 1664 Mechkentowoon, Tapants, Pachany, Weikagjock, Wyeck, Maquas, Manhattan, Warrawanankonckx, Wolley, Charles 1701 New York Rockoway, Seatauchet, Wolley (1701) Sea-qua-ta-eg, Ocquahaug, Unckah-chau-ge, Shin-na-cock, Mun-tauck, Top-paun, Ma-nissing, Naussin, Wee-quoss-cah-chau Wood, William 1634 Massachusetts Wood (1634)

FOODS USED BY THE PEOPLES OF THE NORTHEAST

The historic record was used to determine the types of foods, both plant and

animal, used by the Susquehannock and neighboring peoples as well as how these foods

were processed for consumption and stored. Because the goal of this study is to

determine the functions of Susquehannock pottery vessels, an examination of the

Iroquoian diet is necessary to determine the roles vessels played in the food economy.

The triad of corn, beans, and squash were of primary importance to the diet of the

Northeastern Indian, as it was throughout the majority of North America. For this reason,

information from particularly descriptive documents dealing with areas adjacent to the

Northeast are included here. References to non-Northeastern foods are only used when

57 they reiterate, thus reinforcing, the observations made in Northeastern sources. A number of other food types were also consumed regularly as part of the Northeastern diet; the data in this section are organized according to food type for the reader’s convenience.

No attempt is made in this section to separate native and European plants and animals for two reasons: (1) Northeastern Indians tended to use native food processing techniques on

European foods, and (2) the ethnohistoric record will be analyzed chronologically in a later section. A table summarizing the information discussed in the following sections with specific references to the sources where the information was acquired can be seen in

Appendix C.

CORN OR MAIZE

The importance of corn to the diet of the Indians of the Northeast cannot be overstated. Maize, or Indian corn, was the staple crop for the sedentary groups of peoples in both North and South America. In the northeastern United States it was prepared in a variety of ways.

CORN SOUP: This was the staple food of the Northeastern Indian. It is referred to by a variety of names in the ethnohistoric record; the name used by an author was determined by the native speakers they were in contact with. Some of the most common names for this dish are sagamité (Brebreuf 1635:42; Heidenreich 1971:160; Sagard 1632;

Thomas 1698:88), sagamity (Jogues 1655:33), sappaen or sappan (Rasieres 1628:107;

Lindestrom 1925:131; Van Der Donck 1655:156), and hominie, omene, or hominy

(Morgan 1881:99; Peasley 1635:82; Penn 1683:232; Thomas 1698:49).

58 The most common way in which corn was prepared was in the form of a corn soup. There were several different ways in which the corn could be prepared for the soup. The kernels could be boiled dried or fresh, whole, slightly broken, as hominy, or ground into coarse or fine flour. To prepare this food, it may have been boiled for a few minutes (Porter 1901:160), 45 minutes (Parker 1910:74), two hours (Parker 1910:73-74), over two hours (Eastburn 1756:163), three hours (Parker 1910:69), three to four hours

(Smith 1907a:59; Strachey 1612:81), or ten to twelve hours (Beverley 1705:178) depending upon the recipe.

To add variety to this ever-present dish, a number of different foods could be cooked with the corn. Additional ingredients include: meats (Beverley 1705:178;

Champlain 1907:246, 315-6; Eastburn 1756:163; Gyles 1689:120; Harriot 1590:60-1, 74;

Heckewelder 1819:194-5; Jogues 1655:21; Lalemant 1665:33; Merril 1949:39; Minard

1869:30; Morgan 1851:249; Parker 1910:69, 73-76, 78; Sagard 1632:106-107; Seaver

1856:228; Trigger 1990:74; Van Der Donck 1655:75-76; Weiser 1737 in Wait 1967:29;

Wood 1634:86), beans (Bogaert 1988:5; Cartier 1536:62; Champlain 1907:316; Gyles

1689:120; Heckewelder 1819:194; Le Jeune 1634b:287; Merril 1949:40; Minard

1896:30; Parker 1910:42, 68-69; Quens 1657:71; Rowlandson 1676:72; Sagard

1632:104-6, 237-8; Seaver 1856:228; Smith 1907a:59; Speck 1933:41; Strachey 1612:80;

Trigger 1990:74; Weiser 1737 in Wait 1967:29; Wood 1634:86), fish (Beverley

1705:178; Champlain 1907:315-6, 246; Chaumonot 1640a:11; Gyles 1689:120; Harriot

1590:60-1, 74; Heidenreich 1971:161; Jogues 1655:21; Lalemant 1640:17; Mercier

1637:95, 1669:203; Morgan 1851:249; Ragueneau 1648:77; Sagard 1632:60, 71, 80, 106-

59 7, 230, 237, 258; Trigger 1990:74; Van Der Donck 1655:75-76; Wood 1634:86), fruits or berries (Bruyas 1668:123; Merril 1949:40; Parker 1910:74- 77; Sagard 1632:230, 237,

258; Speck 1933:87), squash or pumpkin (Heckewelder 1819:194; Jogues 1655:21;

Parker 1910:75; Sagard 1632:106-107; Trigger 1990:74), nuts (Bownas 1724:142;

Heckewelder 1819:194; Parker 1910:75), and oil, fat, or maple sugar for flavor (Bogaert

1963:65; Heckewelder 1819:194; Jouvency 1710:283; Lalemant 1665:33; Merril

1949:40; Morgan 1851:249; Parker 1910:68, 73-75, 78-79; Sagard 1632:268; Speck

1933:87; Weiser 1737 in Wait 1967:35).

Vessels used in preparing corn soups are referred to as “pots” or “kettles” (Merril

1949:39; Parker 1910:42, 77; Porter 1901:160; Sagard 1632:59-60, 106-107), “large kettles” (Lindestrom 1925:131; Minard 1896:30; Seaver 1856:228; Weiser 1737 in Wait

1967:35), or when prepared for feasts in “20 gallon cauldrons” (Speck 1933:41). When the material of the vessel used to prepare corn soups is mentioned, it is said to be made of clay or pottery (Champlain 1907:74; Harriot 1590:60-61).

SUCCOTASH: A specific form of corn soup is succotash. This is corn soup prepared with beans. Succotash may consist simply of beans and corn boiled together

(Parker 1910:68), though other ingredients may be included. Boiled in with succotash may be meats (Minard 1896:28; Porter 1901:161; Speck 1933:41), or squash (Morgan

1851:196). The only source that specifically describes the vessel used to prepare succotash describes “5-pail brass kettles” as the preferred vessels used to cook 12-15 deer’s worth of meat for a feast (Speck 1933:41). For extra flavor, Parker (1910:68) notes that salt, grease, or oil may be added.

60 CORN EARS: Corn was also prepared to eat on the ear as “corn-on-the-cob” is commonly eaten today in America. To do this, corn was either baked or roasted in the ashes of a fire (Parker 1910:60, 68; Penn 1683:232; Sagard 1632:72; Thomas 1698:49;

Trigger 1990:75), roasted over a fire (Beverley 1705:180; Lescarbot 1610:85; Parker

1910:78; Peron 1639:161; Smith 1907a:59; Strachey 1612:80-81), or boiled (Parker

1910:67).

PARCHED CORN: This special form of corn meal was used for making a variety of recipes, but was especially used by people when travelling either on long treks, hunting excursions, or while out waging war. Parched corn was prepared by scorching or charring the corn and pounding it to a fine meal (Beverley 1705:185; Champlain

1907:246; Harriot 1590:14; Heckewelder 1819:196; Morgan 1851:330; Rowlandson

1676:58; Sagard 1632:101, 153; Wolley 1701:43; Wood 1634:87). Sources agree that parched corn was a very lightweight, concentrated, nutritious food. Maple sugar and/or dried berries were sometimes added to the meal (Heckewelder 1819:196; Morgan

1851:330; Parker 1910:77; Speck 1933:87), and it was carried in a bag when travelling

(Sagard 1632:153).

CORN BREAD: Three main preparation techniques were used to make corn bread; bread was baked, boiled, or fried. The most common ways to bake bread entailed either wrapping the loaves in leaves and baking them in ashes, or putting the loaves directly into the ashes to bake and washing them immediately after they were done (Beverley

1705:178, 180; Bogaert 1988:3; Cartier 1536:61-2; Champlain 1907:314-5; Danckaerts

1913:56, 159; Harriot 1590:13; Heckewelder 1819:195; Holm 1702:121; Lalemant

61 1640:17; Lindestrom 1925:254-5; Megapolensis 1644:175; Parker 1910:66-9; Rasieres

1628:108; Sagard 1632:104-5, 237-8; Seaver 1856:72; Strachey 1612:81; Van Der Donck

1655:75). Other baking methods include baking the bread either in a large loaf in a large kettle or in small loaves in small dishes Parker (1910:67-68), or baking the bread between heated stones (Lescarbot 1610:85). If prepared by boiling, the loaves were put in a pot

(Porter 1901:160-161) and boiled until done (Strachey 1612:81), from about half an hour

(Porter 1901:160-1) to 45 minutes to an hour (Parker 1910:66, 69-72) to two hours

(Morgan 1851:28, 30). The other way to prepare corn breads was by frying the mass in bear oil or grease (Parker 1910:68; Rowlandson 1676:58) in a clay kettle (Parker

1910:68).

Whether boiled or baked, a variety of extra ingredients may be added to the corn bread mix to add flavor. These ingredients include: beans (Bogaert 1988:3; Champlain

1907:314-315; Heckewelder 1819:195; Lalemant 1640:17; Merril 1949:40; Parker

1910:66; Porter 1901:160-161; Sagard 1632:104-105, 237-238), nuts (Bogaert 1819:10;

Heckewelder 1819:195), fruits or berries (Bogaert 1988:10; Champlain 1907:314-315;

Heckewelder 1819:195; Lalemant 1640:17; Merril 1949:40; Parker 1910:69-72; Sagard

1632:104-105, 237-238; Trigger 1990:75), and meats (Heckewelder 1819:195), fats or oils (Champlain 1907:314-5; Merril 1949:40; Trigger 1990:75), sugar (Heckewelder

1907:195), or even tobacco juice (Holm 1702:121).

Two special forms of corn breads were also prepared. One, chewed corn bread, was made by first biting or chewing the corn off the ears and then baking this corn in loaves in ashes (Sagard 1632:105). The second form of corn bread is the corn dumpling.

62 For dumplings, the corn was prepared like it would be for boiled corn bread, but it was instead put into a soup of meat, preferably game birds, to cook be and eaten with it

(Parker 1910:73).

POPPED CORN: Corn kernels were popped in a clay or metal kettle (Parker

1910:78). This popped corn was either eaten plain, or it was pulverized and, with the addition of oil or syrup, made into a pudding (Parker 1910:78).

DECAYED CORN: A special form of corn, considered to be a delicacy according to several sources, was decayed corn. It was prepared by taking immature ears of corn and setting them in a pool of water described as simply stagnant or stagnant and muddy for a period of two to four months (Champlain 1907:316; Parker 1910:79; Sagard 1632: 72,

107; Trigger 1990:74). Once the corn was “ripe,” it was removed from the water and either eaten immediately (Champlain 1907:316; Sagard 1632: 72, 107), baked in ashes or roasted (Parker 1910:79; Sagard 1632: 72, 107; Trigger 1990:74), or boiled as an ingredient in corn soups, sometimes with meat or fish (Parker 1910:79; Sagard 1632: 72,

107; Trigger 1990:74).

STORED CORN: Because corn was such a major part of the Northeastern Indian diet, it was stored for year round use. Corn was stored in either a natural state, dried, or charred. It was kept either in large bark barrels or casks within the longhouse

(Heidenreich 1971:119; Morgan 1851:310; Parker 1910:16, 34; Sagard 1632:95, 104;

Trigger 1990:72, 74) or in underground storage pits. The corn stored underground could be in a bark or grass lined pits or placed in baskets or grass sacks and put in the pits

(Bradford 1963:65; Champlain 1907:95; Gyles 1689:103; Heidenreich 1971:119;

63 Lindestrom 1925:253; Megapolensis 1644:177; Morgan 1851:310; Parker 1910:35;

Rasieres 1628:107; Smith 1907b:58).

BEANS

The principal way of preparing beans for consumption was boiling (Bogaert

1988:18; Cartier 1536:62; Champlain 1907:316; Danckaerts 1913:159; Harriot 1590:14;

Parker 1910:60, 89-90; Rowlandson 1676:73; Sagard 1632:107; Van Der Donck

1655:76; Wood 1634:86). Beans, whole or pounded, were boiled with a variety of other ingredients to make meals. Not only were beans added to a number of corn dishes as discussed above, but beans were also sometimes used as the main vegetable ingredient in soups and stews. Beans were boiled with a number of other ingredients including meats

(Bogaert 1988:18; Champlain 1907:316; Parker 1910:90; Rowlandson 1676:73; Van Der

Donck 1655:76), fish (Champlain 1907:316; Sagard 1632:107), fat or grease (Parker

1910:90), and sugar (Parker 1910:89-90).

Beans were also fried in sunflower or bear oil (Parker 1910:90), baked to make a bread (Harriot 1590:14), or parched or dried and stored in bark barrels in the longhouse or in underground pits (Beverley 1705:180; Lindestrom 1925:253; Morgan 1851:310;

Smith 1907b:58).

SQUASH

A variety of squash including pumpkins, watermelons, and cucumbers were eaten by the Indians of the Northeast (Beverley 1705:180; Bogaert 1988:4, 12; Cartier 1536:62;

64 Champlain 1907:317; Harriot 1590:13-4; Heckewelder 1819:193-4; Heidenreich

1971:160; Lindestrom 1925:183; Mercier 1669:203; Merril 1949:39; Morgan 1851:251;

Parker 1910:60, 92; Sagard 1632:63, 72, 191; Smith 1907b:27; Trigger 1990:75Wood

1634:86). With the exception of some types of melons including watermelons which were eaten fresh (Hakluyt 1600:293; Lindestrom 1925:183; Morgan 1851:251; Parker

1910: 92), squash were prepared by both boiling and baking or roasting. They were baked or roasted in the ashes of a fire (Bogaert 1988:4, 12; Champlain 1907:317; Parker

1910:60, 92; Peron 1639:161; Sagard 1632:72, 191; Trigger 1990:75). Though Parker

(1910:92), Champlain (1907:317), Hakluyt (1600:293), Sagard (1632:63, 72), Strachey

(1612:121), and Bogaert (1988:4) all mention that squash and pumpkin were boiled, only

Heckewelder (1819:194) makes any reference to the type of vessel used to do this, and he only describes the vessel as a “pot.” The flowers of the squash plant were boiled into a sauce used to flavor meats (Parker 1910:92).

FRUITS

It appears that natives of the Northeast consumed a variety of fruits. Some of these fruits are of unknown types because no specific name was given (Cartier 1534:25;

Sagard 1632:237) or because the native term was the only label provided and no definite translations can be found, as in the cases of metaquesunauk (Harriot 1590:18) and putchamins (Smith 1907a:54). Despite this, the ethnohistoric record describes a number of fruits and how they were prepared for consumption.

Apples were baked or dried (Parker 1910:95). Cherries were dried and added to

65 soups or pounded into parched corn (Parker 1910:95). Crab apples are mentioned in early sources as being eaten (Champlain 1907:284; Harriot 1590:18) and in a later source as being made into a preserve (Heckewelder 1819:194). Other fruits mentioned as being eaten include figs (Cartier 1534:25), may apples (Champlain 1907:284), fresh pears

(Cartier 1534:25; Sagard 1632:238), plums which were often dried (Cartier 1534:25;

Sagard 1632:237-8; Smith 1907b:27), medlars (Harriot 1590:18), and persimmons

(Beverley 1705:130), which were also added to baked and boiled foods (Strachey

1612:120).

BERRIES

Like fruits, berries were often times dried so they could be enjoyed year-round

(Bogaert 1988:10; Bruyas 1668:123; Champlain 1907:247; Parker 1910:97; Sagard

1632:237; Smith 1907a:55), though they were also eaten fresh. Berries, both fresh and dried, were often added to breads and soups to add flavor to the recipe (Bogaert 1988:10;

Champlain 1907:314-5; Heckewelder 1819:194-5; Merril 1949:40; Parker 1910:69, 72-5,

96-7; Sagard 1632:104-5, 230, 237-8; Speck 1933:87). Different types of berries eaten in the Northeast include blackberry (Parker 1910:95-7; Sagard 1632:72), blueberry

(Champlain 1907:247; Parker 1910:97; Sagard 1632:237), black and red raspberry

(Brereton 1602:5; Champlain 1907:284; Parker 1910:95-7; Smith 1907b:27), cranberry

(Beverley 1705:131; Heckewelder 1819:194; Parker 1910:90, 95-6; Sagard 1632:238), currant (Parker 1910:90, 95-6; Smith 1907b:27), dewberry (Parker 1910:95-6), elderberry

(Parker 1910:95-6), squaw vine berry (Parker 1910:95-6), sumac berry (Parker 1910:95-

66 6), gooseberry (Brereton 1602:5; Parker 1910:95-6; Smith 1907b:27), huckleberry

(Brereton 1602:5; Harriot 1590:18; Parker 1910:95-6), June berry (Parker 1910:95-6), mulberry (Bruyas 1668:123; Harriot 1590:18; Parker 1910:95-6; Smith 1907a:64-5), nanyberry (Parker 1910:95-6), oneberry (Parker 1910:95-6), partridge vine berry (Parker

1910:95-6), strawberry (Bogaert 1988:10; Brereton 1602:5; Bruyas 1668:123; Champlain

1907:247; Harriot 1590:18; Parker 1910:95-7; Smith 1907a:64-5, 1907b:27), and wintergreen berry (Parker 1910:95-6). Other berries referred to in native terms are alkermes (Smith 1907b:27), ocoughtanamnis (Smith 1907a:55), rawcomens (Smith

1907a:54), and saquenummener (Harriot 1590:18).

NUTS

A variety of nuts were eaten in the Northeast including acorns, chestnuts, hickories, walnuts, beechnuts, butternuts and chinquapins (Beverley 1705:181; Cartier

1534:25; Champlain 1907:284; Harriot 1590:18-9; Heckewelder 1819:193; Parker

1910:100-1; Rowlandson 1676:82; Sagard 1632:108; Smith 1907a:54, 64-5, 1907b:27;

Trigger 1990:34; Van Der Donck 1655:76). According to both Harriot (1590:19) and

Smith (1907a:54), nuts, specifically acorns, chestnuts, and walnuts, were dried and stored by the native inhabitants of the area. Though the nutmeats of several varieties of nuts were consumed, acorns required more processing to make them palatable. Acorns had to be either boiled up to twelve hours in several waters, the first of which contained ashes or lye (Beverley 1705:185; D’Ablon 1672:151; Parker 1910:101; Ragueneau 1651:99;

Sagard 1632:108; Trigger 1990:34) before they could be processed and eaten like other

67 nuts. To be eaten, chestnuts and chinquapins needed to be boiled four to five hours

(Strachey 1612:119).

Nut meats were often crushed and boiled with corn or meats (Harriot 1590:18;

Parker 1907:100-101; Smith 1907a:53; Van Der Donck 1655:76). Nuts were also added to other foods like corn breads (Bogaert 1988:10; Heckewelder 1819:195; Parker

1910:100), corn soups (Harriot 1590:18; Heckewelder 1819:194; Parker 1910:75, 101), and cooked with fish or meats (Bogaert 1988:21; Harriot 1590:19; Parker 1910:101; Van

Der Donck 1655:76). Nuts, especially acorns, butternuts, and walnuts, were also broken and boiled to extract their oil (Beverley 1705:185; Harriot 1590:9, 19; Parker 1910:100;

Smith 1907a:53, 1907b:58) which was used to flavor other foods and stored in gourds

(Smith 1907a:53) or bottles underground (Smith 1907b:58). To make bread, chestnuts and acorns were pounded and baked into loaves (Harriot 1590:18-19; Parker 1910:100;

Smith 1907a:54), or were simply broken and added into the corn meal used to make corn bread (Parker 1910:100). Another favorite way to prepare nuts was to make nut milk.

Nut milk was made by crushing the nutmeats, usually of hickories and walnuts, and boiling them in water until the water became milky-white in appearance (Beverley

1705:181; Bownas 1724:142; Harriot 1590:18; Heckewelder 1819:194; Smith 1907a:54;

Strachey 1612:121, 129). Nut milk was prepared in a kettle (Heckewelder 1819:194), and was used as a flavoring for soups (Bownas 1724:142; Harriot 1590:18; Parker

1910:75).

68 SUNFLOWER SEEDS

Sunflower seeds were valuable to the inhabitants of the Northeast primarily as a source of oil. To extract oil from sunflower seeds, the seeds were bruised and then boiled

(Champlain 1907:284; Merril 1949:41;Parker 1910:102; Speck 1933:79). This oil may have been stored in underground pits in bottles (Smith 1907b:58). Sunflower oil was used to fry foods in and to add flavor to various recipes (Bogaert 1988:10; Merril

1949:40; Parker 1910:79, 90, 94). In addition to their primary use as a source of oil, sunflower seeds were also used to make a baked bread (Beverley 1705:180; Harriot

1590:14), a soup (Harriot 1590:14), and as an addition to other foods like breads and soups (Bogaert 1988:10).

GREEN VEGETABLES

Several different plants not intentionally cultivated by the Northeastern Indians were harvested when in season and added to their diet. In the spring, when the plants are small, Parker (1910:93) says that the leaves of yellowdock, burdock, berry plants, mustard, pokeberry, cowslip, sumac, sorrel, wild pea, pigweed, milkweed, dandelion, and wild asparagus were collected and boiled with fat meat as a dish. Other types of green vegetables eaten raw or cooked include cabbage (Heckewelder 1819:193), cow parsnip

(Sagard 1632:108; Trigger 1990:34), and jerusalem artichoke (Sagard 1632:239; trigger

1990:34). All of these green vegetables appear to have been cooked and eaten separately from other foods. Indeed, Sagard (1632:82) stated that if he added wild herbs to his corn soups to give it flavor, that the natives “would not even taste it, saying that it smelt bad.”

69

FUNGI AND LICHENS

According to Parker (1910:93-94), mushrooms, puffballs, and lichens were consumed by the Iroquois. Mushrooms were peeled, cut up, boiled, and eaten with grease or meat. Puffballs were peeled and fried in grease, sunflower oil, bear oil, or deer tallow. Lichens were not a preferred food but were only eaten when there was nothing else around. To make them palatable, lichens were first washed in ashes to take away their bitter taste, then they were boiled and eaten with grease. Jogues (1655:34-5) also notes that boiled mushrooms were eaten.

ROOTS

Several types of roots were collected and eaten by Northeastern natives. The most significant root in the diet was the ground nut which was eaten raw, boiled, roasted, or baked into cakes (Brereton 1602:7; Parker 1910:105-6; Rowlandson 1676:58, 60, 73;

Sagard 1632:108, 239; Trigger 1990:34). The roots of Solomon’s seal, cat-tail, and

Indian turnip plants were dried, pounded, and made into a bread (Parker 1910:105-9).

The bulbs of wild onions, chives, and lilies were baked or roasted in ashes then eaten

(Parker 1910:105; Rowlandson 1676:82; Sagard 1632:51, 239; Trigger 1990:34), though onions and leeks were also boiled as a soup (Parker 1910:105, 107). Artichokes were eaten raw, roasted, or boiled (Parker 1910:105; Rowlandson 1676:82). Hog turnip

(Lindestrom 1925:158-9), potato (Heckewelder 1819:193; Parker 1910:105), baked skunk cabbage root (Parker 1910:105, 109), boiled arrowhead root (Parker 1910:105,

70 108), milkweed rot (Parker 1910:105), and turnip (Heckewelder 1819:193) were also eaten.

Other roots mentioned in the ethnohistoric record are known only in native terms so it is not certain what types of roots they are. These roots are: coscushaw, which was cooked as a bread or soup (Harriot 1590:17); habascon, which was boiled as a soup

(Harriot 1590:17); kaishupenauk, from which a boiled bread was made (Harriot 1590:17); openauk, prepared by boiling (Harriot 1590:16); tockawhoughe, which had to be roasted in a pit for 24 hours before eating (Smith 1907a:55); tsinaw, made into a boiled bread

(Harriot 1590:17); and tocknough (Smith 1907a:64-5).

MEATS

A variety of cooking techniques are listed in the ethnohistoric record for unspecified meats including boiling (Beverley 1705:178; Champlain 1907:316; Hakluyt

1600:293; Heckewelder 1819:196; Holm 1702:124; Roche 1542:111; Sagard 1632:102;

Smith 1907a:60; Van Der Donck 1655:75), broiling on sticks (Lindestrom 1925:254;

Megapolensis 1644:176; Heckewelder 1819:196), broiling or roasting on coals (Beverley

1705:178; Champlain 1907:246; Heckewelder 1819:196; Holm 1702:121; Smith

1907a:60), and smoking (Gyles 1689:102). Fortunately, other sources are more specific as to the types of meats being consumed.

DEER: By far, the most frequently mentioned meat in the ethnohistoric record is venison. Most references simply state that it was eaten, probably because it was so commonly consumed that they saw no need to note how it was prepared (Alsop 1666:35;

71 Champlain 1907:299; Denton 1670:45-6; Harriot 1590:10, 19; Lindestrom 1925:253;

Rowlandson 1676:83; Smith 1907a:98; Trigger 1990:36-7, 111). Venison was cooked in kettles (Bogaert 1988:4, 22; Sagard 1632:111), boiled in kettles (Alsop 1666:85;

Beverley 1705:180; Megapolensis 1644:175; Rowlandson 1676:68; Seaver 1856:72;

Trigger 1990:111-12), boiled (Hakluyt 1600:293; Le Jeune 1634a:165; Megapolensis

1644:175), and roasted (Hakluyt 1600:293; Rowlandson 1676:61; Seaver 1856:72). It was consumed fresh, dried, or smoked (Heckewelder 1819:196; Rasieres 1628:107), and if cured could be stored underground in a deer skin lined pit (Morgan 1851:311).

Venison and deer fat were also common additions to other recipes like soups or breads

(Champlain 1907:314-5; Harriot 1590:61; Heckewelder 1819:195; Merril 1949:39;

Minard 1896:28; Parker 1910:69, 90, 94; Rowlandson 1676:68; Trigger 1990:75).

BEAR: Though most references to bear meat consumption do not mention the ways in which it was prepared, it appears that after deer, bear was the second most significant large-animal meat source (Bogaert:1988:6, 10; Champlain 1907:316; Harriot

1590:19; Lindestrom 1925:253; Megapolensis 1644:175; Rowlandson 1676:83; Trigger

1990:36-7; Wolley 1701:49). All ethnohistoric sources which do state how bear meat was prepared for consumption agree that it was boiled in one or two kettles over a fire

(Alsop 1666:85; Champlain 1880:237; Le Jeune 1634b:219; Sagard 1632:113; Trigger

1990:111). Bear meat and bear fat or oil were also added to foods like soups and breads to enhance their flavor (Bogaert 1988:18; Heckewelder 1819:196; Parker 1910: 68-9, 73-

4, 79, 90; Rowlandson 1676:58, 60).

SMALL ANIMALS: A variety of smaller animals were used as sources of meat.

72 Beaver was cooked fresh or smoked and was usually boiled (Bogaert 1988:6; Champlain

1880:237; Eastburn 1756:163; Le Jeune 1634a:165, 1634b:291; Rowlandson 1676:83;

Sagard 1632:234; Smith 1907a:56; Trigger 1990:36-7; Van Der Donck 1655:76). It was also noted that beaver tail was a highly regarded food (Eastburn 1756:163; Sagard

1632:234; Van Der Donck 1655:76), though it was also roasted (Le Jeune 1634b:291).

Dog was frequently eaten, though it appears to have been more of a special, feast food rather than an everyday food. Dog was usually prepared by boiling in a kettle

(Biard 1612:17; Champlain 1907:316; Gyles 1689:118; Harriot 1590:20; Heidenreich

1971:202; Megapolensis 1644:175; Rowlandson 1676:83; Sagard 1632:111; Trigger

1990:39, 111; Wolley 1701:44-5).

Rabbits were cooked, most likely boiled into soups or stews like other meats

(Bogaert 1988:21; Harriot 1590:19; Le Jeune 1634b:267; Megapolensis 1644:175;

Trigger 1990:36-7). Other small animals eaten by the Indians of the Northeast include large mouse (Sagard 1632:227; Trigger 1990:36-7), mouse and rat (Le Jeune 1634b:267), skunk (Denton 1670:45-6; Rowlandson 1676:83), muskrat, sometimes roasted on a stick and eaten whole (Eastburn 1756:163; Sagard 1632:234; Trigger 1990:36-7), polecat

(Denton 1670:45-6), possum (Denton 1670:45-6), raccoon (Denton 1670:45-6;

Megapolensis 1644:175), and squirrel (Harriot 1590:19; Rowlandson 1676:83; Sagard

1632:187; Smith 1907a:64-5).

LARGE ANIMALS: This category includes a number of species which do not fit neatly in the other meat categories. Elk was boiled over a fire in a boiler (Champlain

1880:237). Moose was chopped up and boiled (Sagard 1632:113), and the boiled tongues

73 and upper lips of a moose were considered a delicacy (Le Jeune 1639:79). Finally, humans, who were war captives, were disemboweled and boiled in large kettles (Alsop

1666:80; Brebreuf 1636:229; Mercier 1655:53; Peron 1639:173; Sagard 1632:162).

EUROPEAN ANIMALS: Several ethnohistoric documents note the consumption of meats of European origin by the natives of the Northeast. These meats include chicken

(Speck 1933:103), beef, which was usually boiled (Glyes 1689:121; Speck 1933:40-1;

Porter 1901:159, 161), and boiled horse (Rowlandson 1676:54, 72).

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS: The most frequently mentioned reptile is land turtle. Both turtle meat and eggs were eaten and both were prepared either by boiling or roasting in ashes (Denton 1670:45-6; Gyles 1689:118; Harriot 1590:21; Rowlandson

1676:83; Sagard 1632:235, 251; Smith 1907a:64-5; Trigger 1990:36-7). The only other reptile said to be eaten was rattlesnake (Rowlandson 1676:83). Frog is the only amphibious meat source mentioned in the ethnohistoric record (Jogues 1655:34-5;

Rowlandson 1676:83).

FISH

The natives of the Northeast used a variety of fish species. Fish specifically named as being used include whitefish (Sagard 1636:186), sturgeon (Harriot 1590:20;

Sagard 1632:113, 196, 247), salmon (Bogaert 1988:13, 18; Champlain 1536:74; Gyles

1689:103), “maigres” (Champlain 1536:74), leinchantaon (Sagard 1632:95), lamprey

(Champlain 1536:74), herring (Harriot 1590:20; Sagard 1632:186), shad (Megapolensis

1644:176), eel (Cartier 1536:62; Champlain 1536:74; Lindestrom 1925:253;

74 Megapolensis 1644:176), bream (Champlain 1536:74), and mackerel (Champlain

1536:74).

To preserve them for later use, fish were often dried or smoked and then stored in the house or underground (Bogaert 1988:13, 18; Cartier 1536:62; Chaumonot 1640a:11;

Gyles 1689:103; Heidenreich 1971:120, 161; Holm 1702:121; Lalemant 1640:17;

Lindestrom 1925:253; Megapolensis 1644:176; Mercier 1637:95; Ragueneau 1651:175;

Roche 1542:111; Sagard 1632:71, 95, 104, 186). Whether dried, smoked, or fresh, the most common way of preparing fish for consumption was by boiling it in a pot or kettle

(Brereton 1602:6; Champlain 1907:246, 316; Hakluyt 1600:293; Mercier 1637:95;

Ragueneau 1651:175; Roche 1542:111; Sagard 1632:71, 102, 113, 152, 247; Smith

1907a:60; Trigger 1990:111; Van Der Donck 1655:75). Fish were also broiled over fires, sometimes on sticks (Hakluyt 1600:293; Harriot 1590:21, 59; Lindestrom 1925:254;

Trigger 1990:75). In addition, fish were frequently added to other recipes for flavor

(Beverley 1705:108; Champlain 1907:316; Chaumonot 1640a:11; Gyles 1689:120;

Harriot 1590:16-7, 19, 60-1; Heidenreich 1971:161; Jogues 1655:21; Lalemant 1640:17;

Morgan 1851:249; Parker 1910:79; Sagard 1632:59-63, 71-2, 80, 106, 230, 237, 258;

Trigger 1990:74; Van Der Donck 1655:75-6).

FOWL

A number of wild bird species were eaten in the Northeast. The most frequently mentioned is turkey (Bogaert 1988:5; Harriot 1590:20; Megapolensis 1644:175; Sagard

1632:220; Smith 1907a:64-5). While some references simply state that fowl (Denton

75 1670:45-6; Lindestrom 1925:253; Rowlandson 1676:83; Sagard 1632:190) or water fowl

(Harriot 1590:20) were eaten, other sources are more specific. Birds named as being eaten are duck (Sagard 1632:190), eagle (Sagard 1632:219, 259), goose (Harriot 1590:20;

Sagard 1632:190), heron (Harriot 1590:20), partridge (Harriot 1590:20; Sagard

1632:190), and stockdove (Harriot 1590:20). Le Jeune (1634b:73) and Parker (1910:73) state that birds were boiled in a kettle.

OILS

Though touched on under other headings, the fats, greases, and oils obtained from both plants and animals are discussed together here. Plant oils were derived primarily from acorns, butternuts, hickory nuts, walnuts, and sunflower seeds (Beverley

1705:185: Champlain 1907:284; Harriot 1590:9, 19; Merril 1949:41; Parker 1910:10,

102; Smith 1907a:53; Speck 1933:79). To extract plant oils, the nut meats or seeds were bruised or crushed, boiled, then the oils were skimmed off the top of the water in the kettle. Fish, especially whitefish, were reduced to oil by boiling them for a long time

(Heidenreich 1971:120, 161; Sagard 1632:186; Trigger 1990:35, 43, 124). Oils or greases derived from other animal sources were usually obtained by melting the fat of the animal. Often the fat from meats boiled in other recipes was skimmed off the pot and saved, added to other foods, or eaten as is. Animal oils include those derived from bear

(Lindestrom 1925:253; Parker 1910:90, 94; Rowlandson 1676:58), boar (Lindestrom

1925:253), turkey (Bogaert 1988:5), deer (Champlain 1907:314-5; Parker 1910:94;

Trigger 1990:75), and moose (Sagard 1632:268). Fat, grease, and/or oil from both plant

76 and animal sources were used both to fry foods in and as an extra flavor-adding ingredient in soups and breads (Bogaert 1988:5; Champlain 1907:314-5; Heckewelder

1819:196; Merril 1949:40; Parker 1910:68-105; Rowlandson 1676:58; Sagard 1632:268;

Trigger 1990:75; Weiser 1737 in Wait 1967:35). Finally, hard, congealed lumps of fat could be served at feasts as a delicacy (Jouvency 1710:283).

BEVERAGES

Most sources agree that the Indians of the Northeast did not drink regularly with meals because they got sufficient liquid through the consumption of the staple food, corn soup (Champlain 1907:315; Chaumonot 1640b:17; Hakluyt 1600:293; Jouvency

1710:283; Lalemant 1665:35; Le Jeune 1634b:273; Peron 1639:163; Ragueneau 1648:77;

Sagard 1632:80; Strachey 1612:81). When they did drink, it seems that the preferred drink was plain water, which they preferred warm so they would sometimes heat it in a kettle before drinking (Champlain 1907:247; Jogues 1655:13; Lindestrom 1925:255;

Rowlandson 1676:80).

Other beverages were consumed. Some of them were not prepared specifically, but were the by-products of other recipes. Such incidental beverages include the corn liquid left over after boiling corn bread (Parker 1910:70-1; Strachey 1612:81), the liquid left behind after nuts were boiled to extract oil (Parker 1910:100), and the grease skimmed off the top of a boiling kettle (Le Jeune 1634b:287). Several sources also state that the broth from prepared meals was drunk separately at the end of the meal (Le Jeune

1634b:273, 293; Chaumonot 1640b:17; Jouvency 1710:283; Ragueneau 1648:77). In

77 addition, grapes were pressed and the juice drunk (Van Der Donck 1655:26, 74), hemlock tea was boiled (Morgan 1851:321; Porter 1901:71), herb tea drunk (Parker 1910:71) including ginger, cinnamon and sassafras teas (Hakluyt 1600:293), as was a coffee made from boiled, burnt corn (Parker 1910:77). Also drunk was maple sap, both boiled and fresh (Morgan 1851:251, 321), berry juice (Speck 1933:40), and the juice of the wichsacan root (Smith 1907a:71), and a drink made by boiling ground elk bones (Le

Jeune 1634b:275).

VESSELS USED IN THE NORTHEAST

In order to determine the ways in which Susquehannock ceramic vessels were used, the historic record was first examined to find all the different types of vessels used in food preparation and storage and the materials from which they were made. This section provides an overview of the different types of vessels used in association with food processing by Indians of the Northeast, and the various materials from which they were made. All references to vessels, the materials they were made out of, and what they were used for are summarized in the table in Appendix D. References to vessel usage from outside the core area of the Northeast are only used when they reiterate, thus reinforcing, the observations made in Northeastern sources.

78 BAGS

The ethnohistoric record shows that bags or sacks were used for a variety of purposes, including holding, storing, or carrying foodstuffs. Champlain (1907:95) notes that corn was placed in sacks made of grass and then stored in underground pits. Others observed that bags used for grain storage, and other tasks, could range from one quart to six gallons in size (Lindestrom 1925:221). Some bags were made out of hemp and used to store dried fish and eels (Megapolensis 1644:177). Several references have also been made to the use of bags made of bark or hide to hold and carry corn meal, especially parched, while traveling and to hold corn meal that was cached by travelers for later use

(Parker 1910:76; Sagard 1632:60, 153; Trigger 1990:28; Wood 1634:87).

BASKETS

In the Northeast, a variety of materials were used to make baskets including: wood splint (Morgan 1851:30; Speck 1933:42), hemp (Rasieres 1628:108), corn husk

(Morgan 1851:42), rushes or reeds (Rasieres 1628:107-108; Sagard 1632:102), twigs

(Brereton 1602:6), and bark (Sagard 1632:102). Smaller baskets were used for sifting flour and ground corn (Rasieres 1628:107; Smith 1907a:59), and for carrying and keeping corn and beans (Danckaerts 1913:55). Flat, shallow baskets were used to serve foods like meat and bread (Speck 1933:42). Other sources on information do not describe the size or the shape of the baskets they saw being used by the inhabitants of the

Northeast. Some sources simply state that baskets were part of the household assemblage and were used for a variety of purposes (Beverley 1705: 230; Morgan 1851:42).

79 However, others are more specific and say that baskets were used to carry seeds to plant in fields and to carry harvested corn (Parker 1910:58), as sifters for ash, ground corn, corn hominy, meal, and flour (Morgan 1851:30; Parker 1910:50-51; Strachey 1612:80), to hull corn (Parker 1910:49), to hold and/or serve a variety of foods (Brereton 1602:6;

Mercier 1669:203; Sagard 1632:102), and as containers for corn and grains when they are stored underground (Bradford 1963:65; Rasieres 1628:107; Smith 1907b:58).

BOTTLES AND GOURDS

Bottles and gourds are mentioned in several sources as being used throughout the

Northeast, even in more northern areas. Bottles and gourds were used for storing oil both in the house and underground (Sagard 1632:186; Smith 1907a:53; Smith 1907b:58;

Trigger 1990:35, 43, 124). Bottles made of corn husk were used to store seasonings, ashes, or salts (Morgan 1851:42; Parker 1910:57, 84), and Parker (1910:102) says that bear-gut was used by the Iroquois to make nursing bottles. Gourds are also mentioned as being used as water containers and vessels from which water was drunk (Danckaerts

1913:55-56; Holm 1702:124). Trigger’s reference to gourds being used to hold oil in burials (1990:124) appears to be a misreading of Smith (1907b:58) who refers to underground storage pits as “graves,” an English term no longer used for pits dug in the ground.

80 BOWLS

This section describes those vessels called “dish,” “porringer,” or “bowl” by the authors of various historic sources. Bowls were made primarily of wood (Bogaert

1988:17; Chaumonot 1640a:11, 1640b:17; Gyles 1689:121; Holm 1702:124;

Megapolensis 1644:174; Morgan 1851:300; Morgan 1965:99; Parker 1910:45, Peasley

1635:87; Sagard 1632:72, 107; Seaver 1856: 72; 51-52, 64, 68; Speck 1933:141; Trigger

1990:40), though they could also be made of bark (Holm 1702:124; Lallemant 1626:201;

Le Jeune 1634a:91-97, 1634b:251-291; Parker 1910:45, 51-52, 54, 62; Seaver 1856:72;

Champlain 1880:237; Trigger 1990:40; Sagard 1632:59, 72, 107), clay (Morgan

1851:300; Morgan 1965:99), or gourd (Danckaerts 1913:55, 159; Lindestrom 1925:255).

The bowl was sometimes interred as a burial good (Sagard 1632:208); however the most common use for a bowl was as a vessel for individual eating (Bogaert 1988:17;

Champlain 1880:237; Champlain 1907:246; Danckaerts 1913:55, 159; Eastburn

1756:163; Gyles 1689:121; Harriot 1590:60; Holm 1702:124; Lallemant 1626:201; Le

Jeune 1634b:251-291; Lindestrom 1925:255; Megapolensis 1644:174, Minard 1896:28;

Morgan 1965:99; Parker 1910:54, 62; Peasley 1635:87; Peron 1639161; Sagard 1632:59,

72, 107, 111; Seaver 1856:72).

Bowls were also used for other purposes, perhaps the most unusual one being

Sagard’s (1632:59) reference to birch bark bowls used by those traveling in canoes to urinate into so they didn’t have to stop the boat (a reference misquoted by Trigger

(1990:28) who incorrectly states that clay pots were used—Sagard’s reference to birch bark bowls being used to urinate in while travelling in canoes is the only ethnohistoric

81 reference to the Huron using any vessel in this manner). Wood or bark bowls were also used in stone boiling (Gyles 1689:121; Le Jeune 1634a:91; Parker 1910:52), to serve foods (Chaumonot 1640a:11; Eastburn 1756:163; Le Jeune 1634b:291; Parker 1910:52), as drinking vessels (Parker 1910:70; Trigger 1990:40), to play dice-like games in

(Morgan 1851:300; Speck 1933:141), and occasionally as mortars (Parker 1910:68, 100), though most grinding was done in a hollowed out tree stump. The only two references to bowls made of clay indicate that they were used in game playing (Morgan 1851:300) and in individual eating (Morgan 1965:99).

TRAYS

The tray or platter is a dish that was broader and flatter than those in the previous category. Trays made of bark were used in kneading and preparing corn bread (Morgan

1851:23) or as a place to start squash seeds growing in the house before putting them out in the field (Trigger 1990:33). Wood trays were used to hold corn while bran was removed from it by fanning, and for preparing corn bread (Smith 1907a:59). Van Der

Donck (1655:87) also mentions the tray as being a burial good.

UTENSILS

Though technically not vessels, spoons used by Indians of the Northeast ranged in size and could sometimes hold more than wood or pottery pots or bowls. Spoons were made primarily of wood (Champlain 1907:246; Le Jeune 1634b:279, 285; Minard

1896:28), though Danckaerts (1913:55) notes the use of a calabash spoon, and Minard

82 (1896:28) points out that spoons from later time periods could be made of iron. Spoons were used for individual eating and have been described as being “large” (Sagard

1632:59), the size of a “small dish or saucer” (Sagard 1632:72), and as holding half a pint

(Beverley 1705:182). Spoons used to serve from feast kettles were “large” (Sagard

1632:111) and, like the “great dipping spoon” described by Parker (1910:53), could have a bowl a foot in diameter. Sagard (1632:208) also notes that spoons were interred in burials.

BARRELS

Variously labeled as “vats,” “casks,” “tubs,” or “barrels,” large bark containers were used throughout the Northeast to satisfy storage needs. Bark barrels are described as being “large” (Parker 1910:16, 34; Sagard 1632:95, 104, 186; Trigger 1990:32, 72), big enough to hold 50-60 bushels (1,762-2,114 liters) of shelled corn (Heidenreich

1971:119), or like a puncheon, which holds between 72 to 120 gallons or 273-454 liters

(Cartier 1536:62). These large bark barrels all served the same basic purpose, they held stored foods within the longhouse. Foods stored in bark barrels within the house include dried or smoked fish (Cartier 1536:62; Heidenreich 1971:120; Sagard 1632:95,

186;Trigger 1990:72), and grains, especially dried corn and beans (Heidenreich

1971:119; Morgan 1851:22, 310; Parker 1910:16, 34; Sagard 1632:95, 106; Trigger

1990:32, 72). Bark barrels are also mentioned as being used to hold foods in underground storage pits (Morgan 1851:22, 311; Parker 1910:76).

83 UNDERGROUND PITS

Foods not stored within the house were kept in underground storage pits. The size of the underground pits may have varied, but sources describe them as being “large”

(Heidenreich 1971:119), four to five feet deep (Parker 1910:35), and as being able to hold three bushels to a peck (Morgan 1851:22, 311). Pits made to hold corn and other plant foods until they were needed were typically lined with bark (Gyles 1689:103;

Heidenreich 1971:119; Parker 1910:35), though they could sometimes be lined with grass

(Heidenreich 1971:119). When meats were stored underground, the pit was lined with skin, usually deer hide, instead of bark (Morgan 1851:311).

POTS AND KETTLES

Pots and kettles are treated as one category here because the terms seem to have been synonymous to early writers describing the New World. The size range of pots and kettles is greater than that of any other category. For this reason, the discussion of this vessel type will be divided into three sections. First, all those pots referred to specifically by writers as being small will be covered. Next, those vessels which seem to be of average size based on the wording of the texts, but for which no specific size was given will be discussed as a group. Finally, all those references to pots or kettles that are described as being large will be examined.

Before the different size groups of pots and kettles are looked at, the materials from which these vessels were made should be discussed. Historical sources that specifically state the material from which pots or kettles were made show that

84 traditionally, they were made of clay, while in later periods vessels of metal, obtained through trade with the Europeans, were also used. Works dating from before 1600 AD to

1740 AD all state that the Indians of the Northeast used clay pots and kettles (Beverley

1705:230; Champlain 1907:74, 143, 245, 246, 315; Charlet 1647:259; Hakluyt 1600:293;

Harriot 1590:60; Lalemant 1640:177; Sagard 1632:102, 109; Strachey 1612:81; Weiser

1737 in Wait 1967:35; Wood 1634:86). Later original works and sources that put forth facts based on the historical record also agree that pots and kettles were made of clay

(Heidenreich 1971:120; Morgan 1851:251; Parker 1910:68, 78, 103; Trigger 1990:28,

77). Sources that describe pots and kettles as being made of metal, usually brass or copper, are much more infrequent (Lindestrom 1925:255; Parker 1910:46, 78; Wood

1634:86). It is possible that early sources dating to the sixteenth, seventeenth, and early eighteenth centuries do not state that pots or kettles made by Indians of the Northeast were made of clay because it was considered to be common knowledge.

SMALL POTS AND KETTLES: Uses of small pots have a limited range according to the historic record. They were used for general cooking, cooking beans, and boiling potash to be added to larger pots of cooking foods (Sagard 1632:105; Seaver 1856:72;

Weiser 1737 in Wait 1967:35). A quart pail and a small brass or copper kettle are described as being used for individual eating (Lindestrom 1925:255; Speck 1933:41), and small pots the size of cups were used to mix parched corn with water to drink

(Heckewelder 1819:195). Smaller pots and kettles were also used to dip water (Le Jeune

1634a:101). Finally, Sagard (1632:67) mentions, as does Trigger (1990:77) who appears to be citing Sagard, that small clay pots were used by menstruating women to cook

85 personal meals because they were not permitted to share food with others during that period.

AVERAGE POTS AND KETTLES: Though discussed together here, there is probably a significant amount of size variation within this group because no specific size descriptions were provided in the accounts. Despite this, vessels described here as average sized pots and kettles served the same general purposes. The most common use of these vessels was as a cooking vessel in which a variety of foods were cooked, primarily by boiling (Beverley 1705:230; Champlain 1880:237; Champlain 1907:74, 315;

Danckaerts 1913:55; Heckewelder 1819:194; Holm 1702:124; Lalemant 1640:99, 177;

Le Jeune 1634a:165, 1634b:73, 219-293; Lindestrom 1925:255; Mercier 1671:233;

Merril 1949:39; Minard 1986:28, 30; Morgan 1965:99; Parker 1910:42-53, 62, 73-77,

100-103; Porter 1901:160-161; Rowlandson 1676:60; Sagard:59, 88, 102-111, 211;

Strachey 1612:81; Trigger 1990:111). Other ways in which more average sized pots and kettles were used in preparation of consumables were in popping corn (Parker 1910:78), making maple syrup (Morgan 1851:251), frying corn in oil (Parker 1910:68), heating water to drink (Rowlandson 1676:80), making burnt corn coffee (Parker 1910:77), holding water (Le Jeune 1634b:263), and carrying food for individual families from the feast pots to their homes for consumption (Morgan 1851:197; Porter 1901:159). Pots and kettles were also used to drink water from (Sagard 1632:45), to store corn liquor and fish oil (Heidenreich 1971:120; Parker 1910:71;), and to cover coals in sweat houses (Smith

1907a:71). In addition, several authors note that pots and kettles were buried with the deceased (Alsop 1666:83; Champlain 1907:143, 245, 246; Sagard 1632:172, 208, 212;

86 Thomas 1698:50; Van Der Donck 1655:87; Wolley 1701:60;). One final use of pots or kettles is as “war-kettles.” Allies who were going to wage war would put items in the war-kettle to boil until the time when they went out on their campaign—the kettle could be kept boiling for up to six months (Mercier 1655:53; Quens 1657:42, 121).

LARGE POTS AND KETTLES: The function which large pots and kettles served differs from that of their smaller counterparts primarily in the quantity of food prepared in them. Large pots and kettles were frequently used to prepare foods for large dinners and feasts, usually by boiling (Biard 1612:17; Bogaert 1988:17; Champlain 1907:316;

Hakluyt 1600:293; Harriot 1590:60; Le Jeune 1639:79, 1634b:291; Lindestrom

1925:131; Porter 1901:159; Ragueneau 1651:291; Seaver 1856:228; Wiser 1737 in Wait

1967:35; Wood 1634:86). The size of these larger vessels have been described as big enough to hold twenty gallons (Speck 1933:41), large enough to boil a feast of large sturgeon that fed fifty men (Sagard 1632:247), and having a diameter of up to one meter

(Trigger 1990:40). It has been said that for a large feast, between one and six large kettles were used to prepare the necessary foods (Biard 1612:17; Gyles 1689:121; Le

Jeune 1634b:219, 285-287; Sagard 1632:151). Large vessels were also used to heat water for drinking (Jogues 1655:186), reducing fish to oil by boiling (Sagard 1632:186), baking corn bread in (Parker 1910:67), boiling ears of corn (Gyles 1689:103), holding corn chewed off the cob with which bread was made (Sagard 1632:105), and as grave goods (Brebreuf 1636:229). One final use often mentioned for large kettles is as vessels in which human war captives were boiled in (Brebreuf 1636:229; Mercier 1655:53; Peron

1639:173; Sagard 1632:162).

87 RECONSTRUCTING HOUSEHOLD VESSEL ASSEMBLAGES

In this section, the ethnohistoric record is used to reconstruct the Iroquoian household vessel assemblage that was used in association with foods. Because of possible changes over time in this assemblage over time as a result of European contact, the ethnohistoric data is divided into three categories based on when the documents were originally written. These categories are Early (1536-1632), Middle, (1634-1756), and

Late (1819-1990). References from the Early period correspond with the occupations of the Schultz and Washington Boro sites, Middle with the Strickler site, and Late period references include both descriptions of Iroquoian groups living on reservations and later syntheses of previous works and other descriptions by anthropologists. As in the previous sections, sources from outside the core area of the Northeast are only included in this discussion when they reiterate, thus reinforcing, the observations made in

Northeastern documents.

When dividing the ethnohistoric database by time, it was noted that the number of vessel types as well as the detail with which vessel size and function are described varies from period to period. Both the number of vessel types and the details given about them are greater for the Early and Late periods than for the Middle period. It is hypothesized that there are three reasons for this. First, writers during the Early period were describing peoples, lifeways, and foods new and foreign to them, therefore they described them in greater detail. By the Middle period, Europeans knew what to expect in an Indian village, the foods and native assemblages were known to be redundant from place to place, and, because of trade, many vessels used in food processing were of European

88 origin, therefore, not unusual enough to note. During the Late period, a significant increase in the number of types of vessels described is seen. In large part, this is probably due to the view held by Americans that the native Indians were a vanishing race and therefore information about their cultures and artifacts needed to be recorded before they disappeared entirely (Cornelius 1999:28-30).

The following is a description of Iroquoian food vessel assemblages during the

Early, Middle, and Late periods constructed from the writings of those periods. The information from the Early period describes the assemblage expected at the Schultz and

Washington Boro sites, the Strickler site’s assemblage is described by the Middle period writings, while the Late period writings describe both reservation period assemblages as well as earlier, more traditional assemblages based on reconstructions. In all three sections, the use of large bark bowls for stone boiling is not included because all references to this type of cooking refer to less sedentary peoples living further north in

Canada who immediately replaced their bark vessels with metal kettles upon contact

(Gyles 1689:121; Le Jeune 1634a:97; Parker 1910:52).

EARLY PERIOD (1536-1632)

The assemblage recorded during this period most closely resembles what could be described as the pre-contact, native Iroquoian assemblage. Only one European vessel is specifically mentioned for the period, a large copper cup used for drinking (Brereton

1602:9). The rest of the vessels used during this period will be discussed by the form and material from which they were constructed.

89 LARGE BARK BARREL: This vessel form was used for food storage in the longhouse. Dried corn, corn, corn and bean mixes, and smoked fish were kept in bark barrels (Cartier 1536:62; Sagard 1632:95, 104, 106, 186). Cartier (1536:62) states that these barrels were the size of a puncheon, which holds 273-454 liters.

BASKET: Made of hemp, reeds, birch bark, or rushes, baskets were used to store dried grains, corn, or beans in underground storage pits, for sifting crushed or ground corn and flour, and for holding and serving foods (Bradford 1963:65; Brereton 1602:6;

Rasieres 1628:107, 108; Sagard 1632:102; Smith 1907a:59, 64, 1907b:58; Strachey

1612:80).

BAG: Grass bags were used to hold corn stored underground (Champlain

1907:95). Bags made of birch bark were used to carry parched corn meal in while traveling (Sagard 1632:60, 101, 153).

BOTTLE/GOURD: Bottles, usually made of gourds, were used to store acorn oil, fish oil, and beverages in the house as well as to store oil in underground pits (Harriot

1590:51; Sagard 1632:186; Smith 1907a:53, 1907b:58).

UTENSILS: Every person had their own spoon made of wood, often described as being large, which was used for individual eating. Spoons were also used for skimming and serving fat off the contents of pots, and for serving from feast pots (Champlain

1907:246, 316; Sagard 1632:59, 72, 111). Paddles, also wooden, were used to stir boiling soups while they were cooking (Sagard 1632:106-7).

PLATTER: Wooden platters, sometimes described as being large, were used for winnowing corn and as vessels in which corn flour was mixed with water and kneaded in

90 preparation of corn bread (Biard 1612:45; Hakluyt 1600:293; Smith 1907a:59; Strachey

1612:80).

BOWL: Every individual had their own personal bowl made of wood or bark which was used for individual eating both at home and at feasts (Champlain 1880:237,

1907:246; Harriot 1590:61, 70; Lallemant 1626:201; Sagard 1632:59, 72, 107, 111;

Strachey 1612:66). Sagard (1632:59) also noted that these bowls were taken along with travelers when he observed that the same bark bowls were used to eat out of and to urinate in while traveling in canoes.

CLAY POT: Because of their significance in this study, clay pots will be discussed in several subsections relative to their size. Although authors refer to pottery vessels variously as pots, kettles, boilers, and cauldrons, sometimes authors use these terms without stating what the vessel they are referring to was made of. Since no author specifically mentions that any of these vessels were made of metal, they are all grouped together here whether or not they were specifically described as being made of clay.

Extra-Large Clay Pot: Pots of this size were used primarily in the cooking of feast foods. There is apparently some variation in size within this category because

Sagard 1632:247) describes such a pot as being large enough to boil a feast of a large sturgeon that fed fifty men, while Biard (1612:17) states that three to four of these pots were used to prepare a feast. Hakluyt (1600:293) simply states that they were used to boil meat. The lack of observation of pots this size indicates that they were rarer than other sizes of pots in the assemblage.

91 Large Clay Pot: There is apparently a bit of variety in size within this category as there is in the Extra Large group. Large pots were used to prepare feast foods, sometimes up to six could be used to prepare one feast, as well as preparing larger amounts of boiled foods such as corn soup, bear, elk, smoked fish, beaver, and even human war captives (Champlain 1880:237; Harriot 1590:60-61; Sagard 1632:102, 106,

151, 162, 316). Large pots were also used to reduce fish to oil by boiling and as a vessel to hold corn chewed off the cob used to prepare chewed-corn bread (Sagard 1632:105,

186).

Average Clay Pot: Pots included in this category are all those for which no size description was given. In general, descriptions given in the ethnohistoric record indicate that average pots were used for daily cooking over a fire. They were used for preparing corn soups with a variety of extra ingredients, they could be boiled from 3-4 hours in preparation of such a dish, and they were also used for boiling meat, fish, or corn, and cooking and steeping corn meal (Champlain 1907:74, 315; Sagard 1623:59-60, 88, 102,

106-107, 109; Strachey 1612:81). Average pots were also used to boil feast foods, though it is stated that the size of the pot used to prepare a feast depends on the number of people eating (Sagard 1632:110-111, 211). Finally, Sagard (1632:45) states that a pot could be used for drinking water.

Small Clay Pot: Only twice are pots specifically described as small mentioned in the ethnohistoric record for this period. According to Sagard, small pots were used to cook beans in (1632:105), and as individual cooking pots used by menstruating women because of a taboo which prohibited their cooking for or eating with others (1632:67).

92 MIDDLE PERIOD (1634-1756)

Though the native assemblage during this period probably included a good number of vessels of European origin, only three objects are specifically described in the literature from this time as being European. They are, a small metal spoon (Danckaerts

1913:159), a large metal kettle (Wood 1634:86), and a pan used to fry pork (Rowlandson

1676:77). As in the previous section, the rest of the vessels used during this period will be discussed by the form and material from which they were constructed.

BASKET: Baskets were used for carrying and keeping corn and beans

(Danckaerts 1913:55) as well as for serving squash (Mercier 1669:203).

BAG: Bags of hemp were used to store dried fish and eels, possibly in the longhouse (Megapolensis1644:176), while smaller bags, sometimes of leather were used to carry parched corn meal while traveling (Wood 1634:87; Van Der Donck 1655:76).

GOURD: Gourds are mentioned in the ethnohistoric record from this period as being used for holding and drinking water, as well as being made into a dish to eat out of

(Beverley 1705:230; Danckaerts 1913:55-56, 59, 159; Holm 1702:124).

UTENSILS: Spoons, usually made of wood though one source mentions a gourd one, are the only utensils mentioned for this period. Each person had their own spoon which was used for individual eating and could be a half a pint (0.24 liters) in size

(Beverley 1705:182; Bogaert 1988:17; Danckaerts 1913:35; Le Jeune 1634b:279, 285;

Megapolensis 1644:174).

93 PLATTER: It is noted that foods are served separately (Beverley 1705:180), and large bark or wooden platter-like dishes were used to serve sagamite and to hold boiled or roasted beaver (Chaumonot 1640a:11, 1640b:17; Le Jeune 1634b:291).

BOWL: Made of wood or bark, every individual had their own bowl which they ate meals out of and brought to feasts along with their personal spoon to eat. Sometimes referred to as a dish or a plate (plates being described by the authors as wide shallow bowls), bowls are commonly mentioned personal eating vessels which could sometimes be used to dip and drink water from after eating (Bogaert 1988:17; Danckaerts 1913:55;

Eastburn 1756:163; Gyles 1689:121; Holm 1702:124; Lalemant 1665:33; Le Jeune

1634a:91; 1634b:251-267, 279, 1637:211; Megapolensis 1644:174; Peasley 1635:87;

Peron 1639:161).

POT: As in the previous section, pots will be discussed in several subsections relative to their size. Out of forty-seven specific references to pots and kettles, only four references state that the pot was clay and one states that the kettle was metal. Because of this lack of description of vessel material, all pots and kettles are discussed together here with no attempt to sort them out by material of construction.

Extra-Large Pot: Though simply described in the ethnohistoric record as being large, based on the details of what they were used for, several of the pots appear to fit into what should be called an Extra-Large category. Two of these pots together could be used to cook a bear for a feast (Le Jeune 1634b:219), one could be used to cook a human captive in (Brebreuf 1636:229), and finally war-kettles could possibly be Extra-Large in size. War-kettles were used to boil human captives (Mercier 1655:53) and as symbols of

94 the alliance between groups who were going to go to war together. As a symbol of a war alliance, the leader of each group of allies would put something into the war-kettle and it would be left to boil until they went to war, possibly for up to six months (Quens

1657:42, 121).

Large Pot: Large pots were used to prepare feast foods by boiling—one to five pots may be used to prepare a feast of regular foods though it takes two or more to boil a human captive (Bogaert 1988:17; Gyles 1689:121; Le Jeune 1634b:285-287; Peron

1639:173). Large clay pots were used to boil foods (Wood 1634:86). Other uses of large pots include warming water to drink (Jogues1655:13), boiling corn soup (Wiser

1737 in Wait1967:35), boiling ears of corn (Gyles 1689:103), and boiling smoked fish

(Ragueneau 1651:175).

Average Pot: Included here are all those pots and kettles for which no size description was given. They are grouped together here because the descriptions of how these pots were used indicate that they fall somewhere between those described as being small and large. The two primary uses pots of this size, some of which are specifically described as clay, were (1) cooking the family’s daily foods or cooking meals, both usually consisting of varieties of corn soups (Beverley 1705:230; Danckaerts 1913:55;

Eastburn 1756:163; Lalemant 1640:99, 177; Le Jeune 1643b:267, 287; Megapolensis

1644:174; Rowlandson 1676:60), and (2) boiling meats and birds, sometimes with other ingredients (Alsop 1666:85; Beverley 1705:178; Holm 1702:124; Le Jeune 1643a:165,

1634b:73, 293; Mercier 1671:233; Rowlandson 1676:58, 60). Pots in this category were

95 also used to warm water to drink, to hold water, and to dip water (Le Jeune 1634b:263;

Rowlandson 1676:80).

Small Pot: Small pots were used for personal cooking by an individual hiding outside the village (Charlet 1647:259), to boil potash which was then added to corn soup for flavor (Wiser 1737 in Wait1967:35), and for dipping water, though the kettle used to dip water is described as being covered with soot and grease from cooking and eating (Le

Jeune 1634a:101).

LATE PERIOD (1819-1990)

During this period, the use of trade goods in food processing is much more common. As a result, there are more references that specifically describe objects of

European-American origin. These goods include: iron spoons for individual eating

(Merril 1949:28), a small pail used to hold juice or tea (Speck 1933:42), a metal kettle used to make burnt corn coffee on a stove (Parker 1910:77), brass and copper kettles used for individual eating (Lindestrom 1925:255), a five-pail brass kettle used to boil feast foods (Minard 1896:28, 30), a metal kettle used for popping corn (Parker 1910:78), a quart pail for individual eating (Speck 1933:41), and both small and large brass kettles used for general cooking (Lindestrom 1925:255; Parker 1910:46; Seaver 1856:72). As before, the rest of the vessels used during this period are discussed by the form and material from which they were constructed.

96 LARGE BARK BARREL: Barrels which could hold as much as 50 to 60 bushels

(1762-2114 liters), were used to store corn, dried or charred corn, dried beans, dried or smoked fish, dried apples and other dried fruits in the longhouse (Heidenreich 1971:119-

120, 161; Morgan 1851:22, 310; Parker 1910:16, 34, 95; Trigger 1990:32, 72, 74).

SMALL BARK BARREL: Barrels ranging from one peck to three bushels (26-106 liters) in size were used to store plant foods in underground storage pits (Morgan

1851:22, 311; Parker 1910:76).

LARGE BARK GRANARY: This form of storage is not mentioned except in

Parker’s (1910) description of the Seneca. The granary provided a place for above ground grain storage (Parker 1910:35).

BASKET: Baskets could be made of corn husk or bark and were used to hull corn, to sift ground corn, flour, and hominy, to sift ashes, and to serve meats and breads

(Morgan 1851:30, 42; Parker 1910:45, 49-51, 84; Speck 1933:42; Trigger 1990:40).

Baskets were also used to carry seeds to plant and to carry harvested corn back to the longhouse (Parker 1910:58).

BAG: Bags ranging in size from one quart to six gallons (0.66-23 liters) were used to store corn and other foods (Lindestrom 1925:221). Bags made of leather or bark were used to carry parched corn meal while traveling (Morgan 1851:330-1; Parker

1910:76; Trigger 1990:28).

BOTTLE/GOURD: Gourds are described as being used to store oil (Trigger

1990:35, 43, 124). Bottles include a corn-husk bottle used to store seasonings, salt, and ashes (Morgan 1851:42; Parker 1910:57, 84) and a bear-gut bottle used as a nursing

97 bottle (Parker 1910:102). A tube made of part of a corn stalk was used to hold medicines

(Parker 1910:80).

UTENSILS: Every person had their own wooden spoon which was used for individual eating and oftentimes decorated so the owner could readily identify it (Minard

1896:28; Parker 1910:45, 53, 55; Trigger 1990:42). Spoons were also used to serve from pots, including the great dipping spoon which had a one foot diameter bowl and was used to serve from feast pots (Merril 1949:39; Parker 1910:53). Wood ladles were also used

(Parker 1910:45; Trigger 1990:42). Wide paddles were used to remove boiled bread from the pot in which it was cooked and narrow paddles were used to stir boiling soups

(Parker 1910:52).

PLATTER/SHALLOW BOWL: Platter-like vessels were used for a variety of purposes and could hold anywhere between one and ten pecks. Also included in this section are large, relatively shallow bowls. Wood or bark bowls were used to hold shelled corn, to knead corn flour and water in preparation of corn bread, and to serve loaves of corn bread (Morgan 1851:23; Parker 1910:51-52, 77). Wood bowls were also used to mash corn in, to mix hominy, and to crush nuts (Parker 1910:68, 73, 100).

Finally, a large platter was used to serve an animal’s head for a certain type of healing ritual (Speck 1933:111).

BOWL: Each individual had their own bowl from which they ate both at daily meals and feasts. These bowls were normally made of wood or bark (Minard 1896:28;

Morgan 1881:99; Parker 1910:45, 54, 62; Seaver 1856:72; Trigger 1990:40, 42, 74, 112), though mention of a clay bowl (Morgan 1881:99) and of a gourd bowl (Lindestrom

98 1925:255) is made. Parker (1910:70) notes that bowls were also used to drink liquid left in the pot after making boiled corn bread.

POT: The ethnohistoric record from this period includes both descriptions of

Indians living on reservations and reconstructions of earlier lifeways based on the historic and archaeological records. The only references to non-native pots (including kettles and pails) were mentioned in the introduction to this section. All other pots were either described as being clay or the material of construction was not mentioned. All of these references are grouped together as clay pots and discussed by size.

Extra-Large Clay Pot: Only once is an Extra-Large pot mentioned for this period and it is described as a twenty gallon (78 liters) feast cauldron used to boil corn with beans for a feast (Speck 1933:41).

Large Clay Pot: Large pots were used for boiling fish, meat, and other foods for feasts (Minard 1896:39; Porter 1901:159, 161; Trigger 1990:111). Large pots were also used to boil a variety of corn soups with meat and/or beans (Lindestrom 1925:131;

Minard 1896:30). Lindestrom (1925:255) states that one of these pots could be used to cook about twelve people’s worth of food.

Average Clay Pot: As in previous sections, the pots included in this category are those for which no size description was provided. These pots were used to cook the family’s daily food, which consisted of meals of corn soup with a variety of possible extra ingredients (Heckewelder 1819:194; Merril 1949:39; Morgan 1851:280, 1881:99;

Parker 1910:42, 53, 60-62, 67-68, 73, 77; Trigger 1990:41, 73). Average pots were also used to boil meats or fish, to boil nuts to eat or to reduce them to oil, to boil squash, and

99 to boil corn bread (Heckewelder 1819:194; Parker 1910:52, 67, 100; Porter 1901:160-1;

Trigger 1990:74, 111-112). Other uses for these pots included boiling corn with ashes

(Porter 1901:160), frying corn in oil (Parker 1910:68), boiling maple sap and evaporating maple syrup (Morgan 1851:251; Parker 1910:103), storing fish oil (Heidenreich

1971:120, 161), and carrying food home from the feast pot to be eaten by the family

(Morgan 1851:197; Porter 1901:159).

Small Clay Pot: Small pots were used to mix parched corn meal and water to drink when traveling (Heckewelder 1819:195), to bake corn bread in (Parker 1910:68), for individual cooking by menstruating women (Trigger 1990:77), and for drinking beverages (Speck 1933:42).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Late period (1819-1990) works describe Indian populations living on reservations, primarily in non-traditional houses, or provide reconstructions of traditional Iroquoian lifeways based on historical and archaeological data that are sometimes inaccurate (i.e.

Trigger 1990:28, 124). Because of the nature of Late period sources, less weight is given to those descriptions of vessel usage. Since this study focuses on pottery function, that is the vessel type that will be focused on here.

The first important fact to note about household vessel assemblages over time are the daily food processing needs that were not served by pottery vessels. Pottery vessels were not used to accomplish the following tasks.

100 • to store foods, both plant and animal, • to store oil above or below ground above or below ground • for carrying corn, beans, or parched • to hold uncooked or serve cooked foods corn when traveling • for individual eating • to store seasonings and/or medicines • for winnowing • to mash corn or crush nuts • to knead dough to make bread • to bake breads

Though the Indians of the Southeast ate basically the same foods as those in the

Northeast, it is interesting to note differences in pottery usage between the two areas.

The following statements were summarized in Hally’s (1986) article on Southeastern pottery function. Individual eating bowls were rarely used, as a result, pottery serving vessels held foods and people ate from these in turn with spoons or their fingers

(Campbell 1959:18; Swanton 1943:178, 1946:556). Wide, flat-bottomed pottery vessels were used to hold boiled foods in the house, especially to feed any visitors who should arrive (Campbell 1959:18; Speck 1909). Pottery vessels were also used to store oils

(Swanton 1942:137, 157, 1946:366, 372, 378, 549, 550). Finally, Hally (1986:272) notes that pottery vessels in the Southeast varied not only in size, but also in shape depending on “the nature of the food itself…and the context in which consumption took place.”

These uses of pottery, in addition to the variety of pottery forms (for examples see Figure

3-1) are not seen in the Northeast.

In the Northeast, pottery vessels were used for boiling. Though the context for which the food was prepared, the type of food prepared, and the number of people eating may vary, these factors serve only to alter the size of the vessel used. Unlike in the

Southeast, there does not appear to be a variety of pottery forms used for different purposes.

101 VESSEL SIZE CATEGORIES

In the previous sections the pottery vessels (pots) were grouped into four size categories based on ethnohistoric descriptions. These categories are somewhat inaccurate because they are based on what individual observers considered to be large or small.

Based on the descriptions of what the vessels were used for, there appears to be size variation within the categories as well as some overlap between categories. Here, the actual size categories that appear to be described in the ethnohistoric record are discussed followed by the pottery assemblages expected at the sites being studies.

Extra-Large: This is the largest vessel category described. One pot in this size class was large enough to feed fifty men and two of these pots were large enough to boil a whole bear for a feast.

Large: These pots were also used to cook for feasts, however, one needed between three and six of these pots to cook a feast. It is also probable that the war-kettles described in the Middle period belong to this category since war-kettles were also used to boil human captives for feasts and other pots used for that purpose fall into the large category. Larger quantities of meats were also boiled in large pots.

Medium-Large: This category includes the larger pots which were previously described as being average-sized. These pots could be used to prepare foods for gatherings or feasts, to warm water over a fire for drinking, or as daily cooking vessels.

Medium: Both the family’s daily food and family meals were prepared in these pots. Size variation within this class most likely depended on the number of people eating.

102 Small: These pots form a coherent size category. Small pots were used for preparing individual meals. Specific uses mentioned include individual food preparation while traveling, using these cooking vessels to drink water from, and the preparation of individual meals by menstruating women. One final use for a small pot is to cook beans

(which were later added to a corn soup).

EXPECTED FREQUENCIES OF VESSEL CATEGORIES

Based on the frequency with which different vessel size categories were observed and the ways in which they were used, it can be predicted how common they will be n the native assemblage. The rarest pot type in the native assemblage should be the Extra-

Large pot. Extra-Large pots were only used for very large or special feasts. Large pots should occur with greater frequency, but since they are used almost exclusively for feasts, they should also be relatively uncommon in the assemblage. Medium-Large pots should be quite a bit more common than Large ones, but since some of them are large enough to hold twelve people’s worth of food (larger than the average family size), they should be a good deal less common than the Medium pots that were used to cook daily meals.

Possibly the most commonly occurring size type should be the Small pot. This is because, though they are not mentioned as often, they were used by individuals for preparing individual meals, sometimes at home, sometimes while traveling. They also appear to have been used by menstruating women to prepare individual meals because of taboos that did not permit them to cook food for or share food with others. Because

103 Small pots were used for individual food preparation in a variety of contexts they should occur more frequently than any other type in the assemblage.

EXPECTED FREQUENCY OF VESSEL CATEGORIES OVER TIME

Though infrequent to begin with, based on the ethnohistoric record, Extra-Large pots disappear from the vessel assemblage faster than any other type over time. They are mentioned several times during the Early period, not at all during the Middle period, and only once in the Late period. In addition, no mention of European kettles replacing them is made; the Extra-Large pot seems to just fall into complete disuse.

Large pots also seem to decrease in frequency over time, though not as dramatically as the Extra-Large ones. As with Extra-Large pots, almost no mention of these vessels being replaced with European kettles is made (except possibly for a war- kettle which was described as being hung over a fire).

Medium-Large pots, which were used to cook for feasts sometimes and to prepare daily meals for larger numbers of people than the average family, also appear to fall into disuse over time. Their lesser-capacity counterparts, Medium pots, which were also used to prepare daily meals but for smaller numbers of people, seem to maintain their frequency of occurrence a bit more than other types. According to the ethnohistoric record, vessels of European manufacture, which increase in frequency over time, appear to serve the functions that Medium-Large and Medium pots were traditionally used for.

Because of the increase over time in numbers of European kettles, it is expected that one

104 would see a lesser occurrence of Medium and Medium-Large pots at later sites than would be expected based just on the observation of pots of this size being used.

Small pots appear to be the only vessel category that maintains its frequency over time according to the ethnohistoric record. In addition, no sources specifically mention

European-made vessels serving the same purposes as Small pots.

ETHNOHISTORICAL AND ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL VESSEL USE: A COMPARISON

As discussed in the section on the ethnoarchaeological data on pottery use, there appear to be six major pottery vessel classes used cross-culturally that can be distinguished from each other primarily by size. These classes and their functions are:

• Extra-Large: used to cook food for feasts and as storage vessels

• Large: used to cook for large numbers of people and storage vessels

• Medium-Large: used to cook for gatherings and preparing and storing beverages

• Medium: used to cook family meals

• Small: used for individual cooking, preparing medicines

• Extra-Small: used as children’s toys and in ritual contexts

105 A review of the ethnohistoric vessel data relative to these six pottery size-classes reveals some interesting correlations between the two data sets.

There does not appear to be any mention of the Extra-Small vessel class in the ethnohistoric record. The reason for this is most likely because these vessels were, based on ethnoarchaeological data, used by children, a group of little interest to European explorers and colonists, or in ritual contexts, most likely not open to outsiders. This does not mean that there were no Extra-Small pots in the Susquehannock assemblage; most likely these pots were present, they were just not described by travelers who visited

Iroquoian villages.

Pottery vessels of the other sizes, Small through Extra-Large, all appear to serve basically the same functions according to the ethnohistoric and ethnoarchaeological records. This fact supports the veracity of the ethnohistoric record. It is interesting to note that, although most of the functions of these vessel sizes are the same according to both sources of information, there is no mention of pottery vessels being used as storage by Iroquoian peoples in the ethnohistoric record. As a rule, it seems that the Indians of the Northeast used means of storage that did not involve pottery.

With the exception of storage, there appears to be a strong correlation between form, size, and function in both the ethnohistoric and the ethnoarchaeological data sets.

Both sets of data exhibit the same range of size classes and vessels within those classes served basically the same functions. This phenomenon further supports the idea that there is a strong relationship between form and function in pottery vessels created to serve utilitarian purposes.

106 As a result, we now turn to the examination of the Susquehannock ceramic assemblage with the following specific hypotheses:

1. There exists a definite correlation between form, size, and function in ceramic vessels

made to be used for specific purposes.

2. There exists a functional vessel typology independent from the stylistic typology used

by archaeologists to assign temporal and cultural affiliation to ceramics.

3. The frequency with which pots of a functional type occur within an assemblage is

correlated with the frequency with which that functional type was used.

4. The increased use of European brass kettles by the Susquehannocks caused a

corresponding drop in the production of ceramic vessels that would serve the same

function as the kettles.

107 CHAPTER FIVE: CERAMIC DATA ANALYSIS

CERAMIC SAMPLE AND VARIABLE CODING

The ceramic data examined in this study consists of a total of 600 pots, 390 of which are whole or reconstructed, and 210 that are broken. The minimum requirement a broken vessel had to satisfy to be included in this study was that it had to have a large enough portion of the rim intact to accurately measure the vessel’s lip diameter. The complete list of variables recorded for each whole/restored vessel can be seen in

Appendix A. For broken vessels, as many variables as could be accurately determined from the fragments present were recorded. The vessels all originate from three main

Susquehannock village sites and the sites associated with them. They are Schultz

(36La7, 36La9), Washington Boro (36La8, 36La4, 36La12, 36La54), and Strickler

(36La3).

In general, the variables coded for the pottery vessels were selected because they relate to the mechanical performance characteristics outlined by Hally (1986) in his study of Southeastern pottery form and function. An examination of these characteristics, listed in Appendix B, shows that vessel traits that determine what functions a vessel can serve are directly related to the variables coded. For example, the ratio of maximum vessel height to maximum vessel diameter and the form of the base indicate how stable a vessel is and vessel rim form, shape of the orifice, and rim diameter dictate how easy it is to seal a vessel.

108 In addition to recording all of the variables listed in Appendix A for every whole or reconstructed vessel, a photographic inventory of those pots was created. Each pot was photographed using both black and white 35 mm film and in color using a high- resolution digital camera.

STYLISTIC TYPOLOGY

Archaeologists working with collections from Susquehannock sites have created a ceramic typology based on stylistic differences in the vessels. This typology has been of especial use to them as a way of assigning temporal affiliation to finds associated with ceramics (for examples see Cadzow 1936; Casselberry 1971; Kent 1993; Witthoft and

Kinsey 1959). Each main village site examined here has lent its name to a pottery type found most frequently during the occupation of that village.

The first stage of pottery analysis carried out here entailed assigning stylistic type to each vessel. At the time when the other variables for all pots in the sample were recorded, a typological assignment was made. The vast majority of the pots examined here are of either Schultz Incised, Washington Boro Incised, or Strickler Cordmarked types, though other types are present as well. Pottery types traditionally assigned to earlier time periods are included in this study because they were found in association with

Susquehannock type vessels. Though few in number, foreign pottery types were also found at Susquehannock sites. The final category of pottery found at Susquehannock sites is not really a stylistic type so much as it is a type assignment made here based on a lack of stylistic characteristics. This category has been labeled here as “toy/miniature.”

109 After all the pottery had been assigned types, photographs of the whole/reconstructed vessels were sorted by type and sent to Barry C. Kent, an expert in

Susquehannock archaeology, for examination. Kent confirmed the typological assignments made by the author, with the exception of a few pots (about 6) which he agreed were basically of the type originally assigned but with design elements more typical of other types incorporated into their makeup. In other words, the original type assignments were over 98% accurate (six possible misclassifications out of 350).

After determining that traditional typological assignments were being correctly made, the frequency of occurrence of different types was calculated. These are shown by site in Figures 5-1 through 5-3. In these figures, the following code has been used to label ceramic types: 1) Schultz Incised, 2) Blue Rock Valenced, 3) Washington Boro

Incised, 4) Strickler Cordmarked—all varieties, 5) Funk Incised, 6) Toy/Miniature, and

7) Foreign types.

The first thing one notes when examining these figures is that there does seem to be a definite temporal distribution of Susquehannock pottery types. Each of the three main types Schultz Incised (Type 1), Washington Boro (Type 3), and Strickler

Cordmarked (Type 4) occur most frequently at the site they were named after. Also interesting is the fact that we do not see an abrupt change at each site indicating that a new type simply appeared and replaced all other types. Instead, we see a good example of the more gradual change in pottery type frequency from site to site indicating that the styles gained and lost popularity over time. Though these results were not unexpected, it

110 is good to see evidence indicating that the use of Susquehannock pottery types as an indicator of temporal affiliation has validity.

Figure 5-1. Frequency of Pottery Types at Schultz 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Percentage of Sample 10 0 1234567 Pottery Type

Figure 5-2. Frequency of Pottery Types at Washington Boro 60

50

40

30

20

Percentage of Sample 10

0 1234567 Pottery Type

111 Figure 5-3. Frequency of Pottery Types at Strickler

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Percentage of Sample 10 0 1234567 Pottery Type

EXAMINATION OF VARIABLES

As noted in the previous examination of Susquehannock stylistic typology, a single stylistic type dominates the pottery assemblage of each time period. Pots within each stylistic type share the same morphology. This indicates that size, not form, was considered by the Susquehannock to be the most important variable in determining vessel classes. The ethnoarchaeological record supports this hypothesis.

The ethnoarchaeological record (see Chapter Three) shows that vessel size can play a role equally important to morphology in determining functional ceramic typologies. The Papago recognize two distinct classes of bean-boiling pots that differ only in size (Fontana et al. 1962:47). The Kalinga have two vessel forms which, on the basis of volume, they divide into seven functional classes (Longacre 1981:53; 1991:99).

The three classes of Fulani pottery used in cooking are also distinguished from each other

112 on the basis of size (David and Hennig 1972:10-11). Arnold (1991:45-46) notes the same phenomenon; four functional ceramic classes are recognized in vessels of only two forms. Among the Shipibo-Conibo, each vessel form used with food or beverages comes in three sizes, each recognized as a distinct functional class (DeBoer and Lathrap

1979:105-110). In all of these examples, volume determines distinct functional classes within groups of vessels sharing the same form.

As a result, the data on stylistic typology and functional pottery classes observed by ethnoarchaeologists support the idea that size was considered by the Susquehannock to be the most important variable in determining vessel classes. Since size was coded as volume, only whole vessels (n=390) were used in this stage of analysis.

A variety of exploratory methods were used to determine how the variables were related both to each other and to volume. The most revealing method used to explore the relationship of the quantitative variables (vessel height, body height, lip diameter, orifice diameter, and wall thickness at the lip, collar, neck, body and base) was to plot pairs of these variables against each other and against total volume and body volume. These scatter plots clearly indicated a high degree of correlation between most variables. To further examine these associations, the Pearson correlation coefficient was used to determine the strength of these relationships. As can be seen in Table 5-1, though many of the variables exhibit strong associations with each other, variables that one would expect to be closely correlated with volume (e.g. height, diameter) have relatively low correlation coefficients. This is because the Pearson coefficient is a measure of linear association between variables and, though a strong relationship can be seen to exist

113 between many sets of variables when visually examining scatter plots, it is not always in a linear fashion (for example see Figures 5-5 through 5-11).

To examine the relationship between variables that do not share a linear association one can use the rank correlation coefficient which “measures whether y increases (or decreases) with x, even when the relation between y and x is not necessarily linear” (Ott 1988:323). Table 5-2 shows the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients for the quantitative variables.

Table 5-1. Matrix showing the Pearson correlation coefficients for the metric variables in this study.

total body total body collar lip orifice body lip collar neck body base volume volume height height height diam. diam. diam. thick. thick. thick. thick. thick. total 1.0 .949 .714 .656 .633 .722 .735 .683 .226 .028 .121 .025 -.053 volume body 1.0 .794 .780 .635 .818 .810 .796 .256 .046 .136 .012 -.057 volume total 1.0 .930 .871 .946 .937 .936 .261 -.038 .046 -.133 -.105 height body 1.0 .629 .881 .896 .950 .271 .009 .064 -.122 -.092 height collar 1.0 .821 .783 .710 .188 -.092 .012 -.118 -.099 height lip 1.0 .969 .926 .248 -.040 .067 -.092 -.105 diam. orifice 1.0 .955 .267 -.008 .066 -.105 -.090 diam. body 1.0 .266 -.012 .061 -.135 -.106 diam. lip 1.0 .479 .349 .313 .263 thick. collar 1.0 .505 .464 .370 thick. neck 1.0 .629 .402 thick. body 1.0 .456 thick. base 1.0 thick.

114

Table 5-2 . Matrix showing the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients for the metric variables in this study.

total body total body collar lip orifice body lip collar neck body base volume volume height height height diam. diam. diam. thick. thick. thick. thick. thick. total 1.0 .962 .977 .921 .766 .965 .970 .969 .294 .012 .068 -.159 -.144 volume body 1.0 .926 .953 .617 .912 .939 .979 .322 .062 .081 -.132 -.108 volume total 1.0 .921 .821 .935 .929 .928 .285 .007 .055 -.169 -.118 height body 1.0 .552 .863 .881 .940 .325 .080 .073 -.135 -.054 height collar 1.0 .760 .722 .636 .167 -.078 .007 -.160 -.164 height lip 1.0 .967 .924 .271 -.001 .084 -.132 -.130 diam. orifice 1.0 .952 .309 .041 .082 -.127 -.106 diam. body 1.0 .320 .042 .092 -.138 -.107 diam. lip 1.0 .338 .256 .218 .200 thick. collar 1.0 .389 .319 .255 thick. neck 1.0 .468 .233 thick. body 1.0 .343 thick. base 1.0 thick.

An examination of the Spearman’s coefficients clearly shows that the measures related to vessel size (total height, body height, collar height, lip diameter, orifice diameter, and body diameter) are strongly associated with total volume and body volume.

The Pearson coefficients for the same sets of variables give the false impression of a lesser degree of correlation because these variables have a nonlinear relationship. The other metric variables coded in this study which describe the thickness of the vessel walls at the lip, collar, neck, body, and base appear to be related to each other to a lesser degree. However, vessel wall thickness measures do not seem to have a significant relationship to size. Together, visual inspection of the scatter plots, the Pearson

115 coefficients, and the Spearman’s coefficients demonstrate that for the sample of whole vessels there is a strong correlation between volume, especially total volume, and other size-related metric variables. The results of these analyses indicate that volume was the most significant variable in determining what functional vessel classes exist in the

Susquehannock ceramic assemblage.

ESTIMATION OF VOLUME

For all the whole and reconstructed pots in the sample, both the total volume of the vessel and the body volume of the vessel were measured (Figure 5-4). This was done by filling each pot, both to the point of maximum constriction and entirely, with small pieces of styrofoam (about 5 mm in diameter) or, in the case of very small pots, glass beads (2-3 mm in diameter) and then measuring the volume of that styrofoam in graduated beakers. To ensure reliable volume observations, each volume measurement was taken twice. Based an examination of the whole/reconstructed vessel sample and

Braun (1983) and Hally’s (1986) concept of mechanical performance characteristics, those aspects of a vessel that determine how capable it is of performing a given task, it was hypothesized that volume was the most significant function-determining variable.

Mechanical performance characteristics of vessels listed by Hally (1986) affected by volume include vessel capacity, content heat loss, evaporation of contents. Because volume could not be measured for the broken vessels in this sample, it had to be calculated based on known variables.

116

Figure 5-4. The two volume measurements taken for the vessels in this study: (A) total volume, (B) body volume.

To find the best predictor for total vessel volume, the relationships between the metric variables (see Appendix A) and total volume recorded for the 390 whole/reconstructed pots were examined. First, the sample of whole/reconstructed pots was divided by stylistic type since the form as well as the design varies from type to type

(Figure 3-2). Second, the three double-necked pots in the sample were removed because the relationship between total volume, lip diameter, and orifice diameter is not the same in those forms as in regular pots. The relationship between total volume and a number of other variables was then examined using several predictive models. It was found that total volume was most accurately predicted by lip diameter when using a power curve.

Figures 5-5 through 5-11 show the plots of total volume by lip diameter along with the power curve line, the equation of that line, and R2 value determined for each pottery type.

The higher the R2 value, the stronger the correlation is between total volume and lip diameter and, therefore, the more accurately total volume can be predicted by lip diameter.

117 Figure 5-5. All Whole Schultz Incised Pots

70

60 y = 3E-07x3.1364 50 R2 = 0.9754

40

30

20 Total Volume (in liters)

10

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Lip Diameter (in millimeters)

FIgure 5-6. All Whole Blue Rock Valenced Pots

3.5

3 y = 2E-06x2.8085 2.5 R2 = 0.7983 2

1.5

1 Total Volume (in liters)

0.5

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Lip Diameter (in millimeters)

118 Figure 5-7. All Whole Washington Boro Pots

8

7 y = 4E-07x3.0806 6 R2 = 0.9447 5

4

3

Total Volume (in liters) 2

1

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Lip Diameter (in millimeters)

Figure 5-8. All Whole Strickler Rounded Pots

4.5

4

3.5 y = 6E-08x3.4982 3 R2 = 0.9012 2.5

2

1.5

Total Volume (in liters) 1

0.5

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Lip Diameter (in millimeters)

119

Figure 5-9. All Strickler Flared Pots

4

3.5 y = 2E-07x3.1727 3 R2 = 0.9212 2.5

2

1.5

Total Volume (in liters) 1

0.5

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Lip Diameter (in millimeters)

Figure 5-10. All Whole Strickler Thickened Pots

1.4

1.2

y = 6E-08x3.449 1 R2 = 0.852 0.8

0.6

0.4 Total Volume (in liters)

0.2

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Lip Diameter (in millimeters)

120 Figure 5-11. All Whole Toy/Miniature Pots

1.4

1.2 y = 5E-06x2.4219 1 R2 = 0.7496 0.8

0.6

0.4 Total Volume (in liters)

0.2

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Lip Diameter (in millimeters)

An examination of the above figures shows that lip diameter is a good predictor of total volume for all pottery types. It is especially accurate for those pottery types that make up the majority of this sample: Schultz Incised, Washington Boro Incised, and

Strickler Cordmarked—Flared, Rounded, and Thickened varieties. Because lip diameter was found to be the best predictor of total volume, the equations seen in Figures 5-5 through 5-11 were used to calculate total volume for the broken vessels in the sample.

The relationship between total volume and lip diameter was not calculated for foreign types of pots. This was not done for two reasons: (1) the foreign types could not be examined as a group because there is too much variation within the category, and (2)

121 there was no need to predict total volume for foreign type pots because all foreign pots in the sample are either whole or reconstructed vessels.

It should be noted here that some of the whole vessels examined in the sample were coded as having oval or square orifice forms (other possible orifice forms listen in

Appendix A were not observed). This is not thought to have an effect on the reconstruction of total volume for two reasons. First, the overwhelming majority of the whole vessel sample (336 pots) had circular orifices. Only 11% of the whole vessel sample consisted of oval or square orifice pots that were neither foreign nor toy/miniature types. Second, when oval or square orifice forms were seen, the degree to which they eviated from round was minimal. Squares (three pots, two of which were toys) were at most 5% off circular and ovals ranged from between 1% and 15% off round.

Despite the fact that the power curve seemed to best predict total volume on the basis of lip diameter, other methods were used to see if a better predictor could be obtained. The three variables that are present for all pots in the sample, whether they are whole/reconstructed or broken, are lip diameter, lip thickness, and collar thickness.

Because these are the only three variables coded for the entire sample of pots, they are the only ones that could be used to predict total volume. For the whole pots in the sample, these three variables were entered into a stepwise regression all together and in various combinations to see if they could better predict total volume. They did not, in any combination, predict total volume with greater accuracy than the power curves seen in figures 5-5 through 5-11. Regression analyses were also carried out using these three variables in various combinations with the same negative results. Finally, a best subsets

122 regression, a type of regression that determines what combination of variables best predicts the desired variable (in this case total volume), was carried out on the three available variables and could not provide a better solution. Indeed, the best subsets regression indicated that the only variable set that could be a better predictor of total volume than the single variable of lip diameter consists of body volume, lip diameter, and total height. Though the results of these analyses were negative, they did work to reinforce the use of the power curve in predicting total volume from lip diameter.

DETERMINATION OF FUNCTIONAL CLASSES

The primary focus of this study is to determine what functional classes of vessels were used by the Susquehannock. As noted before, within a given stylistic type,

Susquehannock pottery form is quite regular; the only apparent variation is in size.

Because of this, volume is focused on as being the variable that determined what functional class a pot belongs to.

Two measures of volume were recorded for the pots in this study, total volume and body volume. Total volume appears to be of much greater significance in determining vessel function for several reasons. To begin with, collared pot types,

Schultz Incised, Washington Boro Incised, and Strickler Rounded, make up the majority of the sample; two-thirds of the entire sample (66%) is made up of these three types. The significance of this is that for collared vessels, a significant portion of the total volume of the pot can be found within the collared area. An examination of the whole and

123 reconstructed pots in the sample show that only about half of the volume for the collared vessel types is found in the body of the vessel (Table 5-3).

Table 5-3. Average percentage of total volume found within the collar area (from the point of maximum constriction to the rim) for collared vessels.

VOLUME STYLISTIC TYPE IN COLLAR AREA Schultz Incised 54% Washington Boro Incised 47% Strickler Rounded 54%

For the other two stylistic types that make up another 27% of the total pottery sample,

Strickler Flared and Blue Rock Valenced, about 30% of the total volume of those vessels can be found in the area above the point of maximum constriction. For Strickler Flared an average of 26%, and for Blue Rock Valenced an average of 30% of the total volume is contained in the collar area. Though not as large an amount of the total volume for these types is found in the area above the constriction, 30% of the total volume is still a significant amount and was probably regarded as usable space by the people who made and used those vessels.

Additional evidence supporting the idea that total volume is more important than body volume in determining the function of Susquehannock vessels is seen in the degree of constriction at the neck. For all Susquehannock pottery types, the maximum constriction of the vessel is slight in relation to the rest of the vessel. Table 5-4 shows the relationship in the five most common pottery types in the sample between orifice diameter (the internal diameter of the vessel at the point of maximum constriction), lip diameter (the internal diameter of the vessel at the lip), and body diameter (the internal

124 diameter of the vessel at the widest point in the body). As one can see by examining

Table 5-4, orifice diameter is, on average only 2.8% smaller than body diameter for those pots that make up 93% of the entire sample. In addition, lip diameter, on average, is only

1.25% larger than orifice diameter. Both of these results demonstrate that the constriction of the vessels at the neck of Susquehannock pottery types is slight in relation to the rest of the vessel. In other words, the primary function of the constriction can be seen as primarily stylistic; neither the ease with which vessel contents could be manipulated, removed, contained, nor how well the vessel contents could contain heat or moisture is affected.

Table 5-4. The relationship between orifice diameter, lip diameter, and body diameter for the five most frequently occurring pottery types in the sample. Values were calculated from the whole and reconstructed vessels. (Lip stands for internal diameter at the lip; Orifice stands for internal diameter at the point of maximum constriction; Body stands for internal diameter at the maximum width of the body.)

AVERAGE OF AVERAGE OF PERCENT OF PERCENT OF STYLISTIC TYPE LIP/ORIFICE. ORIFICE/BODY WHOLE POTS TOTAL SAMPLE Schultz Incised 1.228 1.006 18 33 Washington Boro Incised 1.210 0.969 24 26 Strickler Rounded 1.485 0.964 9 7 Strickler Flared 1.216 0.984 19 24 Blue Rock Valenced 1.118 0.936 4 3 Total 1.251 0.972 74 93

Finally, total volume and body volume are highly correlated. For all pots that had both measurements, the relationship between total volume and body volume was examined. Using both a linear regression model and a power curve, it was shown that the values of these two volumes were very closely related. The R2 value, which shows how

125 highly correlated two variables are, was 0.9156 for the linear regression and 0.9407 for the power curve.

Because total volume had been determined to be the variable of primary significance in determining vessel function, that variable was used to examine the entire pottery sample. Since lip diameter was such a good predictor of total volume, as discussed previously, it was possible to calculate total volume for all the broken vessels which allowed the entire sample of 600 pots to be examined here in the determination of functional classes of vessels.

The first step carried out to determine what functional classes based on volume may exist was an examination of the entire vessel sample population. As can be seen in

Figures 5-12 through 5-25, which show the frequency of occurrence of total volume for the entire sample and by site, there is not a normal distribution of pots based on total volume. The sample of pots, as well as the sub-samples of pots from the three village sites, do not have normal distributions because of the presence of sub-classes.

126 Figure 5-12. Distribution of total volume for all pots from all sites. 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 frequency of occurrence 0 0-1.0 6.01-7 12.01-13 18.01-19 24.01-25 30.01-31 36.01-37 42.01-43 48.01-49 54.01-55 60.01-61 66.01-67 72.01-73 78.01-79 84.01-85 90.01-91 96.01-97

total volume in liters 102.01-103 108.01-109 104.01-105 110.01-111 116.01-117

Figure 5-13. Distribution of total volume for all Schultz site pots. 0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

frequency of occurrence 0.05

0 0-1.0 6.01-7 12.01-13 18.01-19 24.01-25 30.01-31 36.01-37 42.01-43 48.01-49 54.01-55 60.01-61 66.01-67 72.01-73 78.01-79 84.01-85 90.01-91 96.01-97

total volume in liters 102.01-103 108.01-109 104.01-105 110.01-111 116.01-117

127 Figure 5-14. Distribution of total volume for all Washington Boro site pots. 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 frequency of occurrence 0.05 0 0-1.0 6.01-7 12.01-13 18.01-19 24.01-25 30.01-31 36.01-37 42.01-43 48.01-49 54.01-55 60.01-61 66.01-67 72.01-73 78.01-79 84.01-85 90.01-91 96.01-97

total volume in liters 102.01-103 108.01-109 104.01-105 110.01-111 116.01-117

Figure 5-15. Distribution of total volume for all Strickler site pots. 0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2 frequency of occurrence 0.1

0 0-1.0 6.01-7 12.01-13 18.01-19 24.01-25 30.01-31 36.01-37 42.01-43 48.01-49 54.01-55 60.01-61 66.01-67 72.01-73 78.01-79 84.01-85 90.01-91 96.01-97

total volume in liters 102.01-103 108.01-109 104.01-105 110.01-111 116.01-117

128 The ethnohistoric record indicates that there may be five vessel classes based on size. The ethnoarchaeological data support the idea that there may be six classes of pottery vessels based on volume. Though one can see that there may be clusters of pots in Figures 5-12 through 5-15 that may represent classes based on volume, further analyses are necessary to determine the validity of any such classes. The first step in carrying out these analyses was to eliminate from the sample all double-neck pots (there is a total of three in the sample), which form their own special class, and foreign types because they do not fit into the regular native pottery assemblage.

Figure 5-16. Silhouettes showing the form of Susquehannock double-neck pots.

Since there are not consistent, obvious breaks in the distribution of ceramics based on volume as seen in Figures 5-12 through 5-15, the size categories determined through the previous examinations of the ethnoarchaeological and ethnohistoric records were used as a starting point in the analysis. Because the Susquehannock were an historic population particular emphasis was placed on the ethnohistoric data.

129 The ethnohistoric data indicate that there should be at least five vessel classes in the sample, therefore, the sample was first broken down into that number of classes visually using the histograms. The classes were assigned names in order according to size: Small, Medium, Medium-Large, Large, and Extra-Large. An examination of the five classes revealed the presence of an extra class at the smallest end of the scale, named

Extra-Small, and a possible extra class at the largest end. The additional class not predicted by the ethnohistorical and ethnoarchaeological data is the additional class at the largest end of the scale, Extra-Extra-Large. It is probable that the appearance of both an

Extra-Large and an Extra-Extra-Large class in the Susquehannock collection is a result of the sample size. If there was a larger number of Extra- Large and Extra-Extra-Large pots, it is likely that a more continuous distribution would be seen. This idea is supported by the fact that the pots in the Extra-Large class as seen in the ethnoarchaeological record range from 65 to 214 liters in volume and, if combined into one group, the largest

Susquehannock pottery class would range from 62 to 200 liters in size. Therefore, the possible Extra-Extra-Large class is treated as part of the Extra-Large class. The result is that there are six classes of vessels based on volume in the Susquehannock Collection.

They are Extra-Small (0-.5 liters), Small (.51-3 liters), Medium (3.01-10 liters), Medium-

Large (11-32 liters), Large (34-57 liters), and Extra-Large (62-200 liters). Figures 5-17 through 5-22 show the distribution of pots by total volume for the six classes of

Susquehannock vessels.

130 Figure 5-17. Distribution of total volume in the Extra-Small class.

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20 Number of Pots 15

10

5

0 0-.1 .11-.2 .21-.3 .31-.4 .41-.5 Total Volume (in liters)

FIgure 5-18. Distribution of Total Volume in the Small class.

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

Number of Pots 15

10

5

0 .51-.75 .76-1 1.01- 1.26-1.5 1.51- 1.76-2 2.01- 2.26-2.5 2.51- 2.76-3 1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75 Total Volume (in liters)

131 Figure 5-19. Distribution of Total Volume in the Medium Class. 20

18

16

14

12

10

8 Number of Pots 6

4

2

0 3.01-4 4.01-5 5.01-6 6.01-7 7.01-8 8.01-9 9.01-10 Total Volume (in liters)

Figure 5-20. Distribution of Total Volume for the Medium-Large Class. 9

8

7

6

5

4

Number of Pots 3

2

1

0 11-13 14-16 17-19 20-22 23-25 26-28 29-32 Total Volume (in liters)

132 FIgure 5-21. Distribution of Total Volume for the Large Class. 8

7

6

5

4

3 Number of Pots

2

1

0 34.01-38 38.01-43 43.01-48 48.01-53 53.01-58 Total Volume (in liters)

Figure 5-22. Distribution of Total Volume for the Extra-Large Class. 9

8

7

6

5

4

Number of Pots 3

2

1

0 60-70 71-80 81-90 91- 101- 111- 121- 131- 141- 151- 161- 171- 181- 191- 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 Total Volume (in liters)

133 It seems that the Susquehannock pottery collection contains the five classes predicted by the ethnohistoric analysis and the six classes predicted by the ethnoarchaeological analysis. It is thought that these six classes were recognized as existing by the Susquehannock, and that they made pots to fit within these classes to satisfy specific needs. To further explore this idea, both an examination of the histograms and of measures of center for the different vessel classes was performed. This was done in order to find indications of the Susquehannock idea of what the typical vessel size that characterizes each size class was. Table 5-5 shows the different measures of center for the six vessel classes.

Table 5-5. Measures of center for the six Susquehannock functional vessel classes.

Class Size N Mean Median Mode in Liters Extra-Small 0-.5 176 0.25 0.25 0.25 Small .51-3 279 1.46 1.3 1.1 Medium 3.01-10 62 5.68 5 4.9 Medium-Large 11-32 33 19.84 17.63 26.11 Large 34-57 21 45.23 46.97 46.97 Extra-Large 62-200 29 91.44 82.51 87.53

Together, the measures of center and the histograms showing the distribution of pots by total volume indicate that the Susquehannock recognized six vessel classes. We cannot know for certain whether the Susquehannock simply made pots of a certain size on the spot to satisfy certain tasks or whether they recognized, and therefore named, these classes and made vessels to fit within them. However, the consistent reference to pots described as the same size being used for the same or similar tasks in the ethnohistoric

134 record supports the idea that the Susquehannock recognized the six classes. The ethnoarchaeological data further supports this idea by showing that people cross- culturally recognize with distinct names different functional classes distinguished from each other by volume.

THE USES OF FUNCTIONAL CLASSES

The strong correlation between the sizes of the classes of pottery as seen in the ethnohistorical, ethnoarchaeological, and archaeological records alone supports the validity of the functional classes of Susquehannock pottery determined here. However, other independent forms of data can also work to determine the accuracy of the

Susquehannock vessel classes described in the previous section. The following statements should be true if the functional classes determined for the Susquehannock sample are truly analogous to the categories seen in the ethnoarchaeological and ethnohistoric records.

1. Pots, regardless of size, were not used as storage vessels

2. All Small through Extra-Large pots were used to boil foods over a fire.

3. Some Extra-Small pots were not used to cook or heat foods over a fire; they were

made by or for children as toys.

To determine whether or not these statements are true, evidence that the pots were used as cooking vessels must be examined. Two types of surface remains on pottery vessels indicate that they were used for preparing foods over a fire—exterior soot and interior food residue. During a trip to the Pennsylvania State Museum, David Hally pointed out

135 examples of the two types of exterior soot his experiments have identified as resulting from cooking over a fire (1983b). The first type is a matte black layer that can be easily removed by rubbing. The second type had a more lustrous quality and could not be easily rubbed off. The presence or absence of either of these types of exterior soot deposits were recorded for every vessel. Only presence or absence was noted as well for interior residue. Interior evidence of cooking ranged from well-scrubbed interiors exhibiting “bathtub rings” that show different food levels during cooking to crusty food residues as much as five millimeters thick. Tables 5-6 and 5-7 show the frequency with which exterior soot and interior residues of cooking occur within each functional category by site.

Table 5-6. Frequency of occurrence of exterior soot within functional classes.

PERCENTAGE OF VESSELS WITH EXTERIOR SOOT Vessel Volume Schultz Washington Strickler All Class in Liters Site Boro Site Site Sites Extra-Small 0-0.5 53% 63% 69% 64% Small 0.51-3.0 54% 80% 88% 76% Medium 3.01-10 65% 84% 88% 77% Medium-Large 11-32 80% 88% —— 81% Large 34-57 94% 100% 100% 95% Extra-Large 62-200 84% 100% —— 92%

Table 5-7. Frequency of occurrence of interior residue within functional classes.

PERCENTAGE OF VESSELS WITH INTERIOR RESIDUE Vessel Volume Schultz Washington Strickler All Class in Liters Site Boro Site Site Sites Extra-Small 0-0.5 31% 39% 21% 30% Small 0.51-3.0 47% 59% 62% 57% Medium 3.01-10 65% 68% 75% 68% Medium-Large 11-32 60% 63% —— 61% Large 34-57 72% 50% 100% 71% Extra-Large 62-99 84% 100% —— 92%

136 As can be seen by examining Tables 5-6 and 5-7, a larger number of pots in the sample exhibit exterior sooting than interior food residues. This phenomenon can be explained almost entirely by the different cleaning and restoration techniques used on the various vessels. While coding data it was noted that, as a general rule, pots which had not been reconstructed had not been cleaned as vigorously; interior and exterior surface residues were much more intact on sherds. The surfaces of pots that have been reconstructed are not uniform in the treatment that they have received. Some pots, primarily those excavated by professional archaeologists, have been reassembled with little to no damage to exterior soot deposits and interior food remains. Other reconstructed pots have been scrubbed so hard that, in places, not only have any traces of soot or food been removed, but part of the top layer of clay has been very visibly abraded. Another phenomenon related to reconstruction that works to create a disparity between the number of pots with soot on the exterior and evidence of food residues on the interior was the tendency of one or more people to cover the interior of a vessel with the plaster used to fill in gaps in the vessel walls during reconstruction. Whole vessels were not immune to the over-cleaning experience either. While some whole vessels had their interiors and exteriors preserved as they were found, some were severely scrubbed, some were coated inside and out with a shellac-looking substance, and some even had their interiors filled with wax or plaster with bones sticking out as a way of reproducing the collector’s idea of how the pot was used or found.

Because of the different ways in which whole, reconstructed, and broken pots were treated, the accuracy of the presence/absence data on exterior soot and interior food

137 residue must be questioned. Either exterior soot or interior food residue alone is evidence that the pot was used to cook foods over a fire. However, because of cleaning and reconstruction efforts, not all vessels with cooked-on food residues on the inside retain the soot from the fire that set those residues on the interior surface. The opposite is true as well; not all pots with exterior soot retain interior evidence of food residues. Table 5-8 shows the frequency with which exterior soot or interior food residue appears alone on vessels.

Table 5-8. Frequency of occurrence of either exterior soot or interior residue alone within functional classes. Percentage of pots with Percentage of pots with Vessel Volume exterior soot and no interior residue and no Class in Liters interior food residue exterior soot Extra-Small 0-0.5 56% 6% Small 0.51-3.0 30% 7% Medium 3.01-10 25% 14% Medium-Large 11-32 29% 4% Large 34-57 25% 0% Extra-Large 62-99 0% 0%

Assuming that on pots there is a direct correlation between cooking over a fire and the presence of exterior soot and interior food residues, one can see by examining

Table 5-10 that exterior evidence that the pot was used over a fire is less likely to be completely removed or obscured than interior evidence of cooking. This is supported by the relative infrequency with which a pot can be seen to have interior food residues that were cooked on but no exterior soot. Because the presence of either exterior soot or interior food residue alone is sufficient evidence to show that a pot was used to cook foods over a fire, the number of pots in the sample used as cooking vessels can be more

138 accurately determined by looking at how many of them exhibit interior and/or exterior evidence of being used as cooking utensils (Table 5-9).

Table 5-9. Percentage of pots used as cooking vessels by class.

Number of pots exhibiting interior and/or exterior Total number Percentage of pots Vessel Class evidence of use in cooking of pots used as cooking vessels Extra-Small 109 165 66% Small 217 270 80% Medium 54 62 87% Medium-Large 28 33 85% Large 20 21 95% Extra-Large 27 29 93%

The percentages in Table 5-9 are most likely low compared to the unknown actual number of pots in the sample used as cooking vessels. The under representation of cooking evidence results from the previously discussed problems of over-cleaning and obscurant reconstruction. Regardless of possible errors resulting from different preservation efforts, it can be seen that Medium through Extra-Large pots were clearly used as cooking vessels. While they still appear to be used mainly for cooking foods over a fire, the smaller vessels differ from those of the larger classes because a significantly larger proportion of Extra-Small and Small pots exhibit no internal or external evidence of use as cooking vessels (34% and 20% respectively). To explain this distinction between the smallest vessel classes and the rest of the sample, other data must be examined.

139 The context in which each pot in the sample was found, burial or non-burial, was recorded. Table 5-10 shows the numbers of pots from each village occupation by size category.

Table 5-10. Numbers of pots found in burial (B) and non-burial (N) contexts by village and functional vessel class. Washington Vessel Schultz Boro Strickler All Sites Class B N B N B N B N Extra-Small 27 5 59 3 70 1 156 9 Small 57 7 118 4 81 3 256 14 Medium 5 18 26 5 8 0 39 23 Medium-Large 3 22 3 5 —— —— 6 27 Large 1 17 1 1 1 3 18 Extra-Large 2 23 0 4 —— —— 2 23

Total 95 92 207 22 160 4 462 118

As can be seen, the numbers of burial and non-burial pots found at each site differ significantly. The ratio of burial to non-burial pots found at Schultz is the most even.

This, coupled with the fact that Schultz represents the earliest Susquehannock village occupation, makes the Schultz sub-sample of pottery more reliable for reconstructing past behaviors. Because the numbers of burial and non-burial pots vary so much from site to site and between vessel classes, an examination of the proportions of pots found in each context by class is much more revealing (Table 5-11).

140 Table 5-11. Percentages of pots in each vessel class found in burial (B) and non-burial (N) contexts by site. Washington Vessel Schultz Boro Strickler All Sites Class B N B N B N B N Extra-Small 84 16 95 5 99 1 95 5 Small 89 11 97 3 96 4 95 5 Medium 22 78 84 16 100 0 63 37 Medium-Large 12 88 37 63 —— —— 18 82 Large 6 94 50 50 100 0 14 86 Extra-Large 8 92 0 100 —— —— 8 93

Total 51 49 90 10 98 2 80 20

Upon examination of Table 5-11, one notices a distinct difference between the percentage of Extra-Small and Small pots found in burials and the percentage of pots of other size classes from the same context. Even at Schultz, where the number of burial and non-burial pots in the sample are almost equal, Extra-Small and Small pots are found with much greater frequency in burial contexts. There are three possible explanations for this phenomenon:

1. Extra-Small and Small pots are found much more frequently in burials because their

size made them easier to include in burial pits.

2. Extra-Small and Small pots are found much more frequently in burials because these

classes include pots regarded as personal items.

3. Extra-Small and Small pots are found much more frequently in burials because they

were made specifically to be grave goods.

Were Extra-Small and Small pots buried with individuals more frequently because their small size made them easier to include in burial pits? The only type of

141 evidence that would support this hypothesis would be the observation that a significantly large portion of the burial pot sample consisted exclusively of Extra-Small and Small pots. An examination of Table 5-12 shows this to be the case.

Table 5-12. Percentage of pots from burials that are Extra-Small or Small.

Vessel Classes Schultz Washington Boro Strickler All Sites

Extra-Small and Small 88% 86% 94% 89%

Medium to Extra-Extra 12% 14% 6% 11% Large

Unfortunately, the same data which could be used to support the idea that small pots were preferentially buried with people because they were of a more convenient size also support the second hypothesis: Extra-Small and Small pots occur more frequently in burials because they were personal items, most of which were used to prepare individual meals. Fortunately, which of these hypotheses is more likely to be true can be determined by examining the ethnohistoric record. Nowhere in this record is mention made of peoples in the Northeast preferentially selecting grave goods to be buried with an individual because the items were easier to fit into the pit they had dug. There are, however, numerous references to vessels being included along with other personal belongings, including individual eating spoons, in burials (i.e. Alsop 1666:83; Brebreuf

1636:297; Champlain 1907:143, 245; Sagard 1632:172, 208, 212; Thomas 1698:50; Van

Der Donck 1655:87; Wolley 1701:60). The reason for this is described by Morgan:

142 Their notions of the state of the soul when disembodied, are vague and diversified; but they all agree that, during the journey [to heaven], it required the same nourishment as while it dwelt in the body. They, therefore, deposited beside the deceased his bow and arrows, tobacco and pipe, and necessary food for the journey…as well as utensils and vessels to prepare and contain his food (1851:168).

Morgan’s description of why pots were buried with individuals combined with the numerous references that support his observations and the ethnohistoric data which indicate that smaller pots were used by both men and women to prepare individual meals for themselves (see Chapter Four) indicate that smaller pots were not placed in burials simply because of their size. This idea is supported by the burial data in the

Susquehannock sample. For the adult, sexed burials in the sample, sixty-five percent of the pots found in female burials and sixty-seven percent of those found in male burials belong to the Small vessel class. The frequency with which small pots are found in burials appears to be a result of the practice of burying the deceased’s personal items along with them. Indeed, this practice also accounts for the presence of Extra-small vessels which were made by and/or for children to be used as toys in burials containing the remains of children. Twenty percent of the pots found in definite child burials have the appearance of being made by children as toys and over one-third of the pots found with child remains fall within the Extra-Small vessel class. In addition, several Extra-

Small pots retain evidence of being used as paint pots—the insides of several are covered with (in three instances still full of) red ochre, white kaolin clay, and purple, powdery hematite. Extra-Small pots used as paint pots would have also been considered personal items that individuals would take with them on their journey to the afterlife, which could

143 take up to one year to complete (Morgan 1851:167-8).

Before coming to any definite conclusions about the functions of Extra-Small and

Small pots, the idea that these pots occur more frequently in burials because they were manufactured to serve specifically as grave goods must be considered. This hypothesis is derived from Kent’s statement that “pottery placed in graves appears to have been made just for that purpose” during the Strickler phase (1993:138). Kent holds that Strickler pots are smaller and less well decorated than those made during the preceding

Washington Boro and Schultz phases because people were using primarily brass kettles to cook in; pots were only made to be used “as containers and grave offerings” (Kent

1993:138-140). Schultz and Washington Boro phase pottery found in burials are thought by Kent to have been made and used for some other purpose before being turned into burial furniture (Kent 1993:138-140). To determine whether pots were being manufactured specifically as grave goods during any period, the data that relate to evidence of use must be examined. Table 5-13 shows how many pots from burials show evidence of being used to prepare foods over a fire.

Table 5-13. Percentage of pots from burials used as cooking vessels by class over time.

Pots exhibiting interior and/or exterior evidence of use in cooking Vessel Class Schultz Washington Boro Strickler

Extra-Small 52% 68% 70% Small 51% 86% 91% Medium 40% 92% 100% Medium-Large 100% 100% —— Large 100% 100% 100% Extra-Large 50% —— ——

144 As mentioned before, the Susquehannock pots in this sample have been subjected to different degrees of cleaning and reconstruction; therefore, the numbers in Table 5-13 should be regarded as low estimates of how many pots from burials show evidence of being used as cooking vessels. Even if the figures in Table 5-13 were more accurate representations of past behavior, it is clear that Extra-Small and Small pots were not manufactured to serves solely as grave goods—especially during the Strickler phase.

Smaller vessels, like their larger counterparts, were made to be used, not as items to be buried with deceased individuals.

In short, the three hypotheses put forth at the beginning of this section (see page

142) appear to be true. The Susquehannock did not use ceramic vessels for storage.

Small through Extra-Extra-Large pots were used for preparing foods over a fire by boiling. The size of the pot used depended most likely on the number of people eating and the context for which the food was being prepared. Extra-Small pots were not always used over a fire for cooking. Some of these pots were used over a fire to either prepare very small amounts of food or, more likely, to make medicines. Other Extra-

Small pots were not used as cooking vessels and served either as toys or as containers for making or holding paints.

FREQUENCIES OF VESSEL CLASSES OVER TIME

The frequency with which different vessel size categories were observed in the ethnohistoric record and the ways in which they were described as being used enabled

145 predictions to be made about the archaeological assemblage (see Chapter Four). For a vessel assemblage that includes few to no European kettles, the most frequently occurring vessel class should be Small because they were used by individuals to prepare individual meals, probably at home and while traveling. Medium through Extra-Large vessels occur less frequently than Small pots and there is a negative correlation among these pots between size and frequency of occurrence. Larger pots occur less frequently than smaller ones. Extra-Small pots are not mentioned in the ethnohistoric record, but ethnoarchaeological data indicate that they should occur less frequently than Small pots as well.

Over time, the ceramic vessel assemblage is predicted to change as a result of the introduction of European kettles and changing social dynamics that affect the use of resources and social organization. According to the ethnohistoric record, the first vessel class to vanish from the assemblage is Extra-Large. The end of the Extra-Large class is accompanied by a dramatic decrease in the numbers of Large pots and a slightly less severe drop in frequency of Medium-Large pots. Medium pots appear to be replaced by

European kettles over time. Pots from the small class are the only ones that maintain their frequency over time according to the ethnohistoric record. To see if the phenomena predicted by the ethnohistoric data occur in the archaeological record, the Susquehannock sample will be examined.

146

Table 5-14. Occurrence of Susquehannock pottery vessel classes over time.

NUMBER OF VESSELS IN CLASS VOLUME SCHULTZ WASHINGTON STRICKLER ALL NAME IN LITERS SITE BORO SITE SITE SITES Extra-Small 0-0.5 32 62 71 165 Small 0.51-3 64 122 84 270 Medium 3.01-10 23 31 8 62 Medium-Large 11-32 25 8  33 Large 34-57 18 2 1 21 Extra-Large 62-200 25 4  29

As can be seen in Table 5-14, many of the predictions made based on the ethnohistoric data appear to hold true. Small pots are by far the most commonly occurring during all time periods. This observation further supports the conclusion that

Small pots were used by the Susquehannock as individual cooking pots; they occur more frequently because everyone had one.

Of special interest are the changes that take place in frequency of occurrence of different sized vessels. By looking at a chart showing the percentage of each phase’s sample is made up of the different functional classes, a better perspective is achieved on what changes in frequency may have occurred over time (Table 5-15). One of the most noticeable differences is between the frequency with which vessels in different classes occur during the earlier phases (Schultz and Washington Boro, AD 1575-1625) and the later phase (Strickler, AD 1645-1665). While Medium-Large through Extra-Large vessels diminish over time from Schultz to Washington Boro, they are completely gone at

Strickler (with the exception of one pot which is a Washington Boro type). Another significant change occurs within the Medium category. Medium pots are equally common during the earlier phases, but are almost non-existent during the later phase.

147 Table 5-15. Vessel class frequency within assemblage by phase.

PERCENT OF VESSELS IN CLASS VOLUME SCHULTZ WASHINGTON STRICKLER NAME IN LITERS SITE BORO SITE SITE Extra-Small 0-0.5 17% 27% 43% Small 0.51-3 34% 53% 51% Medium 3.01-10 12% 14% 5% Medium-Large 11-32 13% 3%  Large 34-57 10% 1% 1% Extra-Large 62-200 13% 2% 

These changes in vessel frequency over time are most likely the result of more than one cause. In the case of Medium pots, the family cooking pot, it appears that they were replaced by European brass kettles. Five brass kettles have been found at Schultz and Washington Boro; 410 pottery vessels have been recovered from the same sites (Kent

1993:292). Strickler, on the other hand, has produced almost equal numbers of pots and kettles, 169 and 145 respectively (Kent 1993:292). A sample of thirty-seven of the kettles from Strickler show that the average kettle size is 4.57 liters in volume and the kettles range from about 2.2 to 7.8 liters in size (Hampton 1977). The majority of those

37 kettles, 76%, range from 3.1 to 7.8 liters. Kent (1993:204) states that, though brass kettles from Strickler range from about 0.89 to 35.15 liters in size, the greatest number of kettles are about 5.21 liters in size. All the information on the sizes of brass kettles show that the vast majority of them fit neatly into the Medium vessel class range of volumes

(3.01-10 liters). Coupled with the ethnohistorical record, which shows an increasing number of references to kettles over time, it appears that the brass kettle replaced the

Medium clay vessel as the family cooking pot.

148 A change over time in the ratio of Extra-Small to Small pots may also be the result of the introduction of European kettles. At Schultz and Washington Boro, the ratio of Extra-Small to Small pots is about one to two. At Strickler, this ratio is about one to one. This change most probably does not occur because a larger number of Extra-Small pots are being produced at Strickler, but because pots at the larger end of the Small class, which ranges from .51 to 3.0 liters, are being replaced by European kettles that tend to range from 2.2 to 7.8 liters (Hampton 1977).

While the increasing presence of brass kettles explains the decrease in Medium and some Small vessels over time, it does not explain the disappearance of larger vessels.

It is possible the Medium-Large pottery class was also replaced slowly by brass kettles since some of them fall into this size range (11-32 liters). No mention, however, is made anywhere of finding a brass kettle large enough to replace a Large or Extra-Large pot.

The disappearance over time in these larger vessels is most likely a result of social changes which affected the procurement of resources. Specifically, the social landscape, though it was never static, was undergoing great changes as a result of the arrival of the

Europeans. These changes affected, amongst other things, the hunting of larger animals because large-game hunting required individuals to leave their village for extended periods of time and to travel, sometimes great, distances (Webster 1983). Table 5-16 presents examples of major events that were taking place during the occupations of

Schultz, Washington Boro, and Strickler which were affecting the social world of the

Susquehannock. Increases in hostility between the Susquehannock and their European and Indian neighbors alone was enough to limit the ability of men to go out on long treks

149 for extended periods of time to hunt large animals (Webster 1983). As the ethnohistoric record points out, Extra-Large and Large pots were used to boil feast foods and large quantities of meats, usually the meats of large animals like deer and bear. Indeed, most historic references state that the acquisition of a large animal (e.g. bear) or several smaller animals (e.g. beaver) was required to have a feast; therefore, it is possible that all the feasts involving extremely large pottery vessels were held to share large quantities of meat with everyone after a successful hunt. If the movements of large-game hunters were restricted because of the social environment (Webster 1983), then the need for

Large and Extra-Large pots to cook large game animals in would not exist and people would cease to make such vessels.

One final factor which may have had a significant affect on vessel size over time was disease. The Susquehannock suffered from multiple epidemics during their occupations of both Washington Boro and Strickler. Though these epidemics did not cause a drastic reduction in the Susquehannock’s population numbers before AD 1665 (as discussed in Chapter Two, Susquehannock population steadily increased over time from

1575-1665), they had a disruptive effect on social organization, particularly at the family level. The large number of deaths resulting from epidemics (e.g. those listed in Table 5-

16) led to fragmented families, smaller longhouses, and ad hoc family units.

Archaeological evidence clearly shows that Susquehannock longhouses change from being as much as ninety-five feet long at the Schultz site to only about 60 feet long at

Strickler (Kent 1993:324, 363). These smaller longhouses are evidence of smaller nuclear and/or extended family units. This probably had a direct effect on the ceramic

150 assemblage; smaller families cook smaller amounts of food and, therefore, use smaller pots. The reduction over time in family size could explain much of the disappearance of vessels in the Medium-Large and Large vessel classes. In short, a combination of increased warfare and disease appear to have eliminated the need for production of

Medium-Large to Extra-Large ceramic vessels.

151 Table 5-16. Timeline of events that affected Susquehannock society.

Schultz 1584 Settlement of Roanoke colony attempted (Kent 1993) 1575-1600 1608 Sixty Susquehannock warriors go down river to meet Captain John Smith (Smith 1907a) Washington 1607 Virginia Company colonists begin settling Jamestown (Grumet 1995) Boro 1620 Plymouth colony established (Kent 1993) 1600-1625 1626 Susquehannocks go to Manhattan to attempt to open trade relations with the Dutch (Kent 1993) 1626 Susquehannocks begin carrying out raids against the Lenape (Jennings 1978) 1630-1640 Numerous measles and smallpox epidemics (Jennings 1978) 1631 William Claiborne establishes a trading post at the mouth of the Susquehanna to enter a fur trade with the Susquehannocks (Kent 1993) 1633-1634 Smallpox epidemic spreads through several northern Iroquoian villages (Snow and Starna 1989) 1634 Maryland colony established (Kent 1993) 1637-1639 Smallpox epidemic spreads from Susquehannock to Mohawk and Huron (Snow and Starna 1989) 1638 Swedes erect Fort Christina and Susquehannocks open trade relations with them (Kent 1993) 1642 Susquehannocks begin struggling with the Maryland colony and their Piscataway allies for control of the Chesapeake Bay (Grumet 1995) 1642 Maryland declares war against the Susquehannocks (Kent 1993) 1643 Maryland launches two attacks on the Susquehannock (Jennings 1978) 1645 Susquehannocks defeat the Lenape; Lenape become tributary to the Susquehannocks (Kent 1993) Strickler 1642-1652 Susquehannocks continue to wage war against Marylanders and Piscataways 1645-1665 (Grumet 1995) 1649 Seneca decimate the Huron, allies of the Susquehannock (Kent 1993) 1651 Mohawks unsuccessfully attack Susquehannocks (Kent 1993) 1651-1652 Mohawks, aided by the Dutch, and Susquehannocks, aided by the Swedes, carry out numerous raids against each other (Boza 1997) 1652 Susquehannocks sign first peace treaty with Maryland and give up some of their lands in the deal (Kent 1993) 1654 Seneca decimate the Black Minqua, Susquehannock allies (Kent 1993) 1661 Susquehannocks sign new peace treaty with Maryland and agree to defend colonists against the Seneca (Kent 1993) 1661-1664 Hundreds of Susquehannocks die as smallpox epidemics repeatedly hit Strickler (Grumet 1995) 1662 Smallpox epidemic spreads throughout Iroquoia (Snow and Starna 1989) 1663 Senecas unsuccessfully launch a major attack on the Susquehannocks (Kent 1993) 1663 Senecas, Cayugas, and Onondagas wage numerous battles against the Susquehannocks (Boza 1997) 1664 England conquers New Netherland (Kent 1993) 1666 Susquehannocks renew peace treaty with Maryland (Jennings 1978)

152 CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A survey of the archaeological literature shows that most scholars support the idea that there is a definite correlation between form, size and function in ceramics made to be used to accomplish certain tasks. Work on pottery in the southeastern United States shows that native peoples made ceramic vessels in different forms and sizes according to the ways in which they intended to use the pots. This is not the case in the Northeast; during any given time period, one stylistic type of pottery dominates the Susquehannock assemblage and there is no morphological variation in form within that type.

The ethnohistoric record describes the foods eaten by the Susquehannock and other Northeastern Indians as well as how these foods were prepared. As in the

Southeast, corn, beans, and squash were the three most important foodstuffs, supplemented by a variety of meats and other plant foods taken from the land. The staple food at all times of the year throughout the Northeast and Southeast was corn soup— extra ingredients could be added for flavor, but corn soups were the daily fare. The

Indians of the Northeast ate the same foods as their southern neighbors and prepared them in basically the same ways, but the morphological variation seen in the Southeast is not seen in the Northeast collections. This is because the various functional types of ceramics made by the Susquehannock were all (with the exception of some Extra-Small vessels) used for cooking. The ethnohistoric record shows that pottery vessels were not used to accomplish any of the following tasks.

153 • to store foods, both plant and animal, • to store oil above or below ground above or below ground • for carrying corn, beans, or parched • to hold uncooked or serve cooked foods corn when traveling • for individual eating • to store seasonings and/or medicines • for winnowing • to mash corn or crush nuts • to knead dough to make bread • to bake breads

The various pottery forms observed in the Southeast by Hally (1986) were made to satisfy non-cooking tasks.

The ethnoarchaeological record indicates that functional variation in pottery is often seen cross-culturally as variation in the sizes of vessels made, not necessarily in form and size. Such is the case with the Susquehannock where pots of a single stylistic type (one stylistic type dominates the ceramic assemblage during each period) all look alike in form but vary greatly in size. For example, Schultz Incised pots in the sample range from 0.01 to 200 liters in volume.

Three distinct forms of data, archaeological, ethnohistorical, and ethnoarchaeological, have been examined here with the purpose of determining the functional typology of ceramic vessels used by the Susquehannock. Together, these three data sets clearly indicate that there are, at most, six functional vessel classes to be found in the Susquehannock pottery collection. The ways in which vessels of each class were used as well as the names that have been assigned to them are as follows.

(XTRA-SMALL (0-0.5 LITERS): These vessels are seen in the ethnoarchaeological

record used as toys and in ritual contexts. Archaeological evidence indicates that pots

in this class were also used to make paints in and to prepare small amounts of food

and/or medicines over a fire.

154

6MALL (0.51-3.0 LITERS): The ethnoarchaeological record states that these pots are

used to cook foods for one to two people. The ethnohistoric record agrees but

provides more detail; these pots were used by individuals to prepare personal meals.

Pots from the larger end of this class were also used to cook foods, such as beans,

before adding them to a larger pot of corn soup. The archaeological data support the

conclusion that these pots were used for individual and small-scale cooking over a

fire.

0EDIUM (3.01-10 LITERS): All three forms of data agree on the function of Medium

pots—they are the family cooking pots used to prepare daily meals.

0EDIUM-LARGE (11-32 LITERS): Both the ethnoarchaeological and ethnohistoric

data show that these pots were used to cook foods for gatherings of people. The

ethnohistoric record also notes that Medium-Large pots were also used to heat water

for drinking and in daily cooking. Archaeological evidence clearly supports the idea

that these vessels were used for cooking foods over a fire.

/ARGE (34-57 LITERS): The archaeological data show that this class of pots was used

for cooking foods over fires. The ethnohistorical and ethnoarchaeological records

elaborate by stating that these pots were used to prepare foods for gatherings or

feasts, cooking larger quantities of meat, cooking large foods like corn-on-the-cob,

reducing fish to oil by boiling, and even boiling human war captives.

(XTRA-LARGE (62-200 LITERS): That these pots form a single, coherent functional

class is supported by all three forms of data which show that Extra-Large pots were

155 used to cook foods for feasts where large numbers of people will be eating by boiling

foods over a fire.

The archaeological data was also used to evaluate hypotheses concerning the frequency with which each vessel class was expected to occur over time. These hypotheses, based on the ethnohistoric record were (1) Extra-Large vessels should occur most infrequently when present and disappear from the vessel assemblage faster than any other type over time; (2) Large pots also decrease in frequency over time, though not as vast as Extra-Large ones; (3) Medium-Large pots also fall into disuse over time; (4)

Medium pots maintain their frequency longer, though they begin to drop in numbers at later sites; and (5) Small (including Extra-Small) pots maintain their frequency over time more so than any other vessel class. The archaeological data supports these hypotheses and indicates that both the introduction of European brass kettles and changes in the social landscape resulting from warfare and disease affected the frequencies with which different functional classes occurred during any given phase.

In the future, the validity of the functional vessel classes of Susquehannock ceramics should be further tested. This can be done through the examination of use alteration data such as the presence and patterning of soot and the presence of food residues. Work of this nature was begun by James Hatch in the Fall of 1999, and should be completed. In addition, it is not known if the lack of morphological variation seen in the Susquehannock assemblage is found elsewhere. Though no appreciable shape differences are seen in Susquehannock pottery, an examination of the functional

156 typologies of other Northeastern peoples, both Iroquoian and non-Iroquoian, would help determine whether this phenomenon is unique to the Susquehannock.

157 REFERENCES

An asterisk (*) next to the author’s name, or next to the publication date in the case of multiple publications by the same author, indicates that the reference was examined as a potential source of ethnohistoric data but no relevant information was found.

*Aberg, Alf 1988 The People of New Sweden, Our Colony on the Deleware River, 1638-1655. Translated by R. Tanner. Natur och Kultur, Stockholm.

*Acrelius, Israel 1874 A History of New Sweden, or, The Settlements on the River Deleware. Translated by W.M. Reynolds. Arno Press, New York, 1972.

Alsop, George 1666 A Character of the Province of Mary-Land. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1902.

Arnold, Dean E. 1984 Social Interaction and Ceramic Design: Community-Wide Correlates in Quinua, Peru. In Pots and Potters, edited by P.M. Rice. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Arnold, Philip J. 1991 Ceramic Production and Spatial Organization: A Mexican Case Study in Ethnoarchaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Baerreis, Davis A. 1961 The Ethnohistoric Approach and Archaeology. Ethnohistory 8(1):49-77.

Baker, Joe 1998 Archaeological Investigations for the Proposed Washington Boro Sanitary Sewer System. Commonwealth Archaeology Program, Report No.1. P.H.M.C./B.H.P., Harrisburg.

*Bayard, Ferdinand Marie 1950 Travels of a Frenchman in Maryland and Virginia, with a Description of Philadelphia and Baltimore, in 1791, or, Travels in the Interior of the United States, to Bath, Winchester, in the Valley of the Shenandoah, etc., etc., During the Summer of 1791. Translated by B.C. McCary. Edwards Brothers, Ann Arbor.

*Beatty, Charles 1692 Journals of Charles Beatty 1762-1769. Edited by G.S. Klett. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park.

*Beauchamp, William M. 1904 A History of the New York Iroquois, Now Commonly Called the Six Nations. I. J. Friedman, Port Washington, 1968.

Beaudry, Mary C. 1988a Documentary Archaeology in the New World, edited by M. C. Beaudry. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

158 1988b Introduction. In Documentary Archaeology in the New World, edited by M. C. Beaudry, pp.1-3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Beaudry, Mary C., and Janet Long, Henry M. Miller, Fraser D. Neiman, Garry W. Stone 1988 A Vessel Typology for Early Chesapeake Ceramics: The Potomac Typological System. In Documentary Archaeology in the New World, edited by M. C. Beaudry, pp.51-67. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bedaux, Rogier and Diderik van der Waals 1987 Aspects of Life-Span of Dogon Pottery. In A Knapsack Full of Pottery: Archaeo-Ceramological Miscellanea, edited by A. van As. Department of Pottery Technology Newsletter vol. 5, Leiden.

*Belknap, Jeremy. and Jedidiah Morse 1955 Report on the Oneida, Stockbridge, and Brotherton Indians, 1796. Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York.

Beverley, Robert 1705 The History and Present State of Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1947.

Biard, Pierre 1612 Letter from Father Pierre Biard to the Reverend Father Provincial, at Paris. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 2, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

1616 Relation de la Nouvelle France. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 3, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

*Biggar, Henry P. 1901 The Early Trading Companies of New France, A Contribution to the History of Commerce and Discovery in North America. University of Toronto Library, Toronto.

*Bloomfield, Julia K. 1907 The Oneidas. Alden Brohters, New York.

Bogaert, Harmer Meyndertsz van den 1988 A Journey Into Mowhawk and Oneida Country, 1634-1635, the Journal of Harmen Meyndertsz van den Bogaert. Translated by C.T. Gehring and W.A. Starna. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse.

Bownas, Samuel 1724 An Account of the Captivity of Elizabeth Hanson, Now or Late from Kachecky, in New England: Who, with Four of her Children and Servant-Maid, Was Taken Captive by the Indians, and Carried into Canada. Setting Forth the Various Remarkable Occurrences, Sore Trials and Wonderful Deliverances which Befel Them after Their Departure, to the Time of Their Redemption. Taken in Substance from Her Own Mouth, by Samuel Bownas. In Held Captive by Indians: Selected Narratives, 1642-1836, edited by R. VanDerBeets. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, 1973.

Boza, Ana Maria Arlotti 1997 Evolution of the Social Organization of the Susquehannock Society During the Contact Period in South Central Pennsylvania. Unpublished dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

159 Bradford, William 1963 Of Plymouth Plantation 1620-1647. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Braun, David P. 1983 Pots as Tools. In, Archaeological Hammers and Theories. Edited by J. A. Moore and A. S. Keene, pp. 107-134. Academic Press, New York.

1987 Coevolution of Sedentism, Pottery Technology, and Horticulture in the Central Midwest, 200 BC-AD600. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by W.F. Keegan. pp. 155-184. Occasional Paper No. 7. Southern Illinois University, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Carbondale.

Bray, Alicia 1982 Mimbres Black-on-White, Melamine or Wedgewood? A Ceramic Use-wear Analysis. The Kiva 47(3):133-149.

Brebeuf, Jean de 1635 Relation of What Occurred Among the Hurons in the Year 1635. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, a Selection, edited by S. R. Mealing. Macmillan of Canada Limited, Toronto, 1978.

Brereton, John 1602 A Brief and True Relation of the Discouerie of the North Part of Virginia. Dodd, Mead & Company, New York, 1903.

Brebreuf, Jean de 1636 Relation of what occurred in the Country of the Hurons in the year 1636. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 10, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

Brown, James A. 1986 Early Ceramics and Culture: A Review of Interpretations. In Early Woodland Archaeology, edited by K.B. Farnsworth and T.E. Emerson. Center for American Archaeology Press, Kampsville.

*Brownell, Charles De Wolf 1854 The Indian Races of North and South America, Comprising an Account of the Principal Aboriginal Races: a Description of Their National Customs, Mythology, and Religious Ceremonies: the History of Their Most Powerful Tribes, and of Their Most Celebrated Chiefs and Warriors: Their Intercourse and Wars with the European Settlers: and a Great Variety of Anecdote and Description, Illustrative of Personal and National Character. H.E. & S.S. Scranton, New York.

*Brunner, D. B. 1881 The Indians of Berks County, Pa, Bbeing a Summary of all the Tangible Records of the Aborigines of Berks County, and Containing Cuts and Descriptions of the Varieties of Relics Found within the County. The Spirit of Berks book and job printing office, Reading, Pennsylvania.

Bruyas, Jacques 1668 Letter from Father Jacques Bruyas. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 51, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

160 *Budd, Thomas 1685 Good Order Established in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland.

*Burnaby, Andrew 1775 Travels Through the Middle Settlements in North America in the Years 1759 and 1760, With observations upon the state of the colonies. Printed for T. Payne, London.

Cadzow, Donald 1932 Archaeological field work in North America during 1931: Pennsylvania. American Anthropologist 34:501.

1933 Letter published in Artifacts and Arguments. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 3(5):16-17.

1936 Archaeological Studies of the Susquehannock Indians of Pennsylvania. Safe Harbor Report no. 2, Pennsylvania Historical Commission, Harrisburg.

1937 A Letter From Our President. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 7(2):19.

Campbell, T. N. 1959 Choctaw Subsistence: Ethnographic Notes from the Lincecum Manuscript. Florida Anthropologist 12:9-24.

Cartier, Jacques 1534 Jacques Cartier’s First Account of the New Land, Called New France, Discovered in the Year 1534. In The Voyages of Jacques Cartier, edited by R. Cook, pp. 3-34. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1993.

1536 The Second Voyage Undertaken by the Command and Wish of the Most Christain King of France, Francis the First of that Name, For the Completion of the Discovery of the Western Lands, Lying Under the Same Climate and Parallels as the Territories and Kingdom of that Prince, and By His Orders Carried Out by Jacques Cartier, Native of St. Malo on the Island, in Brittany, Pilot of Aforesaid Prince, in the Year 1536. In, The Voyages of Jacques Cartier, edited by R. Cook, pp. 35-95. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1993.

Casselberry, Samuel E. 1971 The Schultz-Funck Site (36La7): Its Role in the Culture History of the Susquehannock and Shenk’s Ferry Indians. Unpublished dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

Champlain, Samuel de 1907 Voyages of Samuel de Champlain 1604-1618. Edited by W.L. Grant. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York.

Chaumonot, Joseph Marie 1640a Letter from Father Joseph Marie Chaumonot to the Very Reverend Father Mutio Vitelleschi, Beneral of the Society of Jesus, of Rome. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 18, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

1640b Letter of Joseph Marie Chaumonot to the Reverend Father Philippe Nappi, Superior of the Professed House at Rome. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 18, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

161 Charlet, Estienne 1647 Relation of what occurred most noteworthy in the Missions of the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, in New France, in the years 1645 and 1646. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 29-30, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

*Clare, Israel Smith 1892 A Brief History of Lancaster County, with Special Reference to the Growth and Development of Iits Institutions. Argus Publishing Co., Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

*Clark, John S. 1931 Selected Manuscripts of General John S. Clark Relating to the Aboriginal History of the Susquehanna, edited by L.W. Murray. Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology, Publications vol. 1, Athens, Pennsylvania.

*Colden, Cadwallader 1747 The History of the Five Indian Nations of Canada which are Dependent on the Province of New York, and Are a Barrier Between the English and the French in that Part of the World. New Amsterdam Book Co., New York, 1902.

Cornelius, Carol 1999 Iroquois Corn in a Culture Based Curriculum: A Framework for Respectfully Teaching about Cultures. State University of New York Press, Albany.

D’Ablon, Claude 1672 Relation of what occurred most remarkable in the missions of the Fathers of the Society of Jesus in New France in the years 1670 and 1671. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 55, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

Danckaerts, Jasper 1913 Journal of Jasper Danckaerts, 1679-1680, edited by B. B. James and J. F. Jameson. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York.

David, Nicholas and Hilke Hennig 1972 The Ethnography of Pottery: A Fulani Case Seen in Archaeological Perspective. Addison Wesley Modular Publications No. 21. Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass.

Deal, Michael 1998 Pottery Ethnoarchaeology in the Central Maya Highlands. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

DeBoer, Warren R. and Donald W. Lathrap 1979 The Making and Breaking of Shipibo-Conibo Ceramics. In Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology, edited by C. Kramer, pp. 102-138. Columbia University Press, New York.

Deetz, James 1965 The Dynamics of Change in Arikara Ceramics. The University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Delavan, Wayne 1939 Are We Pot Hunters? Pennsylvania Archaeologist 9(4):69-70.

162 Denton, Daniel 1670 A Brief Description of New-York: Formerly Called New-Netherlands. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1902.

*Drake, Samuel 1880 The Aboriginal Races of North America, Comprising Biographical Sketches of Eminent Iindividuals, and an Historical Account of the Different Tribes, from the First Discovery of the Continent to the Present Period; with a Dissertation on Their Origin, Antiquities, Manners and Customs, Illustrative Narratives and Anecdotes, and a Copious Analytical Index. Hurst & company, New York.

Eastburn, Robert 1756 A Faithful Narrative, of the Many Dangers and Sufferings, as Well as Wonderful Deliverances of Robert Eastburn, During His Late Captivity Among the Indians: Together with Some Remarks Upon the Country of Canada, and the Religion and Policy of Its Inhabitants; the Whole Mixed with Devout Reflections. In Held Captive by Indians: Selected Narratives, 1642-1836, edited by R. VanDerBeets. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, 1973.

*Ellis, Franklin and Samuel Evans 1883 History of Lancaster county, Pennsylvania, with Biographical Sketches of Many of Its Pioneers and Prominent Men. Everts & Peck, Philadelphia.

*Eshleman, H. Frank 1908 Lancaster County Indians, Annals of the Susquehannocks and Other Indian Tribes of the Susquehanna Territory from about the Year 1500 to 1763, the Date of Their Extinction: An Exhaustive and Interesting Series of Historical Papers Descriptive of Lancaster County’s Indians Prior to and During the Advent of the Paleface. Express Print Co., Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

Fenstermaker, Gerald B. 1930 The Fenstermaker Collection. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 2(1):16-18.

1937 The Fenstermaker Number. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 6(4):65-88.

*Fontaine, John 1972 The Journal of John Fontaine, an Irish Huguenot Son in Spain and Virginia, 1710-1719. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Fontana, Bernard L. and William J. Robinson, Charles W. Cormack, Ernest E. Leavitt 1962 Papago Indian Pottery. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Futer, Arthur 1959 The Strickler Site. In Susquehannock Miscellany, edited by J. Witthoft and W. F. Kinsey. Pennyslvania Historical and Musuem Commission, Harrisburg.

Grassman, Thomas 1969 The Mowhawk Indians and Their Valley, Being a Chronological Documentary Record to the End of 1693. Eric Hugo Photography and Printing Co., Schenectady, New York.

Graves, Michael W. 1991 Pottery Production and Distribution among the Kalinga: A Study of Household and Regional Organization and differentiation. In Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, edited by W.A. Longacre. The University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.

163 Griffin, James B. 1936 Ceramic Repository of the Eastern United States: Report on Sherds from Sites near Safe Harbor, Pa. In, Archaeological Studies of the Susquehannock Indians of Pennsylvania. Safe Harbor Report no. 2, by D. A. Cadzow. Pennsylvania Historical Commission, Harrisburg.

Grumet, Robert S. 1995 Historic Contact: Indian People and Colonists in Today’s Northeastern United States in the Sixteenth through Eighteenth Centuries. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Gyles, John 1689 Memoirs of Odd Adventures, Strange Deliverances, Etc., in the Captivity of John Gyles, Esq., Commander of the Garrison on St. George River, in the District of Maine. Written by Himself. In, Held Captive by Indians: Selected Narratives, 1642-1836, edited by R. VanDerBeets. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, 1973.

Hakluyt, Richard 1600 The first voyage made to the coasts of America, with two barks, where in Captaines M. Philip Amadas and M. Arthur Barlow, who discovered part of the Countrey now called Virginia, Anno 1584. Written by one of the said Captaines, and sent to sir Walter Raleigh knight, at whose charge and direction, the said voyage was set forth. In The principal Navigators Voyages Traffiques & Discoveries of the English Nation, edited by Irwin Blacker. The Viking Press, New York, 1965.

Hall, Clayton Colman, ed. 1959 Narratives of Early Maryland 1633-1684. Barnes & Noble Inc., New York.

Hallowell, A. Irving 1930 Introduction. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 1(1):1.

Hally, David J. 1983a The Interpretive Potential of Pottery from Domestic Contexts. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 8(2):163-196.

1983b Use Alteration of Pottery Vessel Surfaces: An Important source of Evidence for the Identification of Vessel Function. North American Archaeologist 4:3-26.

1984 Vessel Assemblages and Food Habits: A Comparison of Two Aboriginal Southeastern Vessel Assemblages. Southeastern Archaeology 3(1):46-64.

1986 The Identification of Vessel Function: A Case Study from Northwest Georgia. American Antiquity 51(2): 267-295.

Hampton, Roberta 1977 An Analysis of Brass Kettles from the Futer Collection. Unpublished manuscript.

Hardin, Margaret A. 1991 Sources of Ceramic Variability at Zuñi Pueblo. In Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, edited by W.A. Longacre. The University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.

Harrington, M. R. 1938 The Indians of New Jersey, Dickson Among the Lenapes. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, 1963.

164 Harriot, Thomas 1590 A Briefe and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1972.

Heckewelder, Rev. John 1819 An Acount of the History, Manners, and Customs of the Indian Nations who once Inhabited Pennsylvania and the Neighboring States. Fascimile Reprint, Heritage Books, Inc., Bowie, Maryland, 1990.

Heidenreich, Conrad 1971 Hurionia: A History and Geography of the Huron Indians 1600-1650. McClelland and Stewart Limited, Toronto.

Heisey, Henry W. and J. Paul Witmer 1962 Of Historic Susquehannock Cemeteries. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 32(3-4):99-130.

*Heriot, George 1807 Travels through the Canadas containing a description of the picturesque scenery on some of the rivers and lakes, with an account of the productions, commerce, and inhabitants of those provinces. To which is subjoined a comparative viewof the manners and customs of several of the Indian Nations of North and South America. R. Phillips, London.

Heye, George G. 1935 Field Work in North America during 1934: Pennsylvania. American Antiquity 1(2):130.

Hill, James N. 1970 Broken K Pueblo. The University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.

Hill, Ronald B. 1937 How to Number Specimens. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 7(2):58.

Hodder, Ian 1979 Pottery Distributions: Service and Tribal Areas. In Pottery and the Archaeologist, edited by M. Millett, pp. 7-23. Institute of Archaeology, London.

Hodge, F. W. 1937 The Archaeological Pot Hunter. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 7(2):54.

Holm, Thomas Companius 1702 Description of the Province of New Sweden. Now Called, By the English, Pennsylvania, in America. Translated by P. S. Du Ponceau. Kraus Reprint Co., Millwood, New York, 1975.

Howard, Hilary 1981 In the Wake of Distribution: Towards an Integrated Approach to Ceramic Studies in Prehistoric Britain. In Production and Distribution: A Ceramic Viewpoint, edited by H. Howard and E. L. Morris, pp.1-30. BAR (British Archaeological Reports), Oxford.

Hudson, Charles M. 1976 The Southeastern Indians. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

*Hunter, John Dunn 1823 Memoirs of a Captivity Among the Indians of North America. Schocken Books, New York, 1973.

165 Jameson, J. Franklin, ed. 1959 Narratives of New Netherland 1609-1664. Barnes & Noble, Inc., New York.

Jennings, Francis 1978 Susquehannock. In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 362-367. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Jogues, Isaac 1655 Captivity of Father Isaac Jogues, of the Society of Jesus, Among the Mowhawks. In Held Captive by Indians: Selected Narratives, 1642-1836, edited by R. VanDerBeets. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, 1973.

*Jones, Uriah J. 1889 History of the Early Settlement of the Juniata Valley, Embracing an Account of the Early Pioneers, and the Trials and Privations Incident to the Settlement of the Valley, Predatory Incursions, Massacres, and Abductions by the Indians During the French and Indian wars, and the War of the Revolution, &c. Telegraph Press, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1940.

Jouvency, Joseph 1710 Concerning the country and manners of the Canadians, or the Savages of New France. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 1, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

Kent, Bary C. 1993 Susquehanna’s Indians. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

*Kent, Donald H. 1974 Historical Report on the Niagra River and the Niagra River Strip to 1759. Garland, New York.

Kenton, Edna, editor 1954 The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of Jesuit Missionaries in North America (1610-1791). Vanguard Press, New York.

Kinsey, W. Fred 1959 Historic Susquehanock Pottery. In Susquehannock Miscellany, edited by J. Witthoft and W. F. Kinsey, pp. 61-98. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

1960 Additional notes on the Albert Ibaugh site. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 30(3-4):81-105.

1977 Lower Susquehanna Valley Prehistoric Indians. Dr. W. Fred Kinsey, Ephrata, Pennsylvania.

*Klein, Philip S. and Ari Hoogenboom 1973 A History of Pennsylvania. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Lalemant, Hieroseime 1640 Relation of the occupation of the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, who are in the Huron land, a country of New France. From the month of June, 1638, to the month of June 1639. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 17, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

1664 Relation of what occurred most remarkable in the missions of the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, in New France, in the years 1662 and 1663. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 48, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

166

1665 Relation of what occurred most remarkable in the missions of the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, in New France, in the years 1663 and 1665. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 49, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

Lallemant, Charles 1626 Letter from Father Charles L’Allemant Superior of the Mission of Canadas, of the Society of Jesus. To Father Jerome L’Allemant, his brother. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 4, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

Landis, H. K. 1933 Preserving Collections. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 3(4):11-12.

1934 Some Indian Relic Collections in Lancaster County. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 4(1):19-20.

1934 Some Indian Relic Collections in Lancaster County: Directory of Collectors. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 4(2):16.

1936 Prominent Collections: The Dr. Stewart Collection at Lock Haven, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 6(2):38-39.

1938 Permanent Museums for Study of Prehistoric Places. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 8(4):79-80.

Lankes, Frank J. 1964 The Senecas on Buffalo Creek Reservation. West Seneca Historical Society, West Seneca, New York.

*1966 Reservation Suppliment: A Collection of Memorabilia Related to Buffalo Creek Reservation. West Seneca Historical Society, West Seneca, New York.

Le Jeune, Paul 1634a Relation of what occurred in New France in the year 1633. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 5, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

1634b Relation of what occurred in New France on the Great River St. Lawrence, in the year one thousand six hundred thirty-four. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 6-7, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

1637 Relation of what occurred in New France in the year 1637. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 11, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

1639 Relation of what occurred in New France in the year 1638. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 16, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

*Lederer, John 1672 The Discoveries of John Lederer, In three several Marches from Virginia, to the West of Carolina, and other parts of the Continent: Begun in March 1669, and ended in September 1670. Together with a General Map of the whole Territory which he traversed. Translated by Sir William Talbot. Printed by F. C. for Samuel Heyrick, at Grays-Inne-gate in Holborn, London.

167 Leslie, Vernon E. 1938 Archaeology and the Small Collection: Cataloguing an Imperitive Duty. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 8(4):90-91.

Lindestrom, Peter 1925 Geographia Americae with an Account of the Deleware Indians, Based on Surveys and Notes Made in 1654-1656. The Swedish Colonial Society, Philadelphia.

Little, Barbara J., editor 1992 Text-Aided Archaeology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Longacre, William A. 1970 Archaeology as Anthropology. The University of Arizona Press, Tuscon

1981 Kalinga Pottery: An Ethnoarchaeological Study. In Pattern of the Past, edited by I. Hodder, G. Isaac, and N. Hammond, pp. 49-66. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

1991 Sources of Ceramic Variability Among the Kalinga of Northern Luzon. In Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, edited by W. A. Longacre. The University of Arizona Press, Tuscon, pp. 95- 111.

Lurie, Nancy O. 1961 Ethnohistory: An Ethnological Point of View. Ethnohistory 8(1):78-92.

*MaClay, Samuel 1887 Journal of Samuel Maclay while Surveying the West Branch of the Susquehanna, the Sinnemahoning, and the Allegheny Rivers, in 1790. John F. Meginness, Williamsport, Pennsylvania.

*MacMinn, Edwin 1900 On the frontier with Colonel Antes, or, The Struggle for Supremacy of the Red and White Races in Pennsylvania. Chew & sons, printers, Camden, New Jersey.

*Marsh, Edward 1844 Some Account of the Conduct of the Religious Society of Friends Towards the Indian Tribes in the Settlement of the Colonies of East and West Jersey and Pennsylvania, with a Brief Narrative of Their Labours for the Civilization and Christain Instruction of the Indians, from the Time of Their Settlement in America, to the Year 1843. Aborigines’ commitee of the Meeting for sufferings, London.

Matson, Frederick, editor 1965 Ceramics and Man. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.

*McCary, Ben C. 1957 Indians in Seventeenth-Century Virginia. Virginia 350th Anniversary Celebration Corporation, Williamsburg.

Mealing, S. R., ed. 1978 The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, a Selection. Macmillan of Canada, Toronto.

168 Megapolensis, Johannes 1644 A Short Account of the Mowhawk Indians, By Reverend Johannes Megapolensis, Jr., 1644. In Narratives of New Netherland, 1609-1664, edited by J.F. Jameson, pp. 168-180. Barnes & Noble, New York, 1959.

*Meginness, J. F. 1889 Otzinachson: A History of the West Branch Valley of the Susquehanna: Its First Settlement, Privations Endured by the Early Pioneers, Indian Wars, Predatory Incursions Abductions and Massacres Together with an Account of the Fair Play System; and the Trying Scenes of the Big Runaway...Biographical Sketches of the Leading Settlers. Gazette and bulletin printing house, Williamsport, Pennsylvania.

Mercier, Francois Joseph le 1637 Relation of what occurred in the mission of the Society of Jesus, in the land of the Hurons, in the year 1637. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 14, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

1655 Relation of what occurred in the mission of the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, in New France, in the years 1653 and 1654. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 41, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

1669 Relation of what occurred most remarkable in the missions of the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, in New France, in the years 1667 and 1668. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 51, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

1671 Relation of what occurred most remarkable in the missions of the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, in New France, in the years 1669 and 1670. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 54, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

Merril, Arch 1949 Land of the Senecas. Stratford Press, Inc., New York.

*Milet, Father Pierre 1897 Captivity Among the Oneidas in 1690-1691. In The Garland library of narratives of North American Indian captivities, v. 96. Garland, New York, 1978.

Millett, M., editor 1979 Pottery and the Archaeologist. Institute of Archaeology, London.

Minard, John S. and Georgia Drew Merrill, editors 1896 Allegany County and Its People, a Centennial Memorial History of Allegany County, New York. W.A. Fergusson & Co., Alfred, New York.

Mook, Maurice The Aboriginal Population of Tidewater Virginia. American Anthropologist 46(2):193-208.

*Moorhead, Warren K. 1938 A Report on the Susquehanna River Expedition, sponsored in 1916 by the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, edited by A. C. Parker. Andover Press, Andover.

Morgan, Lewis H. 1851 League of the Ho-De-No-Sau-Nee or Iroquois. Dodd, Mead and Company, New York, 1922.

169 1881 Houses and House-Life of the American Aborigines. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1965.

Mosman, Beal M. and Marcia Selsor 1988 A Utilitarian Pottery Tradition and the Modern Spanish Kitchen. In A Pot for all Reasons: Ceramic Ecology Revisited, edited by C.C. Lolb and L. M. Lackey, pp. 213-237. Laboratory of Anthropology Temple University, Philadelphia.

Myers, Albert Cook (editor) 1912 Narratives of Early Pennsylvania, West New Jersey and Deleware, 1630-1707. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York.

Neff, Hector 1993 Theory, Sampling and Analytical Techniques in the Archaeological Study of Prehistoric Ceramics. American Antiquity 58(1):23-44.

Nelson, Ben A. 1980 Cultural Responses to Population Change: A Comparison of Two Prehistoric Occupations of the Mimbres Valley, New Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Ott, Lyman 1988 An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. PWS-Kent Publishing Company, Boston.

Parker, Arthur C. 1910 Iroquois Uses of Maize and Other Food Plants. In Parker on the Iroquois. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, 1968.

Peasley, William 1635 A Relation of Maryland, 1635. In Narratives of Early Maryland 1633-1684, edited by C. C. Hall. Barnes & Noble, Inc., New York, 1910.

Penn, William 1683 Letter From William Penn to the Committee of the Free Society of Traders, 1683. In Narratives of Early Pennsylvania, West New Jersey and Deleware, edited by A.C. Myers. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1912.

Peron, Francois du 1639 Letter of Father Francois du Peron of the Society of Jesus, to Father Joseph Imbert du Peron, his Brother, Religious of the same Society. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 15, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

Porter, Charles 1901 Personal Reminisces by Charles Porter. In League of the Ho-De-No-Sau-Nee or Iroquois, by L.H. Morgan. Dodd, Mead and Company, New York, 1922.

Quens, Jean de 1657 Relation of what occurred in the mission of the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, in the country of New France, in the years 1655 and 1656. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 42, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

170 Ragueneau, Paul 1648 Relation of what occurred in the Mission of the Fathers of the Society of Jesus in the Huron country, New France, in the years 1647 and 1648. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 33, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

1651 Relation of what occurred in the Mission of the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, among the Hurons, and in the lower countries of New France, from the Summer of the year 1649, to the Summer of the year 1650. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol. 35, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1899.

Rasieres, Isaak de 1628 Letter of Isaak de Rasieres to Samuel Blommaert, 1628(?). In Narratives of New Netherland, 1609-1664, edited by J.F. Jameson, pp. 102-115. Barnes & Noble, New York, 1959.

Rice, Prudence M., editor 1984 Pots and Potters: Current Approaches in Ceramic Archaeology. Institute of Archaeology Monograph 24. University of California, Los Angeles.

Ridings, Rosanna and C. Garth Sampson 1990 There’s No Percentage in it: Intersite Spatial Analysis of Bushman (San) Pottery Decorations. American Antiquity 55(4):766-780.

Roche, John Francis de la 1542 The Voyage of John Francis de la Roche, Knight, Lord of Roberval, to the Countries of Canada, Saguenai, and Hochelaga, with Three Tall Ships and Two Hundred Persons, Both Men, Women, and Children, Begun in April 1542. In The Voyages of Jacques Cartier, edited by R. Cook, pp. 107-113. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1993.

Rowlandson, Mary 1676 The Soveraignty and Goodness of God, Together with the Faithfulness of His Promises Displayed; Being a Narrative of the Captivity and Restauration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson. In Held Captive by Indians: Selected Narratives, 1642-1836, edited by R. VanDerBeets. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, 1973.

*Ruttenber, E. M. 1872 History of the Indian Tribes of Hudson’s River, Their Origin, Manners and Customs; Tribal and Sub-tribal Organizations; Wars, Treaties, Etc. J. Munsell, Albany, New York.

Rye, Owen S. and Clifford Evans 1976 Traditional Pottery Techniques of Pakistan: Field and Laboratory Studies. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, No. 21. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Sagard, Gabriel 1632 The Long Journey to the Country of the Hurons. Translated by H.H. Langton. The Champlain Society, Toronto, 1939.

*Schoolcraft, Henry R. 1851 The American Indians, Their History, Condition and Prospects, from Original Notes and Manuscripts, Together with an Appendix, Containing Thrilling Narratives, Daring Exploits, Etc., Etc. G.H. Derby, Buffalo, New York.

Seaver, James E. 1856 Life of Mary Jemison: Deh-He-Wa-Mis. Miller, Orton, & Mulligan, New York.

171 Sheehy, James J. 1992 Ceramic Production in Ancient Teotihuacan, Mexico: A Case Study of Tlajinga 33. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

Smith, Bruce D. 1992 Rivers of Change. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.

Smith, Ira F. 1970 Schultz Site Settlement Patterns and External Relations: A Preliminary Discussion and Possible Interpretation. New York State Archaeological Association, Bulletin No. 50, pp. 27-34.

Smith, Ira F. and Jeffrey C. Graybill 1977 A Report on the Shenks Ferry and Susquehannock components at the Funk Site, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Man in the Northeast 11:45-65.

Smith, John 1907a The Generall Historie of Virginia, New England & The Summer Isles Together with The True Travels, Adventures and Observations, and A Sea Grammar, Vol. 1. James MacLehose and Sons, Glasgow

1907b The Generall Historie of Virginia, New England & The Summer Isles Together with The True Travels, Adventures and Observations, and A Sea Grammar, Vol. 2. James MacLehose and Sons, Glasgow

Snow, Dean R. and William A. Starna 1989 Sixteenth-Century Depopulation: A View from the Mohawk Valley. American Anthropologist 91(1):142-149.

Speck, Frank G. 1909 Ethnology of the Yuchi Indians. Anthropological Publications, no. 1, part 1, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

*1922 Beothuk and Micmac. Indian Notes and Monogrpahs no. 22, Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York.

*1928 Chapters on the Ethnology of the Powhatan Tribes of Virginia. Indian Notes and Monographs, vol. 1, no. 5, Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York.

*1945 The Celestial Bear Comes Down to earth, the Bear Sacrifice Ceremony of the Munsee-Mahican in Canada as Related by Nekatcit. Reading Public Museum and Art Gallery, Reading, Pennsylvania.

1949 Midwinter Rites of the Cayuga Longhouse. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

*Speiss, Mathias 1933 The Indians of Connecticut. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Spriggs, M. and D. Miller 1979 Ambon-Lease: Ethnoarchaeology of Pottery Maufacture and Trade. In, Pottery and the Archaeologist, edited by M. Millett, pp. 25-34. Institute of Archaeology, London.

*Steiner, Bernard C., ed. 1972 Rev. Thomas Bray: His Life and Selected Works Relating to Maryland. Arno Press, New York.

172

*Stites, Sara Henry 1905 Economics of the Iroquois. Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr.

Stone, Garry Wheeler 1988 Artifacts are not Enough. In Documentary Archaeology in the New World, edited by M. C. Beaudry, pp. 68-77. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Strachey, William 1612 The Historie of Travell into Virginia Britania, edited by Louis B. Wright and Virginia Freund. Printed for the Hakluyt Society, London, 1953.

Strauss, Alisa 1993 Late Archaic Band Territoriality in Central Pennsylvania. Unpublished Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University.

*Sullivan, Maj.-Gen. John, 1930 Letters and Papers of Major-General John Sullivan, Continental Army. New Hampshire Historical Society, Concord, New Hampshire.

Swanton, John R. 1946 Indians of the Southeastern United States. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Tankersley, Ken and John Meinhard 1982 Physical and Structural Properties of Ceramic Materials Utilized by a Fort Ancient Group. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 7:225-243.

Thomas, Gabriel 1698 An Historical and Geographical Account of the Province and Country of Pensilvania; and of West-New-Jersey in America, The Richness of the Soil...The Strange Creatures...The Natives...the First Planters, the Dutch, Sweeds, and English, with the Number of Its Inhabitants; as also a Touch upon George Keith’s New Religion, in His Second Change since He Left the Quakers. With a Map of Both Countries. Lithographed for Henry Austin Brady, Esquire by Francis Michelin, New York, 1848.

Trigger, Bruce G. 1990 The Huron: Farmers of the North. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., Fort Worth.

*Trumbull, Benjamin 1797 A Complete History of Connecticut, Civil and Ecclesiastical, from the Emigration of Its First Planters from England in MDCXXX to MDCXIII. Hudson & Goodwin, Hartford.

VanDerBeets, Richard 1973 Held Captive By Indians, Selected Narratives 1642-1836. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Van Der Donck, Adriaen 1655 A Description of the New Netherlands. Translated by J. Johnson. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, 1968.

173 van der Leeuw, Sander E. 1991 Variation, Variability, and Explanation in Pottery Studies. In Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, edited by W. A. Longacre, pp. 11-39. The University of Arizona Press. van der Leeuw, Sander E. and Alison C. Pritchard, editors 1984 The Many Dimensions of Pottery: Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology. Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

Wait, Mary Van Sickle 1967 The Story of the Cayugas 1609-1809, Book III: Susquehanna. DeWitt Historical Society of Tompkins County, Inc., Ithica, New York.

*Wait, Mary Van Sickle and Wm. Heidt, Jr. 1966 The Story of the Cayugas 1609-1809, Book I: Iroquoia. DeWitt Historical Society of Tompkins County, Inc., Ithica, New York.

1966 The Story of the Cayugas 1609-1809, Book II: Nova Francia. DeWitt Historical Society of Tompkins County, Inc., Ithica, New York.

Wassenaer, Nicolaes van 1959 From the “Historich Verhael,” By Nicolaes van Wassenaer, 1624-1630. In Narratives of New Netherland, 1609-1664, edited by J.F. Jameson, pp. 67-96. Barnes & Noble, Inc., New York.

Webster, Gary S. 1983 Northern Iroquoian Hunting: An Optimization Approach. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University.

Witthoft, John, and W. Fred Kinsey, editors. 1959 Susquehannock Miscellany. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

Wolley, Charles 1701 A Two Years’ Journal in New York and Part of Its Territories in America. The Burrowes Brothers Company, Cleveland, 1902.

Wood, William 1634 New England’s Prospect, edited by Alden T. Vaughn. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, 1977.

*Wright, Gordon K. 1963 The Neutral Indians, a Source Book. New York State Archaeological Association, Rochester.

Yentsch, Ann Elizabeth and Mary C. Beaudry, editors 1992 The Art and Mystery of Historical Archaeology: Essays in Honor of James Deetz. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

174 APPENDIX A: CERAMIC VARIABLE CODING SCHEME

The following is a list of variables that were examined for each ceramic vessel in this study. For each category below, 0 indicates that the variable was indeterminate.

IDENTIFICATION:

Site Number: This is the number of the site as assigned by the museum where the collections are held. Code: 1 – Strickler (36La3) 2 – Funk (Schultz-Funk) (36La9) 3 – Schultz (36La7) 4 – Washington Boro (36La8) 5 – not used 6 – Ibaugh (36La54) 7 – Eshelman (36La12) 8 – Keller (36La4)

Museum Number: This is the number assigned by the museum to each site/vessel.

Pot Number: The specific number assigned to a pot.

Ceramic Typology: Code: 1 – Schultz Incised 2 – Blue Rock Valenced 3 – Washington Boro Incised 4 – Strickler Cordmarked—Rounded Collar 5 – Strickler Cordmarked—Flared Rim 6 – Strickler Cordmarked—Thickened Collar 7 – Funk Incised 12 – Unknown type—Toy/Miniature 15 – Seneca 20 – foreign type

175 CERAMIC MORPHOLOGY:

The illustration below shows the locations of various aspects of ceramic morphology referred to in the following section.

COLLAR LIP

NECK

BODY

BASE

Maximum Vessel Height: (Measured in centimeters.)

Body Height: Height of vessel to base of the neck (measured in centimeters).

Maximum Lip Diameter: Internal diameter of the vessel at the lip (Measured in centimeters).

Orifice Diameter: Measured at the point in the neck where interior vessel diameter is smallest (Measured in centimeters).

Maximum Body Diameter: Measured at the point where internal body diameter is greatest (Measured in centimeters).

Body Volume: The volume of the body of the vessel up to the base of the neck constriction (Measured in liters).

Total Volume: The total volume of the entire vessel (Measured in liters).

Lip Thickness: (Measured in millimeters).

Collar Thickness: Measured at the middle of the collar’s height (Measured in millimeters).

Neck Thickness: Measured at the point of maximum constriction (Measured in millimeters).

176 Body Thickness: Measured at the point of maximum body diameter (Measured in millimeters).

Base Thickness: Measured at the center of the base (Measured in millimeters).

Castellations or Lobes: Code: 1 – absent 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 – number of castellations present (9 = one)

Effigy(ies) on Collar: Code: 1 – absent 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 – number of effigies present (9 = one)

Body Wall Form: Code: 1 – Straight 2 – Curved 3 – Spherical 4 – Bent

Vessel Lip Form: Code: 1 – Unmodified rounded 7 – Wedge 2 – Unmodified flat 8 – Tapered internal 3 – Unmodified tapered 9 – Tapered external 4 – Bolstered internal 5 – Bolstered external 6 – Thickened

←Outside of Vessel------Inside of Vessel→

Lip Orientation: Code: 1 – Straight 2 – Inverted 3 – Everted

←Outside of Vessel------Inside of Vessel→

177 Collar Profile: Code: 1 – Straight, vertical 2 – Straight, inverted 3 – Straight, everted 4 – Curved, vertical 5 – Curved, inverted 6 – Curved, everted 7 – Rounded

Orifice Form: Code: 1 – Circular 2 – Oval 3 – Square 4 – Rectangular 5 – Other

Form of Base: Code: 1 – Straight 2 – Convex 3 – Round 4 – Parabolic 5 – Triangulo-convex

Exterior Surface Treatment of Vessel Body: Code: 1 – Plain/None Temper Size: 2 – Burnished Code: 1 – Fine (1 mm or less) 3 – Cordmarked 2 – Medium (2-3 mm) 4 – Incised 3 – Coarse (4 mm or larger) 5 – Net Impressed 4 – Organic

Temper Material: Code: 1 – Shell Exterior Soot Deposits: 2 – Limestone Code: 1 – Present 2 – Absent 3 – Soapstone 4 – Chert 5 – Quartz Interior Surface Residue: 6 – Clay Code: 1 – Present 2 – Absent 7 – Organic (plant)

178 APPENDIX B: MECHANICAL PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS

The following is a list of the mechanical performance characteristics that can be derived from recorded ceramic vessel attributes (after Hally 1986).

VESSEL STABILITY: The ability of a vessel to stay upright. Stability can be determined by examining the form of the base and by looking at the ratio of maximum vessel height to maximum vessel diameter. Shorter, wider vessels are more stable when sitting on a surface than tall, thin ones.

VESSEL SUSPENSION: The presence of handles can enable a vessel to be suspended enabling people to keep the vessel out of the way of other activities.

VESSEL CAPACITY: The amount a vessel can hold. This can be determined by calculating each vessel’s volume.

SPACE UTILIZATION: This characteristic is related to the amount a vessel can hold and the amount of surface space the vessel takes up when placed on it. Taller, thinner vessels with larger volumes utilize horizontal space more efficiently; therefore, and examination of the ratio of maximum vessel height to maximum vessel diameter determines efficiency of horizontal space utilization.

MANIPULATION OF VESSEL CONTENTS: The ability to manipulate (i.e. stir, beat, grind, crush, etc.) the contents of a vessel. This characteristic is related to the size of the vessel’s orifice, the amount of orifice constriction (calculated by subtracting orifice diameter from maximum vessel diameter and dividing by maximum vessel diameter), and the maximum height of the vessel.

REMOVAL OF VESSEL CONTENTS: The ease with which the contents of a vessel can be removed by either pouring or scooping out. This characteristic is determined by the diameter of the orifice, maximum vessel height, orifice constriction, rim orientation, maximum vessel diameter, and the ratio of maximum height to maximum diameter.

VESSEL CONTENT SPILLING: The ability of a vessel to retain its contents. The likelihood of a vessel’s contents being spilled is determined by its orifice constriction and the angle of orifice constriction.

HEAT ABSORPTION EFFICIENCY: How efficient a vessel is at absorbing heat from a source is related to the maximum diameter of the vessel, the height of the shoulder above the base, and the exterior surface treatment.

VESSEL CONTENT HEAT LOSS: The ability of a vessel to prevent its contents from losing heat. This characteristic is related to the ratio of the orifice diameter to the maximum vessel diameter. Another possible way to determine heat loss is to look at the ratio of orifice area to vessel capacity.

EVAPORATION OF VESSEL CONTENTS: Like vessel content heat loss, the ability of a vessel to prevent the evaporation of its contents can be determined by examining the ratio of orifice area to vessel capacity.

ORIFICE CLOSURE: The ease with which a vessel can be sealed. This is related to the rim profile and orientation, the shape and diameter of the orifice, and how level the rim is.

THERMAL SHOCK RESISTANCE: This ability of a vessel to withstand thermal shock is determined by a number of variables including base thickness, wall thickness, vessel wall curvature, and temper size and material.

179 APPENDIX C: FOODS PREPARED BY NORTHEASTERN INDIANS Highlighted rows indicate information from sources describing the mid-Atlantic area, most commonly, Virginia (see Table 4-1).

FOOD HOW OTHER FOODS VESSEL(S) VESSEL(S) REFERENCE TYPE PREPARED PREPARED USED IN USED TO WITH STORAGE PREPARE beans boiled fish, meat Champlain 1907:316 beans boiled Danckaerts 1913:159 beans boiled pit baked Parker 1910:60 into a clay bank beans boiled Parker 1910:60 beans boiled sugar and grease Parker 1910:90 beans boiled corn, meat or fat Parker 1910:90 beans boiled meat Rowlandson 1676:73 beans boiled corn, fish, meat Wood 1634:86 beans boiling corn Harriot 1590:14 beans cooked bear’s meat Bogaert 1988:18 beans dried bark barrels Morgan 1851:310 in house beans made into bread Harriot 1590:14 beans Bradford 1963:66 beans Cartier 1534:25 beans Heckewelder 1819:193 beans Heidenreich 1971:160 beans underground pit Lindestrom 1925:253 beans Morgan 1851:251 beans Peasley 1635:82 beans Rowlandson 1676:82 beans Smith 1907b:27 beans basket in Smith 1907b:58 underground pit beans Thomas 1698:49 beans and peas parched Beverley 1705:180 beans, dried boiled meat Van Der Donck 1655:76 beans, dried pounded, bear meat or Parker 1910:90 soaked, boiled venison beans, green fried sunflower or bear Parker 1910:90 oil beans, boiled sugar Parker 1910:89 green soup beans, boiled sugar Parker 1910:89 string soup beans, pea soup boiled Cartier 1536:62 beans, peas boiled fish Sagard 1632:107 beans, peas Morgan 1851:251

180 beans, peas Peasley 1635:82 beans, peas Penn 1683:232 beans, peas Smith 1907b:27 beans, peas Thomas 1698:49 beans, boiled sugar Parker 1910:89 dried soup berries cooked as Parker 1910:96-7 sauce, boiled in soup, cooked in bread berries raw, crushed sugar, water Parker 1910:96 berries Heckewelder 1819:193 berries, dried pounded, mixed meat, parched Parker 1910:97 corn, sugar berry, black dried Parker 1910:97 raspberry berry, black Parker 1910:95-6 raspberry berry, red Parker 1910:95-6 raspberry berry, Parker 1910:95-6 squaw vine berry, Parker 1910:95-6 sumac berry berry,alkermes Smith 1907b:27 berry, blackberry dried Parker 1910:97 berry, blackberry Parker 1910:95-6 berry, blackberry Sagard 1632:72 berry, blueberry dried Champlain 1907:247 berry, blueberry dried Parker 1910:97 berry, blueberry dried, added Sagard 1632:237 to soups, etc. berry, cranberry cooked till served in boiled Parker 1910:90 almost dry squash berry, cranberry raw or Sagard 1632:238 in cakes berry, cranberry Beverley 1705:131 berry, cranberry Parker 1910:95-6 berry, cranberry stewed sugar or molasses Heckewelder 1819:194 preserve berry,currant Parker 1910:95-6 berry,currant Smith 1907b:27 berry, dewberry Parker 1910:95-6 berry, elderberry Parker 1910:95-6 berry, Brereton 1602:5 gooseberry berry, Parker 1910:95-6 gooseberry berry, Smith 1907b:27 gooseberry

181 berry, dried Parker 1910:97 huckleberry berry, Brereton 1602:5 huckleberry berry, Harriot 1590:18 huckleberry berry, Parker 1910:95-6 huckleberry berry, june berry Parker 1910:95-6 berry, kermes Smith 1907b:21 berry, mulberry dried Bruyas 1668:123 berry, mulberry Harriot 1590:18 berry, mulberry Parker 1910:95-6 berry, mulberry Smith 1907a:64-5 berry, mulberry Smith 1907b:27 berry, nanyberry Parker 1910:95-6 berry, dried, Smith 1907a:55 ocoughanamnis boiled 1/2 day berry, oneberry Parker 1910:95-6 berry, Parker 1910:95-6 partridge vine berry, raspberry Brereton 1602:5 berry, raspberry Champlain 1907:284 berry, raspberry Smith 1907b:27 berry, raw or boiled Smith 1907a:54 rawcomens berry, sacque- boiled Harriot 1590:18 nummener 8-9 hours berry, strawberry dried Bogaert 1988:10 berry, strawberry dried Bruyas 1668:123 berry, strawberry dried Champlain 1907:247 berry, strawberry dried Parker 1910:97 berry, strawberry Brereton 1602:5 berry, strawberry Harriot 1590:18 berry, strawberry Parker 1910:95-6 berry, strawberry Smith 1907a:64-5 berry, strawberry Smith 1907b:27 berry, vines Smith 1907b:27 berry, Parker 1910:95-6 wintergreen beverage, Speck 1933:40 berry juice beverage, broth kettle Le Jeune 1634b:293 beverage, sodden Hakluyt 1600:293 cinnamon tea beverage, burnt, boiled Parker 1910:77 corn coffee 5 mins. beverage, boiled corn Strachey 1612:81 corn liquid bread liquid beverage, boiled corn Parker 1910:70 corn liquid tea bread liquid

182 beverage, boiled corn jars or pots Parker 1910:70, 71 corn tea bread liquid beverage, boiled ground Le Jeune 1634b:275 elk bone bones beverage, sodden Hakluyt 1600:293 ginger tea beverage, pressed grapes Van Der Donck grape juice 1655:26, 74 beverage, Hakluyt 1600:293 grape juice beverage, skimmed off large, deep Le Jeune 1634b:287 grease kettle dish beverage, boiled maple sugar Morgan 1851:321 hemlock tea beverage, boiled Porter 1901:161 hemlock tea beverage, Parker 1910:71 herb tea beverage, fresh Morgan 1851:251 maple sap beverage, boiled sassafras root Morgan 1851:321 maple tea beverage, Le Jeune 1634b:273 meat broth beverage, liquid left after Parker 1910:100 nut liquid nut oil has been skimmed off beverage, sodden Hakluyt 1600:293 sassafras tea beverage, heated over large kettle Jogues 1655:13 water fire beverage, heated over kettle Rowlandson 1676:80 water fire beverage, Smith 1907a:71 wichsacan root juice corn boiled clay pots Champlain 1907:74 corn boiled fish, flesh, beans Gyles 1689:120 corn boiled Harriot 1590:14 corn boiled fruit, meat, fish clay kettle Harriot 1590:60, 61 corn boiled venison, meat, fish Harriot 1590:61 corn boiled powdered dried Lalemant 1640:17 fish corn boiled venison kettle Merril 1949:39 corn boiled meat, beans large kettle Seaver 1856:228 corn boiled beans Smith 1907a:59 corn boiled Thomas 1698:49 corn boiled beans Weiser 1737, in Wait 1967:29 corn boiled beans, fish, meat Wood 1634:86 corn boiled 3-4 hrs Smith 1907a:59

183 corn boiled in ashes kettle Porter 1901:160 a few mins. corn charred and/or bark lined pit Morgan 1851:22, 311 dried corn charred and/or bark barrels Morgan 1851:310 dried in house corn cooked 2-3 smoked fish Mercier 1637:95 corn crushed, fried bear oil, oil clay kettle Parker 1910:68 corn dried bark lined pits Gyles 1689:103 corn dried large bark Parker 1910:16, 34 barrels in longhouse corn dried baskets of Rasieres 1628:107 rushes or hemp underground corn dried bark casks in Sagard 1632:95, 104 house corn dried large bark vats Trigger 1990:72, 74 corn dried, boiled Parker 1910:74 45 mins. corn dried, boiled Lankes 1964:5 with lye corn kernels boiled beans, grease or oil Parker 1910:68 corn kernels boiled beans, deer or Parker 1910:69 3 hours bear meat corn natural or underground Parker 1910:35 charred pits corn parched Harriot 1590:14 corn parched Wolley 1701:43 corn parched Rowlandson 1676:58 corn parched in Wood 1634:87 ashes, ground corn roasted in ashes Penn 1683:232 corn roasted in ashes Thomas 1698:49 corn roasted in ashes Thomas 1698:49 corn roasted, meat Parker 1910:75, 76 pounded, boiled corn beans, turkey fat Bogaert 1988:5 corn baskets Bradford 1963:65 underground corn Bradford 1963:66 corn Cartier 1534:25 corn lofts in houses Cartier 1536:61 corn grass sacks Champlain 1907:95 in pits corn Denton 1670:45-6 corn Heckewelder 1819:193 corn large bark Heidenreich 1971:119 casks in house corn grass/bark lined Heidenreich 1971:119 underground pit

184 corn underground pit Lindestrom 1925:253 corn underground pit Megapolensis 1644:177 corn Smith 1907b:27 corn basket in Smith 1907b:58 underground pit corn boiled meat, beans large kettles Minard 1896:30 corn boiled 1 hour meats, especially Parker 1910:73 dumpling game birds corn hominy boiled Penn 1683:232 corn pudding ground, boiled Parker 1910:70 corn bread baked beans Bogaert 1988:3 corn bread baked Harriot 1590:13 corn bread baked large kettle Parker 1910:67 corn bread baked small dish Parker 1910:68 corn bread baked Van Der Donck 1655:75 corn bread baked between Lescarbot 1610:85 heated stones corn bread baked in ashes Beverley 1705:178,180 corn bread baked in ashes Cartier 1536:61-2 corn bread baked in ashes Champlain 1907:314-5 corn bread baked in ashes beans, blueberry, Champlain 1907:314-5 raspberry, deer fat corn bread baked in ashes Danckaerts 1913:56, 159 corn bread baked in ashes pumpkin, beans, Heckewelder 1819:195 chestnuts, venison, sugar, whortleberries corn bread baked in ashes Holm 1702:121 corn bread baked in ashes beans, wild fruits Lalemant 1640:17 corn bread baked in ashes Lindestrom 1925:254-5 corn bread baked in ashes Megapolensis 1644:175 corn bread baked in ashes Parker 1910:66 corn bread baked in ashes Parker 1910:69 corn bread baked in ashes Rasieres 1628:108 corn bread baked in ashes beans, strawberry, Sagard 1632:104 blueberry, raspberry, blackberry, fruits corn bread baked in ashes beans, strawberry, Sagard 1632:104-5, blackberry, 237-8 cranberry, blueberry, raspberry, other fruits corn bread baked in ashes Seaver 1856:72 corn bread baked in ashes Smith 1907a:59 corn bread baked in ashes Strachey 1612:81 corn bread baked in ashes dried fruits, deer Trigger 1990:75 fat

185 corn bread boiled beans, blueberry, Champlain 1907:315 raspberry, deer fat corn bread boiled Sagard 1632 :105 corn bread boiled Strachey 1612:80-81 corn bread boiled 1 hour cranberry beans Parker 1910:69, 71, 72 or berries corn bread boiled 1 hour berries, cranberries Parker 1910:69-70 corn bread boiled 1/2 hour black beans pot Porter 1901:160-1 corn bread boiled 2 hours Morgan 1851:28, 30 corn bread boiled 45 mins. beans Parker 1910:66 corn bread nuts, chestnuts, Bogaert 1988:10 blueberries, sunflower seeds corn bread Heidenreich 1971:160 corn bread tobacco juice Holm 1702:121 corn bread beans, berries, nut Merril 1949:40 oil, sunflower oil corn bread Peasley 1635:82 corn bread Penn 1683:232 corn bread Smith 1907a:98 corn bread Speck 1933:40-2 corn bread Thomas 1698:49 corn bread Thomas 1698:49 corn bread Weiser 1737, in Wait 1967:36 corn bread, corn chewed Sagard 1632 :105 chewed off ear, baked in ashes corn cake fried bear’s grease Rowlandson 1676:58 corn cake Sagard 1632:113 corn ears baked in ashes Parker 1910:60 corn ears baked in ashes Parker 1910:68 corn ears baked in ashes Trigger 1990:75 corn ears boiled Parker 1910:67 corn ears raw or roasted Strachey 1612:80 corn ears roasted Beverley 1705:180 corn ears roasted Peron 1639:161 corn ears roasted Smith 1907a:59 corn ears roasted in ashes Sagard 1632:72 corn ears roasted on coals Lescarbot 1610:85 corn ears roasted over Parker 1910:78 fire corn hominy boiled fish, meat Beverley 1705:178 corn hominy boiled Morgan 1881:99 corn hominy boiled Beverley 1705:178 10-12 hours corn hominy pounded, pork or bear’s Parker 1910:73, 74 boiled 2 hours meat, sugar corn hominy Lankes 1964:5 corn meal boiled peas kettle Le Jeune 1634b:287 corn meal boiled beans kettle Parker 1910:42

186 corn meal boiled pumpkin or Parker 1910:75 squash, sugar corn meal boiled fried meat Parker 1910:78 corn meal boiled maple or Parker 1910:78 corn sugar corn meal cooked melted moose suet Sagard 1632:268 corn meal, boiled nut meal or nut Parker 1910:75 parched milk corn meal, boiled sugar, dried pot Parker 1910:77 parched cherries corn meal, boiled maple sugar, bear Parker 1910:79 parched or sunflower oil corn meal, boiled maple sugar, Speck 1933:87 parched berries corn meal, boiled beaver’s tails, Van Der Donck parched bass heads 1655:76 corn meal, charred, maple sugar Morgan 1851:330 parched pounded corn meal, parched in sugar Heckewelder 1819:196 parched ashes, ground corn meal, scorched in carried in bag Sagard 1632:101, parched ashes 153 corn meal, Beverley 1705:185 parched corn meal, Champlain 1907:315 parched corn meal, Rowlandson 1676:58 parched corn soup boiled walnut milk Bownas 1724:142 corn soup boiled meat, fish Champlain 1907:246 corn soup boiled fish, venison clay pot Champlain 1907:315 corn soup boiled beans, fat, fish Champlain 1907:316 corn soup boiled smoked fish large wooden Chaumonot 1640a:11 dish corn soup boiled fish, meat Harriot 1590:60 corn soup boiled fresh/dried meat, Heckewelder 1819:194 dried pumpkin, dry beans, maple sugar, chestnuts corn soup boiled hickory nut Heckewelder 1819:194 corn soup boiled squash, fish, dried Jogues 1655:21 meat corn soup boiled fat, smoked moose Lalemant 1665:33 corn soup boiled large kettle Lindestrom 1925:131 corn soup boiled smoked fish Mercier 1669:203 corn soup boiled beans, berries, Merril 1949:40 sunflower/nut oil corn soup boiled dried fish, meat, Morgan 1851:249 oil corn soup boiled berries, meat Parker 1910:75 corn soup boiled beans Quens 1657:71

187 corn soup boiled powdered smoked Ragueneau 1648:77 fish corn soup boiled Rasieres 1628:108 corn soup boiled beans Rowlandson 1676:72 corn soup boiled minced cooked pot Sagard 1632 :106-7 meat, pumpkin corn soup boiled dried/fresh fish, Sagard 1632 :230, 237, dried berries 258 and fruits corn soup boiled fish, Sagard 1632 :71, 80 decayed corn corn soup boiled beans, meat pot or kettle Sagard 1632:106 or fish corn soup boiled meat, fish, Sagard 1632:106-7 pumpkin corn soup boiled fish Sagard 1632:107, 258 corn soup boiled fish kettle Sagard 1632:59, 60 corn soup boiled Sagard 1632:71-80 corn soup boiled Seaver 1856:72 corn soup boiled Smith 1907a:59 corn soup boiled beans Smith 1907a:59 corn soup boiled beans 20 gallon Speck 1933:41 cauldrons corn soup boiled Thomas 1698:49 corn soup boiled beans, Trigger 1990:74 decayed corn corn soup boiled meat, fish Van Der Donck 1655:75-6 corn soup boiled potash large kettle Weiser 1737, in Wait 1967:35 corn soup boiled meat or grease Weiser 1737, in Wait 1967:35 corn soup boiled ashes Trigger 1990:75 corn soup boiled beaver, kettle Eastburn 1756:163 2+ hours fetal beaver corn soup boiled 3-4 clay pot Strachey 1612:81 hours corn soup boiled flour Harriot 1590:14 corn soup hulled, boiled meat, fat, berries Parker 1910:74 corn soup roasted, boiled beans Strachey 1612:80 corn soup dried mulberry or Bruyas 1668:123 strawberry corn soup Cartier 1536:62 corn soup large wooden Chaumonot 1640b:17 dish corn soup Heidenreich 1971:160 corn soup fish Heidenreich 1971:161 corn soup oil Jouvency 1710:283

188 corn soup Peasley 1635:82 corn soup Speck 1933:40 corn soup beaver tail, Van Der Donck bass head 1655:76 corn soup boiled fish, meat, squash Trigger 1990:74 corn succotash boiled beans, 5-pail brass Minard 1896:28 12-15 deer’s meat kettles corn succotash boiled beans and squash Morgan 1851:196 corn succotash boiled beans, salt, pot Parker 1910:68 grease or oil corn succotash boiled beans, meat Porter 1901:161 corn succotash boiled red kidney beans, Speck 1933:41 meats corn succotash beans, chicken, Speck 1933:41 pork corn, decayed baked Trigger 1990:75 corn, decayed baked in ashes Sagard 1632:107 corn, decayed boiled meat or fish Parker 1910:79 corn, decayed boiled Sagard 1632:107 corn, decayed boiled Trigger 1990:74 corn, decayed immature ears Trigger 1990:74 set in pool of stagnant water for several months corn, decayed immersed in Parker 1910:79 stagnant water for 2-3 months corn, decayed put in stagnant Sagard 1632 :72, 107 and muddy water for 3-4 months corn, decayed put in water Champlain 1907:316 under mud for 2-3 months corn, decayed roasted Parker 1910:79 corn, popped clay or metal Parker 1910:78 kettle corn, popped pulverized oil or syrup Parker 1910:78 pudding fish boiled basket Brereton 1602:6 fish boiled Champlain 1907:246 fish boiled meat great kettles Champlain 1907:316 fish boiled Hakluyt 1600:293 fish boiled clay pots Sagard 1632:102 fish boiled Smith 1907a:60 fish boiled Van Der Donck 1655:75 fish broiled Harriot 1590:59 fish broiled on stick Lindestrom 1925:254 fish dried Gyles 1689:103

189 fish dried bark casks in Sagard 1632:95, 104 house fish dried or bark casks Heidenreich 1971:120, smoked in house 161 fish dried then Roche 1542:111 boiled fish dried, corn soup Lalemant 1640:17 powdered fish roasted Hakluyt 1600:293 fish roasted Trigger 1990:75 fish smoked large containers Cartier 1536:62 in house fish smoked Holm 1702:121 fish smoked, boiled Sagard 1632:71 fish smoked, boiled corn soup large wooden Chaumonot 1640a:11 dish fish smoked, boiled large kettle Ragueneau 1651:175 fish smoked, corn Mercier 1637:95 cooked fish Denton 1670:45-6 fish Heckewelder 1819:193 fish Megapolensis 1644:175 fish Wolley 1701:55 fish large bark vats Trigger 1990:72 fish, mackerel Champlain 1536:74 fish, porpoise Harriot 1590:20 fish, shellfish Harriot 1590:21 fish, smoked roasted over Sagard 1632:152 fire fish, breams Champlain 1536:74 fish, eel dried hemp bags Megapolensis 1644:176 fish, eel smoked large containers Cartier 1536:62 in house fish, eel Champlain 1536:74 fish, eel underground pit Lindestrom 1925:253 fish, large boiled kettle Trigger 1990:111 fish, large Trigger 1990:111 fish, mullet Champlain 1536:74 fish, mullet Harriot 1590:20 fish, pike Champlain 1536:74 fish, plaice Harriot 1590:20 fish, rays Harriot 1590:20 fish, shad dried hemp bags Megapolensis 1644:176 fish, trout gutted, dried Sagard 1632:186 fish, trout Champlain 1536:74 fish, trout Harriot 1590:20 fish, tuna Champlain 1536:74

190 fish, herring Harriot 1590:20 fish, lamprey Champlain 1536:74 fish, dried hung on cords Sagard 1632:95 leinchantaon in house fish, maigres Champlain 1536:74 fish, oldwife Harriot 1590:20 fish, salmon dried Bogaert 1988:13 fish, salmon dried Gyles 1689:103 fish, salmon fresh Bogaert 1988:18 fish, salmon Champlain 1536:74 fish, smoked boiled big kettle Sagard 1632:152 fish, sturgeon boiled large Sagard 1632:247 cauldron fish, sturgeon chopped, boiled Sagard 1632:113 fish, sturgeon gutted, dried Sagard 1632:186 fish, sturgeon Harriot 1590:20 fish, whitefish gutted, dried Sagard 1632:186 fowl boiled kettle Le Jeune 1634b:73 fowl Denton 1670:45-6 fowl underground pit Lindestrom 1925:253 fowl Rowlandson 1676:83 fowl Sagard 1632:190 fowl, duck Sagard 1632:190 fowl, eagle Sagard 1632:219, 259 fowl, goose Harriot 1590:20 fowl, goose Sagard 1632:190 fowl, heron Harriot 1590:20 fowl, turkey cooked Bogaert 1988:5 fowl, turkey Harriot 1590:20 fowl, turkey Megapolensis 1644:175 fowl, turkey Sagard 1632:220 fowl, turkey Smith 1907a:64-5 fowl, water Harriot 1590:20 fowl, partridge Harriot 1590:20 fowl, partridge Sagard 1632:190 fowl, stockdoves Harriot 1590:20

fruit dried bark barrel Morgan 1851:22 fruit, apple baked in ashes roasted meats or Parker 1910:95 bread fruit, apple dried bark barrels, Parker 1910:95 strung on twine fruit, apple Cartier 1534:25 fruit, cherry dried Parker 1910:95 fruit, cherry dried, pounded, meat flour Parker 1910:95 boiled fruit, crab apple stewed sugar or molasses Heckewelder 1819:194 preserve fruit, crab apple Champlain 1907:284

191 fruit, crab apple Harriot 1590:18 fruit, fig Cartier 1534:25 fruit, may apple Champlain 1907:284 fruit, pear fresh Sagard 1632:238 fruit, pear Cartier 1534:25 fruit, plum dried Cartier 1534:25 fruit, plum dried Sagard 1632:237-8 fruit, plum Smith 1907b:27 fruit, small dried, added Sagard 1632:237 to soups, etc. fruit, grape Sagard 1632:83 fruit, medlar Harriot 1590:18 fruit, metaque- Harriot 1590:18 sunnauk fruit, persimmon Beverley 1705:130 fruit, baked and boiled Strachey 1612:120 persimmon foods fruit, dried Smith 1907a:54 putchamins fruits baked into corn Heidenreich 1971:161 bread fruits boiled into soup corn Heidenreich 1971:161 fruits Cartier 1534:25 fruits Heckewelder 1819:193 fungi, lichens washed in grease Parker 1910:94 ashes, boiled fungi, boiled Jogues 1655:34-5 mushroom fungi, peeled, boiled grease, meat Parker 1910:93 mushroom fungi, peeled, fried grease, sunflower Parker 1910:94 puffball oil, bear oil, or deer tallow grain soup boiled Harriot 1590:18 grain, mattourn baked into Smith 1907a:55 bread grain, boiled as Harriot 1590:14 melden seeds soup grain, Speck 1933:40 wheat bread grain, wild oat bread Beverley 1705:180 greens, wild boiled fat meat Parker 1910:93 asparagus greens, boiled fatty meat Parker 1910:93 berry sprouts greens, burdock boiled fatty meat Parker 1910:93 greens, cabbage Heckewelder 1819:193

192 greens, raw or cooked Trigger 1990:34 cow parsnip greens, Sagard 1632:108 cow parsnip greens, cowslip boiled fat meat Parker 1910:93 greens, boiled fat meat Parker 1910:93 dandelion greens, raw or Sagard 1632:239 jerusalem cooked artichoke greens, raw or Trigger 1990:34 jerusalem cooked artichoke greens, boiled fat meat Parker 1910:93 milkweed greens, mustard boiled fat meat Parker 1910:93 greens, pigweed boiled fatty meat Parker 1910:93 greens, boiled fat meat Parker 1910:93 pokeberry greens, sorrel boiled fatty meat Parker 1910:93 greens, boiled fatty meat Parker 1910:93 sumac sprouts greens, boiled fatty meat Parker 1910:93 wild pea greens, boiled fat meat Parker 1910:93 yellowdock maple sap boiled clay vessel Parker 1910:103 maple evaporated clay pot Morgan 1851:251 syrup/sugar meat boiled Beverley 1705:178 meat boiled fish great kettles Champlain 1907:316 meat boiled very large Hakluyt 1600:293 clay pots meat boiled Heckewelder 1819:196

meat boiled kettle Holm 1702:124 meat boiled clay pots Sagard 1632:102 meat boiled Smith 1907a:60 meat boiled Van Der Donck 1655:75 meat broiled on coals Heckewelder 1819:196

meat broiled on stick Lindestrom 1925:254 meat broiled on stick Megapolensis 1644:176 meat broiled, Beverley 1705:178 barbecued meat broiled, dried Holm 1702:121 meat dried then Roche 1542:111 boiled

193 meat roasted Trigger 1990:75 meat roasted on coals Champlain 1907:246 meat roasted on stick Heckewelder 1819:196 meat roasted/grilled Smith 1907a:60 meat smoked Gyles 1689:102 meat Penn 1683:232 meat, chicken cooked Speck 1933:103 meat, rattlesnake Rowlandson 1676:83

meat, bear boiled kettle Alsop 1666:85 meat, bear boiled two kettles Le Jeune 1634b:219 meat, bear boiled kettle Trigger 1990:111 meat, bear boiled over fire boiler Champlain 1880:237 meat, bear chopped, boiled Sagard 1632:113 meat, bear Bogaert 1988:6, 10 meat, bear Champlain 1907:316 meat, bear Harriot 1590:19 meat, bear underground pit Lindestrom 1925:253 meat, bear Megapolensis 1644:175 meat, bear Rowlandson 1676:83 meat, bear Trigger 1990:36-7 meat, bear Wolley 1701:49 meat, bear, deer boiled Speck 1933:111 or pig head meat, beaver boiled over fire boiler Champlain 1880:237 meat, beaver cooked fresh Sagard 1632:234 or smoked meat, beaver Bogaert 1988:6 meat, beaver Rowlandson 1676:83 meat, beaver Trigger 1990:36-7 meat, beaver Smith 1907a:56 tail meat, beef boiled with Gyles 1689:121 stones meat, beef boiled, served in Speck 1933:41 shredded, baskets pressed, and strained meat, beef chopped, boiled large kettle Porter 1901:159, 161 meat, beef Speck 1933:40 meat, dog boiled Gyles 1689:118 meat, dog boiled kettle Trigger 1990:111 meat, dog cooked kettle Sagard 1632:111 meat, dog Biard 1612:17 meat, dog Biard 1616:127 meat, dog Champlain 1907:316 meat, dog Harriot 1590:20 meat, dog Heidenreich 1971:202

194 meat, dog Megapolensis 1644:175 meat, dog Rowlandson 1676:83 meat, dog Trigger 1990:39 meat, dog Wolley 1701:44-5 meat, elk boiled over fire boiler Champlain 1880:237 meat, frog Jogues 1655:34-5 meat, frog Rowlandson 1676:83 meat, horse boiled Rowlandson 1676:54, 72 meat, Sagard 1632:227 large mouse meat, Trigger 1990:36-7 large mouse meat, lion Harriot 1590:20 meat, moose chopped, boiled Sagard 1632:113 meat, rabbit cooked chestnuts Bogaert 1988:21 meat, rabbit Harriot 1590:19 meat, rabbit Megapolensis 1644:175 meat, rabbit Trigger 1990:36-7 meat, rat Le Jeune 1634b:267 meat, skunk Denton 1670:45-6 meat, skunk Rowlandson 1676:83 meat, turtle boiled Gyles 1689:118 meat, turtle cooked upside Sagard 1632 :235, 251 down in ashes meat, turtle Denton 1670:45-6 meat, turtle Harriot 1590:21 meat, turtle Rowlandson 1676:83 meat, turtle Smith 1907a:64-5 meat, turtle Trigger 1990:36-7 meat, turtle egg boiled Gyles 1689:118 meat, turtle egg roasted in ashes Sagard 1632:251 meat, beaver boiled kettle Le Jeune 1634a:165 meat, beaver boiled or great bark Le Jeune 1634b:291 roasted dish meat, human boiled kettle Brebreuf 1636:229 meat, human boiled kettle Mercier 1655:53 meat, human boiled large kettle Peron 1639:173 meat, human disembowled, large kettle Sagard 1632 :162 cooked meat, human Alsop 1666:80 meat, moose tongues and large pot Le Jeune 1639:79 upper lips meat, mouse Le Jeune 1634b:267 meat, muskrat roasted on stick Eastburn 1756:163 meat, muskrat Sagard 1632:234 meat, muskrat Trigger 1990:36-7

195 meat, polecat Denton 1670:45-6 meat, possum Denton 1670:45-6 meat, rabbit Le Jeune 1634b:267 meat, raccoon Denton 1670:45-6 meat, raccoon Megapolensis 1644:175 meat, Harriot 1590:19 small animals meat, squirrel Harriot 1590:19 meat, squirrel Rowlandson 1676:83 meat, squirrel Sagard 1632:187 meat, squirrel Smith 1907a:64-5 meat, venison boiled kettle Alsop 1666:85 meat, venison boiled Beverley 1705:180 meat, venison boiled Hakluyt 1600:293 meat, venison boiled kettle Le Jeune 1634a:165 meat, venison boiled ground nut Rowlandson 1676:68 meat, venison boiled Seaver 1856:72 meat, venison boiled kettle Trigger 1990 :111-12 meat, venison boiled, broiled Megapolensis 1644:175 meat, venison cooked Bogaert 1988:4, 22 meat, venison cooked kettle Sagard 1632:111 meat, venison cured deer skin lined Morgan 1851:311 pit meat, venison dried dipped in bear’s oil Heckewelder 1819:196 meat, venison fresh or smoked Rasieres 1628:107 meat, venison roasted Hakluyt 1600:293 meat, venison roasted Rowlandson 1676:61 meat, venison roasted Seaver 1856:72 meat, venison Alsop 1666:35 meat, venison Champlain 1907:299 meat, venison Denton 1670:45-6 meat, venison Harriot 1590:10 meat, venison Harriot 1590:19 meat, venison underground pit Lindestrom 1925:253 meat, venison Rowlandson 1676:83 meat, venison Smith 1907a:98 meat, venison kettles Trigger 1990:111 meat, venison Trigger 1990:36-7 nut meats crushed, mixed corn pudding, Parker 1910:100 bread nut milk, nuts crushed, Beverley 1705:181 hickory boiled nut milk, nuts crushed, kettle Heckewelder 1819:194 hickory boiled nut milk, crushed and added to soups, Harriot 1590:18 walnut boiled boiled corn, peas, beans, pumpkin

196 nut milk, nuts crushed, Bownas 1724:142 walnut boiled nut milk, nuts crushed, Smith 1907a:54 walnut boiled nut milk, pounded Strachey 1612:129 walnut with water nut milk, squash Strachey 1612:121 walnut nut, small-nut Smith 1907b:27 nut, acorn boiled 12 hours ashes in first water D’Ablon 1672:151 in several waters nut, acorn boiled and Harriot 1590:19 parched nut, acorn boiled in Sagard 1632:108 several waters nut, acorn boiled in lye, Parker 1910:101 roasted nut, acorn boiled in lye, Ragueneau 1651:99 then cooked nut, acorn boiled several Trigger 1990:34 times nut, acorn dried Smith 1907a:54 nut, acorn dried then Harriot 1590:19 soaked nut, acorn pounded, boiled corn, meats Parker 1910:101 nut, acorn Parker 1910:100 nut, acorn Rowlandson 1676:82 nut, acorn Smith 1907a:64-5 nut, acorn pounded and Harriot 1590:19 bread baked nut, acorn bread boiled, parched, Harriot 1590:19 made into bread nut, acorn pounded Harriot 1590:19 bread nut, acorn soup dried, boiled Harriot 1590:19 nut, acorn soup dried, watered, fish or meat Harriot 1590:19 boiled nut, Parker 1910:100 bitter hickory nut, black Parker 1910:100 walnut nut, chestnut boiled Smith 1907a:54 nut, chestnut bruised and fatty meat Van Der Donck boiled 1655:76 nut, chestnut bruised, boiled fatty meat Van Der Donck 1655:76 nut, chestnut crushed and Harriot 1590:18 boiled nut, chestnut crushed and Parker 1910:100 boiled

197 nut, chestnut dried Smith 1907a:54 nut, chestnut Beverley 1705:181 nut, chestnut Parker 1910:100 nut, chestnut Smith 1907b:27 nut, chestnut baked Harriot 1590:18 bread nut, chestnut baked corn meal Parker 1910:100 bread nut, chestnut baked Smith 1907a:54 bread nut, hazel Parker 1910:100 nut, hickory Beverley 1705:181 nut, hickory Parker 1910:100 nut, walnut dried Smith 1907a:54 nut, walnut Beverley 1705:181 nut, walnut Smith 1907a:64-5 nut, walnut Smith 1907b:27 nut, beechnut Parker 1910:100 nut, butternut Parker 1910:100 nut, chestnut boiled 4-5 Strachey 1612:119 hours nut, chinquapin boiled 4-5 Strachey 1612:119 hours nut, chinquapin dried Smith 1907a:54 nut, chinquapin Beverley 1705:181 nuts Cartier 1534:25 nuts Champlain 1907:284 nuts Heckewelder 1819:193 nuts Rowlandson 1676:82 oil bottle in Smith 1907b:58 underground pit oil or fat served in Jouvency 1710:283 congealed lumps oil, acorn boiled Harriot 1590:19 oil, acorn boiled in lye Beverley 1705:185 oil, acorn nuts crushed, gourds Smith 1907a:53 boiled oil, acorn Harriot 1590:19 oil, acorn Harriot 1590:9 oil, bear fat melted Lindestrom 1925:253 oil, boar fat melted Lindestrom 1925:253 oil, butternut crushed, boiled Parker 1910:100 oil, fish boiled gourds Trigger 1990:35, 43 oil, fish boiled gourds Trigger 1990:35, 43, 124 oil, hickory nut crushed, boiled Parker 1910:100 oil, nut crushed and corn bread, kettle Parker 1910:100 boiled pudding

198 oil, walnut Harriot 1590:9 oil, sunflower seeds boiled Merril 1949:41 to extract oil oil, sunflower seeds bruised Parker 1910:102 and boiled oil, sunflower seeds crushed Speck 1933:79 oil, sunflower Champlain 1907:284 oil, whitefish boiled clay vessels Heidenreich 1971:120, 161 oil, whitefish boiled bottles (gourd) large kettle Sagard 1632:186 potash boiled small kettle Weiser 1737, in Wait 1967:35 root, dried, pounded Parker 1910:105, solomon’s seal made into bread 109 root, cat-tail dried, pounded Parker 1910:105-7 made into bread root, chives baked in ashes Trigger 1990:34 root, ground Rowlandson 1676:73 nut cake root, hog turnip Lindestrom 1925:158-9 root, Indian sliced, dried Parker 1910:105 turnip pulverized made into bread root, leek (wild) boiled as soup Parker 1910:105-7

root, lily Rowlandson 1676:82 root, onion baked in ashes Sagard 1632:239 root, onion boiled as soup Parker 1910:105, (wild) 107 root, potato Heckewelder 1819:193 root, potato Parker 1910:105 root, skunk dried, Parker 1910:105, cabbage pulverized, 109 roasted or baked root, tiger roasted in ashes Sagard 1632:51 lily bulbs root, yellow Parker 1910:105 pond lily root, arrowhead boiled Parker 1910:105, 108 root, artichoke boiled oil Parker 1910:105 root, artichoke raw or roasted Parker 1910:105 root, artichoke Parker 1910:105 root, artichoke Rowlandson 1676:82 root, coscushaw cooked as Harriot 1590:17 bread or soup root, boiled Parker 1910:106 ground nut

199 root, boiled bear meat kettle Rowlandson 1676:58, ground nut 60 root, raw or cooked Sagard 1632:239 ground nut root, roasted Parker 1910:106 ground nut root, Brereton 1602:7 ground nut root, Parker 1910:105 ground nut root, Sagard 1632:108 ground nut root, raw or cooked Trigger 1990:34 grount nut root, habascon boiled as soup meat Harriot 1590:17 root, boiled bread Harriot 1590:17 kaishupenauk root, milkweed Parker 1910:105 root, okeepenauk raw or fish, meat Harriot 1590:16-7 cooked as bread root, openauk boiled Harriot 1590:16 root, roast 24 hours Smith 1907a:55 tockawhoughe in pit root, tocknough Smith 1907a:64-5 berry root, tsinaw boiled bread Harriot 1590:17 root, turnip Heckewelder 1819:193 roots Gyles 1689:103 squash baked in ashes Parker 1910:60 squash baked in ashes Parker 1910:92 squash baked in ashes Trigger 1990:75 squash boiled Champlain 1907:317 squash boiled pot Heckewelder 1819:194 squash boiled salt Parker 1910:92 squash boiled walnut milk Strachey 1612:121 squash cooked in ashes Peron 1639:161 squash dried Merril 1949:39 squash roasted in ashes Champlain 1907:317 squash Beverley 1705:180 squash Heckewelder 1819:193 squash Heidenreich 1971:160 squash basket Mercier 1669:203 squash Morgan 1851:251 squash Wood 1634:86 squash boiled into served on meat or Parker 1910:92 flower sauce vegetables squash, Heckewelder cucumber 1819:193

200 squash, Parker 1910:92 cucumber squash, Cartier 1536:62 cucumber soup squash, gourd Harriot 1590:14 squash, gourd Smith 1907b:27 squash, melon boiled Hakluyt 1600:293 squash, melon raw Hakluyt 1600:293 squash, melon Harriot 1590:14 squash, melon Heckewelder 1819:193 squash, melon Morgan 1851:251 squash, melon Parker 1910:92 squash, pumpkin baked Bogaert 1988:4, 12 squash, boiled Bogaert 1988:4 pumpkin squash, boiled pot Heckewelder 1819:194 pumpkin squash, boiled fish Sagard 1632:63, 72 pumpkin squash, dried Merril 1949:39 pumpkin squash, roasted in Sagard 1632 :72, 191 pumpkin ashes squash, Beverley 1705:180 pumpkin squash, Harriot 1590:13 pumpkin squash, Heckewelder pumpkin 1819:193 squash, Morgan 1851:251 pumpkin squash, Smith 1907b:27 pumpkin squash, Lindestrom watermelon 1925:183 squash, Morgan 1851:251 watermelon squash, Parker 1910:92 watermelon sunflower Morgan 1851:251 sunflower bread baked Beverley 1705:180 sunflower baked Harriot 1590:14 bread sunflower soup Harriot 1590:14 tree bark Rowlandson 1676:82

201 APPENDIX D: VESSELS USED BY INDIANS OF THE NORTHEAST Highlighted rows indicate information from sources describing the mid-Atlantic area, most commonly, Virginia (see Table 4-1).

VESSEL VESSEL VESSEL VESSEL REFERENCE MATERIAL TYPE SIZE USE bark, birch bag caching corn meal while traveling Sagard 1632:60 hide, bear bag carrying parched corn meal Morgan 1851:330-1 hide bag carrying parched corn meal Parker 1910:76 bag carrying parched corn meal Sagard 1632:101, 153 bark, birch bag carrying parched corn meal Trigger 1990:28 bag small carrying parched corn meal Van Der Donck 1655:76 leather bag carrying parched corn meal Wood 1634:87 grass bag storing corn underground Champlain 1907:95 hemp bag storing dried fish and eels Megapolensis 1644:176 bag 1 –23 liters storing grain, etc. Lindestrom 1925:221 barrel storing corn and bean mix Sagard 1632:106 bark barrel large storing corn in longhouse Parker 1910:16. 34 barrel large storing corn in longhouse Sagard 1632:104 barrel large storing corn in longhouse Trigger 1990:32 bark barrel storing corn, beans, seeds, etc. in Morgan 1851:22 longhouse bark barrel large--50-60 storing corn, dried beans in Heidenreich 1971:119 bushels longhouse bark barrel storing dried and/or charred corn in Morgan 1851:310 longhouse bark barrel storing dried apples Parker 1910:95 bark barrel large storing dried corn in longhouse Sagard 1632:95, 104 bark barrel storing dried fruit Morgan 1851:22 bark barrel storing dried/smoked fish in Heidenreich 1971:120, 161 longhouse bark barrel storing food underground Parker 1910:76 bark barrel 9-106 liters storing plant foods in ground Morgan 1851:22, 311 bark barrel large storing smoked fish Sagard 1632:95, 186 barrel large storing smoked fish in longhouses Cartier 1536:62 bark barrel large storing corn and fish Trigger 1990:72, 74 basket ash sifter Parker 1910:51 basket small carrying and keeping corn and beans Danckaerts 1913:55 basket carrying seed to plant, carrying Parker 1910:58 harvested corn bark, birch basket holding beans, corn, peas, meat, fish, Sagard 1632:102 etc. reed basket holding beans, corn, peas, meat, fish, Sagard 1632:102 etc. silk grass basket household utensil Beverley 1705:230 basket hulling corn Parker 1910:49 basket meal/hominy sifter Parker 1910:50

202 twigs basket serving boiled fish Brereton 1602:6 ash splint basket 2 ½'x18"x9" serving meat, bread Speck 1933:42 basket serving squash Mercier 1669:203 rushes basket small sifting flour Rasieres 1628:107 basket small sifting flour/ ground corn Smith 1907a:59 basket storing corn and beans underground Smith 1907b:58 basket storing corn underground Bradford 1963:65 hemp basket storing dried grain underground Rasieres 1628:108 rushes basket storing dried grain underground Rasieres 1628:108 corn husk basket variety of purposes Morgan 1851:42 basket Parker 1910:45 corn husk basket small Parker 1910:84 basket Smith 1907a:64 bark, birch basket Trigger 1990:40 reed basket Trigger 1990:40 splint basket/seive sifting flour/ ground corn Morgan 1851:30 basket/sieve sifting crushed corn Strachey 1612:80 boiler boiling bear, elk, beaver over fire Champlain 1880:237 clay boiler burial good Champlain 1907:246 bear-gut bottle nursing bottle Parker 1910:102 gourd bottle storing fish oil Sagard 1632:186 bottle storing oil underground Smith 1907b:58 corn husk bottle storing seasonings, salt, ashes Parker 1910:57, 84 corn husk bottle Morgan 1851:42 bowl burial good Sagard 1632:208 wood bowl crushing nuts in Parker 1910:100 wood bowl 16" diam. dice game Speck 1933:141 bowl drinking corn tea Parker 1910:70 bark bowl holding shelled corn Parker 1910:77 wood bowl individual eating Bogaert 1988:17 bowl individual eating Danckaerts 1913:55 gourd bowl cup-sized individual eating Lindestrom 1925:255 wood bowl individual eating Megapolensis 1644:174 bark, birch bowl individual eating Sagard 1632:59 bark, birch bowl broad as an individual eating Sagard 1632:72, 107 alms dish wood bowl broad as an individual eating Sagard 1632:72, 107 alms dish bowl individual eating Trigger 1990:74, 112 clay bowl individual eating Morgan 1881:99 wood bowl individual eating Morgan 1881:99 bark bowl individual eating Parker 1910:54, 62 wood bowl individual eating Parker 1910:54, 62 bark, birch bowl individual eating and drinking Trigger 1990:40 bowl individual eating at feasts Sagard 1632:111 wood bowl mashing corn Parker 1910:68 bark bowl mixing corn meal into loaves, Parker 1910:51, 52 serving loaves wood bowl mixing corn meal into loaves, Parker 1910:51, 52 serving loaves

203 bark bowl mixing corn meal into loaves, Parker 1910:51-2 serving loaves bowl mixing hominy Parker 1910:73 bark bowl stone boiling Parker 1910:52 bark, birch bowl urinating while traveling in canoe Sagard 1632:59 wood bowl Trigger 1990:42 bowl/dish individual eating Minard 1896:28 cauldron 76 liters boiling corn with beans Speck 1933:41 cauldron large boiling feast of large sturgeon (fed Sagard 1632:247 about 50 men) copper cup large drinking Brereton 1602:9 cup drinking juice or tea Speck 1933:42 cup/small small mixing parched corn and water to Heckewelder 1819:195 vessel drink dish small baking corn bread Parker 1910:68 bark dish cooking meat Le Jeune 1634a:97 bark dish drinking water Le Jeune 1634a:91 dish eating meals Harriot 1590:61, 70 dish large individual eating Eastburn 1756:163 dish individual eating Gyles 1689:121 bark dish individual eating Holm 1702:124 wood, cedar dish individual eating Holm 1702:124 bark dish individual eating Lallemant 1626:201 bark dish individual eating Le Jeune 1634b:251-267 bark dish individual eating Le Jeune 1634b:279 wood dish individual eating Peasley 1635:87 dish individual eating Peron 1639:161 clay dish 1’ base diam playing game Morgan 1851:300 wood dish 1’ base diam playing game Morgan 1851:300 wood dish large serving sagamite Chaumonot 1640a:11 wood dish large serving sagamite Chaumonot 1640b:17 birch dish stone boiling Gyles 1689:121 bark dish Parker 1910:45 wood dish Parker 1910:45 bark dish great holding boiled or roasted beaver Le Jeune 1634b:291 wood eating spoon individual eating Parker 1910:53, 55 egg shell egg shell storing maple sugar syrup Parker 1910:103 gourd gourd drinking Holm 1702:124 gourd gourd holding and drinking water Danckaerts 1913:55, 56 gourd gourd household utensil Beverley 1705:230 gourd individual eating Danckaerts 1913:55, 59, 159 gourd gourd oil in burial Trigger 1990:124 gourd gourd storing acorn oil Smith 1907a:53 gourd gourd storing beverages Harriot 1590:51 gourd gourd storing oil Trigger 1990:35, 43, 124 gourd gourd storing oil Trigger 1990:35. 43 bark granary large above ground grain storage Parker 1910:35 kettle 1+ for cooking feasts Le Jeune 1634b:285-287 kettle large 2 or more used to cook human Peron 1639:173

204 kettle 2 used to boil bear for feast Le Jeune 1634b:219 kettle large 3 as grave goods Brebreuf 1636:297 kettle immense 3-4 used for boiling feast foods Biard 1612:17 kettle large baking corn bread Parker 1910:67 kettle boiling bear with ground nuts Rowlandson 1676:58, 60 kettle boiling birds Le Jeune 1634b:73 kettle boiling burnt corn coffee 5 min. Parker 1910:77 kettle boiling corn and beans Parker 1910:42 kettle boiling corn and beaver 2+ hours Eastburn 1756:163 kettle boiling corn and meats Rowlandson 1676:60 kettle boiling corn and venison Merril 1949:39 kettle boiling corn bread Parker 1910:52 kettle large boiling corn ears Gyles 1689:103 kettle boiling corn meal and peas Le Jeune 1634b:287 kettle large boiling corn soup Wiser 1737 (Wait 1967:35) kettle large boiling corn soup with beans,meat, Sagard 1632:106 fish kettle boiling corn soup with fish Sagard 1632:59-60 clay kettle large boiling corn soup with fish, meat, Harriot 1590:60-1 fruit kettle large boiling corn soups Lindestrom 1925:131 kettle boiling corn soups Parker 1910:53 kettle boiling corn with ashes Porter 1901:160 kettle large boiling corn with meat, beans Minard 1896:30 kettle large boiling corn with meat, beans Seaver 1856:228 kettle large boiling feast foods Minard 1896:39 kettle boiling feast foods (venison) Sagard 1632:111 kettle large boiling feast stews: fish, meat Champlain 1907:316 kettle large boiling feast stews: chopped boiled Porter 1901:159, 161 beef brass kettle 5 pail boiling feasts: corn w/ beans, Minard 1896:28, 30 venison kettle boiling fish and meats (bear, fish, Trigger 1990:111 venison) for feasts kettle boiling foods Lalemant 1640:99 kettle boiling foods Le Jeune 1634b:267 metal kettle large boiling foods Wood 1634:86 kettle boiling human captive Brebreuf 1636:229 kettle boiling meat Holm 1702:124 kettle boiling meat with broth Le Jeune 1634b:293 kettle boiling nuts Heckewelder 1819:194 kettle boiling nuts Parker 1910:100 kettle boiling nuts for oil Parker 1910:100 kettle small boiling potash Wiser 1737 (Wait 1967:35) kettle large boiling smoked fish Ragueneau 1651:175 kettle large boiling smoked fish Sagard 1632:152 kettle boiling venison Trigger 1990:111-12 kettle boiling venison or beaver Le Jeune 1634a:165

205 kettle boiling venison, bear Alsop 1666:85 kettle burial good Alsop 1666:83 clay kettle burial good Champlain 1907:143 kettle burial good Sagard 1632:172, 212 kettle burial good Sagard 1632:208 kettle burial good Thomas 1698:50 kettle burial good Van Der Donck 1655:87 kettle burial good Wolley 1701:60 brass kettle large & small cooking Lindestrom 1925:255 copper kettle large & small cooking Lindestrom 1925:255 brass kettle large cooking Parker 1910:46 kettle small cooking Seaver 1856:72 kettle cooking family’s daily food Morgan 1881:99 kettle c. 12 people’s cooking foods Lindestrom 1925:255 worth kettle large cooking human for feast Sagard 1632:162 kettle cooking meals Le Jeune 1634b:267 kettle cooking meals Parker 1910:62 kettle cooking over fire Lalemant 1640:177 kettle cooking over fire Parker 1910:67 kettle cooking stews/foods Heckewelder 1819:194 kettle little dipping water Le Jeune 1634a:101 kettle dipping water Le Jeune 1634b:263 kettle large feast cooking Bogaert 1988:17 kettle depends on feast cooking Sagard 1632:110 number of people eating kettle large feast cooking (4-5 for a feast) Gyles 1689:121 kettle feast cooking, over fire Sagard 1632:211 clay kettle frying corn in oil Parker 1910:68 kettle full of fat, meat, corn Mercier 1671:233 kettle holding water Le Jeune 1634b:263 brass kettle small individual eating Lindestrom 1925:255 copper kettle small individual eating Lindestrom 1925:255 clay kettle popping corn Parker 1910:78 metal kettle popping corn Parker 1910:78 kettle large reducing fish to oil by boiling Sagard 1632:186 kettle war-kettle Quens 1657:121 kettle war-kettle, boiled for 6 months Quens 1657:42 kettle war-kettle, boiling humans Mercier 1655:53 kettle large warming water to drink Jogues 1655:13 kettle warming water to drink Rowlandson 1676:80 kettle Megapolensis 1644:174 kettles large feast cooking (6 for a feast) Sagard 1632:151 wood ladle Parker 1910:45 wood ladle Trigger 1990:42 paddle wide lifting boiled bread from pot Parker 1910:52 paddle narrow stirring boiling soups Parker 1910:52 paddle stirring boiling soups Sagard 1632:106-7

206 pail carrying food for family from feast Porter 1901:159 pot home to eat there pail small holding juice or tea Speck 1933:42 pail 1 liter individual eating Speck 1933:41 pan frying pork Rowlandson 1676:77 bark plate Le Jeune 1637:211 bark plate individual eating Lalemant 1665:33 plate large serving animal head Speck 1933:111 bark plate Le Jeune 1634b:263 platter burial good Van Der Donck 1655:87 wood platter kneading, preparing corn bread Strachey 1612:80 wood platter removing bran by fanning; mixing Smith 1907a:59 flour with water wood platter large Biard 1612:45 wood platter Hakluyt 1600:293 bark porringer individual eating Champlain 1880:237 porringer individual eating Champlain 1907:246 clay pot bail canoe, cook meals, urinate in Trigger 1990:28 clay pot boiling corn Champlain 1907:74 pot boiling corn bread 1/2 hour Porter 1901:160-1 clay pot boiling corn soup 3-4 hours Strachey 1612:81 clay pot boiling corn soups with fish, venison Champlain 1907:315 pot boiling corn succotash Parker 1910:68 pot boiling corn with beans, salt, Parker 1910:68 grease/oil pot boiling dumplings and meat Parker 1910:73 clay pot boiling foods Beverley 1705:230 clay pot large boiling foods Wood 1634:86 clay pot very large boiling meat Hakluyt 1600:293 clay pot boiling meat, fish Sagard 1632:102 pot boiling parched corn meal with dried Parker 1910:77 fruits, sugar pot boiling pumpkins, squash Heckewelder 1819:194 pot boiling venison Beverley:1705:178 pot burial good Van Der Donck 1655:87 clay pot cooking Morgan 1851:280 clay pot cooking Parker 1910:60 clay pot cooking Trigger 1990:73 pot cooking and steeping corn meal Sagard 1632:106 pot small cooking beans Sagard 1632:105 pot cooking corn soup Sagard 1632:88 clay pot cooking corn, meat, or fish Sagard 1632:102 pot cooking family’s daily food Danckaerts 1913:55 pot cooking fish Trigger 1990:74, 112 clay pot cooking in woods by individual Charlet 1647:259 pot small cooking individual meals by Sagard 1632:67 menstruating women clay pot cooking over fire Sagard 1632:109 pot covering coals in sweat house Smith 1907a:71 pot drinking water Sagard 1632:45

207 clay pot evaporating maple syrup Morgan 1851:251 pot large holding chewed corn for chewed Sagard 1632:105 corn bread clay pot small personal cooking by menstruating Trigger 1990:77 women clay pot Lalemant 1640:177 pot large Le Jeune 1639:79 pot Smith 1907a:64 wood pot or dish Strachey 1612:66 pot or jar storing corn liquor Parker 1910:71 pot/kettle boiling corn soups with beans, Sagard 1632:106-7 pumpkin, meat, fish, etc. wood spoon burial good Champlain 1907:245 spoon burial good Sagard 1632:208 spoon burial good Van Der Donck 1655:87 spoon 0.28 liters individual eating Beverley 1705:182 spoon individual eating Bogaert 1988:17 wood spoon individual eating Champlain 1907:246 metal spoon small individual eating Danckaerts 1913:159 gourd spoon individual eating Danckaerts 1913:55 wood spoon individual eating Le Jeune 1634b:279, 285 iron spoon individual eating Minard 1896:28 wood spoon individual eating Minard 1896:28 spoon large individual eating Sagard 1632:59 spoon large individual eating Sagard 1632:72 spoon large serving from feast kettles Sagard 1632:111 spoon serving from kettle Merril 1949:39 spoon skimming and serving fat Champlain 1907:316 spoon Megapolensis 1644:174 wood spoon Parker 1910:45 wood spoon Trigger 1990:42 spoon, great 1’ diameter serving from feast cauldrons Parker 1910:53 dipping bowl storage pit storing corn underground Megapolensis 1644:177 storage pit storing corn, beans, meats Lindestrom 1925:253 bark storage pit 4-5 ft. Deep storing corn and vegetables Parker 1910:35 liner underground bark storage pit storing corn underground Gyles 1689:103 liner bark and storage pit large storing corn underground Heidenreich 1971:119 grass lined liner hide storage pit storing meats underground Morgan 1851:311 liner bark tray 8-88 liters kneading, preparing corn bread Morgan 1851:23 bark tray starting squash seeds growing Trigger 1990:33 corn husk tray small Parker 1910:84 tub large rinsing lye off corn Parker 1910:69 corn stalk tube holding medicines Parker 1910:80 clay vessel boiling maple sap Parker 1910:103 clay vessel burial good Champlain 1907:245

208 vessel carrying food for family from feast Morgan 1851:197 pot home to eat there clay vessel tiny to 1 m cooking, storing food, carrying water Trigger 1990:41 diameter clay vessel making maple syrup Morgan 1851:251 vessel serving foods separately Beverley 1705:180 clay vessel storing fish oil Heidenreich 1971:120, 161 bark vessels individual eating Seaver 1856:72 wood vessels individual eating Seaver 1856:72

209 ALISA NATALIE STRAUSS

EDUCATION Ph.D. in Anthropology, Archaeology, The Pennsylvania State University, May 2000 M.A. in Anthropology, Archaeology, The Pennsylvania State University, December 1993 B.A. in Anthropology, Cultural, Tulane University, Newcomb College, May 1990 B.A. in Sociology, Tulane University, Newcomb College, May, 1990

PROFESSIONAL AND FIELD EXPERIENCE Lecturer  Cultures of Native North America 8/1999-5/2000 Teaching Assistant  Undergraduate Anthropology Research Labs 1/2000-5/2000 Teaching Assistant  North American Archaeology 1/1999-5/1999 Museum Attendant—Matson Museum of Anthropology 1/1994-5/2000 Archaeological Excavator—Breneman Site, PA 3/1999 Lecturer  Introduction to Cultural Anthropology 1/1997-8/1997 Assistant Curator—Matson Museum of Anthropology 8/1997-1/1998 Lecturer  Effective Writing: Technical Writing 8/1996-12/1998 Lecturer  Rhetoric and Composition 8/1994-12/1997 Teaching Assistant  Introduction to Archaeology 1/1994-5/1994 Technical Writer 10/1993-12/1993 Archaeological Field Crew Member 8/1993-11/1993 Archaeological Excavator and ethnographer—Eckley, PA 5/1991-8/1991

AWARDS AND HONORS Hill Fellowship, Pennsylvania State University Department of Anthropology. Kenneth J. Opat Fund, Tulane University Department of Anthropology. Excellent Teaching Commendations, Pennsylvania State University, Department of English. Best Professor, 1998-2000, Pennsylvania State University. “Points of Distinction,” article published in Research Penn State by A. Smeltz, January 1998.

PRESENTATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS “Functional Classes of Susquehannock Pottery.” Paper presented at the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, March 24-26, 2000.

“Function of the Pottery Vessels of the Susquehannock and Their Use in Food Preparation.” Presentation given at the North Museum’s Native American Weekend, Lancaster, PA, January 17, 1999.

Subsistence and Territoriality: An Examination of Ceramic and Projectile Point Variation. Unpublished manuscript.

"Prehistoric Band Territoriality in Eastern North America." Paper accepted for presentation at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference Annual Meeting, November 9, 1995.

The English 15 Interactive Workbook (with S. Kranc), 1995. Used in Penn State's Rhetoric and Composition courses.

"Band Territoriality in Central Pennsylvania." Lecture presented to the State College area chapter of The Society of Pennsylvania Archaeology, November 1994.

POSTERS “Late Archaic Band Territoriality in Central Pennsylvania.” Presented at the Twelfth Annual Graduate Research Exhibition, Penn State University, March 1997. Awarded Second Place in Social and Behavioral Sciences.

“Late Archaic Band Territoriality in Central Pennsylvania.” Poster presented at the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology Meeting, April 1997.

“Museums of Penn State.” Exhibit showing information about the many museums and collections at the University Park campus, displayed in the graduate residence hall, August-December 1996.